Showing posts with label charity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label charity. Show all posts

Sunday, 5 February 2017

Mad Catter's Tea Party, 19th February 2017

While still in deep mourning for our beloved golden boy, we feel the need of something positive to look forward to, so are working hard on the Mad Catter's Tea Party to bring cat lovers together for an evening of feline fun and fab tea party food to raise funds for Lost Cats Brighton in Mr Cheeky's memory.

We also intend it to be a unique event to remember!

We are therefore calling on all Sussex cat lovers to please share poster and print out for your window or workplace. And do book your tickets asap if you intend to come as they are currently going fast. Really want to make this a sell-out for Lost Cats Brighton (and our late beloved Mr Cheeky). Tickets here. https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/mad-catters-tea-party-ticket
Many thanks. Laura and Ollie xx


50% of ticket price will go on buffet and beverages (lots of veggie options) and the rest to Lost Cats Brighton.

Look forward to seeing you there!

Thursday, 28 January 2016

Helping the Homeless - questions in need of answers

In the 1990s American comedienne Rita Rudner brought the house down when she revealed that every time a wino asked her; 'Do you have any spare change?' she replied 'I don't know. I haven't lived my life yet!'

Now it seems an increasingly hollow joke. On this side of the pond the dignified gentleman tramp of my childhood sporting the tired cords with string tied around his boot tops who never bothered anyone and lived in a tent on a grassy island where two motorways converged has been replaced by ever growing numbers of homeless of all ages, nationalities and hues in all manner of doorways and alleys, some making an attempt to earn their living with a painting, a sand dog or the playing of a musical instrument, many not.

No sooner do you give some change to a homeless person in Brighton than you encounter another one just a few yards along the street. Donor fatigue sets in fast. More and more locals skip their morning or evening constitutional and take the bus, stricken by moral paralysis as to how to react. I myself have been through many personal policies - only donate to those who attempt to earn a living, only donate to those with a dog, keep a pocket of 20p pieces and give one to each. Don't subsidise anyone's obvious drink or drug habit (if they want to kill themselves I don't want to be an accessory). Give them a sandwich rather than money. You name it, I've given it a go, but somehow have never arrived at a satisfactory personal policy.

A proliferation of Big Issue sellers have appeared who get shirty if you try to buy their 'last' Big Issue but still want the money and are clearly using the magazine not as intended, to help them get back on their feet, but as a begging tool.

Everyone has noticed how much worse the problem has become in the last few years, though there are a few mitigating circumstances in Brighton. A number of homeless were apparently given one-way tickets here to clear them out of the way for the 2012 London Olympics and have never gone back, or have come of their own accord believing (or having been told) that homeless services are better here. Others have (according to my GP who also treats the homeless) taken the view 'If I'm going to be homeless, I may as well be homeless by the sea' evidently not considering that a seaside area may be subject to more regular storms and high winds than inland, particularly out of season.

Earlier this month three homeless people died in the same week. A makeshift shrine to them soon appeared at the foot of the clock tower. The Big Issue seller outside Waitrose died. Gareth. I had assumed he was an old man with his greying hair and beard. Shockingly I read a tribute on the adjacent wall which (if accurate) showed him to be a mere 6 months older than me!
It is rumoured that 50 homeless individuals have died in the city in the last three years, though it is hard to pin down the facts, let alone how many deaths were a direct result of 'homelessness' (ie exposure) or other factors such as drug overdose, suicide, accident or misadventure.

One homeless advocate I met reckoned '1000 homeless people sleep on Brighton's streets each night.' The Brighton Argus reported '79' only days later. There is no agreement on how many hostel spaces are available or not, though the Salvation Army said in a recent meeting I was present at that arrangements have been made to accommodate additional homeless in three local churches temporarily if the temperature should fall below zero for three nights consecutively. Sometimes the figures move around for a reason - ie higher figures mean homeless charities are more likely to get projects funded, but the whole shifting sand nature of the homeless problem makes it hard to get a proper handle on it. Emotive ads on London trains showing young women who apparently risk sleeping with strangers just to have a bed for the night are said to be an exaggeration. Very young women are seldom seen on the capital's streets late at night because they are the easiest to find and get off the streets.

St Mungo's have just taken over Brighton's council contract to help rough sleepers and are said to visit them all every night to reach out to them. Personally I have yet to see any teams checking on the homeless late at night, though the regular gentleman outside the co-op seems to have a duvet which regularly changes colour.

Several years ago it was widely advocated by a national homelessness charity that the homeless should be offered a 'hand up, not a hand out' and we should all give our money to the charities who help the homeless, not the homeless themselves as that just kept them on the streets and discouraged them from seeking help. The charity has gone quiet since then but two local PSCO's echoed this sentiment the other week. 'It's tragic, but the last thing you want to do is give them money or blankets - you're just keeping them on the street. You're not doing them any favours. We see them day in day out. We know.'

Conversely, even if there were enough affordable homes to go round for those with day jobs (73% of the under 35s are now priced out of the housing market), let alone the homeless, many homeless are high dependency individuals with serious addiction and mental health issues who need a high level of support and treatment. Put them in their own flat and they often can't cope with the responsibility as has been proven in many such initiatives around the country. A supported hostel or halfway house (preferably one which welcomes pets) is the real first base need for most before working towards long-term independent living.

The other danger is that if (by some miracle) the homeless are given free housing in one area, it encourages an influx to that area, or for those one or two steps away from the streets, (in a short-term AST let room in an HMO for example) to intentionally render themselves homeless to join them if there is little or no prospect of securing long-term housing any other way. In Brighton rents are spiralling out of control to the extent that working class families were recently advised by the council to seek homes outside of Brighton. This is not just about shortage of homes though, but the fact that so many homes which are built in the area are immediately snapped up as second homes, holiday homes or investment buys and in an open market, there is no legal means for our council to ring-fence new developments for locals in housing need, nor obligation to ensure they are 'affordable' in the true sense of the word.

But to get back to the homeless, there are certain groups whom the military should be forced to demonstrate a Duty of Care towards - ie all the ex-servicemen who have been mentally of physically damaged as a result of doing their duty for their country. Moreover the military have many former army facilities which they could easily utilise to provide health services, training and housing for ex servicemen.

I myself lived in an HMO (shared house) until the age of 36 and was once photographed in the Daily Mail letters column holding a tongue-in-cheek 'Middle Class Homeless, Please Help' sign to demonstrate my point regarding the hopelessness of many of my generation in getting onto the housing ladder. Poor taste perhaps, but after 12 years of no movement on my local council housing list, I felt quite entitled at the time. Little did I know how much worse things would become in a few short years, albeit happily in my own case I managed to secure a Park Home (static caravan) where I lived very contentedly until moving in with my now-partner.

However housing remains a topic close to my heart and I really want to understand every aspect of it, but preferably without emotion getting in the way of how to help on a practical and meaningful level. It is all very well to be a bleeding heart liberal or do-gooder and these people do do good - up to a point. But is this the most effective way to help rather than trying to understand the full picture and all the strands that contribute and all the potential knock-on effects? On the contrary, I think we need to have our eyes wide open in dealing with this crisis. For example our country is now considering admitting 3000 apparently homeless and rootless youngsters from eastern Europe - but are they? Many are said to be young adults masquerading as children to get in or being used as 'trojan horses' by their families so that once they are allowed to stay in Britain their entire families will be able obtain leave to join them.

On a final note I find the psychology of homelessness fascinating. Someone sits in the street, often next to the trash, and decides they are worth nothing. That is the energy vibe they then project to the world. That is the mirror vibe they attract. Agreement with their own opinion of themselves as worthless and therefore public avoidance. Either that or pity. Probably most people have been tempted at their lowest ebb to give up on the daily struggle and sink into the gutter, but it is certainly a bad choice/strategy for anyone who wants to change their luck. The further you sink in life, the further up you have to reach to claw your way back out of the abyss - not easy if there is no self-worth or self-respect to propel an individual back in an upwards direction. I have come to the conclusion that recovery from any calamity in life starts with the decision: 'I will not let ____ ruin my life.'  Which may not solve the nation's housing crisis, but can solve many others if donkey-strength stubbornness ensues.

Sunday, 7 October 2012

Why I'm Glad Jim Didn't Fix It For Me

Like most former children of the 60s/70s or 80s I've been feeling pretty shell-shocked (or should that be shell-suit shocked) by all the revelations concerning the late Sir Jimmy Savile in the past week.

When rumours first began surfacing shortly after his death last year, I thought 'How ridiculous - someone is obviously out to claim a few quid from his estate'. Though certainly I found it odd that a TV legend of such fame and riches had died alone, possibly several days before being found. Did the man not have a  housekeeper to take care of him at the very least? But having seen and read so many authentic-sounding and cross-referencing accounts of the horrors he allegedly visited on young innocents in the past few days, my cynicism and disbelief has turned to belief.

With little to do in my village in Northern Ireland, no one tried harder than yours truly to get onto the 'Jim'll Fix It' show with various childish dreams detailed in finest handwriting on finest Basildon Bond, but I'm starting to feel more than relieved that the little kid from Ulster didn't catch his eye.

In the same week I read a pop star's candid confession that he probably bedded scores of underage girls in his 70s heyday, but if they threw themselves at him and looked old enough to know what they were doing, he didn't tend to ask for an ID card.

But Sir Jimmy was no handsome young pop idol in the early 70s, but a middle-aged, cigar-smoking, wackily-dressed oddity with a big nose, yellow hair and teeth to match. I find it hard to believe that he could have been the genuine object of any teen fantasy. What he did have going for him and what we all bought into was his ability to make a child feel special. Important. Particularly if they came from a household where they received scant attention from adults except in my case to be told to 'get out of the way' or 'stop being a nuisance.' That red chair and that 'Jim'll Fix It' badge, with Jimmy congratulating you in his deep self-assured Northern accent and making you feel you were the most important kid in the world on national television, (and let's not forget with only 3 or 4 channels to choose from in those days - half the nation really WERE watching including all your schoolmates, family and teachers), was the next dream you had if you hadn't won a Blue Peter badge or got a painting into the Take Hart gallery.

It never occurred to us to wonder about his private life and if we did, it was of course filled with charitable endeavours. He had no time for anything else. Naturally he loved the LADIES as he took pains to make clear at every opportunity, but he had marathons to run and programmes to present.... And  if I briefly wondered as an adult, I probably concluded he must be asexual. An eccentric, happy to be so, though in retrospect now, it is easy to see that even at his most charming and charismatic,  there was something unnerving and a little creepy about gimlet-eyed Jimmy in his latest novelty shell suit, something which we chose to believe was just our imagination, rather than a gut feeling.

I have read he was the originator of public charity marathons in this country, now more popular than they have ever been, invented discos, and raised over £40m for charity over the course of his lifetime, so perhaps he had a few achievements that no one can take away from him. He was also Mr Clunk-Click, warning us to 'belt up' on every trip as the seatbelt law was brought in, so he undoubtedly saved a few children's lives, amidst the children's lives that he ruined.

At the beginning of the week, I wondered how he reconciled the evident dark side of himself with the Saint Jimmy myth? Mid-week it occurred to me that perhaps he took the view that the amount of good he did outweighed the bad and that's how he lived with himself. Now I wonder if the whole charity thing was a giant cover to make him 'untouchable' on top of the evident boost to his legendary ego, and he didn't have a conscience to be accountable to, though it would be appalling to think that there was no sincerity whatever in his charitable works.

Some commentators have observed that we are judging him by standards which didn't exist in the 50s, 60s and to some extent 70s. But I can't agree with this. Since when has child abuse or rape been acceptable, let alone legal? And 16 has been the age of female consent in England since 1885, so Sir Jimmy couldn't pretend he didn't know. Indeed one of his victims stated, the first question he asked was her age so he knew she was 14 before he assaulted her. Sure previous generations used to try and pretend child abuse didn't exist and bury their heads in the sand, but that didn't mean it was any more acceptable (or legal) in those days, just that it was harder to get yourself listened to, or action taken, and because no one wanted to believe it was true, not least when a famous person was involved, a child was liable to be branded a fantasist or told to stop telling lies, not necessarily because they weren't believed, but because that's what it suited the parents and/or authorities to believe. And perhaps if they'd survived a war, they particularly didn't want any further emotional traumas to contend with or spoil their vision of a post-war utopia.

In the reality TV era, it really is impossible to convey how exciting the idea of getting onto your favourite TV show was in the late 70s/early 80s. But that oft-anticipated journey from the sweet exhilaration of being CHOSEN to dance on Top of the Pops or have your greatest dream fulfilled on Jim'll Fix It, only to be utterly soured by the horror of finding out what you'd actually been chosen to experience doesn't bear thinking about, much though I don't suggest it happened to the majority of participants. But the story of how this happened to Claire McAlpine, the young Top of the Pops dancer who committed suicide, apparently as a result of her experiences at the hands of Savile (and others), was particularly heartrending. Nor had I previously realised that she and some of the other dancers were so young. They had always looked much older to me watching ToTP as a child.

The other story which shocked me was of the girl taken out of a children's home for a 'treat' ride with Savile in his white Rolls Royce, who kind of expected she'd have to pay for it in some way and wasn't particularly surprised by the 'payment' demanded, even though she didn't want to. In her world there was evidently no such thing as an adult being nice to you if they didn't expect something in return. And no choice about what form that reciprocation would take.

Since the revelations, there have been calls for a BBC investigation, calls for Savile's former bosses to be held to account, though some key individuals like Douglas Muggeridge (controller of Radio 1+2 1969-76) are now dead, with other voices demanding; 'What criminal proceedings can you possibly bring against a dead man?' (ie what's the point?)

Well I suppose the point of an investigation is so that Savile's victims finally have acknowledgement and possibly some sense of justice or closure to see the truth come out and lessons are learned for the future. That is, that no celebrity is ever allowed to be 'untouchable' or beyond reproach ever again, no matter how much time he or she devotes to charitable works. Not that it would be easy in any case in this mobile phone era where future celebrity abusers are likely to be snapped in action pretty quickly by the humblest children's home inmate.

And if he post-humously loses the 'Sir' and his charities are forced to drop the Savile name, that too will serve as some kind of satisfaction that he got comeuppance. In addition his estate (or the BBC) may choose to offer some token of compensation and rightly so in my view. In response to the protest 'It's unfair to accuse a man who is no longer alive to defend himself', ordinarily I would agree. Except that in this case it has become increasingly evident that Sir Jimmy would have made sure that no victim stood a chance of coming forward and being believed whilst he still walked this earth, and if  public denials and charities vouching for him weren't enough, he could access and afford much better law than any of his victims could. His victims wouldn't have stood a chance in any courtroom and they knew it. Even newspapers would have risked damages they could ill afford or a dramatic drop in circulation if the public were unready to believe any hidden truths about such a popular figure who had done so much for 'charidee'.

In truth, part of my sense of shock stems from the fact that if the allegations are true, Sir Jimmy has betrayed all children who ever looked up to him or loved his shows.

As a lighter aside, there is an amusing story about how gentleman actor John Le Mesurier (he of Sergeant Wilson fame in Dad's Army) was walking past a giant poster hoarding of Jimmy Savile at a railway station exhorting 'This Is The Age Of The Train' from a British Rail poster in the mid-70s when he shocked his companion by exclaiming 'C**t! in a very loud voice. Did he know something we didn't...?