Friday 30 December 2016

Is It Misanthropic to Tweak the Truth?

Image by picturequote.com
Lying evokes different responses in different people, and most recognise that occasionally a “white lie” can oil the social wheels, save someone from hurt feelings or protect personal privacy. As stated by an anonymous thinker from the past, lying can be,

“An abomination unto the Lord, but a very present help in time of troubles.”

This is not the same as lying to benefit yourself financially, or even worse, lying so that you may falsely impress others or even discredit another person, maybe due to rivalry or a grudge. At the other extreme is a statement by Gore Vidal:

“He will lie, even when it is inconvenient: the sign of the true artist.”

Poet, Adrienne Rich, wrote a pamphlet "Woman and Honor: Notes on Lying." It addresses, primarily, the devastating effects on relationships of lying. There are, of course, those lies of omission.

“Lying is done with words, and also with silence,” says Rich.

Such ruses include pretending to be doing something else rather than be drawn into a subject that makes the “liar by omission” uncomfortable. Another way is to bounce the question back. For example, if one partner enquires, “How do you feel?,” the other responds with “How do you feel?.” This ensures she finds out what she wants to know, but without giving too much away.

The life-lie: self-preservation or protection

Easily justified is the lie told to maintain privacy or preserve information that belongs to us alone. Rich says that such a choice of response may well be justified, “but we ought to think about the full meaning and consequences of such language.” Henrik Ibsen, in The Wild Duck (1884), may have been referring to just such little life-preserving white lies when he said,

“Take the life-lie away from the average man and straight away you take away his happiness.”

Lying has always been an essential aid to self-protection. Societies, especially during times of war, lie, possibly to mislead an enemy. Moralists may condemn, but lying can have a high survival value. Yet, many people lie at inappropriate times – for example, as a defensive mechanism when they are not actually under threat and when it would be more mature simply to say, “I got it wrong that time.”

The pain of betrayal

“To discover that one has been lied to in a personal relationship, however, leads one to feel a little crazy,” says Rich. It is true as Rich says, that often, when we lie to others, we first lie to ourselves.

One of her examples is when one might say, “I didn’t want to cause pain.” As the poet points out, “What she really did not want is to have to deal with the other’s pain. The lie is a shortcut through another’s personality.”

So, are some forms of lying more acceptable than others? Does it depend upon our reasons for lying, or even on the actual consequences of being truthful? After all, lying for self-preservation and the protection of those we love is not the same as lying out of vanity or weakness of character. On the other hand, consider how knights of former centuries would gather to joust as practice for the harsh realities of battle. Then consider – how would we possibly be able to lie convincingly when it truly mattered, without some prior practice when it didn’t?

Quotations about lying:


“It is well said in the old proverb, “A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.” C.H. Spurgeon, Gems from Spurgeon (1859)

“There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it.” Wlilliam James, Varieties of Religious Experience (1902)

“The best liar is he who makes the smallest amount of lying go the longest way.” Samuel Butler, The Way of All Flesh (1903)

“Have you heard of the terrible family They, / And the dreadful venomous things They say? / Why, half of the gossip under the sun, / If you trace it back, you will find begun / In that wretched House of They.” Ella Wheeler Wilcox (1855-1919.)

“His very frankness is a falsity. In fact, it seems falser than his insincerity.” Short story writer, Katherine Mansfield, (1888-1923) on her husband, John Middleton Murray.
.
“If you do not tell the truth about yourself you cannot tell it about other people.” Virginia Woolf, novelist and feminist (1882-1941)

Sources:
Women and Honor: Notes on Lying, Adrienne Rich, Only Women, 1987 (4th printing.)
The Oxford Companion to the Mind, Ed: Richard L. Gregory, Oxford University Press, 1987.


Wednesday 28 December 2016

Mrs.Pharamaceutical Jobsworth

Standard Notice to Protect Staff

I'm in a pretty upbeat mood today, the sun is shining and later I'm going for lunch and to the cinema. So I don't really feel much like slagging anyone off, either in formal philosophical mode or even petty digs.  Except, I remembered how mad I was around a month ago when I went to the doc's and had to collect my prescription. This is another classic Jobsworth moment and another black mark against human nature.

My prescription is never ready on time. This has been the case for the two years I have been here. The pharmacy next door to the doc's is a Lloyds and quite small so it's probably somewhat oversubscribed. I am always patient but irritated that every two months I must expect three days without my small but essential amount of medication.

My prescription wasn't there but that's what I expected.

The counter at Lloyds is quite high and stacked with with products; there is just a short reception counter in the corner. Between that and the high counter is a space for staff to move from office to shop and back again.

So the woman takes my prescription, passes it to a member of staff who then goes to her laptop, balanced precariously on top and with the lid up. All I can see is her forehead.

Like many people my age I am a little hard-of-hearing. I hasten to add this does not mean unintelligent. I don't need people to shout at me. (Volume isn't the problem.) Nor do they need to speak very slowly. It's my hearing that's faulty, not my brain!

I can't hear her speaking to me. I slip into the little gap between counter and front desk to try to hear her and ask her what the problem is and when my medication will be available. Another staff member comes along and I step outside to make room for her to pass.

The woman on the computer is taking a long time. I still can't hear her. The sound is blocked by the lid of the computer and because I can't see her, I am unable to lipread. I go to the gap again, anxiously trying to find out what I have to do, how long I must wait. The manageress says, "Would you move back into the shop please."  (It's not a question but a command, which is why I haven't put a question mark.)

I explain I am just trying to sort out my prescription, but I withdraw back into the shop area and out of earshot. The woman behind the computer starts talking at me. I can't understand her. I ask her to repeat herself.

She should come into the shop to speak to me face to face, but she's not going to. So I ask her to repeat herself several times, and so she shouts.

I am still not sure what she said, but I give up.

I took the bus into the village and asked Boots the Chemist if they would take over my prescription. The woman serving was so very nice after the Lloyds woman. She didn't hide behind a counter, didn't make me feel in the way, explained the procedure, told me how to change my prescription routine. I wasn't rushed because there was a queue behind me.

I wish I'd walked out on Lloyds two years ago. Ironically enough they have a notice on their wall asking patients not to be rude to their staff.

That should work both ways, don't you think?








Tuesday 27 December 2016

Do You Have a Right to Your Superiority Complex? You Should Think Again!


Image: Courtesy of pdpics.com


In 1904, a Danish philologist, Otto Jesperson (1860-1943) wrote the following passage:
'There is one expression that continually comes to mind whenever I think of the English language and compare it with others; it seems to be positively and expressly masculine, it is the language of a grown-up man and has very little childish or feminine about it...'
Ouch!  What a cunning slur delivered as though it were a piece of carefully thought-out logic.
What biological and cultural issues influence gender? What exactly is gender? The gender feminists would insist that human beings are born 'blank slates' and that the gendering of the human baby has more to do with cultural bias than nature.
The well-known words of Simone de Beauvoir are as follows: 'One is not born but rather becomes a woman.' 
Simone de Beauvoir is saying that there is no innate structure to the brain that defines it as male or female. Women are not made up of specifically female qualities, and concepts of femininity are entirely socially constructed rather than determined biologically.

Steven Pinker on Gender Discrimination

The fact remains that the human being's innate ability to learn suggests that the brain cannot be a blank slate at birth. Culture arises from human desire, and separate cultures arise out of conflicting human desires. 

'Our minds are composed of intricate neural circuits for thinking, feeling and learning, rather than blank slates, amorphous blobs or inscrutable ghosts,' says Pinker.


People can be Different but Equal  

Difference does not necessarily call for a superior/inferior binary opposition. Clearly, people can be different but equal. At first, Simone de Beauvoir claimed she was not actually a feminist, but a socialist who believed that women's oppression should end. (Later, she changed her mind and joined the Women's Liberation Movement.)
Steven Pinker goes even further, strongly opposing the proposition that issues of superiority/inferiority are valid reasons for favouring the behaviour of one group over another. Such differences, in his view, should never be used to support race and gender prejudice. Pinker's stance is that to take a specific trait exhibited by a certain group, gender or race, and then to say this is the only correct behaviour, is clearly illogical.

Discrimination Leads to Social Darwinism

It is morally suspect, says Pinker, to discriminate or to punish people for possessing traits over which they have no control. Such behaviour leads to social Darwinism and the belief that rich and poor (and men and women) deserve their status.
Pinker also refers to the concept of 'Hume's guillotine', which is the argument that no matter how convincingly you show that something is true, it never follows logically that it ought to be true. A conduct may be successful, but that does not make it good. It is illogical to prize male language and the patriarchal literary canon over female language and writing. 
'The point is not that group differences may never be used as a basis for discrimination. The point is that they do not have to be used that way, and sometimes we can decide on moral grounds that they must not be used that way.'
Sources:
Growth and Structure of the English Language, Otto Jesperson, University of Chicago Press, 1938.
The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir, Trans: H.M. Parshley, Gallimard, Paris, 1949.
The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker, BCA, London, NY. Sidney, Toronto, 2002.


Wednesday 21 December 2016

Noisy Neighbour - A Living Hell


Conversions carried out before July 2003 are the worst culprits
Photo copyright Janet Cameron
The current requirement for resistance to the passage of sound under the Building Regulations came into force on 1 July 2003,” which goes on to explain the precise details for pre-completion sound-testing. This has come into force too late for some residents who live in flats cheaply converted from old family houses, pre-2003.
It’s easy to bully old ladies,” remarks one senior citizen, driven mad by the night-time running of domestic appliances in the flat above her. The kitchen of the above flat is located precisely above Daisy’s bedroom. Although former tenants have co-operated with the “quiet hours” ruling of 11.00pm to 7.00am, this particular tenant, a single mother, will not conform.
The Noisy Neighbour Works the System
In the beginning I approached her in a non-threatening way and she responded well, but it didn’t make any difference to her behaviour. One night I ran up her steps and hammered the door with my fists, but she didn’t answer. I put a note through her letterbox; it wasn't aggressive, but just said how ill and tired I was. Then I went for a long walk in the dark to keep myself steady. Next day, she retaliated with a note saying I was “nuts.” The landlord emailed saying she was a perfectly nice person and how could I have allowed the situation to get so bad?"
Daisy’s noise nightmare has continued for about seven months. Realising that the landlord and managing agents either disbelieved her or were not interested, Daisy contacted the local Noise Abatement department at the Council offices. On 28 September, 2010, they sent Daisy a “diary” to fill in, detailing the times of disturbance for the following two weeks, and emphasising: "...the completion of the diary sheet is crucial in the event of you making further complaints." However, the noisy neighbour was also informed of the procedure. “So she stopped, just for those two weeks,” says Daisy, “and I couldn’t send in the form. As soon as the time was up, the noise started again.”
If the diary had been completed and the tenant had not co-operated, the next step would be for the local authority to install sound equipment for two weeks, but again, the noisy neighbour would also be alerted. “Realising I was in a no-win situation, I started hassling the landlord a bit more. As a result, the managing agent paid her several visits and I thought, that’s good, he’s sorting it out. But no such luck. His frequent visits had no effect on the night-time washing."
Supporting Evidence of Noise Disturbance
At last - someone else complained. A problem with proving noise disturbance is in obtaining supporting evidence. No one had complained before because no other resident heard machines running in the early hours. The two flats in question are at the front of the building, while the top flat is empty and rear flats are protected from the din by distance. It was only when the tenant began using her vacuum cleaner at unsocial times at the back of her flat that the second complaint was lodged. This, thankfully, gave credibility to Daisy’s allegations.
When a plumber came into Daisy’s flat as a result of a leak from the washing machine in the above flat (which wasn’t fixed until the flow of water streamed through the ceiling rose onto her bed, and had to be caught in a bucket) that the full reality of the situation was appreciated. “Same thing,” says Daisy. “I’d sent photos of the stain on my ceiling to her landlord and the managing agents, then more photos when it got even wetter.”
While fixing the broken connection, the plumber also found that the washing machine was unbalanced, with the front raised by floor tiles and the back dropping low onto the wooden floor. Clearly, the level of noise was unacceptable even during daytime hours.
The woman must have had a stern warning, because for several weeks, through late autumn, the house was blissfully quiet. Daisy’s natural sleep rhythms had been severely disturbed and she still found it difficult to fall asleep, but gradually, she got back into a routine.
No Quality of Life or Health
It was too good to last,” says Daisy. “It all started again, just before Christmas. I sent emails to everyone at 4.30 in the morning. The equipment had been going all night – I think this woman has OCD.” Next morning, Daisy suddenly heard hysterical screaming and a torrent of four-letter words. She guessed the phone call from the managing agent had just been received. “I felt sorry for her baby girl; she sounded terrified and was screaming too. I stayed in all day, with my blinds down and double locked my doors. I was too scared to go out till it was dark. She had never threatened me physically, so I couldn’t accuse her of that. All the same, the screaming and the foul language were enough.”
The situation has settled down once again, but of course, there are no guarantees. Although Daisy's complaints are now taken seriously, it is difficult, even for a landlord, to evict a young mother with a baby. On the other hand, Daisy is an owner-occupier, and in order to move, she must first sell her flat. “I bought my own property so I would be independent,” she says. “I was happy before she arrived, but what’s the point of making my home here if the quality of my life and health depends on her being reasonable. In any case, no one in their right mind will buy my flat. I’m required by law to tell prospective purchasers about trouble with neighbours.”
So for the time being, Daisy just hopes and prays her noisy neighbour will move.
Note: The name has been changed for this article.

Tuesday 20 December 2016

The Birth of Social Darwinism - Steven Pinker Speaks Out

Charles Darwin never endorsed the horrible
theory named after him.

Two fallacies against Social Darwinism are presented by Steven Pinker. Darwin's theory of evolution was never intended to be used as a means to control.

Charles Darwin's Origin of Species (1859) was misinterpreted as a guide to moral progress rather than simply an explanation for how living organisms adapt to their environment, ie. the survival of the fittest. This gave rise to dangerous thinking - philosopher and social scientist, Herbert Spencer, (1820-1903) said that "do-gooders" would impede the progress of evolution if they tried to help those less fortunate than themselves.

This attitude came to be known as Social Darwinism. although Charles Darwin (1809-1882) refused to subscribe to it. It took only a very small shift in thinking from the first proposition to foreshadow a world-wide monumental outrage, the holocaust.
  1. Some people believed that Social Darwinism was a good thing, because it discouraged the less fit from "breeding." Francis Galton, cousin of Darwin, described this as "eugenics."
  2. Canada, the Scandinavian countries, thirty American states and Germany passed laws requring the involuntary sterilization of delinquents and the feeble-minded. (The Nazi's ideology which found other races inferior, was the basis for the murder of Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals.)
Charles Darwin Proposes Kinship Between Man and Animal

Darwin had deliberately avoided reference to man's place in nature in The Origin of Species. In later work, he emphasised the kinship beween man and other species, for example, in The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871) and The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872.) In these works, says the Cambridge Guide, anthropological, primate studies and sociology are combined, and strong objections were evoked to Darwin's suggestion that there could be "kinship" between man and animals.

Two Fallacies that Refute Social Darwinism

Steven Pinker says that the fact some people have inborn talent or great qualities does not make Social Darwinism acceptable. He posits two fallacies to refute this:
  1. The first fallacy is an all-or-none mentality. Pinker says that the likelihood inborn differences contribute to social status, doesn't mean that these are the only contributor. There could be others, such as inherited wealth, race and class prejudice, unequal opportunity, schooling, connections, culture, etc. To agree that talent is important doesn't mean that prejudice and unequal opportunity are not factors in the equation.
  2. Secondly, even if inherited talents lead to success, this doesn't imply the success is deserved morally. "Social Darwinism," says Pinker, "is based on the assumption that we can look to evolution to discover what is right - that "good" can be boiled down to "evolutionarily successful." This ties up with the "naturalistic fallacy" which is the belief that anything that happens in nature must be good.
Social Darwinism - a Lasting Legacy

It would be reasonable to assume that belief in the naturalistic fallacy, ie. that everything in nature must be good, would have been overcome by Social Darwinism, but it re-emerged during the Romantic period of the sixties and seventies.

In The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker says: "Many writers today casually equate behavioural genetics with eugenics, as if studying the genetic correlates of behaviour were the same as coercing people in their decisions about having children. Many equate evolutionary psychology with Social Darwinism, as if studying our evolutionary roots were the same as justifying the station of the poor."

The problem is, says Pinker, that these confusions don't arise purely from the illiterate, but from serious publications such as Scientific American, and Science.
Pinker finds it abhorrent that anyone believes that the rich and the poor both deserve their status or that we might abandon principles of justice. Certainly, this was the last thing on Darwin's mind. He was seeking the truth by pursuing the idea of evolution by natural selection to its full extent, thereby presenting the world with a brand new vision of existence. He was curious and honest and benevolent and his contributions to human understanding have laid the foundation for a rational anthopology.
Sources:
  • Pinker, Steven, The Blank Slate, BCA, 2002.
  • Huxley Julian and Kettlewell, H.B.D. Charles Darwin and his World, Book Club Associates by arangement with Thames and Hudson Ltgd. 1975.
  • Cambridge Guide to Literature in English, Ed. Ian Ousby, Multiple Contributors, Cambridge University Press, 1988, 1993.


Sunday 18 December 2016

A Letter to a Woman who Wrecked my Event

"I wish I'd stayed home."
Image copyright Janet Cameron
If people are mean, it's often said that it's because of their own pain, but sometimes it's hard not to feel that there are a few cases where people achieve nastiness without even trying. I suspect you are one of the latter. Why I will never know as I never did anything unkind to you.

I'm not at all sure why you picked on me. I did sense when I first met you, that you were hyper... well, hyper something or other. From the way you looked at me, I sensed we might not get on..

It's pretty tough making new friends when you move far away from your home territory, especially when you are "a woman of a certain age.". I was delighted to be invited to join a group of mature women who met up for regular days out, lunches, walks, etc. I formed great friendships, in spite of the fact you were there, and always seemed to be bristling with irritation. 

When it was my turn to organise a day out, I prepared by visiting a beautiful village in West Sussex (where King Canute proved a mere man, even a king, could not hold back the sea.)  I planned visits to local attractions and checked out eating places. Finally, I settled on a quaint, "olde world" pub where I booked a table for a few weeks' time.. 

I set about contacting everyone and organised car shares for the visit. Some people were on holiday so, in the end, we were only seven instead of eleven.

We met at the pub. I said hello to you, and used your name. You grunted an unsmiling "hello" and immediately turned away from me, having treated every other woman there to a welcoming hug, as is the custom in the group. No matter. I really don't mind if not everyone likes me. A person has to be philosophical about that.

We set off for our first visit to a Craft Centre. We found you were missing. You are known for having hissy fits, after all, so no one was surprised. When we went for a coffee, one of the party phoned you to see if you were okay. She turned to me, looking pale.

"She's at the pub. She says there is no table booked. They don't take table bookings - ever!."

"It's booked," I replied. "I booked it weeks ago. They confirmed it when we arrived."

My friend looked at me quizzically, "She's sure. She's checked. They says they do not accept bookings," she said. Already I was finding myself on the defensive as everyone looked worried.. 

We rushed our tea to get back to the pub and see what happened. As we entered, the publican said, "We couldn't let you have the inside table. You are in the garden."

I soon found out why we had lost our inside table - because there you were, sitting on the one vacant table with "that look" on your face. "I had to stay here," you said. "to save the table." 

"The table was booked," I told you. "I did it personally, several weeks ago."

I don't actually remember what you said after that. I only know it was rude and dismissive and you flounced off, I only remember the feeling of injustice and rage that came over me and how hot and shaky I felt. I realised I was being judged, for pretending, and for, allegedly, bringing all these people miles into the countryside without even making sure we had a booking at this major tourist attraction.

Then someone went after you, and came back saying you would not be coming back. "This is crazy. It's all about nothing," I said. The others were kind and told me not to worry - they said they believed me. One woman explained you had personal problems.

Later, when the publican came over to our table with the bill, I tackled him. I pointed out I'd booked a table weeks ago, but that he had told one of our ladies that there wasn't a booking which had caused a misunderstanding. 

He acknowledged we had a booking.

"So, have the rules just changed?"

"Oh yes, we do take bookings. But we don't take them for outside areas or in the garden, only for inside the pub."

So that was why we had lost our indoor booking, because you had commandeered an outside table and sat there all the time we were exploring. As a result, they let our table go and we had to sit in the blistering hot sun for over an hour while having our meal. Not ideal.

Later, we went in our separate cars to meet up for another stop on the homeward run. Your driver phoned you to get you back to her car. I know the women who shared with you would have told you that you had misunderstood the pub's booking policy, and that I had done what I had promised..

If you had come along with us in the first place instead of throwing a wobbly, none of this would have happened anyway.That was the plan. A day out TOGETHER. But I guess it was more fun for you to try to find some fault with my chosen venue. 

Would I get an apology?

Not a chance. When we met at the next venue, you still ignored me. You greeted and goodbyed everyone around me, while pretending I wasn't there.

I know you have a lot of problems, which is why the others are so kind to you and let you get away with your nasty comments and behaviour.  But you don't have a monopoly on pain, and I am not sure your problems give you the right to hurt others. I put a lot of effort into my day out and by the time it ended, I felt sick and depressed.

I can easily see how people are punished, imprisoned, or even executed, for something they didn't do. Thank heavens this wasn't more serious than a disputed table booking and my upset feelings only lasted for a couple of days.

Saturday 17 December 2016

Property Management – The Hidden Agenda

Copyright Janet Cameron

If there's any situation more rife with disagreement, conflict and bad behaviour, it must surely be communal flat or apartment living. If you want to see the worst in any of your neighbours, share a roof with them! The chances are the lower flats won't want to pay towards fixing the roof, but they sure as hell will want you to deal with your ground floor rising damp. Neither of you will have a choice, but it's still an opportunity for a confrontation.
Flat or apartment living can be bogged down by misunderstanding and misinformation, sometimes leading to real injustice to some or all of the residents. This can be especially true of conversions, which are likely to have specific problems of maintenance and upkeep that don't always affect purpose-built blocks to the same degree. Another problem is that they are usually composed of smaller numbers of flats and do not enjoy the same professional expertise and control that, in purpose built blocks, can be taken for granted. This can cause serious discomfort, for example, with noisy or disruptive neighbours.
The directors of a building are likely to be composed of a disparate group of people, all with their own agendas. A combination of owners and landlords, all with different objectives and concerns, can produce a recipe for disaster. Throw in an incompetent managing agent and you have all the ingredients for discord and disappointment.
The ideal would be a group of people acting together efficiently for their mutual and equal advantage. Regrettably, the reality is often the reverse.
An Irresponsible Landlord
One case history involves a villa of six flats. The lower-ground floor flat at the rear of the property experienced rising damp problems. Three separate, independent surveys were carried out, each of them reaching the same conclusion, that the damp had been caused by the raising of the floor level in the flat’s small outside patio, as a result of heavy tiles having been laid. The landlord had also failed to maintain the property, to the degree that when the exterior was decorated, certain works could not be completed.
Other residents were outraged to receive an invoice from the managing agent for a contribution towards the rising damp work, a project that he personally had authorised, without reference to the residents. Since the defaulting landlord had also refused to pay his required contribution for recent, necessary exterior decorating, there were insufficient funds in the communal pot to meet this new charge, resulting in the invoices.
This seemed grossly unfair, since most residents were owners on limited incomes, while the defaulting landlord’s property was an investment.
The Managing Agent who Messed Up
The managing agent pointed out that the work had already been done and the contractor was waiting to be paid. Residents were annoyed that the agent had rashly agreed the communal fund would pay for the rising damp, despite the fact that the damning surveys had been carried out over a period of one year, and the problematic patio tiles had never been removed despite several requests.
The agent’s argument was that old houses generally suffered from damp. He was unable - or chose not to see - that if the damp was caused by an addition to the property that was irrelevant to the age of the building. Eventually, the residents had to pay up to reimburse the blameless contractor. Learning from this, a lower ceiling was set on the amount the managing agent could agree with an outside contractor without reference to the residents of the properties.
Payments were made “without prejudice” in the hope the defaulting landlord could be made to sell his property and repay his aggrieved co-directors who were, in effect, financing his investment.
It’s Not Just Accountants who Cook the Books
One landlord proposed a change of accountants. The accountancy firm appointed, he said, was overcharging, and had, one year, charged a sum of £900.00. His accountants could do the job for about half the amount. The managing agent did not dispute his proposals, either through lack of knowledge or indifference.
Other residents were unhappy about the idea of using this person’s accountants, as they were personal business associates, and could not be relied on to be impartial. Inquiries were made and they discovered that the current firm’s £900.00 annual charge was actually levied prior to the appointment of the managing agent, ie. before many duties, for example, secretarial and treasury, were passed over. In addition, the landlord had quoted his own accountancy firm’s estimate without VAT, but when stating the figures for the established firm, he included VAT, making the proposition sound even more attractive.
It was a matter for conjecture what he stood to gain: maybe he had a personal financial interest or would receive a better deal for his own accountancy requirements. Needless to say, the motion to change accountants was not agreed.
Don’t be Manipulated
Sometimes, agents or other directors may try to talk individually to parties who disagree with them about a current issue. This is always unwise. One resident tells how she felt she was being manipulated into feeling morally responsible for something she did not agree with. Another resident was accused of having an “attitude” by the agent. This kind of emotive manipulation must be avoided as far as possible. It is unfair and unprofessional.
To Avoid the Problems of Hidden Agendas:
  • Study the contract between owners/landlords and agency. Query anything that sounds as though it might present difficulties.
  • No one should be excluded from being invited to directors' meeting because they are awkward of unpleasant. Transparency is essential.
  • Insist that minutes are always taken at directors' meeting and circulated to all, including those unable to attend.
  • At meetings, if anyone says something you don't understand, ask for an explanation.
  • Don't take statements about financial issues on face value. Check it out for yourself.
Most important of all, don’t be afraid to defer judgement and refuse to allow yourself to be bullied. Important decisions need working through. “I want to think about this for a week or two,” is reasonable and allows you time to seek independent, professional advice.

The Leasehold Advisory Service can steer you in the right direction.


Thursday 15 December 2016

Buy One - Get One Free - it's Not What it Pretends to Be

Image copyright Janet Cameron


I live alone. It costs me more to feed myself than individual members of a couple or a family - and the reason is that it's no longer possible in the United Kingdom to buy economically in smaller quantities. Single and retired people are discriminated against in British supermarkets and eating places. And it's unjust.

"Buy one get one free" sometimes translates to "Buy one for £2.00 or buy two for £2.50."  Except, I can't eat all that in one sitting and I can't store much in my modest single person's freezer. Nor do I want to eat the same thing several days running so as not to waste it. (I'm retired and single, but I'm still human, and human beings like variety.)

Buy one get one free isn't really getting you a free one. It's just that two are offered at the same price as one and how do you know the extra cost isn't factored in by the retailer. It's a ploy, a clever play on words.  If you're part of a couple or a family, no doubt you can use up two quite easily. Not me. Again, I can't eat the lot at once, I can't store, and I don't want to have the same thing three days running.

The same with meals out. At certain off-peak times or on certain days, you can get two meals for the price of one. Sometimes it's one meal for the usual price of £4.50 and another meal, bought at the same time, for just £1.00 extra. 

So each person in a couple situation will be paying £2.75 ~ I will pay £4.50. How is this not discrimination?

Never mind all the bandying about of "free" and "extra for the same price."  In real terms it just means that single people are likely to be forking out a darn sight more to eat than the rest of society. Even popular Wetherspoon's, a chain I rarely complain about - finding them reasonably priced and consistent in quality of food and staff - offer these two for one deals. My individual curry is always a couple of pounds more expensive than the couple on the next table pay for theirs. 

The only time I can find this acceptable is when a meal is a speciality project and cooked in the kitchen from scratch and it is genuinely not viable to cook a single portion.

Those not in possession of a huge budget and an equally huge freezer, are paying over-the-odds for their weekly food bill. It's getting harder and harder to find single items or sensible portions, especially in the areas of meat and dairy, to suit the appetite and budget of single people.
That doesn't seem all that fair to me. I respond, as far as possible, by not buying anything on deal-type offers, but searching out better options by shopping around or buying frozen or tinned. 

Of course, the same thing happens when booking hotel rooms with single supplements rife across the board, but this seems less exploitative as obviously single occupancy is a good deal more expensive for the venue to provide. 

But this can hardly be the case for ready-meals heated up in the microwave.





Tuesday 13 December 2016

Is Vice Alien to Humanity? - Rousseau on Good, Evil and Weakness

Rousseau in 1753 by Maurice Quentin de La Tour

We are born weak and stupid and we have need of help and understanding. But - is wo/man intrinsically good in her/his nature.
("man" will be used to denote both genders for ease of quoting Rousseau.)
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712 – 1778) held the view that man is naturally good and that vice and error are alien to him and this creates a conflict between "nature" and "artifice" in his attitude to society, education and religion. According to Rousseau, nature is man's state before being influenced by outside forces. Yet, at the same time, he acknowledges: "If man is left... to his own notions and conduct, he would certainly turn out the most preposterous of human beings. The influence of prejudice, authority... would stifle nature in him and substitute nothing."  Rousseau, clearly, accepts the needs of human beings for outside intervention in order to develop their natural propensity for good. "We are born weak, we have need of help, we are born destitute... we have need of assistance; we are born stupid, we have need of understanding."
How Humans Deface and Confound 
Man needs to work with nature, not against it. Rousseau points out at the start of his treatise that man is discontented with anything in its natural state and further claims that everything degenerates in his hand... "he mutilates his dogs, his horses and his slaves; he defaces, he confounds."
These are the three categories within human beings, the correct balance enables them to develop naturally.
  • Education from nature itself, the limitations of which are outside of man's control.
  • Education of man, for example, what we are taught,
  • Experience of things, for example, the objects around us.
These three elements, according to Rousseau, should be consistent. Consciousness of sensation enables us to pursue or avoid them according to whether they are pleasing or disagreeable. This may result in enlightenment, but... "subject to the restraint of custom, judgements concerning pain or pleasure are more or less distorted by our opinions." So, again, Rousseau is pressing the point that outside influences, for example, society and custom, are responsible for deviations from natural, healthy development in humans and that this creates an appalling dilemma. Education should respect individuality rather than bow to social conventions.
Citizen or Man?
"Instead of educating a man for himself, he must be educated for others... we must chuse (sic) either to form the man or the citizen; for to do both at once is impossible."  Here Rousseau reinforces the value of reason, abhorring distortion and prejudice, asserting how difficult it is for man to be true to his inner nature and accommodate the demands of society, "...held in suspense... without being able to render ourselves consistent, and without ever being good for anything to ourselves or others."
Unnatural Nature and the Woman of Sparta
Yet, Rousseau has a strong belief that feeling is a component of faith, sometimes presenting "nature" in a way that is positively unnatural, yet calling it "noble". The woman of Sparta, having lost her five sons in a battle, cries, "...who asked you of my sons? - But we have gained the victory." In this way, Rousseau attempts to present an individual as part of a whole, therefore, as a true citizen, and an heroic mother, thus stretching credibility to its limits, since this is a most unlikely account of a natural, maternal reaction. This is a position that Rousseau accepts - that she has repressed her natural behaviour - and this is a real problem for his attempt to reconcile citizen and man. In other words, you either form the "citizen" or the "wo/man".  Further, a child must first be a man, before choosing a profession: "Nature has destined us to the offices of human life, antecedent to the destination of our parents."
Rouseau's thinking and his preoccupation with reason and human enlightenment led him to some similar conclusions to those of the French philosophes. He argues for what he sees as rational liberation, making objections to the ways in which babies are unnaturally swaddled so that they cannot move, or wet-nursed instead of being nursed by their natural mothers. On the other hand, he is not averse to encouraging stoical endurance and abhorring indulgence: "...when she makes an idol of the child... prevents every approach of pain or distress... This is the rule of nature."
Later, he becomes even more extreme in his claims: "Man is born to suffer in every stage of his existence... Happy are we, who in our infancy, know only physical evils... We lament the state of infants, whereas it is our own that is most to be lamented."  This seems to contradict earlier assertions about not swaddling children, and not keeping them from their natural mother's breast, but the point he makes is that the swaddling and wet-nursing are man-made evils, due to the caprices of women. "...such is the man made by our own caprices; that of nature is differently constituted."  So, it seems Rousseau believes that apparent evils of nature are for the best.
Evils that Spring from Weakness
Rousseau uses various examples to demonstrate the evils that spring from weakness, for instance, the quality of a mother's milk adjusts according to the age of the child, and it is only: "...as soon as ever we depart from the natural order of things, we find inconvenience in every attempt to do right."  He  believes that the education of man commences at birth and that experience is the forerunner of the precept. The child must be guided in order to facilitate its natural, good tendencies: "Prepare early for his enjoyment of liberty and the exercise of his natural abilities... unrestrained by artificial habits." Thus the child is left free to develop, but examples must be set. When children begin to observe objects: "... proper choices should be made in those which are presented to it." In this way, a good influence is exerted which does not interfere with the natural propensity of the child to strive for good. Sometimes, the influence is exerted passively, as in avoiding allowing the weakness of a child, in making demands, learning to practice tyranny, not giving in to their commands..."
Design versus Disorder
These ideas are compatible with the issues of religion and the argument from design, which Rousseau endorses. He has no time for the idea that matter organises itself by chance, and that disorder is the work of man.  "I believe, therefore, that the world is governed by a wise and powerful Will." By Rousseau's reasoning, the word "powerful" inspires good, since evil springs from weakness. Yet, "Many evils, such as the "apprehensions" and "miseries" engendered by medicine, are man-made and constitute an "outrage" to the laws of nature. Natural evils, like physical pain, have a useful function: pain alerts us to the need for a remedy."  So - nature may be harsh but it is ultimately beneficial."
Rousseau makes plain that man-made evil is separate from divine providence. "Enquire no longer, man is the author of evil; behold him in yourself. There exists no other evil in nature than what you either do or suffer... in the system of nature I see an established order which is never disturbed." There is a free choice to be made here and man may do good or evil.
Distrust of Revealed Religion
Natural religion, Rousseau, felt, had been tampered with and worship made too ceremonial. "Religion should be studied in the lives of men and in the book of nature." He made it clear, through his priestly voice, that he disapproved of, and found suspect, revealed religion.
In conclusion, Rousseau's concept of the word "nature" is that man is naturally good if exposed only to good influence and that his goodness is adversely affected only by external forces. There are contradictions in his attempts to reconcile nature with society because, while many of his arguments are sound, where he is guided by compassion, this compassion actually fails him where strong traditions influence him. "Man by nature is formed to suffer with patience." This is the traditional, stoical fortitude of Rousseau's era. There are other instances where he appears particularly cold-hearted, for example, in analysing his ideal student: "...he must have no disabilities" suggesting an elitism which is lacking in compassion in a piece of writing where compassion is held in most high regard. A further example is his argument that men and women are unequal in many respects.
Sources:
  • Rousseau, Jean-Jacques,  Ă‰mile: or, On Education Books I, II and IV. Originally Published in French in 1762. English Translation Nu Vision Publications, 2007.


Monday 12 December 2016

Mrs. Jobsworth at Asda


Image Public Domain

Everybody hates officious, rude sales staff. We all know the stores who invest heavily in staff recruitment and training, like Boots the Chemist, Sainsbury's and Tesco's Supermarkets, Marks & Spencer, etc. 

My irritation is with the supermarket, Asda. Of course, most of their staff would not behave like this, but this one did and in spite of the intervention of the Resolver organisation, a year later there has been no response from the supermarket. Resolver tell me Asda have a poor reputation for dealing with customer complaints.

A New Self-Service System?


I went into the cafe to get a cup and tea and a cake on 14 September sometime between 11.30am and noon. One person before me was ordering hot food, so I passed her and went to the till to pay for the cake I had collected and to ask for my hot drink. 

This is usual practice - you go to the till as soon as you have collected your purchases - everyone does this otherwise you would have a line of people just buying tea or cold food, waiting in a queue for several minutes while someone's breakfast, lunch or dinner is being cooked and served.  Many cafes have the payment till separate from the food counter to facilitate this, but the same principle has always been used at this store even though the till is not on a separate counter. Except on this occasion!

The customer behind me finished ordering her lunch then moved forward a little waiting for it to be cooked. I had collected a cake, so I passed her to ask for a mug of tea, and to pay and leave the line, as is usual.

The server came out and shouted to the woman at the cashier, "Serve that lady first," pointing the customer behind me. I explained that I knew that customer was waiting for food and that I wasn't jumping a queue as mine was ready to go. The other customer confirmed this and said I had collected my purchase and so I was entitled to pass her because now I was actually first. All the same the server and cashier made sure her bill was done first and I had to wait for her food to be cooked.

When she was presented with it, she was very annoyed on my behalf.  I thanked her for being fair and trying to tell the cashier that she was out of order.

Then the cashier said that now I could have my turn. (Patronising!)  In hindsight, I wish I had just left my food there and left but I took my lukewarm tea and cake and went and sat down in the eating area. However, I did make my displeasure known.

The other customer continued waiting while her food was cooked. I watched her from my table, and she finally got it just as I was finishing my tea and cake.

But Asda Doesn't Do Customer Service


Not a major thing, because I wasn't in a hurry, but that's not the point. It spoiled what should be a pleasant break. I felt upset at the treatment and it wasn't necessary. It was petty and rude. And stupid, if that's not too strong a word.

I wrote to Asda asking them to ensure all their staff knew how the kitchen should work; how every other self-serve system works. All I needed was a brief letter from them telling me that the staff had been checked. 

The alternative is that all customers wanting drinks or purchasers of cold food, must wait (while their tea or coffee gets cold) until every single person in front of them, waiting for their food to be cooked, has been served and paid their bill. Where does that happen?

So far, in spite of several interventions by Resolver, who have a project to try to make Asda culpable, I have heard nothing.

Has anyone else suffered similar experiences with a Mrs. Jobsworth (or Mr.) in supermarket cafes? Asda need to get their act together.

Thursday 8 December 2016

Abuse of Elderly People in Care

This was the situation in 2011 - now with the NHS sorely strapped for cash and limited resources for training staff and monitoring the quality of care, can we ever get back to the way we were? What human rights do vulnerable adults cared for at home enjoy.. Until 2014, none! A change in the law in April 2014 was a step in the right direction.

According to the report in the Independent's sister newspaper, i, an enquiry was launched in 2011 by the Equality and Human Rights Commission claiming that elderly people in Britain were vulnerable to abuse and neglect, even in their own homes. They are subject to cruelty, indifference and wrongdoing by carers whose duty it is to help with washing, eating and dressing in the patient's own home.
  • People were put to bed in the middle of the afternoon and left in soiled nightwear till morning.
  • People were strip washed, with no regard for their feelings or dignity.
  • Food was left out of reach.
  • Some were regularly robbed of their money
  • A woman was stuck on the toilet and shouted for help, but the carer refused. "Can't do that but I've made you a butty and I am going now."
  • A carer watched a 76-year-old woman suffering from terminal cancer struggling to carry her meal to the microwave. The carer said she couldn't do it "for health and safety reasons."
No Respect, No Dignity

"The trouble is the good carers are in demand - they are taken and someone else is sent. They don't read the care plans or pay attention - you are frightened to go out of the door because of what you find when you return."

Ann Reid's husband Jim died aged 84 in 2008, and in the last three and a half years of his life, a total of fifty-three carers passed through the couple's home. Ann said that while some were good, others were "absolutely appalling." Ann told of one occasion when Jim was sitting in the conservatory. He called out to the carer that he wanted to go to the toilet. Thinking they were alone, the carer told him to "shut up" because he was reading the paper. Fortunately, on this occasion, this callous response was overhead by a neighbour who reported it.

BBC1
News at Six featured an interview with an elderly lady, Rita, who complained of serious breaches to her human rights. Part of the trouble was that she seldom saw the same care worker every day, and that made her feel insecure. She described the patronising behaviour of some care workers, who would be talking on their mobile phones while "attending" to their patient. Rita kept insisting that she was an individual and a woman and that she didn't want to be patronised. "I am not a piece of meat," she said.

Care in Care Homes

Elderly people in care homes often fare no better. A personal friend told how distressed she was while visiting a friend with Alzheimer's in a local care home. She was shocked to encounter her friend in a communal area, being abused by another patient, also suffering from Alzheimer's. The man was lying across the old lady, his hand fumbling at her breast, and his mouth locked on hers. My friend called out to a two care workers, occupied in the adjoining kitchen.

"Oh, we just leave them alone," one said. "You can't separate them when they're like that." The carers flatly refused to intervene.

Care in Hospitals

In 2011, the Care-Quality Commission exposed lapses in the provision of basic care to the elderly in hospital. After one hundred visits, they declared the results "alarming." Yet because of a legal loophole, organisations that provide care at home are not subject to the Human Rights Act. The CQC are now demanding that this loophole should be addressed.

I have personally seen meals left at elderly patients' bedsides, since the nurses were too busy and there were no relatives available to help with feeding. I have heard the repeated pitiful cries of those needing a bedpan, but again, the nurses were all too busy. Mostly, it's not their fault - they really
are overworked and there is only so much one person can do.

Protection from Dehumanising Treatment

Alison Holt, BBC Social Affairs Correspondent said that part of the trouble was that the services were under pressure and underfunded. They provided minimal training. Regular inspection of care homes should be implemented.

Baroness Sally Greengross, Commissioner for the EHRC said it was essential that care services respected people's basic human rights. "This is not about burdensome red tape. It is about protecting people from the kind of dehumanising treatment we have uncovered."
Have We Moved On?
Until 2014, vulnerable people being "cared for" at home in the UK did not enjoy Human Rights protection from dehumanising or indifferent treatment. Part of the trouble is that elderly vulnerable people do not always understand what their rights are, or how to go about challenging them. Service providers and staff did not know where they stood if they objected to poor quality provision.
Then, In April, 2014, the law was changed. According to The Guardian:
"People receiving state-funded care in their own homes will now be given additional protection by the Human Rights Act, ministers have conceded following pressure from the Liberal Democrat side of the government.
An amendment to the care bill in the Lords will be tabled to make sure the Human Rights Act covers people receiving care in their own home, whether from the state or a private body under contract to the state. It will not apply to self-funded, privately provided care.
The announcement represents a U-turn and follows six months of campaigning by pressure groups for elderly people, as well as by the Liberal Democrats."

Most definitely a step in the right direction, although it's easy to imagine that progress might be challenged by the drastic shortfall in NHS funding we are currently experiencing in 2016. It's hard not to question where we go from here, now that state-funded provision is often unavailable as and when it is needed, and many people are still struggling at home when they should have access to 24 hour supervision.


Sources:

  • The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/24/uturn-human-rights-home-care
  • "Elderly failed in own homes by care workers, i, newspaper, London, 23 November 2011.
  • Six O'Clock News & Weather, BBC1, 23.11.2011.