Suspending judgement on Suspended Coffee

Have you heard about ‘suspended coffee’, the new occurrence where a customer will go into a coffee shop, ask for a hot drink for themselves and another (or more) ‘suspended’?  They pay for the total number ordered.  Then, people who are homeless, out of work, or just short of money can walk into a coffee shop and ask if there are any ‘suspended’ coffees. If there are, they will be served a hot drink free of charge.

There is now a ‘Suspended Coffee’ Facebook page

I have misgivings about the whole thing, and that makes me feel quite guilty.  Of course I don’t want to deny anyone a hot drink, particularly when it is as cold as it has been. But I wonder whether it is the best way to help those who are homeless or destitute.

Over the years I have been asked whether you should give money to those begging on the streets.  It is an individual decision, and my personal choice is not to.

Of course it must be up to the individual to decide whether they wish to buy a ‘suspended coffee’ for someone.  They will need to have confidence that the retailer will, in fact, pass on the coffee to the intended beneficiary.

It is a shame that the tax affairs of one of the largest coffee chains seeks to minimise its tax liabilities, although it is unlikely that homeless people would benefit from normalising their tax affairs.

I am somewhat of a hypocrite.  At BHT we constantly ask for donations, in cash and in kind, to help those men and women who are in the greatest need.  We have an Amazon wish list (another company with its own tax controversy) where we ask people to buy essential items for clients including thermal underwear, socks, and coats.

During summer heat waves (for those who can’t remember that far back, a heat wave is “a prolonged period of excessively hot weather”!) we have been grateful to the wonderful people at Life Water who have donated thousands of bottles of water to help keep our clients hydrated.

So why is it ok for me to encourage gifts through BHT to our clients, rather than a more immediate act of giving? The only justification I can give is that we are an organisation that promotes change, and your gifts to us might help us engage and assist people off the streets.

But there again, I am not sure. My colleague Rob Robinson is a great fan of ‘Suspended Coffee’.  He says that those people who are on the streets are excluded on so many levels.  By experiencing the atmosphere of a coffee shop, they might just reassess their aspirations and seek help.

I’m confused.  I guess I will just have to suspend a final judgement.

Ian Duncan Smith shouldn’t rise to the bait to live off £53 for a week

The Welfare Secretary, Ian Duncan Smith, the architect of many of the changes in welfare provision, has been challenged on whether he would be able to live on £53 per week. He said that if he had to, he would. An online petition has been launched calling him to do just that for a year. At the time of writing, the petition had attracted almost 70,000 signatures. This is very clever campaigning.

But I actually hate gimmicks like this, asking someone who is well off (and IDS is not short of a bob or two) to pretend to be poor for a short time. Michael Portillo lived in a council flat for a week, and countless people do sleep outs each year. But all the while they know they can always go home if it gets too much for them.

The reality for poor people is not the impact of surviving on low wages, or on Employment and Support Allowance of just £71.70 (or £56.80 if you are under 25) for just one week. It is the week in, week out grind of trying to make ends meet. Most people on the lowest incomes are expert at budgeting, stretching their meagre resources, sometimes doing without. But they really struggle when something unexpected happens, a fridge or washing machine breaking down, new shoes needed, or an unexpectedly high gas or electricity bill.

It is in these circumstances that they approach payday lenders or loan sharks, starting a downward spiral of debt and desperation. They can’t return to a comfortable life after playing with poverty for a night or for a week.

So please, Mr Duncan Smith, avoid the temptation to participate in this gimmick.

Reflecting on the ‘C’ word, and mentioning Graham Cox and Germaine Greer in the same breath!

Yesterday morning I posted a blog about the minimum pricing of alcohol in response to reports that the government might not proceed with this policy, a policy I think David Cameron was right to pursue. I tweeted a link to the blog and that is when the ‘fun’ started.

A former parliamentary candidate for a minor political party tweeted an extraordinary response: “Stuff your minimum pricing up your arse – socialist c*nt”. People seemed to like my response: “I’m overwhelmed by thoughtfulness of your argument”.

I can’t say my response was original nor as cutting as that of Stella Creasy MP who, when subjected to vile sexist abuse on Twitter, responded with this devastating riposte: “Your mother must be so proud of you”.

I was surprised by Mr P’s response to my blog, and confused by his subsequent bizarre question to me: “How many NHS patients have you killed?”. (For the record, and for the avoidance of any doubt, none!).

Suggesting that one “stuff your minimum pricing” where the sun don’t shine was not the most constructive intervention, unlike the much more thoughtful and challenging arguments set out by Cllr. Graham Cox on his blog.

Today’s post looks at the phrase “socialist c*nt”.  As for being a socialist, some know about my political background, but others might debate whether I have become a poacher turned gamekeeper. I don’t regard socialist as a dirty word although some use it as a sloppy denunciation of a general political outlook, in the same way as the shock jocks in the USA use the phrase ‘liberal’.

It is the use of the C-word that causes particular offence to many people. I am angered and saddened that this insult is used so freely in social media.

According to Wikipedia, it is “a word for the female genitalia, particularly the vulva, and is widely considered to be vulgar….. Scholar Germaine Greer has said that “it is one of the few remaining words in the English language with a genuine power to shock.” (It) is also used as a derogatory epithet referring to people of either sex….. (It describes) “an unpleasant or stupid person” in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, whereas Merriam-Webster has a usage of the term as “usually disparaging and obscene: woman”, noting that it is used in the U.S. as “an offensive way to refer to a woman”.”

I don’t expect the C-word to be used in BHT, either as an insult or in ‘jest’, EVER.

There is no equivalent for men or for male genitalia, nothing that carries the same viciousness. Words like ‘knob’ and ‘dick head’ are laced with humour.

We have moved on as a society and today it is less likely that people will use the grossly offensive and racist N-word to describe black people, and similarly language has evolved to respect rather than insult gay men and lesbian women.

I have thought about how I should have responded. I tried humour, perhaps not very well and perhaps not appropriately. I did condemn his grossly offensive and sexist language, as did others.  Mr P’s language attracted wide condemnation which is encouraging.

I finish with reference to a response, on a par with that of Stella Creasy, by Gina Harrison, now sadly dead.  She lived in Norfolk Square.  She always defended the right of street drinkers to drink in the old tram shelters (now sadly demolished) because there was no where else for them to go, but she never gave them money.  One day when she refused to give a drinker any money, he called after her: “You old whore”.  Gina, then well into her eighties, slowly walked up to him and said: “Less of the old, if you don’t mind.” Now that’s style.

The Independent Drug Commission for Brighton is missing the opportunity to help turn the City from being the “drug death capital” to the “recovery capital” of the UK

The preliminary conclusions of the Independent Drug Commission for Brighton and Hove raise some interesting issues, worthy of debate, but overall the report is an opportunity missed.  This post is basically my personal response to the Commission’s consultation.

The Commission addressed four issues:

• Are the current strategies to prevent drug related deaths sufficient to achieve a significant reduction in the coming years?
• Are the policing, prosecution and sentencing strategies currently pursued, effective in reducing drug related harm?
• Are we doing enough to protect young people and to enable them to make informed decisions around drug use and involvement in drug markets?
• To what extent does the treatment system meet the treatment and recovery needs of the citizens of Brighton & Hove?

Unfortunately, the report is presented in a vacuum, giving no acknowledgement of the most radical change in national drug strategy for a generation which has called for a treatment revolution and the championing of abstinence. The words “abstinence”, “abstain”, even “drug free” do not appear in the report once. By ignoring the national context, the report is immediately undermined, and is, at best, of academic interest.

My disappointment with the preliminary conclusions focuses on the first and fourth points above and can be summarised by two points: it lacks ambition, and the presentation of the issues does not create the right platform for a proper debate on how to enhance progress in drug treatment.

Just 12% of those entering treatment services in Brighton “left the treatment system in a planned way, having overcome their dependency”. This compares to a national figure of 15%. The report is correct to say that “For the system to remain sustainable, the number of successful exits from the treatment system must keep pace with the number of new clients registered. If too many clients are retained in the system for too long, the system will become log-jammed. The Health and Well Being Board needs to find ways to increase the numbers successfully treated each year and support their recovery in order to prevent relapses and a return to dependence, both on drugs and on the treatment system”.

Sadly, this conclusion is not supported by a formal recommendation. It is almost an afterthought, appearing on page 22 of the 23 page report. It illustrates a lack of ambition. This issue should be upfront and should set the tone for the rest of the report, creating the climate where the more sensationalist issues, such as consumption rooms, could have been dealt with in the context of recovery and abstinence.

A bold ambition, of say 30% or 40% leaving treatment drug free, would have been a defining contribution to the debate and the development of services in Brighton. Such an approach would be right for clients, it would help them achieve their aspirations, and would better prepare them to cope with the fundamental changes we are experiencing in welfare reform. A failure to address the addiction of a sizeable cohort will result in them finding themselves further outside the structures of society with all the predictable consequences for them, their families and society at large.

The presentation of the report attracted predictable, yet avoidable, headlines. The media led on consumption rooms. How different it could have been had the report recommended a treatment revolution locally, with the ambition that Brighton will replace the unwanted headline of “drug death capital” to the “recovery capital” of the UK.

That would have created a climate where more controversial steps could have been introduced as part of a process aimed at getting people into recovery and abstinence.

I hope that the Commission will look again at its report, delay the final report if necessary so that it can strengthen its recommendations and thereby becoming a defining point in the evolution of drug policy locally and the start of a real treatment revolution.

Investing is local services means that ‘sticky money’ stays in town

I am sure that I was not alone in being shocked by the news that Derby City Council is cutting its Supporting People budget by 83%. Gillian Sewell, Chief Executive of YMCA Derbyshire, which will lose 84% of its funding from the council in April, said: “The effects of the proposed cuts will be measured in a potentially disastrous rise in homelessness, rough sleeping, crime, anti-social behaviour, ruined lives and human suffering in Derby. Furthermore, many of those facing housing crisis will have to be housed in unsafe, inappropriate B&B or similar accommodation at an increased cost to the Council.”

In Brighton and Hove we have been most fortunate in having successive administrations, of all political colours, who have recognised the importance of protecting services for the most vulnerable members of our society.  This has to be commended, particularly in such challenging economic times.

Some councils have gone down the road of combining all contracts into one and inviting national providers to bid in the misguided belief that the council will get better value for money.  There may be some savings but the long-term cost to the community, and very often other parts of the same council, can be huge.

There is great value in services being provided by a number of agencies including client choice, different approaches that might be more effective with different clients, diverse skills, and the sustainability of organisations who are local employers.

Local providers often bring additional charitable funding to services and service development, and they often have local infrastructure that adds value that outside organisations will not have.  An example is the Support for Housing service that we run in partnership with Southdown Housing Association.  Because we own our head office in Brighton, we were able to convert the ground floor to a drop in at a modest cost that we were able to bear.  An outside agency would not have the same commitment nor the local infrastructure to do something similar.

There is also value in investing in local providers given the local multiplier which sees money spent by local commissioner staying within the local economy.  Some refer to this as “sticky money”.  By investing in local services provided by local agencies, money is recycled within the local economy.

The future looks bleak for our colleagues in Derby.  My thoughts are with them at this incredibly difficult time.

The public debate on welfare reform has been based on ignorance and prejudice

Last week there was a contentious vote in the House of Commons regarding welfare benefits. Much has been written elsewhere regarding the impact of the reform of welfare benefits.

What has saddened me is the widespread ignorance relating to the level of benefits and the prejudice being shown towards claimants.  The Daily Express headline the following day, “Party is over for benefit skivers”, summed much of what I find distasteful about the way the debate has been conducted.

Here is a small test to help you assess your own understanding of welfare benefits. It is based on a YouGov poll that was carried out just before Christmas. If you don’t know the answers (I knew very few myself) make your best guess on the basis of what you have heard or read.

1. What percentage of the entire welfare budget goes on benefits to unemployed people?
2. On average what percentage of the welfare budget is claimed fraudulently according to the government’s own figures?
3. What percentage of people who claim Jobseeker’s Allowance go on to claim it for more than a year?
4. How much does an unemployed couple with two school-age children get in Jobseeker’s Allowance per week?
5. How much better off, or worse off, per week would this family with two school-age children be if one of the unemployed parents got a 30 hour a week minimum wage job?

Jot down your answers before you read further.  I was surprised by my own personal ignorance, and concerned how I had bought into some of the mis-information that has done the rounds.

I asked 30 colleagues at BHT to do this test, and again I was taken aback by how much they, collectively, had had their perceptions skewed by the tone of the debate.

So how accurate is your perception?

1. On average people think that 41 percent of the entire welfare budget goes on benefits to unemployed people, while the true figure is 3 percent.
2. On average people think that 27 percent of the welfare budget is claimed fraudulently, while the government’s own figure is 0.7 percent.
3. On average people think that almost half the people (48 percent) who claim Jobseeker’s Allowance go on to claim it for more than a year, while the true figure is just under 30 per cent (27.8 percent).
4. On average people think that an unemployed couple with two school-age children would get £147 in Jobseeker’s Allowance – more than 30 percent higher than the £111.45 they would actually receive – a £35 over-calculation.
5. Only 21 percent of people think that this family with two school-age children would be better off if one of the unemployed parents got a 30 hour a week minimum wage job, even though they would actually end up £138 a week better off. Even those who thought they would be better off only thought on average they would gain by £59.

It is the last question that really hit home to me.  I was miles out.  I thought the family would be just marginally better off with a job that pays the national minimum wage.  It shows that benefit levels are well below even the national minimum wage.

So much for life on benefits being a party!  No doubt an intelligent sub-editor wrote that headline, and other intelligent people will have framed the debate in such a misleading way.  I feel we, as a society, lost some integrity last week.

Launching BHT’s Client Hub – promoting even better engagement with and between clients

Today BHT is launching its Client Hub which can be accessed through our revamped website. The Client Hub aims to promote better engagement with clients and raise the profile of client involvement more generally across BHT. Through interacting with the Hub and on-line material, clients will also be improving their IT skills.

The Client Hub will keep BHT clients updated on opportunities to volunteer and get involved across Brighton and East Sussex. Current opportunities range from joining the Express Editorial Group, Client Consultant positions to more activity based opportunities i.e. client led gardening groups via BHT’s Grow! initiative. We will also keep clients updated on volunteering opportunities outside BHT, i.e. openings on strategic working groups and/or involvement with local groups and organisations.

The Client Hub gives opportunities for clients to feedback their experiences of getting involved/having their say within their own projects, BHT-wide initiatives and the wider community. We Clients will also be able to upload video and audio content as well as written and photographic material.

Clients will also be able to provide feedback on relevant topics or issues important to them such as welfare changes or local issues affecting them within their community/BHT services.

Have a look at the online manifesto of the Client Hub on our website.

Brighton’s night time economy is tarnishing the city’s brand

On September 26^th, I am speaking in a debate being organised by the Brighton and Hove Chamber of Commerce.  The question is: “This house believes that Brighton’s night time economy is tarnishing the city’s brand”.  I will be speaking in favour of the question.  Other speakers include Justin Manning from the Queen’s Hotel, Nigel Liddell of the Brighton & Hove Business Crime Reduction Partnership, and Ian Chisnall, organiser of Brighton & Hove Street Pastors.

I would be interested in what you think so that I can properly think through the issues.

I come to this issue as someone who feels that, put quite simply, aspects of the night time economy threatens the economy of Brighton, including other parts of the night time economy which are essential for the economic well being of the City.

For example, take so called ‘party houses’. Rather than the traditional tourist infrastructure (hotels, restaurants, etc.) benefiting from weekend visitors and other tourists, these houses are a nightmare for neighbours. They facilitate the ‘front-loading’ of alcohol before these visitors descending on the town centre where their behaviour is often not conducive for others (guests staying in hotels, families out for dinner, theatre goers, etc.).

The spending power of those on alcohol-fuelled weekend breaks (hen and stag events) is limited.  They are focused on alcohol outlets that encourage/facilitate further drinking.  Having lived in the town centre for many years, and having represented Regency Ward on the old Brighton Borough Council, I now actively avoid going into the centre of Brighton after 8pm on a Friday or Saturday evening.  My spending power is thus denied those restaurants and facilities that might otherwise have benefited from it.

For a year I chaired the Licensing Committee on Brighton Borough Council.  That year, because of close co-operation between the Council, Sussex Police and licensees, we were able to regulate the night time economy in a way that incidents of violence were clamped down on.  Licensees who failed to co-operate risked having their Public Entertainment Licences revoked.  The result was that on New Year’s Eve 1986, there was not a single arrest for violence or drunken disorder in Brighton.

Unless we ensure that the night time economy is robustly managed, the image of the City will become tarnished, at great cost to businesses and residents alike.

Let me know what you think.

 

(Note: when this item was first posted I referred to no arrests in 2006. It should have been 1986.  My apologies).

Why are the speakers at some conferences almost exclusively men in grey suits?

I returned to work today after almost 3 weeks annual leave.  I had the usual million emails and various matters to be attended to.  I will endeavour to respond as soon as possible.  I am, as always, incredibly grateful to my PA, Anna Thompson, for organising the various demands that have awaited my return.

One thing she highlighted for me were two conferences that might be of interest, but she thought I might have concerns about the speakers at one of them – eleven men and just one woman.  Before I went away I declined to speak on one panel partly because all the speakers were men.  At another conference I spoke at, having asked for an assurance of a mixed panel, I found myself chairing an all-male session.

In this day and age it should not be necessary to even raise this as an issue.  But speaking as a man (often in a grey suite), I think that too many conference speakers are men in grey suites.  I won’t be attending the conference with the almost exclusively male line up.  I will be attending the other conference, organised by RAISE and being held at the Directory for Social Change, where the number of women speakers outnumber their male counterparts by almost 2 to 1.

(Note: The original post said the conference I will be attending was being organised by the Directory for Social Change rather than by RAISE.  My apologies for this error).

Housing Benefit and Under 25’s

In a speech later today, the Prime Minister will say that he is considering removing housing benefit from those under-25s.  This appears to be one of the most ill-thought through, headline grabbing policy announcements that I can recall.

There are some questions that demand answers:

• How can parents be obliged to take their adult children back into the home, and what happens to those young people where they can’t ‘go home’?
• What protection will there be for children and young people who have left their family home to avoid abuse and domestic violence?
• What happens in those cases where the parents have “done the right thing” by moving to smaller houses once their children have move out and there is now no spare room?
• What happens if there is no room in the parent’s home for other reasons, such as second families with children?

I have to ask why David Cameron is bringing this proposal forward now?  We are already witnessing the most profound changes to the benefit system in my lifetime.  If this is such a pressing issue, why was it not identified and enacted when all the other changes were introduced?

The BBC’s political correspondent, Vicki Young, has suggested that Mr Cameron’s speech will be seen as an attempt to reconnect with disgruntled Tory backbenchers.  I don’t know if that is true, but if there is even a hint of reality in her analysis, it ill becomes a Prime Minister to risk a huge rise in youth homelessness for internal party expediency.

This isn’t the pressing problem it is being made out to be. Those under 35 living in the private rented sector are entitled to just £77 housing benefit per week. Just 6% of those under 25 living in the private rented sector currently receive housing benefit.

92% of new claims for housing benefit are from those in work.  They are already “doing the right thing” but this measure will hit young people already in jobs.

The consequence of this proposal will be an increase in overcrowding, homelessness, begging, crime, and prostitution.