Back again, and an explanation

A little delay in getting these ramblings back on-line as I have been in hospital. In fact a few people have suggested that I should restart the blog, and not submit to what is blatant censorship which has resulted in much of the blog being deleted by other persons than myself.

To explain: on the morning of the 5th of February I was asked by Greg Brown of Thrive for the password etc. into the blog because – as always – he could not perform such a simple task. I said that I would be over within half an hour to help him, and I was. He was there with someone who calls himself Moggsy – I don't know his real name. It appeared that they wanted to put something into it, so I opened the blog up – an act of extreme simplicity. I then returned to what I had been doing.

Later that evening I opened the blog to find what had been placed in it to find instead that whole chunks as created by myself had been removed – effectively censored. Apparently it was too left wing, and the blog needed more balance. That is partly true. Of course, if all the entries had been placed in it as were promised by others over the months that balance most likely would have naturally emerged but promises were never kept.

In that act of blatant deceitfulness Mr Brown immediately proved himself to be totally untrustworthy. Given that I was giving my own time for Thrive with no expenses – and certainly not seeking to gain employment out of it – I did the only thing possible, which of course, was to severe my association with Thrive and seal the blog before any further damage could be caused. I have my own good name to protect also, and association with an organisation that appears to model itself on the Stasi is not a good one.

I put a lot of effort into creating most of the pieces in that blog, and to see the wanton intellectual vandalism carried out by these persons is beyond belief. It would also be appropriate that I should receive an apology from Greg Brown, and the others responsible, but somehow I think that is unlikely to happen, I have come to the conclusion, given their behaviour, that they have no comprehension of decency as regards behaviour.

While I was in hospital a couple of interesting points were raised by other people.

Firstly, I found myself in the company of a roomful of older men in the fifty to seventy years old age group. They were engaged in a conversation – with no intervention from myself – about the forthcoming election, and the dread they considered they faced with the likely return of a Conservative government. All these men at one time had been employed in one of the core North East industries – coal, shipbuilding, steel, chemicals. All had lost those jobs. I myself spent seven years speaking to people who had been through similar experiences, all discussing how homes, marriages and communities collapsed through government policy creating mass unemployment. I think I speak from a base of knowledge.

The premise I made in some of the blogs that a future Conservative government is a threat was fundamentally derived by past events. Even the generation now in their late eighties and nineties remember how towns like Thornaby simply ceased functioning as an economic unit before the second world war. Ironically it was a Conservative, Harold Macmillan, who felt great concern at the plight of Thornaby folk – Read Macmillan's Winds of Change (1966), particularly page 285. Similar policies – not being totally unsympathetic to working class people - were later pursued by Ted Heath between 1970 and 1974, but were later ditched by Thatcher. Given the power base of the Conservative party today, regardless of what Cameron might say – he is after all a PR man - it is most likely that a money people friendly, worker unfriendly stance would be likely from a new Conservative government using the excuses of the UK's financial situation alongside the fiction created around the idea of a Broken Britain.

The other point that emerged when I was in hospital relates to a conversation with a chap who has been employed by a charity for a number of years. He was being investigated for cancer and was using holidays to cover his days off work rather than signing sick because he knew the charity would sack him – despite the legality of that – if they knew what was going on. He was terrified of losing his job, even though there were clearly more serious issues as regards himself and his family.

When I started associating with Thrive I naively assumed charities were respectable - and Thrive also - having had little dealings with such organisations beyond giving money. It would appear after speaking to this person and my own experiences that I may well have been mistaken. Also, given that Thrive is linked to Church Action on Poverty, one would assume an element of responsibility would exist, after all, many issues around poverty are solvable with the right political will. Certainly the behaviour of many charities needs some serious investigation.

As regards Thrive, in the two and a half years I have known of it, very little in the way of tangible improvements for those decreed to be in poverty have occurred. Thrive is merely a talking shop, though most times I visited Mr Brown he appeared to be listening to TFM (the local bland music radio station in Teesside) when I arrived. The reality is that Thrive is an organisation with great potential – and always will be whilst under its present management.

Why did Mr Brown choose to behave so dishonestly against me? It seems that sniffing up to the local Conservative candidate – so he can say nice things about Thrive – is more important than he reality of poverty, its causes and the multiple routes that can be taken to help alleviate it. Thus nasty, although truthful, things said about the Conservative Party had to be removed. Surely the Conservative candidate is strong enough to face such criticisms about the party he represents, and anyway some of the best debates come out of antagonistic scenarios. It is surprisingly how often from these that serious respect can emerge for people with different opinions to ones own. The only losers in this scenario are those in poverty as empires are created and individuals give themselves Brownie points for achieving something that is not going to put any extra on any needing persons table.

Finally, given that Thrive is linked to Church Action on Poverty perhaps one should take a Christian perspective and forgive. That is possible, though one should not forgive the crime committed against oneself.

As I said at the beginning, a few people have suggested that I should restart the blog but now with a much wider berth. Hopefully that should start soon.

Dr Dad.