Pluralist Speaks...

It would be a mistake not to give the Covenant a chance, just because it can’t solve all our problems.
'Yes to the Covenant' website.

What? Not give it a chance? Once it is 'given a chance' it will take over, and become the bureaucracy no one would want to see. It is precisely the thing not to be given a chance. Surely its proponents are more enthused than giving it 'a chance'? What an argument. It is rather pointless, hopeless, useless, and yet potentially - given 'a chance' - highly destructive and divisive. It adds to the problems and solves nothing.  The Pluralist

The loyal opposition

So, a pro covenant coalition arises now that 10 diocese have rejected it. Interesting. So why should I support the covenant?

... because its the only game in town...? - Blatant fallacy, there are many options available including considering that the communiion isn't in fact broken and thereby doesn't require mending. Moreso that a bit of episcopal discipline adroitly applied in the first place would not have led us to this sorry sight.

...and because we need each other.? - You bet we do, more than ever, so why should we agree to something that enshrines the right for some bits of the communion to pick a fight with another bit and have them thrown out? It is remarkable that whilst the gospel indicates in every essence the availability of the good news to everyone, that mankind still persists in making its own petty rules to govern who does and does not get invited (or uninvited).

Of course its not perfect! - something we can agree on, of course one might suggest that it is a long way from even being a half-baked solution.

We can't turn our backs now... An intersting plea, for such it is, suggesting that the C of E has supported the idea up to now is claiming something which doesn't really exist. The initial debate in synod was tempered by indifference and lack of knowledge of the thing and now that it is being discussed in the diocese, despite heavily biased information and petty politicking, two thirds of the diocesan synods who have voted, have rejected it.

...because the Communion cares, - Yes it does deeply, apart from the bits that seem to think it has some right to Lord it over others, and cause harm and division.

and wants to be held together... - Again yes, apart from the bits that seek to impose their will over and above others. If you want to hold it together why agree legislation designed to chuck some of it out? Also a bit of a wimpy appeal to the British sense of disappearing empire - are they suggesting that if we don't back the covenant that these 'poor' provinces will live to regret it.

...with the See of Canterbury. - and there we have it! We mustn't upset the ABC.  Canterbury is an accident of history, and a very poor history at that, and the majority of the rest of the world will never see it or have any connection with it other than knowing that it's where the big white chief lives...
"and that he has a global view that most of us lack", because none of us have ever been on a plane or spoken to somone in another country at all.

I'll stick with NO, thank you.
http://www.noanglicancovenant.org/

I might write something a tad more erudite and considered at some point but I do like to record my intial reactions to things.

Gove again...

'Anti-gay' book puts Gove at centre of faith school teaching row.

The argument between Gove and the TUC as to the curriculum being exempt from the provisions of the Equality Act achieves little except to highlight the paucity of our education system.

Any educator worthy of the appellation understands that in teaching children and young people particularly, their role should comprise three strands. To appraise them of a knowledge base in the subject and inculcate the practical skills of research and study to further facilitate this; Second to develop in them the skills of practical purpose and application of the knowledge gained and Third to come to a viewpoint, an attitude towards the subject which will inform their further choices.

To provide knowledge on any subject, if it does not present varying viewpoints, difficulties and contentions around the subject is not education but indoctrination. Presenting one particular politic is just that process. In this particular instance, the 'material' in question does appear to present one particular viewpoint. There is nothing in the reporting which would indicate a context for this visiting preacher or what other lessons, visitors the classes may have had. It is a slight on the part of the TUC that it makes assumption that material used in an RC school is automatically a simple endorsement of RC theology.

If the school is not providing students with the ability to undertake further research and seek alternate viewpoints then it is failing as an educational institution. Again, education which does not encourage and develop students in the liberal art of learning, critical reflection and the ability to adopt a position on a subject, is not educating but indoctrinating. In this particular the TUC is taking the view that these students are blank tablets without thought or opinion. The classic milk bottle education, where students are taken to be empty receptacles to be filled with the requisite approved knowledge, which brings me to my third...

To believe that these students will not have already dismissed such material as homophobic nonsense, or to believe that they have received it wholeheartedly, is doing them an injustice. They will have approached the subject with some knowledge, some experience and an attitude towards it which can only be extended by the experience. Some may have their views reinforced, some will have had their views challenged. Some will be experimenting with heterosexual sex, others will be experimenting with homosexual sex.

The real question is one of balance. Young people, particularly the internet generation we are teaching now, need to be prepared for a world which is presenting them with all sorts of arguments on specific issues and a plethora of information which is religiously, politically and fundamentally biased one way or another. Who is teaching them how to discern? They need to understand why heterosexual patriarchy dominates the experienced world and why it has frequently used this power to suppress and destroy that which it has deemed deviant. They need to understand why this preacher says what he says and distributes the information that he does. They need to understand the desperation, marginalisation and abuse of difference and why it happens. The chief failing of our education system at the moment is that it does not take account of this. Education in this country has been traduced to the mere technicalities of  gaining certification, in the dim hope that such evidence will lead to at least a job, if not a career, thereby ensuring the continuance of the free market economy which has shaped the education system since the 80's. The market doesn't care what you think as long as you have the capacity to consume. This is the challenge our education system faces. For as long as we tout education which does not actually encourage thinking, then arguments such as this, which are more about point scoring of one end of a political spectrum against another will dominate the debate about education.

Tesco Workfare

Had a brief look at the Tesco FB page to see how people are responding to the publicity regarding their use of Workfare individuals to staff their stores.

Incredible how many people have responded with varying amounts of vitriol compared to the pages stated 'friend' activity.

ATOS

The more I look into this Welfare Reform Bill and the associated paraphernalia of contracting and sub-contracting, the more worried I become. From Why Wait Forever.

Atos Healthcare

This information is based on my first hand experience of the DWP ESA procedure which has been outsourced to Atos Healthcare. It is supplemental to the information provided in written form to "The House of Commons, Works and Pensions Committee" who announced on 2 July 2009 an inquiry "Decision making and appeals in the benefits system".

Inquiry:
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/work_and_pensions_committee/wappn02072009.cfm
Work and Pensions Committee:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmworpen.htm
Work and Pensions - Memoranda:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmworpen/memo/decision/contents.htm

The Inquiry published a report in Spring 2010 and included the following.

• "Poor decision making not only costs the Department ...and costs claimants in under-payments, but generated more costs further down the line in reconsiderations and appeals."
  
• "We are particularly concerned that the Department doesn't appear to take scrutiny of the decision making and appeals system seriously enough."
  
• "Many claimants will be deterred from an appeal by an unsuccessful request for a reconsideration...may miss out on benefits to which they should be entitled."
  
• "It is unacceptable that, despite the Government committing to publishing a report by the Secretary of State ...on ..decision making standards... annually...the most recent report was published.in 2006 and only covered the 2002-2003 period."

I commend the memorandum submitted by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

I am not against the principle of outsourcing healthcare or other services to commercial companies as long as the services provided are as good as or better than those currently provided and only if there is a cost advantage. Given the level of complaints and appeals, a reasonable person would conclude that the quality of services provided by Atos Healthcare needs to improve. I was caused actual harm by the actions of Atos Healthcare. It appears that there are many others patients and carers in the same position.

Welfare Reform Act 2007

In November 2001, there was a Labour conference near Oxford on 'Malingering and Illness Deception'. It was attended by Malcolm Wicks, the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Work, and Mansel Aylward, his Chief Medical Officer at the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). Unum (previously UnumProvident) was the driving force and was represented by John LoCascio. Unum in 2002 in the US faced a multi-million class action lawsuit for operating "disability denial factories". In January 2003, a California jury reached a 1.7 million USD settlement against UnumProvident and two years later, the California Department of Insurance fined the company 8 million USD because it "misinterpreted job classifications, improperly overruled doctors' opinions and knowingly used incorrect insurance definitions to avoid paying benefits". Other states received compensation from Unum. Unum allocated between 325m USD and 415m USD to cover the likely costs.
The work of this 2001 Labour conference resulted in the UK Welfare Reform Act. Unum helped to draw up the rules and regulations. UnumProvident Centre provides funding for Psychosocial and Disability Research based at Cardiff University. The Director of the Centre is Professor Mansel Aylward.
A medical examination is required by the Welfare Reform Act 2007 as part of the sections that relate to the payment of Employment Support Allowance (ESA).

The Welfare Reform Act 2007 is an Act to make provision about social security.
It amends the earlier The Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Regulations 1995.

It is not clear that it was the intent of Parliament that lesser standards should apply to these medical examinations compared to those carried out by the NHS. A reading of Hansard suggests that it was the intent of Parliament that standards should be as good as or better than those carried out by the NHS.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has contracted out services to Atos Healthcare. Atos Healthcare in a written reply has stated that "...the examining practioner would not have access to a customer's NHS medical patient history". Atos Healthcare has stated in a written reply to the Health and Safety Executive (case reference 4177247) that "...The Medical Examination Centre assesses people's functional ability through consultation, discussion and simple physical tests(e.g. reflex)...".
The state has a duty of care to the dying, the sick, the disabled and their carers. The DWP is the customer of Atos Healthcare. People undertaking medical examinations are claimants or patients not customers. It appears that individuals within the DWP are reluctant to enforce the Contract between the DWP and Atos Origin. In my case Atos provided three separate unsound medical assessments to the DWP. As far as is known they have not as yet refunded the UK taxpayers for their unsound medical assessments.

Welfare Reform Bill

Been a'writing to Bishops again...

My Lord Bishops,

I have addressed you previously concerning the Welfare Reform Bill and was delighted to see the strength of support that was gained in the Lords in challenging this pernicious piece of wickedness.

On its return, the issue is not just about the bill itself but concerns the purpose of The House of Lords itself. As the commons appears determined to force through this legislation, it cannot but bring into question the existence of the Lords as a secondary chamber of legislature. Jeff King of UCLA has written a brief and concise paper on 'mission creep' in the commons use of the financial privilege, which I would commend for your consideration, which may be accessed via the link below. Members must consider that legislation of significance will invariably have financial implication even though its matter be social and if the Lords is to maintain meaning then it must stand against the misuse of the commons privilege at the earliest opportunity, to prevent precedence becoming policy.

I have over Christmas passed, studied the autobiography and writings of a former Bishop of Durham and been taken aback by the similarity of issues he was engaged with in the nineteen-twenties, and our current social stress. A staunch defender of establishment for forty-four years of ordained ministry, in 1930 he publicly announced that he could no longer defend that position. This was no easy thing for him to do, I believe, but his courage in doing so is admirable and reminds all who profess faith that there comes a time when we have to counted not just numerically in the division, but reckoned against the debits of our failure to speak for those who have no voice.

"Whether disestablishment by consent be attainable or not, the establishment as it now exists is morally discredited beyond recovery. It cannot permanently continue. If, indeed, the Church of England were, under whatever self-deluding pretences, , to acquiesce in such bondage to Parliament as now we know to be integral to its established position, that church might continue to be, in the astonishing description of the Archbishop of York, ' utterly, completely, provokingly, adorably English,' but it would have ceased forever to be either recognisably Catholic or adequately Christian."

Bishop of Durham, Herbert Hensley Henson, Address to the English Church Union, 3rd July 1930

Yours faithfully,

Sunday Papers...

The Telegraph offered little of interest for me today, whilst The Observer had several articles of note as well as publishing my letter in response to last weeks comment page on devolution for Scotland.

The first is an explanation of the current economic crisis by Stewart Lansley. It is a teaser for his recent book, The Cost of Inequality: Three Decades of the Super-Rich and the Economy  His explanation derives from the observation that in an economy where prosperity is not evenly shared, a crash such as 2008 is inevitable. Not news perhaps, I believe Marx said something remarkably similar, but Lansley contrasts the current difficulty and that of the 1920's in such a concise manner that I may even use the article with my business students this week.

Speaking of students... the second article New Changes to GCSE 'will hit dyslexic pupils', poses the difficulties that will be faced by students with dyslexia or those using English as a second language as the new marking regime will reserve 5% of marks awarded for correct punctuation, spelling and grammar. I've been embroiled in debates about the nature of dyslexia previously and had my fingers burnt so I'm a little wary of commenting but... Dr. Kate Saunders makes challenging comment that this move is discriminatory. Yes it is. Isn't that the point of summative assessment? To discern who can and who can't and in what measure. Equality of Opportunity is not about constantly searching for the lowest common denominator to ensure that no-one is excluded. The rest of the article makes much more sense as her colleagues from the BDA make note of the reduction in funding for specialist tutors, and changes in exam time rules, the overall reduction in teaching hours and the governments cut of it's direct support to the BDA itself. These are the real inequalities, not the nature of the assessment.