Certainly not as long as it is taking me to purchase the flat I live in from my landlord.
We started this process at the end of May, and I have already had to serve notice on the landlord for missing a legal timed deadline for one portion of the transaction process. My landlord is a social landlord, and I'm buying under the Right to Buy scheme - mainly because of the threat by the Conservative government to make workers pay full market rent on social housing properties. Commercial rents here are more than twice what I currently pay, and on the property I live in would take approximately half my income each month if that were to happen. A mortgage, with the RTB discount, is roughly the same as my current rent. The choice is clear.
What is not clear is why it took my landlord almost 14 weeks to provide me with a valuation of the property, and why it has taken since the end of May for them to finally confirm this week that there is no asbestos in the loft space (I have an upstairs flat). It has so far taken them 3 weeks to put together the transfer documents to send to my solicitor (and even she has started calling this a 'saga'!), and they still have not sent them.
The landlord also refuses to tell me whether a wall I want to remove is a load-bearing wall in advance of the completion of sale. It wont make any difference to me buying the flat, but my solicitor advised me to try and get the confirmation in advance of completion. Now that they have confirmed there is no asbestos, I can get my own builder to check, but it makes me very wary of how long they will take when I'm a leasholder to give permission for the building work to be done. My builder says I should allow 3 weeks for the building and then to fit a new kitchen, and I've saved a couple of weeks holiday from work this year to cover that period, but our holiday year runs from April to March and at this rate the work wont get done before next summer. I could do with a few days away right now, but daren't use any more holiday just in case the sale is suddenly completed and we can get going with the building work.
Why do we make these things so difficult in this country? I work in customer service and if I had delayed something in the way the landlord has, I'd have lost my job by now.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Saturday, 29 October 2016
Sunday, 19 April 2015
Immigration, without the hysteria
Did you watch the Opposition Debate on the BBC last Thursday? For my American and other non-Brit readers, the UK will be voting in a new government on May 7th, and the whole of our media has gone election crazy.
Though 4 of the 5 leaders tried to stick to the topics as they were presented, it wasn't long before Nigel Farage of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) was blaming immigration for all of the UK's current woes. It was good to see the other leaders rally together, and present an almost united front to oppose UKIP's far right theology, but all too many people get hysterical on the topic of immigration and I think it needs some careful unpicking to get to the roots.
The news coverage of the boatloads of migrants from north Africa crossing the Mediterranean Sea and landing in Italy, and the migrants waiting at Calais in France for a chance to jump under a lorry's axle or inside its load to get onto either a ferry or through the Chunnel surely shows the desperation and the lengths that these people are prepared to go to for a better life. Some British newspapers have given too many column inches to some extreme right-wing views this week. I can't claim to have the same readership, but I can put forward a different view.
UKIP, by Farage's own admission, would drastically reduce the UK's overseas aid budget. They see it as handing over money to people in other countries with no real benefit to the UK. They are misguided.
The purpose of the overseas aid budget is to reduce immigration. If we can help these developing and struggling countries tackle some of their social issues, by giving them aid in a variety of forms, their populations are less likely to want to leave. Our pounds sterling go much further when spent in African countries to help educate children, provide safe drinking water and sanitation, or assist with housing and health programmes, than it does when spent on people who actually make it across our borders and then ask for help.
UKIP want the UK to leave the EU, so that we don't have to accept European migrants. European migration works for all European member countries, not just those in the east. You may not want to go and live in Poland or Slovakia or Bulgaria, but your children might especially if they decide to study higher education in a European country. Many young Brits already go to France, Germany and the BeNeLux to study at university level: if you have to pay a fee here at home, then why not pay a similar amount in a different country and have some extra experience to add to your CV at the end of your studies as well?
And what about when you retire, and the British summers just don't give you the amount of sun that you would like. Moving to Spain, the south of France or Portugal has long been the option of British retirees, who take their state pensions with them. If we leave the Euro Zone, you wont be able to take your state pension with you, and your medical care wont be covered either. Does it still sound like a good idea?
"They come here and take our jobs" How many times have we heard that over the last 100 years? It's not a new complaint, and you can go back further than 100 years and still see it in historical records, if perhaps not using those exact words. It's also not just uttered by Brits; in countries all around the world, an influx of "others" usually creates a backlash with a similar sentiment. It's convenient, but it's normally not true.
Migrants want to work, it's the driving force behind the risks they take to get to their chosen destination. They want to work, earn some money and then send a portion of it back to their families in their home country. Some want to work and save so that when they return home, they will be able to buy a home, perhaps with a bit of land, to support themselves and their families. Typically, Poles tend to stay in the UK for just 2 or 3 years before returning home. They are fiercely patriotic for their own country, and have no intention of staying in the UK indefinitely.
So what are these jobs that the migrants are taking from under the noses of our young men (who generally are the ones complaining the loudest)? I accept that immigrants can be found in all employment sectors, but immigrants usually fill gaps in our employment market that Brits can't or wont fill themselves. Bus drivers, dentists, cleaners, daffodil pickers. Don't blame the immigrant for obtaining the job; ask why the employer didn't give the job to a Brit - could it be the attitude that some work is beneath us, or the level of English is better in a Polish student than in a native speaking English man or woman?
Housing, schools and our health system are undoubtedly struggling at the moment. It is easy to blame that on immigration, as if a single factor could account for all the ills in our society. We know we have been building the wrong kinds of housing in the wrong areas for decades, yet we have done very little about it. Selling off council housing stock and then wilfully preventing those councils from re-investing in building more housing with the proceeds is one of the main reasons why there is so little social housing today. That's not the fault of immigrants, that's the fault of a middle aged white woman.
Schools, particularly primary schools, have fewer places because the planners didn't take into account social mobility across Europe, and because there are not enough teachers. Why would anyone want to be a teacher in a British school today when they will spend most of their time on paperwork and coaching children to jump through hoop after hoop of tests, for very little pay or recognition? Neither of those things are the fault of immigrants.
Our health service would simply grind to a halt if we were to sack all of the immigrants working in it. From GPs and surgeons to cleaners and ancillary staff and every post in between, immigrants working alongside nationals do an amazing job with the resources available to them.
So what can we do? We are an island, with finite space to fill with housing. Austerity has taken a significant chunk out of the social welfare system, and many people are still finding things tough despite being told that we've turned a corner and prospects are improving. The first thing we should do is stop the hysteria. We need to talk about immigration calmly and sensibly, without demonising the immigrants and making them scapegoats for our own political failings and short-sightedness over the past decades.
As someone who loves to travel and would quite like to live and work in another country one day, I would be a hypocrite if I said we should close our borders. More than that, I'd be stupid and unrealistic. Make something hard to get hold of and you immediately increase the demand. Our streets are not paved with gold, and we need to do more overseas to ensure people know that.
We could:
But just stop with the name-calling and rhetoric that is not dissimilar from the Nazi ravings of last century. We are better than that.
Though 4 of the 5 leaders tried to stick to the topics as they were presented, it wasn't long before Nigel Farage of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) was blaming immigration for all of the UK's current woes. It was good to see the other leaders rally together, and present an almost united front to oppose UKIP's far right theology, but all too many people get hysterical on the topic of immigration and I think it needs some careful unpicking to get to the roots.
The news coverage of the boatloads of migrants from north Africa crossing the Mediterranean Sea and landing in Italy, and the migrants waiting at Calais in France for a chance to jump under a lorry's axle or inside its load to get onto either a ferry or through the Chunnel surely shows the desperation and the lengths that these people are prepared to go to for a better life. Some British newspapers have given too many column inches to some extreme right-wing views this week. I can't claim to have the same readership, but I can put forward a different view.
UKIP, by Farage's own admission, would drastically reduce the UK's overseas aid budget. They see it as handing over money to people in other countries with no real benefit to the UK. They are misguided.
The purpose of the overseas aid budget is to reduce immigration. If we can help these developing and struggling countries tackle some of their social issues, by giving them aid in a variety of forms, their populations are less likely to want to leave. Our pounds sterling go much further when spent in African countries to help educate children, provide safe drinking water and sanitation, or assist with housing and health programmes, than it does when spent on people who actually make it across our borders and then ask for help.
UKIP want the UK to leave the EU, so that we don't have to accept European migrants. European migration works for all European member countries, not just those in the east. You may not want to go and live in Poland or Slovakia or Bulgaria, but your children might especially if they decide to study higher education in a European country. Many young Brits already go to France, Germany and the BeNeLux to study at university level: if you have to pay a fee here at home, then why not pay a similar amount in a different country and have some extra experience to add to your CV at the end of your studies as well?
And what about when you retire, and the British summers just don't give you the amount of sun that you would like. Moving to Spain, the south of France or Portugal has long been the option of British retirees, who take their state pensions with them. If we leave the Euro Zone, you wont be able to take your state pension with you, and your medical care wont be covered either. Does it still sound like a good idea?
"They come here and take our jobs" How many times have we heard that over the last 100 years? It's not a new complaint, and you can go back further than 100 years and still see it in historical records, if perhaps not using those exact words. It's also not just uttered by Brits; in countries all around the world, an influx of "others" usually creates a backlash with a similar sentiment. It's convenient, but it's normally not true.
Migrants want to work, it's the driving force behind the risks they take to get to their chosen destination. They want to work, earn some money and then send a portion of it back to their families in their home country. Some want to work and save so that when they return home, they will be able to buy a home, perhaps with a bit of land, to support themselves and their families. Typically, Poles tend to stay in the UK for just 2 or 3 years before returning home. They are fiercely patriotic for their own country, and have no intention of staying in the UK indefinitely.
So what are these jobs that the migrants are taking from under the noses of our young men (who generally are the ones complaining the loudest)? I accept that immigrants can be found in all employment sectors, but immigrants usually fill gaps in our employment market that Brits can't or wont fill themselves. Bus drivers, dentists, cleaners, daffodil pickers. Don't blame the immigrant for obtaining the job; ask why the employer didn't give the job to a Brit - could it be the attitude that some work is beneath us, or the level of English is better in a Polish student than in a native speaking English man or woman?
Housing, schools and our health system are undoubtedly struggling at the moment. It is easy to blame that on immigration, as if a single factor could account for all the ills in our society. We know we have been building the wrong kinds of housing in the wrong areas for decades, yet we have done very little about it. Selling off council housing stock and then wilfully preventing those councils from re-investing in building more housing with the proceeds is one of the main reasons why there is so little social housing today. That's not the fault of immigrants, that's the fault of a middle aged white woman.
Schools, particularly primary schools, have fewer places because the planners didn't take into account social mobility across Europe, and because there are not enough teachers. Why would anyone want to be a teacher in a British school today when they will spend most of their time on paperwork and coaching children to jump through hoop after hoop of tests, for very little pay or recognition? Neither of those things are the fault of immigrants.
Our health service would simply grind to a halt if we were to sack all of the immigrants working in it. From GPs and surgeons to cleaners and ancillary staff and every post in between, immigrants working alongside nationals do an amazing job with the resources available to them.
So what can we do? We are an island, with finite space to fill with housing. Austerity has taken a significant chunk out of the social welfare system, and many people are still finding things tough despite being told that we've turned a corner and prospects are improving. The first thing we should do is stop the hysteria. We need to talk about immigration calmly and sensibly, without demonising the immigrants and making them scapegoats for our own political failings and short-sightedness over the past decades.
As someone who loves to travel and would quite like to live and work in another country one day, I would be a hypocrite if I said we should close our borders. More than that, I'd be stupid and unrealistic. Make something hard to get hold of and you immediately increase the demand. Our streets are not paved with gold, and we need to do more overseas to ensure people know that.
We could:
- Allow people to come here, but not give them financial support in the form of social housing or benefits. Make it clear that if you have nowhere to stay and no money to live on when you arrive, you'll be sent home straight away. This might not be a popular move, but it seems the most sensible to me, and is one that plenty of other countries work with.
- If an immigrant commits a crime, send them home straight away at the start of their sentence, rather than insisting they serve all their time at our expense and then trying to find them to send them home once they have been released.
- Possibly introduce a new tax rate for immigrants, so they pay slightly more for the first 5 years of their stay. Also introduce a slightly higher business tax rate for those companies who employ a higher percentage of foreign nationals. Only slightly higher for both though.
- Do more overseas to improve the locations from which the greater numbers of migrants are arriving. Some are fleeing poverty and war, and we can do something about both of those. We need to implement education programmes that do not paint the UK as a financial utopia, but give a realistic view of how hard it can be to live here with very little money.
- Work within Europe to create a fairer dispersal of immigrants. It is not fair to expect Italy to accommodate everyone who happens to land on their shores, but equally we can't take everyone who wants to come here.
- Encourage more people to return home, or migrate onwards. We already know many people intend to return home after a few years, so we could make this an easier option for them, assisting with travel costs rather than assisting with living costs while they are here.
- Encourage more Brits to expand their horizons and work, study and live overseas. It's not something often talked about in immigration debates, but it could be a real benefit to the UK to have citizens who are outward thinking and have a better understanding of our place in the world. We have always been a nation of travellers and explorers, and we could use the European migration possibilities to our advantage instead of only ever criticising them.
But just stop with the name-calling and rhetoric that is not dissimilar from the Nazi ravings of last century. We are better than that.
Sunday, 28 October 2012
On the road again
Well in a day or so anyway. Today I'm doing the last minute laundry and checking of flight details etc before I head out over the the Atlantic (hopefully avoiding Hurricane Sandy!) and down to Texas to see my husband.
I found myself wondering earlier, just how many other people do this. I say people, although I guess the vast majority are female, though surely there are at least one or two guys who write to American female inmates and make the journey to see them occasionally. I doubt there is any way to officially count the numbers entering the USA to visit penpals and husbands/boyfriends/fiances each year, simply because most would not give that as their reason for entering the USA. I answer the border guards' questions as and when they are asked, I don't generally volunteer any unrequested information. I stay with an English friend while I'm over there who has been there for 30+ years, and once a border guard did ask me why I would want to go to the small town my friend lives in. I told him that is where she lives, and I could tell he thought I was crazy just for that. I can imagine his opinion if I'd told him that 2 days later we'd be driving up to Palestine to visit my husband in prison. That's why I, and many people I know who do this, don't mention visiting prisons when we travel. It's really not worth the hostility and condescension you receive.
But still I wonder how many people from Europe, Canada and even Australia make this journey each year - and some, multiple times a year. This will be my 10th or 11th visit, I'm not really counting. Each time I'm there, I spend around $500, which isn't much really as I don't treat it like a holiday. Might not sound like much going into the American economy just by myself, but what if there are thousands of people doing the same thing - and spending considerably more than I do - each year.
It is interesting to note the difference in attitudes at the moment between President Obama and Mitt Romney when it comes to all things foreign. Mr Romney says that to be effective overseas, America must be strong at home. That's a very insular view, as if we over here care much in general about how America is at home. We just want to be sure that America isn't dragging the world into yet another war it can't win and has no business financing or facilitating. Mr Romney didn't make a good impression when he recently visited Europe and the Middle East. Someone should remind him that you don't make friends by insulting people or insinuating that you're better than they are.
By contrast, Europe seemed to enjoy President Obama's visit a couple of years ago, particularly his Irish "relatives" the O'Bamas. That was pure genius. It doesn't matter what his political leanings are, or his social policy or even his foreign policy, what Obama has that Romney doesn't is an understanding of people. He doesn't talk down them, he doesn't take a paternal stance and speak as though he knows what's best for us if we would only listen in some Victorianesque tone voice and painted smile. But he can be decisive, and he leads quietly. Maybe Americans would rather have a noisy blusterous individual who stumbles over malapropisms and unimportant things like the truth, and leaves a trail of destruction in their wake. If they do, I'll be leaving America with Mr Romney in charge. And if that happens, it might just get even harder for me to return, because I'm sure I'm not the kind of person he wants hanging out on his turf, even if I am spending my money there for a while.
I found myself wondering earlier, just how many other people do this. I say people, although I guess the vast majority are female, though surely there are at least one or two guys who write to American female inmates and make the journey to see them occasionally. I doubt there is any way to officially count the numbers entering the USA to visit penpals and husbands/boyfriends/fiances each year, simply because most would not give that as their reason for entering the USA. I answer the border guards' questions as and when they are asked, I don't generally volunteer any unrequested information. I stay with an English friend while I'm over there who has been there for 30+ years, and once a border guard did ask me why I would want to go to the small town my friend lives in. I told him that is where she lives, and I could tell he thought I was crazy just for that. I can imagine his opinion if I'd told him that 2 days later we'd be driving up to Palestine to visit my husband in prison. That's why I, and many people I know who do this, don't mention visiting prisons when we travel. It's really not worth the hostility and condescension you receive.
But still I wonder how many people from Europe, Canada and even Australia make this journey each year - and some, multiple times a year. This will be my 10th or 11th visit, I'm not really counting. Each time I'm there, I spend around $500, which isn't much really as I don't treat it like a holiday. Might not sound like much going into the American economy just by myself, but what if there are thousands of people doing the same thing - and spending considerably more than I do - each year.
It is interesting to note the difference in attitudes at the moment between President Obama and Mitt Romney when it comes to all things foreign. Mr Romney says that to be effective overseas, America must be strong at home. That's a very insular view, as if we over here care much in general about how America is at home. We just want to be sure that America isn't dragging the world into yet another war it can't win and has no business financing or facilitating. Mr Romney didn't make a good impression when he recently visited Europe and the Middle East. Someone should remind him that you don't make friends by insulting people or insinuating that you're better than they are.
By contrast, Europe seemed to enjoy President Obama's visit a couple of years ago, particularly his Irish "relatives" the O'Bamas. That was pure genius. It doesn't matter what his political leanings are, or his social policy or even his foreign policy, what Obama has that Romney doesn't is an understanding of people. He doesn't talk down them, he doesn't take a paternal stance and speak as though he knows what's best for us if we would only listen in some Victorianesque tone voice and painted smile. But he can be decisive, and he leads quietly. Maybe Americans would rather have a noisy blusterous individual who stumbles over malapropisms and unimportant things like the truth, and leaves a trail of destruction in their wake. If they do, I'll be leaving America with Mr Romney in charge. And if that happens, it might just get even harder for me to return, because I'm sure I'm not the kind of person he wants hanging out on his turf, even if I am spending my money there for a while.
Sunday, 4 March 2012
This is why TDCJ needs to allow international phone calls by inmates
The best example of a real situation has occurred to illustrate the stupidity and missed opportunity of TDCJ and the Texas Legislature in not permitting inmates to make international calls via the new phone system. Inmates are permitted only to call those on their visitation lists who have a registered USA land-line with the phone company (excluding Hawaii and Alaska). And for those thinking that Skype would circumvent this issue, it wont. You have to provide proof of residency that matches the landline number.
There was a riot at my husband's unit last Thursday.
Normally I wouldn't be too concerned, because it is a big place and often he is nowhere near where the trouble is. I just wait for the letter with the details which usually takes between 10-14 days to get here. But this time, the circumstances are different:
The confrontation happened when the field crew were returning to the chow hall. I currently don't know if my husband has been given his old job back on food service (which would put him in the chow hall when the disturbance occurred) or if he is still assigned to the field squad and had to go out to work (which would put him in the chow hall when the disturbance occurred), or even if he is still not being called to work at all and just went for his lunch as usual (which would put him in the chow hall when the disturbance occurred). So whatever his assignment, the chances are high that he was there.
I've been told there were several officers and inmates involved, an officer has a broken jaw and injured hand (and I'm sad for them that they had to deal with it) and that tear gas / pepper spray was used. The unit was put on temporary lockdown, which was later lifted for all excluding the wing where the field crew are housed.
I am pretty sure that once the lockdown ended, many inmates got on the phones and were telling their loved ones that they were OK. Those whose loved ones live in the USA anyway. My husband doesn't have anyone to call because none of the family over there have a land-line in their name - like so many Americans and a growing number of Europeans. So he can't even call someone and ask them to pass a message on to me that he is OK. He fulfills all the inmate-related requirements for calls, such as not being in Ad Seg.
So I have to wait for around 2 weeks before I hear anything from him, even if he mails something out that very night. How is this fair on me, when others can receive calls? I'm not asking for special treatment, just equity with other friends and family of TDCJ inmates who are no better or worse individuals than I am.
There was a riot at my husband's unit last Thursday.
Normally I wouldn't be too concerned, because it is a big place and often he is nowhere near where the trouble is. I just wait for the letter with the details which usually takes between 10-14 days to get here. But this time, the circumstances are different:
The confrontation happened when the field crew were returning to the chow hall. I currently don't know if my husband has been given his old job back on food service (which would put him in the chow hall when the disturbance occurred) or if he is still assigned to the field squad and had to go out to work (which would put him in the chow hall when the disturbance occurred), or even if he is still not being called to work at all and just went for his lunch as usual (which would put him in the chow hall when the disturbance occurred). So whatever his assignment, the chances are high that he was there.
I've been told there were several officers and inmates involved, an officer has a broken jaw and injured hand (and I'm sad for them that they had to deal with it) and that tear gas / pepper spray was used. The unit was put on temporary lockdown, which was later lifted for all excluding the wing where the field crew are housed.
I am pretty sure that once the lockdown ended, many inmates got on the phones and were telling their loved ones that they were OK. Those whose loved ones live in the USA anyway. My husband doesn't have anyone to call because none of the family over there have a land-line in their name - like so many Americans and a growing number of Europeans. So he can't even call someone and ask them to pass a message on to me that he is OK. He fulfills all the inmate-related requirements for calls, such as not being in Ad Seg.
So I have to wait for around 2 weeks before I hear anything from him, even if he mails something out that very night. How is this fair on me, when others can receive calls? I'm not asking for special treatment, just equity with other friends and family of TDCJ inmates who are no better or worse individuals than I am.
Sunday, 19 February 2012
Could you live without friends? (WAP petition)
I've been away for a few days and been busy as it's been my birthday, but I need to post a link to a petition that has been set up by the folks at the Write A Prisoner website.
To sign it, click HERE and please add it to your Facebook, Twitter, etc
The rationale behind it is as follows.....
"We are WriteAPrisoner.com, a website that posts the following types of profiles for inmates: Educational, Employment, Housing, Legal, and our most popular, Pen-Pal. Members of the public choose to write the inmates posted on our website via postal mail. We do not give inmates access to the Internet in any way. In 2003 the Florida Department of Corrections proposed a rule to ban inmates from seeking pen-pals. This rule bans inmates from participating in all of our programs. We attended the State’s public hearing on the proposed rule in Tallahassee, Florida, as did representatives from many other organizations that oppose the rule, including the ACLU, the Catholic Church, members of the public, ministers, and others. Not one person showed up to support the rule! Still, in 2004, the rule was implemented by former Florida Department of Corrections’ Secretary, James Crosby. (Incidentally, Mr. Crosby, who implemented this rule, has since been imprisoned himself on corruption charges.) In 2009, along with Freedom Through Christ Prison Ministry (one of the oldest prison ministries in this country), we challenged this rule in Federal Court, represented by a highly competent team of lawyers from the Florida Justice Institute. Presenting NO EVIDENCE of wrongdoing by pen-pals or WriteAPrisoner.com of any kind, the district court arbitrarily ruled against us (and the inmates).
We appealed to a panel of judges on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in hopes that justice would prevail. Again, presenting not a single piece of evidence of wrongdoing, a panel of three judges ruled against us in yet another stunningly arbitrary decision. While we pursue the appeals process, we are hopeful that you will sign this petition asking Governor Scott of the State of Florida to repeal this senseless and destructive rule.
Research overwhelmingly shows that inmates having access to contacts outside of prison has a highly positive and effective impact on rehabilitation. Still, the State of Florida has cut them completely off without even so much as a single documented problem. Numerous studies show us the State’s position is counterproductive to helping these people turn their lives around and returning to us as well adjusted citizens: http://writeaprisoner.com/why-write-a-prisoner/default.aspx
Since the adoption of this ban in Florida, two other states have followed suit and adopted almost verbatim language of the Florida Department of Corrections’ rule that bans our mail. They are Governor Nixon from Missouri and Governor Daniels from Indiana. We intend to send this petition to all three governors. Please support what little is left of a First Amendment for prisoners or those seeking to help them turn their lives around, and sign this petition today. Thank you!"
To sign it, click HERE and please add it to your Facebook, Twitter, etc
The rationale behind it is as follows.....
"We are WriteAPrisoner.com, a website that posts the following types of profiles for inmates: Educational, Employment, Housing, Legal, and our most popular, Pen-Pal. Members of the public choose to write the inmates posted on our website via postal mail. We do not give inmates access to the Internet in any way. In 2003 the Florida Department of Corrections proposed a rule to ban inmates from seeking pen-pals. This rule bans inmates from participating in all of our programs. We attended the State’s public hearing on the proposed rule in Tallahassee, Florida, as did representatives from many other organizations that oppose the rule, including the ACLU, the Catholic Church, members of the public, ministers, and others. Not one person showed up to support the rule! Still, in 2004, the rule was implemented by former Florida Department of Corrections’ Secretary, James Crosby. (Incidentally, Mr. Crosby, who implemented this rule, has since been imprisoned himself on corruption charges.) In 2009, along with Freedom Through Christ Prison Ministry (one of the oldest prison ministries in this country), we challenged this rule in Federal Court, represented by a highly competent team of lawyers from the Florida Justice Institute. Presenting NO EVIDENCE of wrongdoing by pen-pals or WriteAPrisoner.com of any kind, the district court arbitrarily ruled against us (and the inmates).
We appealed to a panel of judges on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in hopes that justice would prevail. Again, presenting not a single piece of evidence of wrongdoing, a panel of three judges ruled against us in yet another stunningly arbitrary decision. While we pursue the appeals process, we are hopeful that you will sign this petition asking Governor Scott of the State of Florida to repeal this senseless and destructive rule.
Research overwhelmingly shows that inmates having access to contacts outside of prison has a highly positive and effective impact on rehabilitation. Still, the State of Florida has cut them completely off without even so much as a single documented problem. Numerous studies show us the State’s position is counterproductive to helping these people turn their lives around and returning to us as well adjusted citizens: http://writeaprisoner.com/why-write-a-prisoner/default.aspx
Since the adoption of this ban in Florida, two other states have followed suit and adopted almost verbatim language of the Florida Department of Corrections’ rule that bans our mail. They are Governor Nixon from Missouri and Governor Daniels from Indiana. We intend to send this petition to all three governors. Please support what little is left of a First Amendment for prisoners or those seeking to help them turn their lives around, and sign this petition today. Thank you!"
Sunday, 8 January 2012
Major case
I pick and choose what I blog about TDCJ, mainly because I don't want this to be *just another inmate wife blog* but also because sometimes there are things that don't need to be in the public domain at the same time that they are happening.
I've been thinking about the rehabilitation side of TDCJ recently, or lack of any meaningful rehabilitation or re-entry planning or programmes. In the latest letter I have from my husband, it would appear that he may have picked up a major case for doing something that most of us in the free world take for granted and certainly wouldn't think twice about doing.
When someone in the office where I work has a headache, it is very common for them to ask in general if anyone has any headache pills. This usually results in 5 or 6 people waving the little plastic and foil strips as an offering, along with disclaimers such as "you should probably only take one as you're small" or "don't worry, they're not prescription ones". I would put money on this scene being repeated across the globe as people generally want to help others who are feeling a bit ill or in discomfort.
In TDCJ, inmates are not permitted to share anything, even if it would help out someone else. This is a security measure which I do understand, but it also goes against the fundamental basics of communal living - the greater good of the whole depends on people getting along and being nice to each other.
My husband gets acid reflux regularly, and has Zantac from the pharmacist at his unit. Many other inmates also have Zantac on prescription there. It is available over the counter outside TDCJ and is not a controlled substance in any way. While he was working in the dining hall a couple of weeks ago, another guy mentioned that he had just got his prescription. He gave my husband a pill because he was experiencing heartburn at the time. A guard saw them.
Now, I am NOT criticising the guard at all. He did not know what changed hands and he was absolutely correct in pulling both my husband and the other inmate out and searching them thoroughly etc. But I also find it difficult to criticise my husband or the other inmate in this instance, for doing what so many other people do every day - including I suspect a good number of corrections officers.
At his time of writing, my husband was fairly certain he was going to catch a major case because of this, though it had been a couple of days since the incident and no notification had yet been received by him. I would hope that the Major or Warden, on reviewing the evidence and circumstances, would decide on a minor case for both inmates. Why go for a more serious charge when the pills were not narcotics - where does that leave the punishment scale if the next time the pills are narcotic? It also does not appear to have been a planned transaction; rather it was a short discussion between 2 guys who both know the other takes the same medication.
Where does this leave rehabilitation? By punishing inmates for behaving in a social and community-minded way, what exactly is TDCJ promoting? Often one of the reasons that the Board of Pardons and Parole gives when denying an inmate parole is that they have become institutionalised. And yet this is precisely the behaviour that TDCJ itself encourages, and inmates who do not become institutionalised get punished for displaying that.
There is no clear plan or directive for rehabilitation in TDCJ. It is the only state criminal department of corrections that does not have "corrections" in its name (Texas Department for Criminal Justice). I have always thought that speaks far more about the attitudes of Texan legislators than it does about the inmates it holds.
I've been thinking about the rehabilitation side of TDCJ recently, or lack of any meaningful rehabilitation or re-entry planning or programmes. In the latest letter I have from my husband, it would appear that he may have picked up a major case for doing something that most of us in the free world take for granted and certainly wouldn't think twice about doing.
When someone in the office where I work has a headache, it is very common for them to ask in general if anyone has any headache pills. This usually results in 5 or 6 people waving the little plastic and foil strips as an offering, along with disclaimers such as "you should probably only take one as you're small" or "don't worry, they're not prescription ones". I would put money on this scene being repeated across the globe as people generally want to help others who are feeling a bit ill or in discomfort.
In TDCJ, inmates are not permitted to share anything, even if it would help out someone else. This is a security measure which I do understand, but it also goes against the fundamental basics of communal living - the greater good of the whole depends on people getting along and being nice to each other.
My husband gets acid reflux regularly, and has Zantac from the pharmacist at his unit. Many other inmates also have Zantac on prescription there. It is available over the counter outside TDCJ and is not a controlled substance in any way. While he was working in the dining hall a couple of weeks ago, another guy mentioned that he had just got his prescription. He gave my husband a pill because he was experiencing heartburn at the time. A guard saw them.
Now, I am NOT criticising the guard at all. He did not know what changed hands and he was absolutely correct in pulling both my husband and the other inmate out and searching them thoroughly etc. But I also find it difficult to criticise my husband or the other inmate in this instance, for doing what so many other people do every day - including I suspect a good number of corrections officers.
At his time of writing, my husband was fairly certain he was going to catch a major case because of this, though it had been a couple of days since the incident and no notification had yet been received by him. I would hope that the Major or Warden, on reviewing the evidence and circumstances, would decide on a minor case for both inmates. Why go for a more serious charge when the pills were not narcotics - where does that leave the punishment scale if the next time the pills are narcotic? It also does not appear to have been a planned transaction; rather it was a short discussion between 2 guys who both know the other takes the same medication.
Where does this leave rehabilitation? By punishing inmates for behaving in a social and community-minded way, what exactly is TDCJ promoting? Often one of the reasons that the Board of Pardons and Parole gives when denying an inmate parole is that they have become institutionalised. And yet this is precisely the behaviour that TDCJ itself encourages, and inmates who do not become institutionalised get punished for displaying that.
There is no clear plan or directive for rehabilitation in TDCJ. It is the only state criminal department of corrections that does not have "corrections" in its name (Texas Department for Criminal Justice). I have always thought that speaks far more about the attitudes of Texan legislators than it does about the inmates it holds.
Saturday, 17 December 2011
If you tolerate this, your children will be next....
So here we are, in another season of excess and commercialism, where the rest of the western world seems to spend a mad month spending money they don't have buying presents for people they don't really like, eating enough food to keep a small African country out of famine for a decade and drinking as much strange alcohol as they can (the likes of which they wouldn't touch during the rest of the year - take Advocaat/egg nogg for example, why on earth would you?!).
I don't celebrate Christmas, I focus on the Winter Solstice instead. When I tell people that I don't do Christmas, the usual response is to think that I sit at home being miserable on Dec 25th doing nothing at all. Not so. We do our celebrating on the shortest night (or over the weekend closest to it) and you may be surprised to hear that it is remarkably similar to other people's Christmas celebrations. Just less commercial and hypocritical.
This year, today in fact, our Prime Minister David Cameron has been bemoaning the lack of morals in British society, and has gone further than recent PMs in declaring that the country needs to get back to Christian values. I'm still hoping that we can do a political exchange with America and that Cameron and Mr Obama can spend a year (or more) running each other's countries - they would be so much more at home!
Britain is a Christian state, make no mistake about that. Our Queen (thanks to Henry VIII) is head of the Church of England, and there is no pretence of separation between church and state here at all. But as a country that has accepted immigrants of all shapes, colours and faiths over the years (sometimes a little more unwillingly than others), we are not a nation of Christian people. We are a truely multi-faith country, which includes those of no faith, and those whose faiths are not written down or widely practiced. Does that make them less moral? I would argue absolutely not.
Christians don't have the monopoly on morals. Indeed, there are many people in the world who claim Christianity and yet hand out some of the most abhorrant punishments to wrong-doers. They claim to be against abortion, but in the same breath cheer when someone is put to death by the state. They claim to do good works for charity, but display more greed than the moneylenders outside the temple. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.
David Cameron's words would not be quite as worrying if he had not previously in the week stated that there would be measures taken to "help" the most anti-social and disruptive families in Britain. Nothing wrong with a bit of focused encouragement, but what happens when the families labelled as in need of "help" decide they don't want to aspire to middle-class Christian yummy-mummy cupcake baking with children who can't cross the road by themselves? What happens if these families "in need" become more and more from non-Christian homes? We already have parents moving house and pretending to go to church so that their kids can get into what the parent's perceive to be a "better" school. Better for whom though?
One of the best things about being British is that we are all different people living on a tiny little island, and for the most part we all get along. We don't have to all be the same, we're not milk that needs homogenising to stop the thicker bits floating to the top after a while (that happens with our politics regardless of what we do). Yes, anyone who wants to and has the academic capability should have a chance of a University education, but University-level education doesn't suit everyone. Yes we need lawyers, bankers, politicians and teachers, but we also need plumbers, zoo keepers, hairdressers and bar staff too.
What David Cameron seems to have missed is this: no one in Britian is better than anyone else, we are all good at being ourselves, and some people just get paid more for being themselves than others do. Instead of telling the majority of the country that we have no morals because we're not Christian, David Cameron would be better off recognising that he is the only one of him that we'll ever need, and somewhere in the Bible it mentions being there for the sick, needy, imprisoned etc and not bullying them by taking away their homes, jobs, children, money and self-respect.
I don't celebrate Christmas, I focus on the Winter Solstice instead. When I tell people that I don't do Christmas, the usual response is to think that I sit at home being miserable on Dec 25th doing nothing at all. Not so. We do our celebrating on the shortest night (or over the weekend closest to it) and you may be surprised to hear that it is remarkably similar to other people's Christmas celebrations. Just less commercial and hypocritical.
This year, today in fact, our Prime Minister David Cameron has been bemoaning the lack of morals in British society, and has gone further than recent PMs in declaring that the country needs to get back to Christian values. I'm still hoping that we can do a political exchange with America and that Cameron and Mr Obama can spend a year (or more) running each other's countries - they would be so much more at home!
Britain is a Christian state, make no mistake about that. Our Queen (thanks to Henry VIII) is head of the Church of England, and there is no pretence of separation between church and state here at all. But as a country that has accepted immigrants of all shapes, colours and faiths over the years (sometimes a little more unwillingly than others), we are not a nation of Christian people. We are a truely multi-faith country, which includes those of no faith, and those whose faiths are not written down or widely practiced. Does that make them less moral? I would argue absolutely not.
Christians don't have the monopoly on morals. Indeed, there are many people in the world who claim Christianity and yet hand out some of the most abhorrant punishments to wrong-doers. They claim to be against abortion, but in the same breath cheer when someone is put to death by the state. They claim to do good works for charity, but display more greed than the moneylenders outside the temple. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.
David Cameron's words would not be quite as worrying if he had not previously in the week stated that there would be measures taken to "help" the most anti-social and disruptive families in Britain. Nothing wrong with a bit of focused encouragement, but what happens when the families labelled as in need of "help" decide they don't want to aspire to middle-class Christian yummy-mummy cupcake baking with children who can't cross the road by themselves? What happens if these families "in need" become more and more from non-Christian homes? We already have parents moving house and pretending to go to church so that their kids can get into what the parent's perceive to be a "better" school. Better for whom though?
One of the best things about being British is that we are all different people living on a tiny little island, and for the most part we all get along. We don't have to all be the same, we're not milk that needs homogenising to stop the thicker bits floating to the top after a while (that happens with our politics regardless of what we do). Yes, anyone who wants to and has the academic capability should have a chance of a University education, but University-level education doesn't suit everyone. Yes we need lawyers, bankers, politicians and teachers, but we also need plumbers, zoo keepers, hairdressers and bar staff too.
What David Cameron seems to have missed is this: no one in Britian is better than anyone else, we are all good at being ourselves, and some people just get paid more for being themselves than others do. Instead of telling the majority of the country that we have no morals because we're not Christian, David Cameron would be better off recognising that he is the only one of him that we'll ever need, and somewhere in the Bible it mentions being there for the sick, needy, imprisoned etc and not bullying them by taking away their homes, jobs, children, money and self-respect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)