Dis-Appointment

I'm sure that somewhere, in the temporal chasm between, there is a life. I just don't remember it.

That's the power the DWP has over your life. A cabal of people ill equipped and uninterested in actually doing the one thing they claim to be able to do. A bit like expecting a serial killer to explain human empathy or offer marriage counselling. How can they help? They are structurally not built for it. The system created them to gatekeep a supercilious bureaucracy that exists to deny you the one thing it exists for - and the one thing you need to live. Money isn't for you; it's for your betters.

How insane is that? We live on a world that, once upon a time before we fucked up the environment, was a corncucopia. We should be able to provide for people's needs. Unfortunately expecting something as simple and straightforward as that is less important than creating a vast bureaucracy to facilitae dealing with the people capitalism cannot cope with. The people surplus to its requirements. A steadily rising demographic, increased by automation (or, ironically, innovation).

Today, less than a week before Christmas (for what it's worth), I received another summons to a Work Focussed Interview. I must attend in three weeks at this time and this place on pain of...well of course they don't come out and tell you, which makes the implied threat all the more insidious. But we all know what happens if you don't attend.

What gets me is the total lack of flexibility. That just further proves how inadequate this system is. I have no idea who the appointment is with other than a first name, 'Tracy', but I am damned sure they are not in any way able to do anything. They will have no expertise in mental health and no understanding of the issues facing people with mental health problems today. If they did I am fairly certain they wouldn't be working with the DWP.

Could they not meet me somewhere less intimidating? You might be forgiven for thinking that people asserting they are there to help might be willing to at least meet me half way. Even though this entire undertaking is doubtless a waste of time I would feel measurably better were it held more conventiently, at the local doctor's surgery (issues of merging helthcare and welfare notwithstanding - and while we still have a surgery!) for example. But I somehow doubt that such options will be forthcoming.

So what message does that send? It tells me that people who profess they are there to help and  work with you are interested in neither. How can they be within a system that insists on mandatory attendance within the intimidating indiscreet halls of officialdom. How can they be when there is no opportunity (I imagine) for flexibility? This system isn't designed for help; it's designed for capitalist triage. Patch up the wounded and get them back at the coalface. Arm them with a telephone and have them wield it like a pickaxe to badger the elderly into buying insurance schemes or scams (more accurately).

It is such a small minded, unambitious process. More concerned with its own administration and bureaucracy than with actual help. If I were, and I might just, ring up (apparently I could email, but they didn't provide me with an email for 'Tracy') and say "i can't attend because I can't cope" I have no doubt they will view that, shall we say, suspiciously.

And that's the problem: rather than address people's needs purely and plainly, they view them with suspicion. Why? Because that's how they're trained. So tell me again how that is a helpful attitude.

Yet every six months these wheels spin and I, like everyone else in this position, has to go through this nonsense. A performance review where I'm expected to justify my life and my entitlement to draw breath before people who are, unwittingly or otherwise, merely gatekeepers for a system that cannot help and only serves to divide people and keep them from having their basic needs met.

Think how muhc better things could be otherwise.

Food FIght!

Note: I a not a vegan, I make no apology for that. However I believe that vegans have every right to eat what they choose and shouldn't be bullied or denigrated for that. I do not - at all- subscribe to the vapid misogynist 'soyboy' trope that has become quite popular of late. 

Now then it seems another section of the great and the good advocates for a tax on red meat. This is based on two reasons: first and foremost the alleged environmental impact of the current method of producing it, and secondly the alleged health issues.

I do not agree with this tax. It is, as it always is with this approach a blunt instrument wielded by those with no thought for the poorest who, as ever, will be hit the hardest. Red meat, in many forms, is a healthy staple. It is also more affordable than many alternatives advocated by the liberal intelligentsia. Beef, for example, is among the most nutrient dense food sources available to us, and, like all meat, has what we need in forms the body can better and more easily process. This, I'm afraid, is not the case with many non-meat altnernatives.

Offal has been demonised, along with fat, for many years. Meanwhile we are witnessing a sweeping health crisis in the western world casued by the standard western/American diet. We have tried the low fat approach and clearly it hasn't worked. Good fat is not just healthy, it is essential. Fat soluble vitamins and essential fatty acids are required for life. On the back of this, a concerted attack on red meat is of great concern to me. I eat a low carb high fat diet and it has been very beneficial. Meat has been a major staple of this diet, including pork and beef as well as liver, which is also one of the most nutritious foods you can eat.

Attempts to demonise red meat culminated in a report from the WHO claiming that it is a 'probable carcinogen'. This is not accurate. Even if the claims were true the relative risk is so small as to be insignificant. However the study is observational, based on highly debunked questionnaires. Can you recall what you ate accurately enough over a period of months and years? Look here for more information on this study.

The environmental impact is of course important. It is clear, by all the evidence, that we are facing an unprecedented climate crisis that, in all honesty, we are not going to be able to avoid. At this point it is merely a matter of how overcooked do you want your planet. Our leaders are not capable of addressing this and the change required is too vast for any of them to comprehend (even assuming they accept the science, which America doesn't) and too close to avoid without losing power. However the context within which the claims about red meat are made are based on the current model of farming. I do not necessarily agree with industrial capitalist factory farming, it turns cows into commodities and the alienation of the workforce is a breeding ground for the kind of disgusting barbarism vegan activists rightly point out as cruelty within the industry.

It doesn't have to be this way, even on a planet as densely populated as mother earth (a problem, one that we have created for ourselves unfortunately). Meat should come from animals raised in their natural environment and doing so allows soil to grow fertile which also helps deal with carbon emissions. Without the need for an alien diet, grains imported to feed cows that should be eating grass, land is freed up. Not all land is suitable for growing vegetables and fruits (and not all of us want to eat them!).

A world devoid of a meat industry, for all its problems (and there are many) would be impossible. It would not be a world free of animals killed in the name of food either, nor would it be a world free of industrial agriculture (pesticides and the like). Vast industrial infrastructure would be required to ship foods that can only grow in particular places (tropical fruits for example) around the world. Britain for instance would still need to import the majority of its food as it cannot produce enough. Likely, given the relatively low nutrient density of plant food, it would need to import more. Then there would be the effects of communities devastated by the removal of meat as their livelihood, such as nomadic or rural cultures forced into cities as a result (a problem climate change can only exacerbate).

This ius a very simple look at the issues. I don't have all the answers. I could very well be wrong. I am not gospel on this issue. All I know is that persecuting the poor, while maintaining the capitalist system that underpins these problems, is a terrible idea. But, for the ruling elite, it is the only idea they will countenance. If we don't deal with that and instead fall for bad science then not only will the climate continue its inexorable decline, but so will our quality of

Eat what you like, plants or meat. But don't fall for the propaganda of biased sources as well as the ruling class who don't know what it's like to eat frugally. I have long been sickened by the toff foodie culture that abounds - especially when, after a period of pretentious eating thanks to the likes of Heston Blumenthal, it came back around to try and co opt working class meals by way of venerating 'locally sourced organic food'. To these people that's just another fad, but to the rest of us eating locally is what we do naturally. It's not a cultural artifact to be commodified by poverty tourists and television stars.

Cold Days

And so it is winter again. A bit unexpectedly early, but then our climate is in meltdown so who knows what it will be like over the coming months.

As the world turns colder (or at least the northern hemisphere), it seems also to turn darker. Fascism, call it what it is, is on the ascent. One of the largest countries in the world, and a developing economic powerhouse, has just elected a human nightmare to lead it. All under the aegis of the Trump 'revolution'. Bolsonara in Brazil will set back the rights of those he rules a generation. Already there has been violence, the wiping out of an indigenous village. He won't care, and nor will the fascist's friend up north, Trump. I still cannot believe that man has power. He is a vicious self entitled spoilt child, surrounded by like minded people who care nothing for the common man except to deny them further access to the basics of a decent society.

What must it take for us to get a decent world? Liberals and centrists appeal to the democratic process, but what good is that? Do we tell LGBTQ+ people in Brazil - whom Bolsonara has directly targeted - that they should be good citizens and wait another term because that's the done thing? Hell no. Power is never given, it must be taken from those who seek to rule over us. Stolen from them and then smashed. No one must be in charge so that everyone can be in charge. In that way proper democratic processes can develop.

Meanwhile the Tories continue their assault against the lower orders. Universal Credit, like a raging beast, seems unstoppable, urged on by its maniac masters. It blows my mind to think that Esther McVey has power over the poorest in society. A vacuous airhead who thinks the worst kind of glib Californian business guru self help rubbish is the blueprint for a successful society. She loves the 'strivers and skivers' rhetoric, despite it being utterly meaningless. You can strive all you want, hard work guarantees nothing but tired hands and broken backs. If you capitulate to that idea you are giving your power to people like her and she will use it to break you. Universal Credit is pernicious poorly designed and thoroughly unworkable. As the death count rises the Tories will just ramp up the rhetoric even more.

All this against a backdrop of gammon-infused isolationism. Ridiculous old men and women who refuse to consider their time is all but spent. Having climbed the ladder all they wish to do is kick it away from those beneath them. There is no doubt the EU is a problematic neoliberal pro-capitalist institution looking after its own interests, but it is also the gatekeeper. It does afford the working class many benefits. Throwing those away resembles throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But worse of all is that there is no good option: if we leave all we do is cede power to the Tories. Their true blue rhetoric will count for nothing once they go full steam ahead and finish off the job austerity started. Then we can all look forward to chlorinated chicken and the complete prostitution of what remains of our public services once they are fully laid bare to the rest of the world. We will become a carcass for the vultures of the world to feed on. In the absence of a proper working class revolt against the EU - and all capitalist institutions (including especially the Tories) we must choose at this time to remain. I'm not prepared to throw the working class under the bus.

The weather is getting colder. The streets are full of souls cast off by the Tories; people whose lives have been violently rendered invisible to their concern. Life gets all the more frosty when few care. That's the world we seem to be building for ourselves. When I was a kid, I looked up at the moon and dreamed of the stars. My head full of sci fi speculation and Tomorrows World (remember that?). By 2020 we'd be living in bubble cities on the moon and jetpacking into work. How naive. Now it's all but impossible to do something as simple as see your doctor. I notice my local surgery has had to shut for two months (at least - I've no doubt it will extend, this is the beginning of the end). Already it's only open part time. They claim that with a number of doctors on maternity leave they can't adequately and safely staff the surgery. But they can't find locums? They can't hire more doctors in general (which is why they are only part time)? Something isn't right here, but then, in the post NHS climate the Tories are building it's open season for these people who run our local service to expand. This they seem to be doing while also struggling to find staff. Something isn't right. Only under the Tories coudl this happen, and it will only get worse.

The View from the Hill

I took the long way back from Tesco (Express - that means it's slightly and inexplicably more expensive than the traditional superstore, and less well stocked). A nice walk down the hill, you know, the one through the farmland, toward the river and by the weir.

The farmer died a few weeks ago. He was a nice fellow. Apparently a few months, perhaps even years, ago he'd sold his land. Developers have been sniffing around for a few years now. Across their number they have tried to acquire multiple patches of land so they can make a profit of course. It's not about building to meet a need. We obviously have that, but these will not be affordable homes, nor will they exist in sufficient number to meet any reasonable demand.

This is just about making money from farmers that can't support themselves. This isn't NIMBYism, the land is for everyone to enjoy. Not just rich homeowners (whose number will now increase). I enjoy that land.

Or I used to. I could walk down that field, look out across to the hill, past the church. I could see the line of electricity pylons across the horizon. You might not think something so prosaic and unnatural could broaden the mind, but they served to define the parameters of that horizon, to bring to life, after a fashion. You take what you can from the world around you.

Unfortunately so do the developers. Now that view was obscured by metal fencing, locking walkers and ramblers into a narrow channel while leaving the labourers unmolested to cut a swathe into the land and lay the foundations for the houses that will steal my view.

I thought to myself: this is the last time I'll see that clock that hill and those pylons from that hill.

Every day a little piece of us is forever stolen. This is how they win.

If we let them

Your Daddy's Still Not a Nice Man!

This is a follow up; I've gone back and forth on this issue.

There's no doubt that a small group of anarchists will never be seen positively protesting the likes of the Tory elite and it's creepy darlings.

However reading this has made me think twice. I rewrote my original post as initially I was less forgiving to the Moggspring. While I don't want to see anyone's kids bullied or victimised or used as political capital, there are some mitigating issues here.

Firstly, it transpires that the protest was announced a few weeks ahead of time. So Mogg knew what was going to be happening. He was also clearly ok with being present - it, as he has gone on to say, was not something he felt bothered by.

Secondly, apparently, he brought his kids out during the protest. So not only did he not take them seriously, he obviusly didn't think his kids would either, nor that they would be in any danger (they weren't). Whether or not you agree with the actions taken, it's fairly clear and reasonable to suggest the experience hasn't damaged them. Good.

Mogg doesn't take this stuff seriously - and that's a problem. In order to defeat people like him - and we must - he must be made to feel the opposition constitutes a legitimate threat. I don't mean in terms of life and limb, to be clear. That he doesn't speaks to the arrogance of power, as reinforced by the media. Class War aren't there to be seen as positive by those gazing from the Overton Window. They are there to speak truth to power: to show that working class people are real, frustrated, and exploited. They demonstrated this by, rather benignly, addressing Mogg's nanny.

A fucking nanny. Clearly neither he nor his wife are up to the job of raising the six children they choose to have - three times as many as he allows those protesting him to have. Think about that.

This poor woman has worked for the Moggs for half a century. She's been there to wipe their bottoms, clean their bibs, and kiss the various 'its' the prodigy of the rich and powerful endure in their many mansions. Does she get treated well for this? We don't know she wasn't prepared - unsurprisingly, in front of her lord and master - to disclose her wage. But is it unreasonable to assume it would have been particularly generous given her station and her employer's belief in a vicious social hierarchy.

Regardless, the existence of this structure - of nannies and maids and butlers - is something that must die. It is a vile anachronism. No one should serve others in this fashion. No one should have 'betters', or lords and masters. This is dehumanising and degrading to the human spirit.

So, when it comes to the kids, their daddy is not a nice man.

Whether or not you agree with saying this, however calmly and non threateningly, to his children, whom he has chosen to wheel out (maybe even cynically), the fact remains. This is a truth they will have to rationalise at some point in their undoubtedly hyper-privileged lives. Their father (and he has a daughter) believes women should never be allowed abortions, even if they are victims of rape!

Of course tender age kids shouldn't have to ponder such realities as rape, but the truth is their father is a willing supporter of policies that are not just 'not nice' but actively destructive. He has a hand in the suicides of many, the suffering of thousands, and the deliberate starvation of many working class children throughout Britain. He deliberately and knowingly dismisses this through the tools of his class and privilege. That is, his world view is an artifice of class and power and that is why he must be brought down.

And rthat's before we address his headbanging pro-Empire worldview that would see the country burn. A site his kids will get to see from their mansion window possibly quite soon. His insane wrecking cabal of imperialists are happy to sell the rest of us down the river by any means possible to return us to a time that even time forgot. A collapsed economy in the name of King and Country.

If people think his children should be protected from the mean old man mildly insulting their father, then how are they going to feel when the revolution comes! When they lose their mansions and their father's wealth is expropriated and returned to the people?

Perhaps that's not likely to happen until well beyond the time their own kids are insulted by the grandkids of Ian Bone and Class War, but it must happen.

That doesn't mean they should be sent to the Tower, guillotine, or some other ghastly fate. No, they are human beings and should enjoy the same rights and provileges as the rest of us: food, shelter, clothing, health, fellowship and aspiration.

Just no more than you or I.

Your Daddy's Not A Nice Man!

Moggy, moggy, moggy....it's a rich man's world!

The sun rises and a group of protesters, called Class War, descend upon the (latest) home of the bewilderingly out of touch Jacob Rees Mogg. A man who thinks that rape should be rewarded with further brutality: the curtailment of women's rights is simply another assault the victim must endure. A man who thinks the existence of foodbanks - a symptom of cruelty and state created deprivation - is uplifting; thus he washes his soul in the misery he inflicts on others. The UnAmerican Psycho.

A man who thinks the Bedroom Tax is a carefully calibrated policy - yes, calibrated to fuck up the lives of many for no appreciable gain, such that they have to lie about the existence of a 'spare room subsidy' to mechanically justify its workings. A policy of ideology, not the remotest shred of pragmatism.

This man is abhorrent. His existence is an unwelcome counter productive anachronism supported, I would think, by a large business elite within his constituency. The mire from which this weed sprouts doing harm in god's name and, probably, god's accent. The lord, after all, is a plum-toned vicar from Hobbitonshire on the Wold after all. Heaven has no spare room subsidy.

So it's a fucking huge shame that, by allowing one idiot to address his kids, the points they had to make were lost. Inevitably the media were going to focus on that. Confronting Mogg is already an uphill battle in the eyes of the right wing media (which is 99% of the media).

Not a smart move.

But here's the thing. What they said was not untrue.

"Your daddy's not a nice man!"

Look. This is reality. Their father isn't a nice man. That's the truth. The real issue that should be discussed is the bizarre life this creature leads. He has a nanny for fuck's sake. His children are named as if they were Latin pronouns or adverbs. He doesn't live in the real world. He is functionally and genetically incapable of understanding our lives. How can he?

But

"Your daddy's not a nice man!"

Is not a good look. Like it or not, we live in the age of optics. One of the reasons Mogg does so well (ugh) is that he cultivates a privilege-cushioned posture of calmness. Something that's a lot easier to do when your own kids aren't starving.

That's the problem with the Class War debacle. There is a valid message that could have been put forward, that could even have involved, albeit indirectly, his kids without actually...involving his kids. That is: the Wee Moggs aren't going to sleeping on empty stomachs or waiting for a nutritionally bereft foodbank parcel. Their parents aren't going to be the ones struggling with the institutionally wicked deliberate chaos of Universal Credit.

They are not going to be on the sharp end of their father's policies.

"Your daddy's not a nice man!"

So instead of exposing the ridiculousness of this artificial human's lifestyle by throwing it into stark relief compared to the lives of the poorest, Class War resort to unfortunate type. They act like children who've discovered swear words for the first time. That's a shame because some of them are well read and should know better. The underdogs went for the dishonourable approach and the inevitable happened. What they could have done is what they did later focussing on Mogg's nanny and asking whether she gets paid a decent wage. Who knows if she does.

So the nation's kids will again go to sleep on empty stomachs, in poverty, and in crisis, all so the incredibly advantaged and privileged children of people who happen to have won life's lottery can have their feelings hurt. There is something desperately wrong here. None of this should have to be happening at all. But this horror persists because of stupid actions on the part of those opposing this system. We agree this system is intrinsically awful and cannot be reformed, but there is a journey to get past it and that journey is made steeper when you behave like a fool.

There should be no Jacob Rees Mogg's in this world. That should be the goal; no one should have this kind of power and privilege, look at what it does. I think Mogg is a mutant; a twisted product of radioactive society. Finance and privilege breed the dogs of capitalist war. For the good of us all they need to be taken down, their power de constructed and their wealth expropriated to be shared where it belongs - to all of us.

The Unkindness of Strangers

Or, The Internet Is a Shit Show.

Let's be honest. For all the wonderful things it brings, it is a very hostile place. Especially if you have mental health problems. That's not to say everyone using it is a horrible person, but that those who are face no consequences. It's the wild west and it's run by cliques and group think. If you fall foul of a prevailing consensus, things will go downhill and never change. In fact if you appeal or seek redress you will make things worse. The cognitive dissonance of this outcome, of the reasonable decision to try and clear things up only making things worse, is particularly toxic for mental health sufferers. For all the nice things and nice people that are online, the prevalence of toxicity remains a huge problem.

I don't know how to fix this; I am not an authoritarian and we certainly can't expect the likes of government (especially one that is killing the poor) to deal with this.

I feel obliged to point out that the above isn't a cover story for my own indiscretions. It is simply a statement of my own experience dealing with many online communities; they seem to be run by awful people. Individuals with a particular ideological, political, or social attitude that cannot be shifted nor reasoned with. If you fall foul of it, no matter how innocently, you will be treated pretty shabbily, all things considered.

This isn't to lose perspective - #firstworldproblems! - it is to point out that the internet offers a unique relatively open platform for discussion on a variety of issues. For individuals like myself that suffer social isolation it can also be a lifeline. That is why I take this seriously; to take that lifeline away through poor moderation or online bullying is actually a very cruel thing to do. Unfortunately one of the things that you cannot do online is admit your vulnerabilities because, again (and again perversely), this just makes it worse. In many ways this open platform operates like kids in a playground. It's desperately sad.

This is the new reality. It may not be what we want. It may not even be what we need. But for those of us with very little, it's what we've got. If I want to talk on certain topics the internet remains the best place to go. I don't have the opportunity to talk politics in real life. Yet when I try and do so online I have to navigate an invisible minefield of etiquette and digital mores that, if communication isn't your strong point, can trip you up. A box of text becomes a very different proposition than full human communication with its inflections, body language and tonalities. Something vital is lost in the translation between typing and sending, something that doesn't appear on screen.

For people who struggle to communicate well, perhaps if they are, like me neuro diverse, this becomes very difficult. People read what you have written as if it was something else and you will not understand why. It is as if you had written in a peculiar language that, to you, was as normal and clear as anything. Someone takes exception to a message that you felt was clearly written or well intended and that's where the trouble starts...

Because the internet is unforgiving. People's reactions will instantly redline. They will assume the worst and offer no charity. Benefit of the doubt doesn't exist online. If you fall foul of the moderation, then you will be excommunicated as if you'd punched the vicar in the face and pissed in the font. It is a ridiculous way to respond, it would never happen off line and for that reason I believe it to be unhealthy. In fact sa I type this I find myself assuming that whoever's reading this could be thinking "yeah, right...what did you say, what did you do?" Because of course I couldn't be saying this without being guilty of something, of breaking some forum rules. But that's the point, it can and does happen. It's toxic and it ought to be addressed. Unfortunately the only real solution is for these  communities to stand up and demand better of themselves. It's especially sad when it happens to progressive communities.

PS: hopefully the comments section is less onerous now, if people want to reply. Thanks

Everyday Crapitalism returns to the buses!

Bonus feature!

In other words, I got short shrift on the buses again and it's all capitalism's fault.

Sad thing is, though, I'm not wrong!

Why is it always the buses? That's easy; they are a vital public service that is still held in private ownership. Of course you could say that about any number of 'commons' - food for instance. That's why I spoke about the sight of security guards in private owned profit driven supermarkets. Folks gotta eat!

So one of the very few things I can praise First Bus for is their adopting technology to allow people to buy tickets using cards rather than coins. The problem is they have no answer when these systems go wrong, so ultimately you still need to carry coins with you because, if they machine (or your card) craps out...

This is problem number one: people need transport in a modern society. You have to go to the shops to buy food to avoid starving. You need to get to appointments to see doctors, or sign on, or whatever. Duh. Capitalism has no answer for this; if you can't pay the ferryman you don't go anywhere.

Problem number two; if you're poor these issues are amplified. This is because poverty deprives people of options and flexibility. When things go wrong authority will assert itself (problem number three, in actual fact). The driver is programmed - literally - to refuse you passage. So if the fault lies with the machine shouldn't that be the company's responsibility? In reality it'll be your responsibility. You have to offer the alternative because they sure as hell won't countenance offering you a free ride in lieu of meeting their responsibility.

So that's why I had to catch a later bus a couple of weeks ago. I didn't have the change on me.

This is the power of the capitalist; it completely undermines all progress that can be made because their need for profit trumps any reasonable alternative. I'm offering to make a payment, I have the means. Yet your systems are at fault - but I have to lose out?

That, my friends, is the nature of the authority that private property rights, a key component of capitalism (the rights over the public transport system in this case). I reject this authority because I find it cannot be justified in a decent society. It is antithetical to it's optimal functioning.

It's also unnecessary.

I wish the drivers could see that. But they aren't paid enough to have that luxury. Again, crapitalism.

These are the Solutions on offer

I haven't heard from my advisor since March. Each time I've tried to get in touch the mail seems to mysteriously end up in her boss' inbox. Why is this? I can only assume she's dliberately passing it on, which means she doesn't want to talk to me at all. Why might this be? I cannot say.

When I first met these people, almst exactly a year ago, they seemed a refreshing change from the usual behaviour of these types of organisation. But then, they all do, at first. They'll sweet talk you to be your friend and then, sooner or later, they change. They all revert to type.

At this point the only thing they are willing to offer is something called 'Solutions'. To put it simply, and you can see from the screenshots I've taken of their paraphenalia, it's just another example of the magic thinking 'let's go on a journey' self help guru rubbish this industry peddles. It does not - cannot - address the structural issues that surround unemployment and why one might not be 'succeeding' in life. In fact it offers no definition of what one shoudl consider success beyond getting a job. Nor does it offer any realisation that simply getting a job isn't always synonymous with success - as we can see from the scale of in work poverty that now exists, baked into the system.

Here we go (click for screenshots)

I'm posting this, as I've always tried, to show what's happening in this sector. I believe this course represents courses like it across the country. There are many groups like this, especially those that are connected to whatever schemes the DWP inflicts on people. To be clear, this group are not, as far as I know. Though I'm sure claimants will be referred or 'recommended' to them when they sign on, so it matters not. They are, iirc, funded by the Lottery. This expires next year. That's what I was told. What happens then? Who knows. I'm sure there will be another cookie cutter outfit ready to step into the breach, probably funded by another iteration of the same kind of funding model, ready to offer much the same thing.

You can see their attempt to deal with mental health issues that a participant might have is a perfunctory referral to counselling. I don't believe counselling is bad and I've no idea of the quality of the people you'd see, but I can tell you that counselling is far from ideal in all situations. But this is indicative of the dismissal of mental health; just refer people to 'talking' therapies which don't require lots of moving parts just a counsellor. This is naive at best; talking things through again does not address structural problems. I know this from personal experience; the counsellor I saw 18 months ago gave up after three sessions. Gave up! She was saying I should present to Bristol council and that they would give me somewhere to live, instead of being stuck out in the sticks. Utter nonsense! As if there aren't loads of homeless people/crisis cases already, as if there isn't a massive housing crisis the council has to contend with. This is their approach; they'll sell you down the river with simplistic solutions that don't help and when you refuse, rightly, you are told YOU are the problem.

So if your problems are of a complex mental health nature, likely to be societal in nature, specifically as a result of structural poverty caused by the dominant failing economics of our age, just speak to your counsellor. Meanwhile let's do all these insipid activities like "colour personality profiling".

How insidious does that sound?

Is this really as good as it gets? I'll let you judge for yourself. I'd also appreciate if anyone out there reading this (thanks!) lets me know what they think. It'd be nice to have a dialogue about this.

Cheers.

Everyday Crapitalism Goes to the Library

Last week I went to the library for the first time in ages. Nothing terribly significant about that, I just tend not to bother these days. There stock is limited thanks to cuts. That they are open at all is however impressive, and so I support libraries in principle. I've also spent the first half of the year buying a LOT of books that I am still wading through!

What I don't support are fines. This is an iniquitous principle that only serves to punish the poorest for wanting to take advantage of the vital service libraries provide. Clearly if you're wealthy enough being fined for a late return is no punishment at all and thus the idea of enforcing correct library behaviour - fair use of books - is not the issue.

But people, by which I mean me, forget to return stuff. It happens. If you're me you take a lot of books out at a time - because going to the library requires a trip into town and so not worth it for just one or two books. So if you forget to return one thing, you forget to return all. Fines increase on a daily basis, so if you don't get the opportunity to return before long you end up with a significant enough penalty that you can't take out more books.

Now a lot of people are going to have no problem with this. The argument will be that it's not fair for me to keep books and that it's my fault for not returning them.

This is true, but it isn't actually the point.

Firstly I don't seek to keep books unfairly, but - and this is key - our system tells people that's what's happening because our system can't process this any other way. It cannot accept that I haven't returned the books due to common human oversight. I don't intend for the books to be kept, but this happens in life. Why should it be an issue?

Secondly yes of course it's my fault. Why does that require scapegoating and punishment? If something gets returned late, well, quite frankly, so what? Again it's not intentional. Books get returned early (and late) all the time. People borrow, others don't. That's how this works.

These fines are also unnecessary; it's a paradigm not a requirement for the maintenance of the service. Think about it: if the library's income depended on fines and fees it would fail because the service would require people broke the rules. Does that make sense as a way to run things?

It's like the congestion charge. The stated aim - to try and reduce traffic and gridlock and ease pollution - is great. But in practise that's not really the aim because that's not what the charge actually does. Without an alternative it just penalises people who have no choice and need to make those journeys. It might encourage a few, in the same way that bedroom tax victims might actually find somewhere (if they are lucky) better suited to live. In reality those outcomes are a happy accident of a punitive principle that is applied to situations because capitalism cannot address the needs of the situation. In many cases it's the cause: we have environment-warping pollution because we have profit driven industry.

In the end it would be better to have a society where libraries - communal troves of mass media - could be accessed by members whenever. It would be better if we raised people just to be responsible and so return the book in their own good time. If they need a couple weeks longer to finish reading, so what. If they return it early, so what. We only assume people will be greedy and lazy (which is not the same as forgetful) because that's what capitalism, ultimately, teaches us. I hear this argument all the time, we need capitalism because our nature as humans is such. It's tedious and unfounded. Let's stop infantilising ourselves

Another Pointless DWP Interview

Which, truth to tell, has left me angry and upset. I don't need wankers from the DWP to feel bad about my life. I have plenty of signs all around me to remind me of how far short I've fallen of the accepted standards. I'm not marriyoued, I don't own a nice home, and I don't have a successful career. I certainly don't need to be probed - with the same fucking questions - by the DWP again.

Why do they ask me how long I've been claiming? They have this information in front of them. they know this. Yet every time they ask me this; they do the guilt dance where you have to explain again how long you've been out of the labour market and what shitty useless jobs you did before. It feels like I'm having to justify myself to them - and in return what do I get? Nothing. No help is offered, none will ever be forthcoming from this system. It cannot help; it is structurally incapable of doing so.

But the worst aspect was the five minute inquisition at the start where I had to justify why I should be favoured with a telephone interview - unlike all the other people who also suffer from stress but still manage to turn up in person.

Like this is some physical contest.

This language; the use of argument by comparison is horseshit. It has no relevance nor validity other than to shame you. What makes YOU so special? But I'm not arguing that I am special, and I don't consider a reasonable degree of flexibility, a meeting of the minds halfway as a compromise, to be remotely privileged. They demand of you, but you cannot ask for concessions. You are given them where and when without question and the notion that you, the subject they are supposed to be helping, should maybe want to make things a little bit easier; well we can't have that can we. There are a million ways to compromise. None of them are unreasonable.

And I'm not asking in ignorance of anyone else. I can only speak for myself. If other people, when they deal with the DWP, feel they need to ask for concessions then that's a matter for them. Why use that against me - or indeed anyone? It's childish. Yet he tried to imply (very heavily) that he couldn't properly help me without my presence physically across the desk. What difference does it make? A phone conversation serves exactly the same purpose: we are having a conversation. My physical presence isn't required, we aren't getting married ffs!

So it just feels like tactics intended to wear you down, to force you into submission.

But the stupidest part of all is, at the end, he conceded that, because I'd already tried all the resources he could suggest, that he had nothing to offer anyway! So the whole thing, which comprised of nothing more than him asking me details about my claim to which he already knew the answer, was a a waste of time!

The problem with these resources, I maintain, is that they are separate; they are apart from the society we live in. What mental health requires is integrated services that don't just deal with a narrow purview or focus and then expect you to function. That's like expecting a recovering alcoholic, after keeping himself clean and away from beer for six months, to be OK with popping down the pub with his mates.

Our whole problem is that society creates mental distress and marginalises the methods of treatment. You are expected to journey to the fringe of society, down a long lonely path, where the treatment resources are kept, and then, after a suitable time, return and pick up as you were. This does not address the structural causes of mental distress (of course some mental health issues arise from different means, to be clear) and, like the alcoholic, will only serve to reinvigorate those pressures.

I find the alcoholic analogy to be relevant because I believe that this kind of mental distress is not a temporary thing, like a cut or a broken bone. Alcoholism (I'm given to believe) is viewed by many sufferers as something they will have to live with forever. I feel the same way about mental health.

Unfortunately society, with its focus on production and subsequent alienation (work is alienating, see under Marx), isn't changing fast enough to not just integrate better ways of coping and dealing with mental health and, particularly, neuro-diversity, but to fundamentally change so as to prevent these problems in the first place. Cure society, cure the people in it.

In the meantime expect more pointless phone conversations from people who lack the resources to offer, paid to gaslight the people they talk to.

Summons

Blah blah blah, I had started rambling about capitalism again. It's all a boy can do in these times of excessive control. Once upon a time people were (they weren't) happy to get a good (it wasn't) job and have enough to fund home and hearth.

Those days are gone. Now it's not even enough to aspire to your Dre Beats, your 'sweet kicks', or a coat with a tick on the back. Now you have to become someone else. You have to live a life you couldn't possibly. This is self destruction sold to us with sugar coated profit driven nihilism. The end of the world will be the taste of ice cream, and the sound will be artificial crunch of the Magnum lolly model as she cracks the choco-crust in the advert world. Have you seen the price of those things? The joke's not on the stick, it's on the viewer. The fucking price of those things!

Ahem.

On Saturday the latest directive from the office of Meine Herren McVey, Fuhrer, for now, of the Ministry of Misery we otherwise disingenuously call the DWP. Another work focused interview has been scheduled for yours truly lunchtime on the 6th of July. How kind. Oh what it is to be remembered.

Meanwhile my email of 11 days ago to the useless advisers at Team North Somerset (I name thee!) has merited no response as yet. These are exactly the sort of people the DWP will no doubt recommend as a positive influence. Should I point out that the truth is otherwise? That won't go down well. The failings can't be theirs, they are professionals. They are here to help ergo it must be...YOU (that is, me).

That is how class works. They are the experts, I am not. I am the patient. I am impatient.

We don't have a free and equal society, we have a rigid hierarchy that asserts itself everywhere. In this case I will not be taken seriously, much as I wasn't by the mental health 'experts' I had relied on to offer a diagnosis. An outcome that, whenever I mention it to people like Team North Somerset, I'm told that it would be pointless anyway.

How helpful.

So once again the fear appears. The thought of a journey to the DWP's latest Mountain of Doom (the last one was of course shut by the government), having to be in that place, to sit and wait in some oppressive cloister, is palpable.

Keep the ring Frodo, you'll need it to pawn for food money. Sauron runs a charity shop or a Pound store these days. He doesn't have time for world domination. There's no money in jewellery these days.

It is a unique fear; to others who don't understand they will point to people in worse situations (of which there are sadly many, it's no comfort). They do this because society conditions us to dismiss the problems of others lest they remind us of our own and show us a common cause. That we might work together against them, because that is the only real and lasting solution to this wrecked society.

It is about the loss of control, the loss of self; the curtailment of the right to live through economic force. Numbers are swung like swords, against themselves. Numbers are also the only shield. Whether you would live or die sans food clothing shelter....medicine!...that is of no consequence to the master of coin and digit. Am I a productive little boy? Am I prepared to tug the forelock to the unwise and the unqualified who, by deign of birth, enact a system of oppression and invisible violence. Do I not matter? I'm only good for taking the x7 to Mordor; the ticket might be redeemable at the Black Gate.

If that sounds convoluted then you might just understand the nature of that fear. It is the screaming sound a soul makes when it sees the chains that come for it. The intrinsic ineffable quality of what makes life worthwhile being shackled by so mundane a thing as economics. We have no intrinsic value. How many times do you hear people say: you must pay your way - no such thing as a free lunch - beggars can't be choosers? 

These aren't axioms but they are treated as such. They are the norms we take for granted, but they only have power because the working class are divided.

And yet the truth is the bluster of coercion is all this system can offer. Between the implied threats, buried like the dead with a smile under the foundations, is..? They can't manufacture work, never mind anything of value. Their databases open like Russian dolls; fractal job opportunities that unfold into each other to reveal only endless data fishing scams dressed as agencies. A hall of mirrors that reflect the ugliness of the corporate world that demands of you more than you can give. It wants not just your time, but your soul: you must give of yourself willingly in the worst way - you must be a team player. It's almost pornographic.

I can't do this. I can't fit into the shape of that world. If I do not attend I starve. If I do attend I struggle. This is Britain in 2018. It has no room for people with mental health issues. It has no capacity to understand why that dichotomy is true and unacceptable. Help given - forced - on those terms is not help. It is bullying.

Voluntary?

I feel like I'm probably repeating myself. In fact I'm entirely sure I have anything to talk about, which is, sort of, the problem.

Once again the lack of support is just deafening. Blinding.

In fact this situation is normalised to such an extent that the people who have undertaken (largely for profit) the responsibility to provide support are so ill equipped and so bereft that instead of addressing why, the client is held responsible.

As I've said before: gaslighting. Likely not intentionally, does it matter?

In fact, intent is important because it tells us those committing that behaviour just don't know better. That's a problem.

If they don't know why things are as they are (hint: capitalism) how can they possibly help? That's why gaslighting exists: they know they can't help, they know they have precious little to offer. Consequently their only recourse is to impugn the client. Intransigence: you don't want to be helped, you are resistant, you are "not engaging". You, not them. Never them, no matter how charmingly put.

I could understand if I had refused to take up services (colour therapy for instance), or if my ambitions were hopelessly outlandish - I want to be a premier league footballer or an astronaut!

Last time we spoke, now months ago (I've had just two appointments this year), I told to the adviser I was interested in writing; that I also liked music (which can encompass many things, not just some X Factor fantasy bollocks). She already knew of my interest in social justice/politics and that being involved in a good cause with good people (admittedly hopelessly vague, but important) would be positive. All a waste of time. They have nothing to offer other than a room full of computers.

So far the only thing that they have had to offer was to use the local voluntary work database. But what good is unpaid work? There is such a thing as Permitted Work: Under DWP rules, one can work a certain amount and keep one's earnings while still claiming sickness benefits.

Fat chance. Once you sign that form you surely sabotage any claim for ESA. The DWP will have a record (literally) stating that you are working. How can that square with a claim otherwise? An appeal to people who look for any reason to deny that claim. Another example of the perverse counter-intuitive incentives that exist in this ridiculous system. Who would dare take that chance?

While voluntary work is great and wonderful, people shouldn't be compelled into anything they are not comfortable with - just because it's voluntary. Quite honestly I feel that voluntary work is used as a stick - do it or else. Maybe because it seems 'easier', to find voluntary work - and of course the unemployed (for whatever reason) should be doing something. So by refusing such a 'noble' way to spend your time, you are doubly feckless!

All part of the current neoliberal paradigm: regardless how you actually occupy your time, you are still idling if it's not earning a wage. That is to say, if it isn't producing profit (since that is how profit is created).

Where once voluntary work might have been a genuinely social positive, for those so inclined. It's now another tool to be used against us - and the third sector is far from unprofitable!

They don't care about what you might actually be doing, or about finding something genuinely positive. Just get your arse down to your local charity shop and sort someone's old clobber and castoffs. Then you'd be doing something useful and we can forget about you, ticking the 'support' box.

Is this really good enough? You aren't being paid for it. How then do you live? You are being compelled for the sake of 'idle hands' yet you are no better off in any practical way at least. Sure it may have a more ephemeral benefit, but then it may not. Also, it has to be said, within a capitalist economy, there is no ethical consumerism; working in a charity shop, for example, is going to enable that charity - as a business - to profit. Rightly or wrongly, and regardless of the ethics of the cause, that is what is happening.

That's how capitalism works. A charity shop to can't survive unless it makes a profit. So the only staff getting paid are the managers the rest are volunteers. A whole culture has been built around this - for better or worse - and the danger is that it blinds people to the reality. Why is this a problem: because it distracts from the real problem.... the prevailing economics.

Capitalism.

I've worked in a charity shop before, it wasn't a glamorous job. It shouldn't be romanticised. It was somewhat boring - isn't most retail? Is charity a justification? We shouldn't need charity - we live in a world of plenty.

The staff were good people, including the manager. But the experience was largely meaningless: shopping that around on my CV was worthless. Prospective employers never never seemed to value that kind of experience; not compared to 'genuine' experience held by rival candidates.

Do voluntary work because you care about the cause and want to help out, or for a genuine personal reason.

Don't do it because you fell pressured by systemic propaganda from agents of a system who should know better.

Don't do it because the alternative is to make you feel worthless or even more so. This is wrong.

The agency I'm a client of (a terrible word) should know better. They weren't forced into this role. They set themselves up, with public (EU - ho ho Brexit!) funding. They should have the resources, and - frankly - the talent. That the best they can do is guilt trip you into using a freely available voluntary work website is pretty pathetic I think.

Saturday Bonus: The Gentleman's Guide To Free Speech and Pug Etiquette

If you say something that is unarguably contentious or provocative you must accept the consequences for that.

If you cannot justify a context for such speech then by default that speech is intended to offend and I question the value of such vacuous speech.

If you are simply out to cause offence then you are sowing division, particularly in the case of a racially motivated call to genocidal violence.

Therefore I assert that a community should have the right to rule on issues of free speech. This authority should come from the community and be directly answerable to the community, and not come from a top down hierarchical structure - i.e. a state.

The notion of free speech, per se, is meaningless. Humans exist socially, cheek by jowl, as communal animals. What we say is broadcast, whether directly or electronically, and thus impacts our neighbours and their neighbours. Thus to argue that speech should be free is no different than arguing I should be able to slap or punch you without consequence.

A case must be made for the speech in question. As communal animals our morals and rights are arrived at continuously through sustained conversation dialogue and agreement. This conversation cannot be maintained in the presence of unjustified hierarchical structures and authorities. If you assert the right to speak freely, I assert the right to impose consequences: to be offended and to impose or impart the consequences thereof (shame, for instance) upon you.

The idea that one cannot ever offend, that offensiveness is only perceived or taken, is arrant nonsense. Clearly I can intend offence with a particular statement: I can make a call for racial genocide to a person of said race and intend that person to be hurt or affected and traduced as a result. In response is he not free to give form to his displeasure? If not then we give up all pretence of rights laws and justice. Words, like actions, have consequences. Words give rise to actions.

"Free Speech" has become a shrill flag waved by a desperate, mainly online, community who wants to be taken seriously in public discourse. They appeal to a reductionist social dynamic that contends everyone is entitled to a seat at the table. What they actually advocate, surreptitiously flown in under the radar of "freeze peach", is enough to disqualify them. Why?

Because fascism - white supremacy, misogyny, homophobia and racism in general - is anathema to a functioning society. This is the paradox of freedom: there is no universal freedom for all. Where we bump shoulders against each other, as a communal beast, we must negotiate what's right. The idea of free speech is important, the reality of granting it to fascists is unreasonable.

They argue that everyone should be heard because they want a seat at the table, all the while advocating views that, are not only repugnant and destructive, but have already been defeated.

The conversation with and about fascists has already been had - including at gunpoint. There is no good argument for white supremacy, misogyny, homophobia and racism in general. We've had this conversation and we must not let those who think these things are acceptable take an inch on this.

But the internet makes this difficult. Now any keyboard warrior can be the equal of Chomsky by learning how and uploading basement invective with the merest nod to facts evidence or understanding. Then they can appeal to the confused bedraggled and misunderstood of this world who will fund their program of easy answers and simple explanations by giving them a monthly stipend in the thousands (if they're lucky) on Patreon. Those who administer that service seem to care little who they are enabling. Fascism is ok if it follows the rules? That's just an appeal to authority.

So when some wingnut from Scotland uploads a 'comedy' video where he repeatedly says "gas the jews" to a dog, we are meant to laugh, not be disgusted that someone thinks reaching for, of all things, that phrase, is acceptable. Because free speech innit. Comedy knows no bounds. Bollocks. Good comedy makes a point.

I refer to the case of Mark "Count Dankula" Meechan and his comedy racist dog.

And when you aren't a million miles away from people who do genuinely hold that view, you can't be surprised when people impugn your character.

It isn't a free speech issue when you seek, however misguidedly, to abuse it, and then claim it was meant as a private joke (uploaded on a private platform then later defended as a deliberate attempt to shock or offend).

There is no positive aspect to the phrase "gas the jews". It has only one connotation and only one, gruesome, historical context. To say it once might be forgivable - I don't think this guy should spend the rest of his days staring through bars - but to repeatedly say it with abandon and then argue, in his defence, that he should be able to say this consequence free is so childish as to be laughable.

But don't worry, gentle reader, those same people, the ones he isn't a million miles away from are happy to pay his legal bill in appealing a fine (a fine that, given what he's accrued thus far from said donors, he could have paid ten times over and just gotten on with his ridiculous life).

What these far right scumbags want isn't free speech, it's legitimisation. This is not a slippery slope fallacy to say: giving them that is the first step in the real curtailment of freedom. Maybe not for you, or me, right now, but in time. But certainly, initially, for a significant number of human beings, targets of their persecution based on ignorance sown by their ability to proliferate their views online.

Son of the Return of Everyday Capitalism - Agoraphobia

You'd think food shopping would be one of the most innocuous innocent, perhaps even friendly, experiences in modern life.

You'd be forgiven for thinking that the vast emporia of corporate power that house the supplies we need to live on were any of those things.

Instead they are miniature warzones where we triage ourselves so as to be present for as short a time as possible. A bit like life really.

We subject ourselves to food hidden behind layers of propaganda. We allow, though not by choice, big businesses to push their agenda at the risk of our own health. We are encouraged to want what we don't need and buy more of it.

In fact we are so encouraged that these corporations have to divert their profits into hiring working class sympathisers as security. Think about that: we don't get access to food without the threat of punishment, if we violate the property rights asserted, forcibly, by the owner class. That's food! Meanwhile the need to maximise profit is such that the precariat paid to serve you is replaced by those self service machines. This is called innovation: an artifice of politeness designed to replace people's jobs. Violence clothed in programmed politeness and bagging anomalies.

Capitalism grants power for that ownership class to protect their profits from the threat of force initiated by those that need to eat - the rest of us, in other words! Think about that; that is the world we have wrought.

How does that not traumatise people? What is the effect of this environment on us. I said that shopping should be innocent and friendly. We aren't meant to be agoraphobic; we are meant to be social and communal animals. What then does it say about the agora when it's a high pressure environment guarded by our own used against us if we are impolite enough to need what we cannot pay for? Does survival not trump profits? 

How have we allowed supermarkets to own the things we need to live on?

But wait, I say, it gets worse (or just as bad but in different ways!) - those of us on low incomes find that everything costs more. Something innocuous and friendly becomes fraught in different ways: bus fares are such that you need to remember to buy all you need at once or it will cost you more. The poor spend the most as a percentage of their income; in effect they are the drivers of the economy. Yet there is nothing to support them in so doing. Bus fares are the same no matter who you are, forget to buy what you need and you have to make another trip.

Even something as simple as fares for public transport are all part of the system. Ever wonder why it isn't the norm for employers to pay for worker transport costs? They should: it's part of the cost required for them to do the labour you need doing. But that would eat into their profits. Not only that, but workers (especially the unemployed) are given no concessions.

This is why I call this everyday capitalism. We take it all or granted, and yet all of this informs an increasingly hostile environment. Is it any wonder we end up at each other's throats: divide and rule, family break up, etc.

It's the drip drip destructive drip of everyday capitalism.

The State of Services

So it appears that 1in4, a mental health support service I used briefly last year and have mentioned (not always favourably), is among the latest victims of austerity, along with Second Step, who are primarily a housing association. They were never very helpful in my experience, but they don't really provide services pertinent to my needs. Emblematic of these destructive decisions (regardless of my opinion of the services) is that neither have updated their websites to report on this turn of events at this time.

It's a pretty sad state of affairs, to say the least. No alternatives seem to be forthcoming. From what I have gleaned, the attitude of the (Tory) council is that they don't want such people as would be service users in this leafy green shire. This is for the posh and the perfect. Nearby Bristol is where we 'should' go, but of course without being a resident that's impossible. Services do not extend beyond the city limits, even though Avon Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership (AWP) are meant to cover this area, the reality is that they prioritise Bristol. We get the scraps, as  my experience trying (still) to secure a diagnosis attests. In respect of that, the attitude is still to question why I would need one anyway. How will it help you, they ask; what good will it really do, anyway?

If you have to ask...

Weston super Mare, the main port of call in the area, is bereft. The exorcism of mental health services can only exacerbate its many problems. It has issues with poverty and has a sizable community of people recovering from problems. The high street is a graveyard of yesteryear: where once Woolworths was a fixture (if a pretty rubbish one to be honest) there is now the obligatory Poundland. Diseases like Caffe (caffe?) Nero are common often bringing with them a rash of independent 'fone' shops (fone?) as well as their nastier big brothers in the established market. O2 is within sight of Vodafone (FONE?) is next to Carphone Warehouse is...

You get the picture. Perhaps the best example is the state of that perennial of the retail world, WHSmiths. Once a proud purveyor of books and magazines, as well as 'light entertainment' (ie expensive hit parade based films and music), as well as stationery. It has been pulled every which way by the likes of Waterstones, HMV, and a ton of other specialist shops - not to mention the arrival of online shopping. WHSmiths survives in Weston, but not much more than that; the carpet is shabby, the frontage is tired, and they seem more eager to upsell junkfood than anything else.

And now, sandwiched between the shops and hunkered down on the well-trodden pavement, a growing tide of homeless people at a rate unparalleled in the town's history. The council has no answer other than to put up accusatory signs 'reminding' people that begging is an offence. That is to say, the act of a desperate human being calling for help. Yet because said human is cloaked in the muck of precarious living and sleeps in the detritus of capitalism, they are to be branded as beggars; an unkind term intended to create distance between the reality and the perception. The reality of life under capitalism and the Tory-created perception that these people have only themselves to blame. Of course begging is to be punished; a practise as counter productive as it is desperate. The last gasp of a dead system printed on a bent metal sign fixed to a lamppost. It will, and should be, ignored.

This is the backdrop for the much awaited (by me, and no one else) meeting with my adviser.

There isn't much to say really and no point dragging it out for artistic purposes. There was no mention of the issues raised, no discussion of any of the things that were mentioned before (bus pass, writing opportunity, music). I knew there wouldn't be, so I didn't bother pushing it. It was, essentially, business as usual. In effect a polite waste of time. A couple of telling points:

Firstly she told me that they've had a bit of a staffing restructure. Given that they aren't a huge operation I find this significant. Could this be related to the claim before about funding limits imposed (no confirmation of this either) on service users? Fifty quid won't buy you much support. Amongst these casualties was the colour therapist who has apparently gone to start her own business. Not sure whether that's anything to celebrate but I guess it's her choice.

Secondly in regard to the 'Solutions' service they offered, this seems to have changed, dulled. Prior it was the happy clappy simple simon corporate approach to mental health. I refused this and it seemed to be a problem (although that wasn't mentioned either) for me to do so. I am not interested in that approach, it's the same approach the government is pushing, nudging, people into. It is dangerous because it ignores the societal causes of mental distress in favour of kludging together the idea of work and wellness - under a capitalist system (which itself is that societal cause quite specifically).

Instead it's just become a more perfunctory run of the mill back to work course: CV writing, interview techniques and all that stuff. Again, if people benefit from it - great! My problem is that I don't know these things, it's that my CV is simply going to be barren and my ability to be interviewed (again dependent on societal expectations, not taking the individual into consideration) is affected by my cognitive ability. I can't get away from that, nor can I mask it, nor should I have to.

I declined, and so all that was left was a few threadbare volunteer opportunities only tangentially related to writing that, quite honestly I'm not interested in. What frustrates me is that they can't see this. I have to be seen to be doing something and so, if there are few genuine opportunities, it doesn't matter, I get judged just as if there were hundreds and I'd refused them all. Those are different propositions. I do not want to be compelled, guilt driven, into doing something just because it satisfies the needs of an organisation that cannot or will not understand the reality of the economics and politics that prevail today. I do not think that makes me lazy at all - in fact it is the very definition of laziness to resort to that kind of thinking.

The Return of Everyday Crapitalism - Bus Fares vs reality

It is certainly truth that the poorer you are, in our supposedly technological society, the less flexible life becomes. While the rich spend relatively less in our economy. It is thus the poor that drive it, while receiving less support to be able to survive.

Case in point, and another example of what I amusingly call "everyday capitalism", our local bus service, within the region it operates, offers three tickets for day journeys within certain boundaries. I can go to X with ticket number 1, go to Y with ticket number 2, or I can go to both within the same day with ticket number 3. Each ticket is not so dissimilar that they are easy to tell apart and thus easy to avoid making the mistake I did today by purchasing number 1 and not number 3. As there is no way to rectify this error, for which I accept some responsibility (insert smileyface), I'm stuck.

It's not a big deal, as the journey I was to make later doesn't involve life or death, just the on opportunity I get in the week to socialise. Had this been a hospital appointment, or trip to pay the bills etc (and don't get me started on the increasingly inflexible attitude of banks - I said don't!), things might be very different. Basically if you're poor and you can't make up that shortfall you are fucked.

Is pointing all this out worthy of your time in the blogosphere? Actually I think so; I post this to show you just how difficult life can be in what is alleged, according to the ruling class, a shining example of modern industrial society. We are the 6th richest economy in the world yet we have public transport systems that, according to them, need arcane ticketing structures to turn a profit.

Not only that but have you noticed how tickets get more expensive with age? That is, kids and young adults pay less, adults (as with anything) pay more. We take that for granted; why? Essentially the message is: "you're 'old enough' now, so pay me more!". That is the logic of everyday capitalism.

As for the banks (I told you not to get me started!), I have to pay £6 to Barclays (or rather their collections department) to cover old loans. This pittance is of course a drop in the ocean compared to their daily turnover as a global capitalist financial munitions dealer (that's figurative, don't sue me - I need the £££ for the buses). But again the logic of capitalism takes over: "pay your debts". Another aphorism we take for granted and never question - even when it impoverishes communities and smashes societies. Debt is not a moral principle (the rich certainly aren't troubled by it), it's a weapon.

That said when I make my monthly pilgrimage to the local Barclays cutpurse I find that they make it increasingly difficult to pay this money. I could easily choose not to, but where would that get me. They'd be quicker to point out my indiscretion than to make it easy to pay. I can't use the post office because the PO can't take these kinds of payments, they no longer issue paying in books, I don't live near a branch (hence the PO option), they no longer have counter staff, the machine replacements don't accept these kinds of payments, they no longer have paying in envelopes to pay into those weird deposit boxes. So instead I have to queue up with the only counter staff available who's there to deal with business customers. They are ridiculous.

As is capitalism.

More of the Same Old Bullshit

The nonsense with the social enterprise continues. I don't know what the correct title for these sorts of agencies is if not social enterprise so that will have to do.

Honestly, it just wears me down. I went to a meeting held by another grassroots mental health group. They are called Clarity and while they seem very nice (if a little standoffish, but I guess we've all got problems to be dealing with :( ). Unfortunately they were less a support group and more a campaign group. What's unfortunate about that is that I need the former more right now. Campaigning is certainly important and what I heard from the representative of the, I suppose, 'social enterprise sector' present was rather depressing. In short, because this is a Tory area, there are massive cuts to services voted for en masse by the local, dominant, Tory rump who reuse to accept mental health is a problem here (and could the local mental health peeps kindly fuck off to Bristol).

For me, right now, I need to build a support network. I need places I can go, easily, with people that I can get on with; specifically people i share a worldview with. This might sound counter intuitive to many. They might, reasonably, conclude that the broader the range of experiences and views I expose myself to, the better. However, I am not convinced: I have a worldview and I believe it to be correct. In short I need the support of the kind of society I want to be in: a non judgemental compassionate society that is aware of the systems of oppression (specifically but not solely capitalism) we are exposed to. I subscribe to the model of mental health that, correctly, identifies a social component to ill health - particularly when it comes to conditions like depression and anxiety. These are not addressed by ignorant social enterprises, nor by associating with just anyone.

Campaigning is very important, though I'm not convinced that just campaigning will achieve much. Seven years of Tory led misery has shown this to be true; they will do what they want, using whatever means, when they want; damn public opinion. After all they couldn't get be less popular while voting to cut school meals for everyone - except those under the DUP (despicable). The problem is that I haven't the energy for it right now. The problem is, locally, I think it will take a hell of a lot to displace said Tory rump; it's ideological. This is a community of people that buys into Tory values. Changing that will be next to impossible. It will take something a lot more radical than appealing to people's democratic values - especially when those values put us in this mess to begin with. Never mind that mental health is still very much a taboo issue.

On a more prosaic and personal level, travelling to and attending this meeting was hard. The latter because, as a campaign discussion I wasn't expecting with people I didn't know, I didn't really have anything to say. I just sat there for an hour in silence. A bit melodramatic to say, but I'm just being honest. That said I will endeavour to attend more, it is once a month, and, while it's not quite what I need, it is interesting hearing about the state of things locally. Even if that state is pretty dire.

Travel on the other hand is becoming increasingly onerous. That might sound ridiculous for a half hour bus journey on a popular route, but the cost alone is too much. It has reached the point where I simply cannot travel often so I have to do more when I'm out. This means doing my shopping, so I come home exhausted from the trauma of dealing with Tesco and lugging heavy bags around. If this was local, I could just pop out without having to pay a small fortune and get there and back easily. It might not sound like a big deal, particularly if your mental health isn't an issue, but even small mundane things can be difficult. That's what it's like to have these kinds of issues.

Finally to report on my progress with the aforementioned social enterprise. Honestly, it's a joke. So I have a meeting booked for the first week of April. In that email I was informed of a "group offering creating writing opportunities". Crucially no details were provided, which infuriated me, especially given everything that's happened. It took me two emails back and forth to press them to actually tell me what it was, rather than wait for my appointment. They seemed to treat it like a kid desperate to know what his Christmas presents are ahead of the day. Why behave like this, it's utterly puerile. Turns out it's not really a creative writing opportunity. It's actually - apparently, because it's not even verified - a rumour that the local museum has a group that researches and writes up local history. So that's not what I'd consider creative writing; it's history. There's a difference as the writing part is ancillary and not the focus. I'm not terribly interested in doing historical research for this tedious little shire, quite honestly. However I did contact the museum who have yet to respond. Even so this is not what I feel I was led to believe; it's effectively a lie by omission. The problem here is that, when I explain all this and turn the opportunity down, I will be giving the social enterprise further ammunition to accuse me of not engaging. This sort of gaslighting shit is just what people have to deal with (I doubt I'm the only one).

It's too easy, when there's a dearth of opportunities, to use what few there are to demand more of the service user. If all you can offer is not what I'm interested in then surely the problem isn't with the service user, me, it's with the lack of opportunities for that which I am interested in. And it isn't as if I'm looking for crazy pie in the sky ideas either.

On it goes.

Staring into the Mirror

It is pretty clear that the recent horrific weather (the worst I've ever seen, take note climate change deniers) has put the appalling situation of homelessness to the fore. Unfortunately the deaths of rough sleepers has done little to melt the frozen bank accounts that pass for hearts in the Tory body politic.

In other words: they don't give a damn.

Let's just take a moment to think about what that means: citizens of this society are being allowed to freeze to death on the streets and nothing is done.

When the Russians allegedly (I don't want to be poisoned!) murder a spy on the streets of Britain, the Tories convene emergency meetings.

When people actually die, murdered by capitalism, on the streets of Britain, the Tories give themselves a pay rise.

And make no mistake this is a problem of capitalism. We have the facilities, the talent, and, in some cases, the desire, to end this. There are properties people can live in, but instead they are earmarked for the super rich and the property market. These are capitalist institutions; without the profit motive and the resultant class divide to oppress the poorest how can homelessness exist?

Thus it is my great pleasure, by which I mean nauseating revulsion, to present two case studies that show the problem is ideological. Even the Tories cannot deny the reality of rough sleeping. However instead of dealing with it, they seek to move people on, or, when they refuse paltry unsafe alternatives, are easily dismissed and subsequently criminalised. The crime that is sleeping on the streets of a modern city. Good grief, is this how far we've sunk?

They do this because it avoids having to stare into the mirror of said ideology. Doing so would reveal the truth of their horrendous politics. Thus it is preferable to demonise. They do this by creating a hierarchy that offers the less to the least among us, then, when that offering is refused it is relatively easy to criminalise these people for not taking up offers of help. But those 'offers' of help are less if the help comprises a space in a hostel that isn't suitable or safe - violence, substance abuse, theft for example. Is it reasonable to expect someone to accept that just because they are homeless and thus you see them as less of a person? That is the Tory mindset.

In Torbay a few weeks ago there arose a brave man called Ashley Sim. He courageously took it upon himself to photograph those members of the local homeless community he heroically believed were not 'genuine'. It always baffles me, the hypocrisy of the Tory position on liberty: they claim to oppose 'big brother' (remember all the hoo ha about ID cards during the last Labour government?), but are more than happy to appeal to a nanny state or a nanny state mentality when it suits them. What is this, if not that?

What is this if not the exertion of class power wielded as ideological force unto the weakest? It is the imposition of the division between 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor, made all the worse by the obvious reality that those Mr Sim believes to be 'deserving' (a judgement made solely by himself with no expertise on the reality nor, it seems, the slightest understanding of power in society) won't get helped anyway. They can at least rest, by which I mean shiver on the pavement, safe in the knowledge that some arrogant prick from Toryshire isn't going to try and have them prosecuted for offending his sensibilities. An act that has potentially disastrous consequences, particularly for those wrongly targeted, for those this self proclaimed 'do gooder' (their language) decides to out.

Now, on my doorstep, in the otherwise quite progressive city of Bristol, we have another example. I've seen the city centre for myself, the Broadmead shopping quarter. I've seen how the closure of businesses - thanks to austerity - has blighted it. Up until recently there was a BHS, who, like Woolworths, were a high street staple. All that remains is an unsightly boarded up frontage - presumably to ensure that rough sleepers don't take advantage of the meagre shelter present. Unfortunately for that idea homelessness in the city has skyrocketed.

So now, a particular couple who are conspicuous within the centre of the district, are being picked on, and in the most egregious example of mirror dodging yet. It seems that, because they have an 'embarassment of riches, in the form of a huge pile of blankets (because people in Bristol are kind), they could be hiding 'the terrorisms' inside! Huddled beneath, it's possible, to the mind of business bigwig John Hirst (a copper bottomed cunt by all accounts), that the people could be planting explosives! Do you need me to explain how offensive and absurd that is?

But of course the Tory attitude, the corporate-o-capitalist attitude, must entertain this possibility, because to do otherwise is to stare right into that mirror.

And they know what they will see when they stare right back: decade up on decade of frozen humans, lives snuffed out in the cold ad the dark of a capitalist night. Caught in the amber of conscience for which said mirror is a metaphor. People that died for the want of what Pink Floyd coolly and correctly referred to as 'tea and a slice'. Us and them: us - we - have to start winning.

Power 2

I'm not sure if this is the last word in the sorry saga of the service user, but it's been about 6 weeks since I had any contact with my adviser. I emailed her boss on Monday to try and find out what was going on. Apparently she (my adviser) didn't receive my emails. I find that hard to believe; there has been no indication mail didn't get sent properly and it's a little too convenient but, as they say, we are where we are.

So I ended up having a conversation on the phone with the boss. I cannot say that I feel good about it all. In fact I feel as if I've had the proverbial rug pulled from beneath me; that I've been subject to the old bait and switch tactic.

When I first started with these people, as anyone that's read these blogs will attest, I felt pretty positive about it. There was no conditionality attached, and, it seemed, no hidden agendas. Now, I'm not so sure. Two things seem to have changed: firstly there is conditionality they just didn't bother telling me. I mentioned this before alluding to their wellbing programme which is what they want me to do, only they didn't bother to tell me this. Instead they pretend a sense of kindly exasperation and say 'hey we're struggling to know what to do with you'. In a peculiar way that makes me think their priority is themselves and their results (presumably how they get funding) rather than what's in my best interests.

Secondly, according, to the boss, there are new rules in play; sent from on high (the heaven of great funding). I find this hard to believe but each service user is now limited to £50 worth of funding - for anything. More importantly this would include bus fares. Fifty quid won't see you get far on First Buses! It sounds utterly absurd. They get their funding from the Lottery and the European Social Fund (that'll be gone post Brexit I imagine, so across the country organisations like these will be bereft). I have no idea what the reason for this is, maybe it's our government, maybe it's the EU. I don't know but the upshot is that it will make this course and any others like it impossible. I must have received that much or near enough already! The whole thing is ridiculous.

Now I won't say that the boss wasn't friendly, but, as ever with these situations, they simply do not take responsibility. The tenor of the conversation seemed to be, as I've said, "we're struggling to help you", but in so doing they kept introducing all these things that I'd never heard of before, including conditionality. Apparently they even have quiz afternoons! I said I had never heard of this and her response was they are on the board. This means they are written on the board in their office. Aside from adding a qualifier to the initial claim, how would I know what's on the board? But if I was on the wellbeing course, I'd be part of this. That's the problem; they keep pointing to things and services they offer - but don't make you aware of unless you're in the office all the time. Thad's ridiculous and it's unfair - especially on someone that's a victim of social isolation. How do you think it makes me feel to be told everyone else is having a gay old time at the quiz or social event or whatever if you don't tell me they are happening? When I started there was no mention of any compulsory attendance to a wellbeing course - and my objections to that still stand: these sessions are simplistic and put too much onto the shoulders of the individual while ignoring the social context. This is unacceptable, no matter how much tea and biscuits you offer!

I asked about training, which was briefly mentioned, but didn't really get much of an answer. In fact, now that I think about it, she didn't seem to have any idea of what they offered at all. I imagine it's the usual 'cv training' bollocks I've heard of before. That is, not actual training, but the soft stuff which, while useful to some no doubt, doesn't really go far enough and won't get you a job. No matter hw polished your CV not only will it make no difference compared to someone with a life history of solid work experience, but the DWP will find something to complain about (ie an excuse to send you to their CV course).

What she did tell me about was the existence of 'job profiling' or even 'personality profiling' where they match you based on relevant traits to jobs that are then considered suitable accordingly. This is all bullshit, even if by some miracle these tests revealed some dream vocation you'd never have thought of otherwise, how are you going to get that job? As if the DWP will ever help you find that  - unless your dream job is Tesco shelf stacker. It's pointless.

But, in the end, this is all these organisations ever seem to be about. They will pretend to be your friend. They will make you feel at ease before telling you how shit really works and then expect you to do it. Finally they will dress up vacuous and simplistic activities as profound opportunities to either self discovery or imagined door openings (your dream job).

Is this really good enough?

Power

So we can see just how power works, and it is never a good thing.

A "hand up" not a "hand out"; in other words we can pay to print a CV or the cost of a stamp, but to feed yourself? Have a life? Enjoy a few nice things? No chance. Who gets to decide for me what I can or can't have? It seems the inheritors of wealth who through privilege get to make policy, enforced through monopolised violence, for the rest of us.

This model seems to be exactly how social enterprises work; the charities and agencies that profess to help the poor, the unemployed, and the sick. This includes schemes dreamt up by the government, or any wannabe philanthropist who claims to have a conscience. The Work Programme is no different.

Ultimately they all end up the same. Sooner or later you reach the limit of what they have to offer. It isn't very difficult, but the result is never positive. It is always an exercise in victim blaming. We can't help you - even though in many cases they have barely tried.

The most insidious aspect of this is the power dynamic. That's what it always comes down to, and this is why I'm an anarchist (at least in principle). Power. Those that have it can do what they like, and those that don't get to suffer or struggle. My adviser can tell me that "I'm struggling to know how we can help you" and I can point out all the reasons that's bullshit. I could point out, for example, that I have said a number of things that I'm interested in that she hasn't once looked into. It won't make any difference because, no matter how correct my observations might be, she has the power. She can just shrug her shoulders - even agree - and walk away with the power. In other words I'm the one that loses out. I'm the one that gets discarded by an agency that, happily, sets itself up as being a positive force in the community, happily takes funding streams from whomever, but doesn't seem to use them to do anything above refunding the odd bus journey. They have the power, but they do not have the responsibility.

Power does not equal nor compel responsibility, it's us that has to force that accountability. It is never conceded. Why would it be? I believe that we should be compelling a lot more. We need to take that power for ourselves. Why should people have to rely on these hapless agencies who seem to have nothing to offer. They have zero influence over the systems that put people into the sorts of circumstances that lead them to become service users in the first place. It's just a comfortable position.

So I'm looking at another rejection from another so-called social enterprise. I don't know for certain what will happen as they have failed to respond in over a week. I find that ridiculous. How does this help build people's confidence? All the excuses in the world do not change the reality: they hold the power, they shape the outcome - they accept no responsibility. If you're receiving all this funding, to run a social enterprise, then the least you can do is provide a service.

And if the best you have to offer is pop psychology over tea and biscuits, offered to people with complex and long standing mental health difficulties, I would argue you are not just irresponsible you are downright dangerous. These issues are not fixed with a simple "pull your socks up lad" or a "smile and the world smiles with you", and especially not "the colour purple means you are creative!". This sort of world view is utter ignorance, it isn't even fair to call it mental health, it's just spurious American Self Help Guru bollocks of the worst kind. It is self aggrandising and at best a huge waste of money.

But no matter whether I have the right of it or not, they have the power. They can just say "we can't help you then" and I'm the one left out in the cold with nowhere else to turn. This doesn't exactly help build self confidence.

Same Old Bullshit

Since last Summer, as I've mentioned a few times, I've been 'working' with another social enterprise, this one is called Team North Somerset. I didn't mention them before because, fuck it I am now. I don't know what else to call these sorts of organisations but social enterprises, they aren't strictly speaking charities, as far as I can tell, but they are not government agencies, like the DWP.

I say have been working; that should probably be past tense because this relationship looks like it's going to go the same way as my experience with all the rest - including the professional liars at the Salvation Army on the Work Programme back in the day.

Of course they will say it's all my fault - that I'm not engaging - but it's just the same old victim blaming narrative and an easy excuse to get rid of someone that isn't giving them the results they need for funding, or whatever. In this case they have lottery funding so that shouldn't - according to the impression I was given - be an issue. But these people are all fundamentally dishonest: they pretend to be your friend and then walk away.

I'm sick of dealing with people like that in my life, I find it incredibly difficulty to process and it's fundamentally disappointing not to be able to make concrete and lasting relationships. But they don't care.

So what happened?

Well, it's been two weeks since I was last told by my adviser, who had otherwise seemed quite nice and accepting of my position, issues and feelings on various topics, that she wanted to 'catch up'. Great, I thought. Then I hear nothing for ages. This is not the first time, by the way. I only hear from them when I go into their office to get bus fare refunded (guess that won't be happening anymore) and visit the creative writing class they paid (£5 - hardly Big Lottery Pounds!) for that I wanted to do (guess that won't be happening anymore).

Last time we met was at the start of the year - a meeting again I had to prompt. She asked me how I was and I told her that I was struggling. She hadn't seen me before suggesting I meet with the colour therapist. I told her how that went, which is to say I found it a complete waste of time. What do they expect - colour fucking therapy? Seriously? These people have no understanding of mental health if they think looking at a purple sunset or wearing a green coat is going to make any difference.

Anyway we discussed a few things: she agreed that bus fare is a problem and that she would ask about getting a monthly ticket (at least one). I told her about my interest in music and she said she'd go away and look into that, and she also mentioned something about writing - possibly journalism - that I can't fully recall that she was also going to bone up on. Ok, sounds great. She also seemed to accept my position on their wellbeing (including colour therapy) programme. To reiterate: I'm not interested in sitting in a group of three discussing magic thinking and pop psychology. I am not here to be victim blamed or sold all the usual 'think positive!' crap that doesn't change your life, doesn't change the fundamental problems in our system, and only leaves you feeling negative that nothing has changed!

But it appears not.

I emailed her on Monday to find out what was happening. She got back to me this morning with a polite ultimatum. Apparently she is 'struggling' to help and that, if I don't agree to do these wellbeing/colour therapy courses they are going to take their toys (which is to say financial support) and walk away. This would also, at this critical time (as I'm still due a WCA), support in applying for and dealing with Universal Credit, if it transpires I'm no longer able to claim ESA.

This is what she said:

"My expectations will be for you to attend the sessions here with...and... if you wish to continue. That would be to attend two sessions each week.  I fully understand if you feel this is not what you want and if you wish to exit the programme that’s ok and you can still engage in courses that are run by the Carlton Centre."

So we go from a position of mutual understanding and of respecting my feelings to giving up on the things you were going to look into, abandon me to the vagaries of the DWP and walk the fuck away.

No, I don't wish to exit the programme, nor have I ever said that I did. I do think that it doesn't have much to offer (except providing computers to look up volunteer work, of which there isn't much that's worthwhile - but they don't look into anything on their end either, despite all the Big Lottery Pounds they have been given).

This is how it works folks. You are dealing with people that simply do not understand or appreciate how difficult it is for folks with mental health, social isolation, and general difficulties to actually do something. To wit (she goes on to say):

"Please don’t take this as a negative, but as I said I feel that this may not be the right project at the moment for you. 

I have asked you on several occasions on how I can help you and I have had nothing to really work on."

But this is a lie, we agreed on at least 3 things, I have mentioned them above, she could look into and hasn't. So what does that say?

Don't take our rejection and abandonment of you, at a difficult time when you are struggling with depression and anxiety, as a negative though! When we first met she even told me she personally knew the DWP Work Psychologist (the one that claimed she could perform an Aspergers diagnosis test, but lied). So I had asked the adviser to speak with her about this situation. Of course you can guess where taht went.

Unfortunately while it may not 100% be the right project, the reality is, thanks to our shit government and shit system, it is the ONLY project. I was told at the outset that this organisation was partnered with a group, based in Bristol, called WECIL who are funded by the same source and thus were partners. That turned out to be bollocks, funding stops at the regional border and they, WECIL, offer very little outside of Bristol. A fact they reminded me off when I emailed them last week. They were supposed to have put me on their mailing list but I hadn't heard anything.

This is the reality of support. If you don't live in the right place, your options are seriously limited. If you deal with someone they will claim to have a range of knowledge experience and/or contacts that they don't have. Ultimately this will come back around and bite you on the ass because it will mean that they will say "we are struggling to help you" and you will get the blame - i.e. they will shake your hand and wave bye bye.


So it seems I will have to attend, not one, but both of these courses in order to continue receiving the meagre, but useful, help that exists. This could be crucial if I have to claim UC - but then equally they could be fucking useless there as well. At the very least I have something.

The price of support is to attend a colour therapy weekly session that I have no interest in that I know is not scientifically valid support and is just faddish nonsense. Look if colours make you feel good, great, and if this idea interests you, great. I'm not knocking that. But do not tell me it is going to change the reality of the life I lead nor the system I live in. Purple (the colour of creativity apparently - whatever that means, she couldn't tell me) clothing isn't something I can afford nor want to.

It also means attenting the weekly wellbeing session (not either, both ffs!) as well, where I will be told about positive thinking and goal setting and all this drivel I've heard before. All of which assumes I don't try and do things, don't have goals, etc. I've seen the curriculum, it includes topics like "what makes you feel good"?!? I don't even know if I want to be compelled to discuss that. Isn't that a personal matter; moreover doesn't it change depending on the circumstances. Like music, what I enjoy one moment changes to the next. But that's too nuanced for this. The goal of which will be to offer a simplistic and glib response ("I like a nice sunset") so you can be told to experience more of it ("well, go and watch a sunset and your life will transform"). I didn't sign up for Paul McKenna new age bullshit. I signed up for credible support which is supposed to have funding. Things like bus fares and benefits advice help me. Not the colour fucking purple! I'm not Prince!

Addendum (clever word for 'I forgot to include this at first'): I'm not sorry for spelling errors, piss poor grammar, or a rambling prose here. I needed to get this off my chest. I'm fucking tired of these organisations.