Charity Commission

One of the particularly ugly hallmarks of the ‘New Labour’ government is their propensity to ignore established principles, such as non ‘conflict of interest,’ the ‘right to be heard’ and many others. One way in which they do this is to wave the word ‘debate’ around as if it is a magic wand that can make these pesky principles disappear. Wearing a mask of pseudo- innocent reasonableness they chirp and chirrup ‘I just want to start a debate!’ before elbowing established maxims and morals into the dustbin.

On the Charity Commission’s website, they make the following pious statement about what their role is:

“Whatever their size or purpose, an essential requirement of all charities is that they operate for the public benefit and independently of government or commercial interests. Our job is to ensure this happens.”

That’s strange; because I’ve noticed large numbers of charities bidding for lucrative government contracts to carry out Welfare Reform objectives. The Welfare Reform Bill proposes to commit a number of human rights breaches against deaf and disabled people. I know this because the Joint Committee on Human Rights has written to the Secretary of State expressing concern that some things in the Bill are not compatible with the UK’s human rights obligations. Certainly to my mind, forcing disabled people into slavery, referred to euphemistically as ‘work related activity,’ is driving and reversing a Sherman tank over disabled people’s human rights.

Enraged, I wrote to the Charity Commission to point out this glaring conflict of interest. Charities are supposed to be looking after their beneficiaries, yet here they are, bidding for contracts which give them the power to force disabled people to attend ‘work-focussed interviews,’ to force disabled people into slavery and to cut the benefits of disabled people who don’t comply, sending them even deeper into poverty than they already are! I thought that there was absolutely no way that a charity could claim to be operating independently of government and commercial interests at the same time as bidding for lucrative government contracts that allow them to piddle on the human rights of their beneficiaries. So I didn’t expect the lawyerly, weasel-worded reply that I got from the Charity Commission.

In their usual highly condescending tone, they explained that it’s up to charity trustees to decide whether or not these things are in the interests of their beneficiaries (!) I guess that we humble pawns, I mean beneficiaries, should just butt out then. Clearly it’s very important what the government thinks. It’s very important what the charities think. It’s very important what the Charity Commission thinks. But the people who are the ones who are supposed to benefit from all these shenanigans, the beneficiaries – well, who gives a rat’s behind what they think?

‘It is not illegal for charities to carry out their purposes by undertaking work under contract with government,’ the Charity Commission’s response chirped. For some reason I remembered numerous MP’s declaring that they ‘haven’t broken any rules’ over the expenses fiasco. Well, that’s all right then! It's easy for those who are a law unto themselves to abide by their own laws.

In the Charity Commission’s leaflet, Andrew Hind and Dame Suzi Leather (the CEO and chair) declare ‘[b]ut the last few years have seen increasing numbers of charities undertaking this work and the debate has certainly moved on.’

That ‘debate’ magic wand again!


I hope to return to strictly RNID issues in my next post.

Solidarity.

I was reading a 'disability' messageboard recently and came across the following fine comment:

It is shocking how often the people who surround the disabled will attempt to exert power and be abusive. Power over what they will provide - even if you know of a better and cheaper option - power over how you are to be perceived and represented, even if you can do a better job yourself and are actually better qualified - power over how you are supposed to feel and express your emotions, and if you don't do as they expect you are unpredictable, abusive, dangerous and the all time favourite angry and Filled With Self Pity!

I couldn't have put it better myself. We have a right to be heard and one day disabled people will unite effectively and demand that right.

EHRC Ignoring Disabled People.

Some time ago I wrote to the Equality and Human Rights Commission because I felt that they were not doing anything to make life better for disabled people. Here is my letter:

Dear Mr Phillips,

I recently e-mailed your off ices at Manchester on October 2 to express my concern about the EHRC’s approach to disability issues. Basically, I feel that disabled people are being treated as the poor relation in the equality movement; here is the content of my e-mail:

“Hi,

It was reported recently (see enclosed link) that the EHRC is not working for disabled people. It seems that many disabled people, including myself, agree with this sentiment. I would like to ask the EHRC if they have any comments or reassurances to make on this issue in the following discussion:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbouch/F2322273?thread=5942747


Regards,”

Unfortunately, I have still not received a reply to my points, even though I received an automated response saying that ‘a full response will follow in due course.’

Please may I ask if you are concerned that some disabled people do not at present have confidence in the EHRC. It does not seem as if the EHRC is at all bothered that disabled people are underrepresented in politics, the workplace (especially at executive level) or even in their own organisations.

Yours sincerely,

I did not receive a response to that letter. I did receive a response to a later letter that I wrote to them about disabled people's human rights being abused by the Welfare Reform Bill, but they did not answer my questions or points.

So while disabled people are being neglected and ignored by the EHRC, what do they actually sit up and pay attention to? According to their website, they will respond with a full page when people decide to vote for the BNP.

Further reading:

Grumpy Old Deafies

At the Rim

Equality body 'failing Disabled.'

Debate and Logical Fallacy.

One of the things that I find quite fascinating is the study of logical fallacies. You might very well think that I am a bit of a nerd and not share my enthusiasm at all, such is the nature of subjective things. However, regardless of whether you find it interesting, I think the importance will always hold. When somebody causes others to arrive at an improper conclusion through a crooked line of reasoning, then in the very least they are being quite reckless about whether or not the truth will come out. If somebody deliberately continues to use fallacies even after their mistake has been pointed out to them, that, in my opinion, comes very close to lying.

If you suspect that somebody has hoodwinked you in the course of a debate or discussion, it’s always worth doing a google for ‘logical fallacies’ and then running through the list to see whether one has been used. They usually involve a sneaky intellectual sleight of hand which misdirects the audience. There are many good resources to be found via google, such as The Nizkor Project.

To give you an example, I can remember an occasion when an RNID apologist packed not one, not two, but three logical fallacies into a mere two word portion of one sentence. You may think that my claim here is rather outlandish, but let’s see what you think after I have broken it down in a scientific manner. The speaker, in response to a criticism of RNID referred to the critics as a ‘vociferous minority..’
‘Vociferous,’ according to Chambers means ‘loud and forceful, especially in expressing opinions.’ The first question you should ask of such a statement is ‘how does this relate to the actual criticism it is addressing?’ The answer was that it did not; it was an irrelevant misdirection. If Solomon expressed his wisdom a bit louder, that fact does not make his wisdom less wise. The only thing that would make it less wise are the words themselves.

Secondly, the use of the word ‘minority’ is an argumentum ad populum; it is trying to say that because not all that many people share a view, that view must be wrong. There was a time when the overwhelming majority of people thought that the earth was flat and that the sun descended into the sea. In the 1930s many Germans thought that Adolf Hitler was the best person to lead Germany. The fact that many people thought something most certainly did not make it right. Conversely, the fact that not many people might think something does not make it wrong.

Finally, the two words combined, ‘vociferous minority’ is an argumentum ad hominem or personal attack - it is attacking the persons making the argument rather than attempting to refute the argument itself. This is a particularly unpleasant fallacy because it not only misleads the audience, but maligns the target. Even very clever people use this tactic because it gives them an ‘out’ – it’s a lot easier to shoot the messenger if you can’t deal with the message.

Watch out for those fallacies – they are nothing more than dirty tricks!

Communicating with Deaf People - RNID Style.

One of the things that I have repeatedly suggested to RNID over the past few years is that they take advantage of the internet to communicate with deaf people. Does this not make sense? Deaf people can have communication problems; the internet is a useful and increasingly popular tool for communication and RNID is here to make the world a better place for us. So naturally it seems to follow that RNID ought to use such tools to assuage our communication difficulties and hear what we have to say so that they can work on our priorities.

It seems to me that RNID do indeed recognise the potential of the internet to make their message clear. In a web page forwarded to me by MM, Brian Lamb of RNID has been looking at this option to get around strict rules on political lobbying, see here. Not for the first time, RNID is at pains to develop ideas to improve communication on their own terms and for their own specific agenda.

What RNID are not at pains to do, however, is to put the same effort into setting up a general forum or e-surgeries or other internet tools so that deaf people can have a say.

It should be pointed out that Mr Lamb used to be Director of Communications at RNID before becoming 'executive director of advocacy and policy' yet it seems that whichever applies, his job has nothing to do with effective communication with deaf people. It appears to be all about leaving deaf people out of their own business and putting up good lines of communication between RNID and government or other parties. This is not about giving deaf people a voice or a vote, but sheer paternalism – deciding without us what is good for us.

To me, this is no different to snatching the crutches from a disabled person. Please note, that this is purely opinion based on some facts - if you think that I've got it wrong, please use 'comments' to explain how.

RNID - Co-op "Charity of the Year"!

Now that RNID have been chosen as charity of the year, not by deaf people, of course, but by the CO-OP (who didn’t ask us, of course,) they have launched a fund raiding pack with details of what the money will pay for. They have left out a few details, so I have helpfully filled them in for you at the end of the list.

£50 Provides a basic toolkit for a Hear to Help volunteer to show new hearing aid users how to maintain and clean their hearing aid.

£100 To visit someone in their home and talk to them about making the most of their hearing aid and how to maintain it for themselves.

£250 To visit five people in their homes for a quick hearing aid check and a chat.

£500 To carry out thirty hearing aid maintenance tasks, such as battery changes, at community centres

£120,000 To pay the hearing chief executive’s salary for one year.

£160,000 To pay the salary of 2 hearing members of the first division of the senior management team for one year.

£210,000 To pay the salary of 3 hearing members of the second division of the senior management team for one year.

£490,000 To pay the salary of the all hearing senior management team for one year.

Please bear in mind that the above are conservative figures using the bare minimum according to RNID’s annual report and financial statements for 2008, page 25.

As Fintan has pointed out in his blog, all the things for deaf people in that list are already available on the NHS free of charge. So the taxpayer is being asked to pay again for something that they already fund.

The next time you are accosted at the Co-op by people in fancy dress and pyjamas wielding buckets and asking you to toss your loose change in, point out that you have enough trouble covering Sir Fred Goodwin.

Have you ever challenged a person's or an organisation's attitude to hearing loss?

At the RNID website they have a page entitled ‘Have you ever challenged a person's or an organisation's attitude to hearing loss?’
The answer to that question is a loud thumping ‘yes’, I most certainly have. In fact, this blog was set up for that very purpose – to challenge RNID’s appalling attitude to hearing loss. Their page goes into a bit more detail about what information they are looking for:

Perhaps you challenged the attitude of a shop manager, your town council, a member of your family, a neighbour or a friend. We would like to know what action you took (i.e. did you write a letter, speak to someone in person, attend a meeting, call or email?) and what the outcome was.

Superb questions! Here are my answers. I challenged the attitude of RNID. They have an appalling lack of respect for our ability to work at our own organisation (especially at senior level) and our right to have a say in our own affairs The action that I took was to become a member and write many e-mails and letters to various members of RNID staff over the years (a fact that was kindly acknowledged by former RNID CEO, Dr Low.) I also lobbied the trustees and set up various discussions on the internet. The outcome, unfortunately, has been very poor, with no improvement whatsoever. I have, however, been ignored, attacked, vilified and made to look like a villain.

This script appears to be unfolding in the form of an uproarious comedy, but let’s be serious for a moment. Here the RNID is, encouraging us to take action to challenge attitudes to hearing loss, whipping out the ducking stool, stocks and rotten fruit, wildly nodding with bright eyes mouthing ‘YES!’ However, if you follow this advice to the letter and challenge the “wrong” organisation i.e. RNID, all of a sudden it’s a crime. Do the RNID think they have some sort of diplomatic immunity from criticism? Perhaps they think that their “royal” pre-fix confers such an honour? Perhaps we are “not allowed” to do this because of the circular logic that they help a lot of deaf people because they say so and because they say so, they must help a lot of deaf people?

Now it’s time to do an impersonation of Mr Gradgrind. Fact: RNID boldly proclaim in capital letters in their raison d'être, their stated objects, that they strive for our better treatment, training and employment. Fact: RNID have no deaf or hard of hearing people on their senior management team. Fact: Only 10% of their staff are deaf or hard of hearing. Fact: Jackie Ballard has said on See Hear that she is not going to start a senior management training programme for deaf and hoh people. Fact: RNID have scrapped their general forum where deaf and hoh people could have a say. Fact: RNID have resisted requests for a system by which deaf people can express their concerns better to the trustees. Fact.

The double standards going on here are truly astounding. The next time an RNID apologist tries to make out that you are a bad person for challenging RNID, show them their own page which encourages us to do just that. And there is no rule that exempts RNID from that principle, except in their imagination.