He opened the shoebox.
There were three envelopes in it.
He opened the first envelope and took out the piece of paper that was inside. On it, he'd written: “An elephant.”
He didn't think dates were important so he never put dates on any of the notes that went into the shoebox. If he put dates on the notes, wouldn't that make the shoebox, a journal?
He liked to think the shoebox was an incubator for ideas. So, maybe the shoebox was a journal of sorts. A place he could throw different things together without being too self-conscious about what went in, a place where he could mix things up and see how they grouped themselves together.
He liked the thought of ideas as things that are capable of making their own, independent associations.
He opened the second envelope. In it was a piece of paper with the number 3 on it.
He remembered when the first and second notes were written.
He took out the third envelope. On the note inside was a question. The question made him wince.
He put the notes back in the envelopes and he put the envelopes back in the shoebox.
He closed the shoebox.
Tuesday, 14 October 2014
Wednesday, 9 April 2014
Tuesday, 7 January 2014
UK is two-faced over Syrian war
UKIP leader Nigel Farage, of all people, has called on Britain to honour the spirit of the 1951 Refugee Convention and accept Syrian refugees and accord them protection.
David Cameron and his Government have rejected these calls and Farage (as is to be expected) has since gone on to muddy the waters by suggesting that Britain should only afford protection to Syrian Christians who are fleeing the conflict.
I am aware that, were it not for the fact that – for the first time in a very long time – members of parliament in Britain actually listened to their constituents and roundly rejected and defeated Cameron's plans to unleash the British military arsenal on Syria, British troops would be causing more death and destruction in Syria right now.
It is shameful that Britain should be this two-faced.
On the one hand, as evidenced by the intensity with which Cameron and William Hague were beating the war drums, Britain appears to have no qualms about adding to the carnage in Syria.
And yet, on the other hand, the Government is extremely reluctant and unwilling to give refuge to those Syrians who are fleeing the guns, the violence, the death and the destruction that has plagued their country from the time the conflict started until now.
Cameron and his Government need to look again at how they are conducting themselves in relation to the Syrian conflict and the refugees that the conflict is producing.
The Government needs to do more to support those countries that are sheltering and protecting the most Syrian refugees.
It also needs to give refugee status to more Syrian nationals who have managed to reach Britain and who have submitted asylum applications.
Anything less is immoral, totally unacceptable and wrong.
*This article first appeared in the Leicester Mercury's letters page on 4 january 2014.
David Cameron and his Government have rejected these calls and Farage (as is to be expected) has since gone on to muddy the waters by suggesting that Britain should only afford protection to Syrian Christians who are fleeing the conflict.
I am aware that, were it not for the fact that – for the first time in a very long time – members of parliament in Britain actually listened to their constituents and roundly rejected and defeated Cameron's plans to unleash the British military arsenal on Syria, British troops would be causing more death and destruction in Syria right now.
It is shameful that Britain should be this two-faced.
On the one hand, as evidenced by the intensity with which Cameron and William Hague were beating the war drums, Britain appears to have no qualms about adding to the carnage in Syria.
And yet, on the other hand, the Government is extremely reluctant and unwilling to give refuge to those Syrians who are fleeing the guns, the violence, the death and the destruction that has plagued their country from the time the conflict started until now.
Cameron and his Government need to look again at how they are conducting themselves in relation to the Syrian conflict and the refugees that the conflict is producing.
The Government needs to do more to support those countries that are sheltering and protecting the most Syrian refugees.
It also needs to give refugee status to more Syrian nationals who have managed to reach Britain and who have submitted asylum applications.
Anything less is immoral, totally unacceptable and wrong.
*This article first appeared in the Leicester Mercury's letters page on 4 january 2014.
Monday, 30 December 2013
Prosecution should not be default position for Leicester City Council
Leicester City Council is bringing a growing number of people before the courts and prosecuting them for housing benefit fraud.
In most of the cases, the people concerned are being prosecuted for over-payments they received during periods when they were entitled to the benefit.
The over-payments and subsequent allegations of fraud arise because the people concerned neglected to inform the Council of a change or changes in their circumstances.
In some of the cases, the neglect is neither intentional nor deliberate but arises because some benefit claimants tell one Government department about the change in circumstances and assume the information will be shared with other relevant departments.
I believe that in cases such as these, prosecution shouldn't be the primary aim of Leicester City Council. Instead, the Council's primary aim should be to recover any over-payments that would have been made.
Although the Council can and should concentrate on recovering over-payments, I get the impression that it won't do so because it is more concerned with making an example of the people it is prosecuting than it is with recovering the over-payments.
The punitive stance the Council appears to be adopting in cases such as these is disturbing because, in more instances than not, the people who fall foul of the rules surrounding how housing benefit is awarded are already some of the poorest and most vulnerable members of the community.
Instead of punishing the poor and the vulnerable, the council should be making more advice and support available to them.
In the long run, the punitive stance the Council is adopting is counter-productive because punishing, prosecuting and securing convictions against all people who fall foul of the rules can lead to social and substantive injustice.
It can lead to loss of employment. For example, some companies and enterprises will let go of employees who have been convicted of benefit fraud, notwithstanding the fact that the conviction was secured after the employee joined the company while the "crime" itself occurred before that and had no bearing whatsoever on the work the employee was doing or how the employee was performing.
Convictions for benefit fraud also make a lot of the people who receive them unemployable because very few employers will take on a person who has a criminal conviction.
The convictions, and through them, Leicester City Council, thus trap people in the benefit system and make it extremely difficult for individuals and families to break out of poverty.
The convictions damage lives, aspirations and prospects.
I believe a better alternative would be for Leicester City Council to work proactively with those who have fallen foul of benefit rules and help them understand the rules as well as work with them to ensure that they repay any sums they would have received over and above what they were entitled to.
Taking them to court should be a last resort. It should be an option that should only be used when the people concerned refuse to pay back the over-payments.
Prosecution shouldn't be the default position.
*An earlier version of this article appeared in the Leicester Mercury letters page on 26 September 2013.
In most of the cases, the people concerned are being prosecuted for over-payments they received during periods when they were entitled to the benefit.
The over-payments and subsequent allegations of fraud arise because the people concerned neglected to inform the Council of a change or changes in their circumstances.
In some of the cases, the neglect is neither intentional nor deliberate but arises because some benefit claimants tell one Government department about the change in circumstances and assume the information will be shared with other relevant departments.
I believe that in cases such as these, prosecution shouldn't be the primary aim of Leicester City Council. Instead, the Council's primary aim should be to recover any over-payments that would have been made.
Although the Council can and should concentrate on recovering over-payments, I get the impression that it won't do so because it is more concerned with making an example of the people it is prosecuting than it is with recovering the over-payments.
The punitive stance the Council appears to be adopting in cases such as these is disturbing because, in more instances than not, the people who fall foul of the rules surrounding how housing benefit is awarded are already some of the poorest and most vulnerable members of the community.
Instead of punishing the poor and the vulnerable, the council should be making more advice and support available to them.
In the long run, the punitive stance the Council is adopting is counter-productive because punishing, prosecuting and securing convictions against all people who fall foul of the rules can lead to social and substantive injustice.
It can lead to loss of employment. For example, some companies and enterprises will let go of employees who have been convicted of benefit fraud, notwithstanding the fact that the conviction was secured after the employee joined the company while the "crime" itself occurred before that and had no bearing whatsoever on the work the employee was doing or how the employee was performing.
Convictions for benefit fraud also make a lot of the people who receive them unemployable because very few employers will take on a person who has a criminal conviction.
The convictions, and through them, Leicester City Council, thus trap people in the benefit system and make it extremely difficult for individuals and families to break out of poverty.
The convictions damage lives, aspirations and prospects.
I believe a better alternative would be for Leicester City Council to work proactively with those who have fallen foul of benefit rules and help them understand the rules as well as work with them to ensure that they repay any sums they would have received over and above what they were entitled to.
Taking them to court should be a last resort. It should be an option that should only be used when the people concerned refuse to pay back the over-payments.
Prosecution shouldn't be the default position.
*An earlier version of this article appeared in the Leicester Mercury letters page on 26 September 2013.
Thursday, 26 December 2013
Mandela event was just as he would have wanted
On December 14, I attended the memorial event that was held at Nelson Mandela Park as an amateur filmmaker, with the intention of documenting the event from the perspective of one of the community choirs that were performing.
Going over the footage I got from the event, I am convinced that had Mandela been there to witness it, he would have been really pleased with the memorial.
He would have seen the event as a seamless whole that started in the park with township music by Leicester jazz ensemble, Afro City Swingers, who set the tempo for the event and gave it ambiance.
Afro City Swingers were followed by city mayor Sir Peter Soulsby, who spoke about how Leicester is connected with Nelson Mandela and the struggle against apartheid that he embodied.
A number of young people from the St Philip's Centre read from Nelson Mandela's writings and spoke about what Mandela means to them, while my own MP, Jon Ashworth, who described Nelson Mandela's achievements as "extraordinary, urged people to keep Mandela's memory alive by supporting the causes that he had championed.
Jon Ashworth was followed by The Rt Rev Tim Stevens, the Bishop of Leicester, who led an interfaith prayer for Nelson Mandela.
I am certain Mandela would have appreciated the heckling Bishop Stevens received from the secularists who argued, even as the Bishop was speaking, that the Church had hijacked the event.
Madiba would also have appreciated the grace and tact with which Bishop Stevens received the heckling.
Afterwards, Mandela would most certainly have told the bishop, the politicians and the secularists that his funeral would not have been his without the politics, without the demonstrations or trappings of faith, just as it would not have been his funeral without the arguments.
He would then have joined Red Leicester Choir and would have shown off a few of his dance moves.
He would also have joined in on Freedom Walk and in the singing and dancing that accompanied the walk.
He would have loved the drums that were waiting at the cathedral and would have joined Bobba Bennett in the dancing and then, because he does not have Bobba's energy, at the earliest possible opportunity he would have gravitated towards Paulo Carnoth, Carol Leeming and the drummers and tambourines so as not to make it obvious that he was about to pull a disappearing act, before finally disappearing into the cathedral (on the face of it to join the others who were gathered inside but in reality to catch his breath and to catch a rest).
He would also have loved the service that was conducted in the cathedral because the service was beautiful.
And, Leicester Amika Choir? Leicester Amika Choir would have made him think he was still in South Africa.
Afterwards, he would have said there wasn't anything about the memorial he would change because the memorial, as a whole, was beautiful. It was just as he would have wanted it.
*This article was featured in the Leicester Mercury letters page on 23 December 2013.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)