UKIP candidate apologises for party stance on the disabled

Perhaps one of the better things to come out of the BAPS meeting on Wednesday was a frank admission by the local UKIP candidate that the party had let itself down in regards to the comments of its former member Owen Lister, who stated that disabled children should be guillotined at birth. UKIP candidate Adrian Murray-Leonard was confronted by an incensed disabled rights campaigner, Mr John Sullivan, who angrily asked Mr Murray-Leonard whether he supported the comments of Owen Lister. The Barnet Eye spoke to Mr Murray-Leonard on Thursday and he was bemused by Mr Sullivans comments. As a result of the Barnet Eye blog and conversations with the local party, Mr Murray-Leonard read the full story. He states that he'd never heard of Mr Lister and his comments prior to being approached by Mr Sullivan. I suggested that Mr Murray-Leonard should read the full story and then comment. He has now read the full story and here is his comment

Hi Roger

After reading that Daily Mirror article,it made me feel quite sick to be honest.

I have never heard of Owen Lister nor do i particularly want to know him.I fully understand Mr Sullivan`s anger towards me on Wednesday evening.

UK independence party have now set up a dedicated vetting team to root out the fruitloops of society,i will certainly bring this individual (Lister) to their attention and do my best to have him brought to account,i have no powers to their decisions.

Please send my warmest regards to Mr Sullivan,as you know me better than he does

Adrian.

It can only be a positive thing that the UKIP candidate has made his position on this 100% clear. In private talks with UKIP officials, they agreed that given the fact Mr Sullivan has a disabled daughter, Mr Sullivan was well withing his rights to raise the matter in such a forthright manner. They also agreed that a man who had publicly made such disgusting comments, should never have been given a platform by their party. 

There is however a far more disturbing story, one which both Mr Murray-Leonard and Mr Sullivan have missed. Whilst UKIP have not covered themselves in glory, the original story in the Mirror shows a far more scandalous story  http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-deputy-mayor-owen-lister-558677#.UnpB-P0YiHM.twitter  - 

Mr Lister was a member of the Conservative party and a deputy Mayor when he made the comments. The local authority he was serving on took disciplinary action against him and suspended him from the Council. The charge was for bringing the council into disrepute with his comments. The Barnet Eye fully agrees that this was an appropriate punishment for the authority to take. What became clear however is that whilst the Council recognised that Mr Lister was beyond the pale, the Conservative Party did not. One has to ask the question "WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO DO TO GET SLUNG OUT OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY". Researching the story of Mr Lister  I found the answer  http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/2096074.Conservatives_sack_councillor_for_joining_UKIP/  Mr Lister was later slung out of the Conservative Party. You may ask "what could be worse than suggesting that disabled babies should be guillotined?" Well if you are a Conservative, it appears that joining UKIP is a worse crime. That is the warped world of British politics. Whilst Mr Murray-Leonard of UKIP conceded that if he agreed with Lister, Mr Sullivan would have been within his rights to thump him, let alone tell him off, the Tory Party think that Mr Lister was a valued member until he joined UKIP. So what can we conclude about the Tory party attitude towards the disabled? Well of all the groups in society, the disabled have been hardest hit by the Tory cuts both locally in Barnet and Nationally. Whilst I have no doubt that many Tory members would recoil at the thought of guillotining handicapped babies, they are quite happy to champion cuts, which will ruin the lives of such babies. We hear stories of "care packages" being cut. If a handicapped person needs care and it is cut, we can only conclude that they "dont care".

So what can we conclude from this. Well what I would conclude is this. I am not a Conservative voter. If however I was a Conservative voter and I lived in Barnet and believed the UK would be better off outside of the EU (which I most definately don't), I would defect to UKIP. Whatever his faults, Mr Murray-Leonard at least has the human decency to state unequivicably that the views of Mr Lister are abhorrent. In the Barnet council chamber, Conservative members have voted time and time again for policies which hurt the disabled. They may not be so crass as to call for them to be gullotined, but their policies are extremely cruel and heartless, to a group who has no choice but to suffer them. The one character trait I despise above all others is dishonesty. I admire people who can admit they got it wrong. Mr Murray-Leonard admitted that when he realised the reasons for Mr Sullivans anger, he fully understood it and actually felt Mr Sullivan had probably been more reasonable than the situation warranted. It is almost unheard of for a Politician to admit they deserved a thump, but in this case, it shows a realistic understanding of the situation. Sadly, Mr Murray-Leonard seems to be unique in the world of Barnet politics for acknowledging that parents of disabled children such as Mr Sullivan are not being "unreasonable" or "cranks" when they stand up for their childrens rights.

For the record, I do not agree at all with the majority of UKIP policies. I believe that the only way the UK can remain prosperous and influential is to remain in the EU. I disagree with many UKIP policies on immigration and I find their economic policies to be naive in the extreme. With regards to local policies, I agreed with the fact they weren't invited onto the BAPS panel, as they haven't published any. I suspect that Mr Murray -Leonard is going to cause a lot of trouble in Barnet in the coming months. I suspect that most of it will be for the local Conservatives, because despite all of his faults, he is not afraid to stand above the parapet and take the shots. Given the total anonymity of the local Conservatives and their total cowardice in not turning up for the BAPS meeting, Mr Murray-Leonard is onto a winner. Only the dimmest Tory will fail to realise that Mr Murray-Leonards stunt at BAPS has gained him great publicity and raised his local profile. We can only conclude that he relished the role of the hard done by outsider and that this will do him a lot of good with disgruntled Tory voters.

Nobody Cares in a One Barnet World

I had a rather sad conversation last night. I was at an "International Evening" at our local Church. They had asked me to supply a sounds system and compare the evening. I was chatting to a friend who has a parent suffering from dementia. The situation has significantly worsened recently.

My friend is a retired policewoman. She was explaining that the years of serving in the force had prepared her for dealing with an uncaring bureaucracy. In short she knows how the system works, so she can ensure that her parent gets the care she is entitled to.

She then made a rather scary and thought provoking comment. She said there are lots of people there with no one to fight there corner. As no one cares, some are left in the most degrading and horrible situations. If you have no children or children that don't want to know, in many cases you will be left to rot. Who cares for those who's situation means they cant look after themselves and they have no one to even check?

Recently we've heard of cases of abuse of elderly people where children have noticed bruises and managed to get investigations launched. What happens to those people who have no one to check? Luckily for me, our lives haven't been too badly touched by dementia. Although my mother was difficult and hard to understand following a stroke, she still knew what was going on when she passed away. I cannot imagine how horrible it must be when you have completely lost someone who is still alive.

I can even less imagine how awful it must be to be a person who doesn't really know what is happening and who is being abused. The question which has troubled me is this. What happens to the people who nobody cares about? The sad answer is "Whatever the people who run the care facility wants to happen to them".

One day that person could be you or me. That is why we should ensure that such services are properly run and properly funded. That is why I am highly suspicious of private companies who run such facilities, funded by the taxpayer. What checks are in place to ensure they are delivering a caring and compassionate service?

Some will be good and some will be bad. Someone asked me a question I couldn't answer. In a "One Barnet World" where the private sector regulates the private sector, who will really care that the needs of the people are put above the needs to of the shareholders of the private companies to generate cash for their shareholders? If One Barnet has been properly thought out, I am sure someone from Barnet Council will read this and tell me. I will share their answer with you

Are you some kind of retard?

Victorian values. A maxim often used by Conservatives to hark back to a mythical golden age of behaviour in Great Britain. I've never bought into this. I guess in some ways I'm lucky that I'm one of the last generation of people who's parents had a living link to this "golden age". My mother was born in 1925 in Oldham, Lancashire. Her father was an Irish immigrant who'd arrived to find work and escape the troubles and ended up being conscripted into the British Army, fighting in the trenches of the Somme.

My mother and her siblings often went to school with cardboard in her shoes, to mask the holes. Her father was regularly a victim of anti Irish racism, despite having his health ruined fighting for King and Country (Ireland was part of Great Britain then). My mother remembered times before the NHS, when medical treatment was a luxury. Her own mother had a "special" birthday present aged 18, all her teeth were pulled out. This was a common practice for poorer people. It meant avoidance of expensive dental treatments later in life.

As for unmarried mothers, they were complete outcasts. If your daughter was up the duff,out of wedlock, in our community (Roman Catholic working class), she would be shunted off to a convent and the baby would be given up for adoption at birth. Cover stories such as "recuperating from consumption" were invented. One of my mothers elder sisters apparently underwent this awful process. This was done to "spare the family shame". These attitudes are discussed in the song Embarrassment by Madness.

Embarrassment

Received a letter just the other day
Don't seem they wanna know you no more
They've laid it down given you their score
Within the first two lines it bluntly read
You're not to come and see us no more
Keep away from our door Don't come 'round here no more
What on earth did you do that for?
Our aunt, she don't wanna know she says
"What will the neighbors think,
they'll think We don't, that's what they'll think, we don't"
But I will, 'cause I know they think I don't
Our uncle he don't wanna know
he says "We are a disgrace to the human race",
he says "How can you show your face
When you're a disgrace to the human race?"
No commitment, you're an embarrassment
Yes, an embarrassment,
a living endorsement
The intention that you have booked Was an intention that was overlooked
They say, "Stay away Don't want you home today
Keep away from our door Don't come 'round here no more"
Our dad, don't wanna know he says
"This is a serious matter
Too late to reconsider
No one's gonna wanna know ya"
Our mum, she don't wanna know,
she says "I'm feelin' twice as old",
she says "Thought she had a head on her shoulder
'Cause I'm feelin' twice as older I'm feelin' twice as older"
You're an embarrassment

Then there were the Victorian attitudes to mental health and handicap. People were locked up in asylums, medicated. Those with Downes Syndrome were "put in homes". Often these homes were places where all manner of physical and sexual abuse would occur. Parents of Downes Syndrome children were told "it will be the best for everybody, they will be happier". Of course no one every really stopped to consider the person who was being incarcerated. In Victorian times it wasn't unknown for these institutions to throw open their doors and charge the public to laugh at the inmates.

When I was growing up in the 1960's many of the insults commonly bandied about in the playground,, had their roots in the Victorian attitudes to mental health and disability. If you answered a question in class incorrectly a teacher would bellow "Are you a retard". If you missed an open goal for the school team, making an air shot, the call would go up "You Spastic". I even worked at a major financial institution in the 1980's, where one particularly vicious member of staff would continually set little traps for a member of staff and then ridicule him when he tripped up and made a fool of himself. He coined the nickname for this member of staff, who wore a hearing aid, lovingly calling him "Mong". As with all bullies, this person had a little clique. As I was a contractor at the company and not on the permanent staff, I behaved in a cowardly fashion and allowed what I saw to pass. I knew that said individual was vindictive and I knew it would result in the end of my employment if I commented. As with all cowards, I got my just deserts. The individual decided to have a go at me and started some extremely unpleasant rumours about me. When I left, he had a special T shirt made, with a very vile and obscene statement of a personal nature on it. I was presented with this and like all cowards, took the punishment, pretending to laugh along with it. I met another member of staff, a few weeks later for a drink. They were amazed that I'd laughed along and not taken him to task. I responded that "It was all just banter". My friend stated "It isn't, he's making everyones life intolerable and we're all sick of his disgusting behaviour, we have been trying to get him disciplined for the way he goes on". Shortly after that, he was made redundant and given a decent pay off.

The incident gave me reason to question my own behaviour. I realised that such things can't be tolerated. If I had said something at the outset, then the whole thing could have been nipped in the bud. As it was everyone had to suffer for months at the hands of this idiot. Even worse, it seemed that everyone thought they were the only person who found the behaviour repulsive. Even if the worst had happened and I'd been sacked on the spot, I doubt that I would feel worse about what happened than I do now.

When it comes down to it, I believe that society today is better for our rejection of bullying, rejection of racism, rejection of sexism and rejection of discrimination against the disabled. Of all these, discrimination against the disabled is the one that is still tolerated. Perfectly intelligent people are treated like second class citizens, just because they need a wheelchair for mobility. People who have learning difficulties are treated in an even worse manner. By and large as a society, we accept this.

I have been exchanging emails this week with several disabled rights campaigners in Barnet. I must say that sadly, many of the attitudes I describe in this blog seem to prevail in certain corridors of Barnet Council. It seems that people with special needs are not treated as human beings with dignity. It seems that their rights and needs are not considered when decisions are made. The primary driver for all decisions seems to be financial, rather than the needs of the human being in question. Sometimes it seems that rather perverse decisions are made that neither save money, nor cater for the individuals need. It seems they are made to make life easier for certain senior people within the organisation. Often no thought is given to long term costs. Decisions are made to save pennies today, which in the long term will cost thousands of pounds.

What is never considered in the care programs for people with needs, is that the more active and engaged they are, the better their general health. If they have better general health and are happy, the cost of the care package will ultimately be far cheaper. I was discussing the way men and women with care requirements are different. One statement (this is anecdotal and may well not be true, so please don't be offended. I know it is a generalisation) was made that when men with disabilities are left with nothing to do, they are plonked in front of the telly and will sit and watch it all day. With women in the same situation, they will sit in front of the telly all day whilst eating biscuits and chocolates. This means that often they are far heavier and have all manner of other issues which aren't so commonly seen in men (diabetes, heart conditions, etc). I'm not a carer so I don't know if this is true. What I can say is that having stimulating activities is a far better solution.

Two weeks ago I spent a week abroad with my cousin, she's my age (49) and has Downes Syndrome. She had a week in a very interactive group. What I can say without doubt is that at the end of the week, she was far more with it and far less withdrawn than she was at the start of the week. She actually has a resonably full program. Her sister, who liaises with Barnet Council, was told she has the fullest program of any Downes adult in their care. I have no idea if this is true or not, but I know for a fact that if it is true, there are a lot of people in the care of Barnet who's needs are being cruelly neglected.

This is a long and rather rambling blog. I felt I had to write it, because I have been troubled to understand where our attitudes as a society to caring for people have come from. I believe they are seated in the same place as the attitudes that saw blameless children labelled "Bastards" because of their parentage. I believe that as we've grown up as a society, to dump such cruel stigma for perfectly blameless people because of their parentage, we also need to move beyond the victorian attitudes to people who are in some way different.

It is a national, if not global issue. We can't necessarily change the national or global issues, but we can have a damn good stab at trying to change the way Barnet Council treat the disabled people. The best place to start would be for the Leader of Barnet Council to apologise for a Brian Colemans comments describing the disabled as "These people" and criticising the requirement for the council to provide transport for them

Guest Blog - Local Authority Trading Companies and Conflicts of Interest - by John Sullivan

By John Sullivan,

Enid Blyton gave us the Famous Five and the incompetent Barnet council driven by dogma and ideology have given us the Fabulous Five bloggers. Without the crass behaviour on so many fronts, the fabulous five bloggers that look out for the interests of the people of Barnet,( which incidentally is what the Barnet councillors are supposed to do ) would probably not exist. They continue to expose the dodgy goings on that are being carried out in our name.  Without them we would not have a clue at to what the council were up to up to and just how incompetent they are (so well done the Fab Five). As stated by Roger in his recent blog. Barnet Council is like a ship heading for the rocks, the problem is all of us in Barnet are likely to drown under the potential financial disaster and destruction of services we will almost definitely experience due to this mania to privatise at all costs.

 Barnet councillors like to be known as the Ryan Air Council, the pathfinders in modern ways to run councils, sadly they have only earned the right to be called the Laurel & Hardy council.  Like this famous pair they go from blunder to blunder and error to error driven on by stupidity and incompetence, added to the mix the Barnet councillors  hunger for dogma & ideology and a mania to privatise. Whilst repeatedly ignoring the siren voices of anyone, that raises a genuine concern with their direction of travel.

The most recent matter to be exposed by the Fab Five is council workers forming a company in order to direct education contracts that are being privatised by their bosses to line their own pockets. The Fab Five have exposed this behaviour on the basis of "conflict of interest " on the part of these council employees,  who have been suspended whilst the truth or otherwise of their alleged activities are investigated.  Without this privatisation mania , dogma & ideology that is at best a gamble and at worst a potential disaster for vital support services in Barnet, I would not be writing this blog.

In his blog Roger points out he had no idea about the new LATC that will cater for many disabled people in Barnet, and questions privatisation as a concept . I wish to raise both the issue of privatisation along with the issue of "conflict of interest " where it might possibly be related to the forming of this LATC.

Mania for privatisation . How do I define it?  As the parent of a daughter with learning difficulties ( she has down's syndrome ), I find it immoral and perverse, that on the one hand you have a councillor namely loud mouth Coleman abusing his office and publicly denigrating disabled people in Barnet. Because in his opinion and presumably that of the council he does not think that "THESE PEOPLE" ( the disabled ) have the right to the provision of transport to get them from  A to B, a service they have enjoyed since year dot. But at the same time he and the council feel it is perfectly right and proper to form an LATC , to make a profit from the disabled.  The only possible way that profit can be made from the disabled is by the Destruction of Disability Support Services, therefore whilst destroying the lives of many disabled people in the name of profit is considered a moral aim, the long enjoyed provision of transport is deemed immoral and perverse.

As the parent of a disabled daughter I find the desire to make a profit from the misfortune of the most  vulnerable people in our community, along with the destruction of their services to maximise that profitability to be sick, perverse and immoral . Therefore the driving force behind it is greed , avarice, dogma, ideology, and a mania for privatisation and that is how I define this particular aspect of privatisation the aims of this particular LATC and I will tell you why .

Conflict of interest, " how do you define it "

Roger asks five questions  about this LATC, but are they the only questions I think not. There are many more questions that need to be answered with regard to the privatisation and the destruction of support services for disabled people at the altar of profit. There are many questions to be asked about the manner in which this privatisation was forced through, and who benefits from forcing this privatisation through. Whether or not anyone doing the forcing and the driving had a possible "conflict of interests" ,or have or will benefit personally from their efforts currently or once this LATC becomes fully privatised which for me as a layman constitutes a possible or potential " conflict of interest ".

This is to important an issue to attempt to cover it all in one blog, so I will work on the five questions posed by Roger and invite any and all contributions in order that my response to the five questions posed will be based on a broad section of opinion rather than the  dogma, ideology and the ignoring of public opinion that is the hallmark of Barnet Council. I am currently engaging in meaningful consultation with others that are affected by the forming of this LATC before I respond, naturally the concept of meaningful consultation is an alien phenomenon where Barnet council are concerned it is something they preach but blatantly fail to engage in.

You also have a "choice" as to whether or not you wish to engage with me in my search for bona fide responses to the five questions posed.  Choice being another concept that is alien to Barnet Council yet another concept they preach but fail to engage in, they afforded no alternatives therefore no " choice ", yet believe it or not they had the neck to call this new LATC " Your Choice Barnet ".

I cannot attempt to cover the enormity of the volume of questions being raised and the detrimental impact it has had and continues to have on so many disabled people,( I hasten to add not all) in the run up to the forming of this particular LATC in one blog. It would be to the detriment of disabled people in Barnet, and unlike Cllr Coleman  and his fellow councillors. I am not in the habit of doing anything that is detrimental to the well being of disabled people in Barnet. I do not see them as an unacceptable drain on council resources as certain senior councillors clearly do . Keep watching this space, because this is the first in a series which aims to explore these questions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guest Bloggers are always welcome at the Barnet Eye. Blogs can be submitted via the email link in the Top right hand corner of the blog. John Sullivan is a Barnet resident and carer for his daughter who is an adult with learning difficulties. 

You can see John tell his story in the forthcoming film - A Tale of Two Barnets (click to visit film website) which will be premiered at the Phoenix Cinema on Monday March 19th at 6pm Tickets are £1.

Purely for clarity, the questions John Refers to are posed in this blog - 

http://barneteye.blogspot.com/2012/02/barnet-council-ship-of-fools-heading.html