After the Cup Trust – what next?

Cup TrustRevelations about the Cup Trust – a charity set up to raise millions of pounds for wealthy investors – have rightfully raised imperative questions about the UK tax and charity systems.

I sourced this story for the Times. From the moment I saw documents relating to the charity’s activities it was clear something was massively wrong. My first reaction was bewilderment over why no one else had questioned its behaviour.

It is apparent now that the Charity Commission and HM Revenue & Customs did try to “challenge” the Cup Trust. But in a letter to the Times, the Charity Commission’s chair William Shawcross says the body was powerless to stop the charity. “We were forced to conclude that it is legally a charity, which we were required by law to register,” said Shawcross.

I hope that over the next few weeks we will understand more about how it was possible for the Charity Commission to be in this position. When Shawcross is questioned by the Public Accounts Committee next month, I hope he will be asked what more he could have done, why his organisation did not do it, and what needs to change to ensure this cannot happen again. What confidence can we have in the commission, set up to “challenge inappropriate use of charitable status”, if the law allows such abuse to continue? It is an insult to every charity that employs people to ensure compliance with charity laws that the Cup Trust was able to exist.

There are so many ill elements in this picture. The Times also revealed that while the Cup Trust may be the biggest gift aid scam of its kind, it is by no means the only one. But policing charities behaviour has become harder as budgets and staffing levels at the Charity Commission and HM Revenue and Customs have been cut. Meanwhile, tax specialists at Britain’s wealthiest accountancy firms are being paid huge sums to find loopholes.

I hope exposing the Cup Trust has established the platform from which to raise these important questions. They should have been raised a long time ago.

There’s much more to young people than reality TV

A past event for the Respect? campaign

Earlier this month, Tory peer Lord Freud made some disparaging remarks about young people at the launch of a report by the Centre for Social Justice on young people and employment. His top line was that young people had been sold a ‘lie’ by reality TV shows that they could achieve success suddenly and without much effort. In his words: “We have stood by as they have been sold a lie. We have allowed reality television to make them an empty promise of overnight success. Saturday night talent shows make ten-second celebrities of ordinary people.”

I was asked to comment on Freud’s claims on BBC Radio 5 Live’s Tony Livesey show. We had a good debate about the role reality TV shows really have, and I was joined in the studio by a former big brother contestant who had gone back to his job after the competition and argued the experience wasn’t life-changing. But there were a few more points I wanted to raise. Here they are:

  • Young people get a hard time in the press. I used to run a campaign with young people for two national youth charities (YouthNet and the British Youth Council) who wanted to change the way the media portrays young people. Ironically, most of them agreed programs like X Factor were some of the few that showed young people in a positive light. These shows aren’t ‘cheap, temporary celebrity’ – it’s not easy to get up week after week and perform in front of thousands of people. These contestants work really hard and the show teaches that only the very best succeed. It shows that you have to be really exceptional to make it. (There is a good blog on this by Fiona Bawdon, a fellow committee member on Women in Journalism).
  • Fascination with celebrity is nothing new. Most people have wanted to be silver-screen actors or rock stars in their youth. Young people these days are expressing the same desire, but it doesn’t mean they don’t have other professions in mind. How many people wanted to be astronauts in the 1960s and 1970s? How realistic was that? And was it because they were desperate to study astrophysics?
  • Freud is tarring all young people with the same brush. We never talk about ‘adults’ as if they were all exactly the same, so why do we refer to young people like this. There probably are some young people who might sit around waiting for something to happen, but if anything, the current climate of competition in the job market and entry into university, means they’re working harder than ever. Young people can’t expect to get anywhere with just qualifications any more – they have to have work experience, voluntary experience, have sat on committees and probably written blogs or can show they are tech savvy in ways most adults never had to at their age. They can’t afford to have the bad attitude of which Freud speaks.
  • Freud also implies that all young people are on benefits, which reveals he needs to get out and meet some real young people. I’ve done a lot of work with young people who are really struggling to find work and the last thing they want is to be on benefits – they feel ashamed and want to use the skills they’ve worked hard to achieve.
  • Why is he blaming the young people for not being in work – hasn’t he noticed we’re going through the worst recession since WWII? Employers aren’t interested in hiring first-time job seekers when they can now get people with more working years behind them to work for less.

And there’s plenty of research to back up my argument. This report published by the Jack Petchey Foundation on the day I spoke on the radio is just one that shows Freud’s comments were ill-informed and overly extreme.

And these points aside, I also want to flag up this on the London Review of Books blog, which gives a more political view of X Factor and argues that it distracts people from real democracy. Now I think there would be far more value in Freud taking up this suggestion than laying into young people.

Gypsies and Travellers – the cuts you don’t hear about

The traditional 'tin can' homes of Gypsies and Travllers

This week I attended a meeting about the Big Society Network, and for the first time in my two years working for a youth charity, a representative of the Gypsy community was in the room.

Joseph Jones is the Chair of the Gypsy Council and his comments about recent changes made by the Government, much to the detriment of the Gypsy and Traveller communities, really startled me.

Jones described life under a Labour government as one with improving prospects. “It was good under Labour,” he said. “We worked together and we felt like we had some control. Now, he has undone it all.” The ‘he’ referred to is Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who in June announced an incentive scheme that would allow local authorities to take a harder line on Gypsies and Travellers.

In fact, money that Labour allocated for the development of Gypsy and Traveller sites has been slashed by £30 million. The discontinuation of regional special strategies also means local authorities will no longer be required to provide the same number of pitches for such peripatetic communities.

There are around 3,000 Gypsies and Travellers in Britain, now recognised as an ethnic minority since the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000. As many as 20% of British Gypsy caravans are on unauthorised land, many without access to water, toilets and schooling (government survey, 2002). Around 75% of gypsies currently lack literacy skills and an Ofsted report from 1999 stated that Gypsy Traveller pupils are the most at risk in the education system.

With eviction costs for local authorities totalling around £18 million per year, authorised sites are a more cost effective way of supporting Gypsies and Travellers into the future. The Labour government made £97 million available for the development of such sites between 2008 and 2011. A stable environment also eases the cost of the many secondary problems that result from the Traveller lifestyle, such a social exclusion, children without qualifications and little access to health services.

But the Government’s green paper outlines changes that would give local authorities stronger powers to evict Gypsies and Travellers and block planning applications for authorized dwellings.

Jones was clearly bitter about these announcements and it was ironic that he made his comments in a meeting room in the Department of Communities and Local Government. Unfortunately for him, no one present was responsible for policy matters.

“We just want to be part of society,” he stated. “We only need one square mile – that’s all you’d need to house all the Gypsies.”

I really feel sorry for this community, which has such a negative reputation among many UK voters. It seems an easy, popular win for the government – but at what cost?

Sources:

Gypsy Roma Traveller Leeds

Guardian

Inside Housing

Travellers’ Times

How will the Big Society work?

Almost a month after the elections, those of us working in the third sector are still unsure exactly how David Cameron’s Big Society will work. In his speech delivered on 31 March, Cameron spoke idealistically about a “neighbourhood army” of professionals that would tackle problems. But as yet, we have received no new instructions on how to proceed. These are a few of my thoughts at this junction about what the Big Society might mean for the third sector.

There is a chasm between Cameron’s ideas and the reality – and that chasm is finances. As the new government keeps telling us, it has inherited empty coffers, so instead it plans to raise the money through a cooperative. According to the Big Society Network website, Lord Nat Wei and Paul Twivy are “frustrated citizens” who want to build a network of commercial and non-commercial bodies to offer security to organisations. But the specifics of this offer are yet to be explained – are they fiscal or in kind? So while there is big talk, there are no transparent offerings coming from a government that prides itself on transparency. Where, exactly, will the money come from and how will the third sector deliver Cameron’s idealistic ends?

Cameron hasn’t spelt out how power will be devolved down responsibly. He has said the Big Society will be “ambitious” but also “modest”. But everyone in the voluntary sector knows ambitions plans cannot be realised through modest spending. The government will cut money currently funding sports, arts and culture, and will put it in the hands of locals who deliver grass-roots level sports, arts and cultural services. But will these local organisations be able to manage this money? Perhaps the new government has too much certainty in the abilities of the range of organisations that constitute the third sector: the giant charities that turn over millions of pounds per year, the smaller charities that are mostly run by volunteers, and the satellite organisations that vary in quality from branch to branch.

It is likely some organisations will respond badly when their funding is no longer directed by a government department. Fundraising teams have developed to serve this system, and a shake up at the top could upset the fine balance most charities achieve to survive on tight budgets. Moreover, without government direction, organisations may find policy and decision-making tougher, as well as experiencing loss of kudos without a government name endorsing their work. By bypassing “the bureaucrats” and giving power “straight to local people”, charities may be unable to cope. Forced to deliver services without support, they could ultimately disappear.

But alternatively, this Big Society could just be a brand or campaign. Perhaps we will carry on working as before, but under a new title – after all, with every new government comes new linguistics. If that is all this is, then it plays to one of the third sector’s strengths that it already enables and encourages “people to come together to solve their problems and make life better,” as Cameron envisages. But at the end of every good problem-solving idea is a fundraising bid – and funding is something the Big Society cannot afford to devolve.

Wasted – a book everyone must read

I recently read Wasted by Mark Johnson (2007), a shocking but vital text and one of the most affecting books ever written. It is an autobiographical piece about Johnson’s childhood and early years, which were marred by domestic abuse, alcoholism, drug abuse, crime and homelessness. It is honest and crucial, and an account every person should read. No matter what age or background – the issues in this book affect us all.

Adults should read this book so that attitudes to the some 100,000 homeless people on our streets can change*. Since reading Wasted, I cannot look at a homeless person in the same way. I have volunteered at homeless shelters before as part of Crisis Christmas, so I have already heard a lot about what life on the streets is like, but Johnson’s book enforces that people should not stare and judge, but communicate an understand. Volunteering at a Crisis shelter, I was taken aback when one of the service users told me: “I’ve seen poor go to rich and rich go to poor.” I realised that none of us are far from the pavements, and the moment when Johnson realises he’s homeless is strikingly simple and possible:

“I know I’m not going back anywhere because there’s no where to go…I remember all the people who have shown me kindness or offered accommodation. Their doors are all closed now. I’ve abused their trust. I’ve taken all they can give me and more. I’ve been on this railway all my life and this is the end of the line…I’m homeless. I am sick with fear. I’m homeless.”

We all think we would never get to the end of the line – that there will always be someone that will put up with us. But we are all capable of losing everything. I think of that every time I pass a homeless person now. We should never look down at them.

Equally, Johnson’s account should make us ashamed of the way we refer to drug addicts. I don’t understand why it’s fine to blame ‘junkies’, when these days alcoholics are usually pitied. No one laughed at Charles Kennedy, for example. No one blamed him for his problems. But I suppose it’s because if you’re taking drugs you’re meant to be enjoying yourself. How Johnson describes drug use and abuse couldn’t be further from the truth. It’s the first time I’ve read a book that gives such graphic detail of the pain and suffering caused by drugs. Why isn’t this shown on television? Why, when drug addiction does feature on the average television drama, isn’t it portrayed in such pitiable clarity?

The hardest part of the book for me was exactly this – the addiction that Johnson could not escape, no matter how much shame and resentment he felt towards himself. He describes the birth of his son, Jack, and how he wants to treat him entirely unlike the way his abusive father treated him. But the drugs mean it is out of his control:

“It’s too much. I can’t stand it. I can’t suffer this attention, demanding love, wanting, asking, needing. It hurts too much. It hurts because I can’t give him anything. My own needs are too great. My own needs consume me.”

At this point in the book, I had to stop reading for some weeks. I found his trapped state at this point too much to accept. Not being able to care or love another being more than your dependency is purely tragic. So why doesn’t society respond in the way we usually respond, and help victims such as Johnson? Of course, we try, but as Johnson argues often in his regular columns in the Guardian Society, we don’t do it the right way. Johnson wasn’t helped until he met people who tried to understand the reasons for his behaviour. And often we’re too scared or lazy to look.

I don’t know if this book would ever get through the censors, but it would make a brilliant edition to the curriculum. Warning young people about the dangers of addiction by reading Johnson’s organic account would be much more effective than teaching about chemicals or trying to deter with shock stories, such as the recent Methadrone scares. Johnson’s journey is one people can relate to – how one event can lead to another, and how easy situations can escalate. It’s helpful to have another person’s worst-case experience in mind when you’re young and faced with decisions to have an idea of where you don’t want to end up.

The beginning of the book also describes in detail the abuse Johnson suffered from his father, bullies and the lack of love his mother provided. He was never asked the right questions or encouraged to appreciate what was hurting him, so his unhappiness manifested in more violent forms. But if school children read Wasted, they might see themselves in some of the moments and identify where they are being treated unfairly. This book could help young people speak up and be open when things are going wrong.

Equally, adults reading this book should learn some perspective: there is no such thing as an ‘evil’ child. Yes, many children behave badly, but as Johnson shows, the conditions under which he was living forced him to behave in a certain manner. Once he was removed from this stress and was as his neighbours painting or working up in trees, his anger left him. I want people to remember that when such sad cases as the Edlington brothers occur. We are all capable of such behaviour if manipulated in the right way.

The relief of getting to the end of Wasted and seeing Johnson survive and thrive moved me to tears. I cried for him and all the others on the same journey, who have to fight so hard simply to live a manageable life. It was such a shock to discover Johnson’s age at the end of the book. Only in his thirties, his account is the story of a long life and should end with an old man. But instead, there is a true rebirth, and Johnson has now dedicated his life to helping others with similar situations. His body has been ravaged – but he rises strong and healthy.

The actions in Wasted truly speak for themselves and have no agenda, other than to tell the truth. We really owe Johnson a huge debt of thanks for teaching us his lesson.

Mark Johnson’s website

*Figure from 2007, Crisis

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.