This week, after many months of being unhappy at work, I handed in my notice. To badly paraphrase Charles Dickens, it was the right thing to do, it was the wrong thing to do. Right because I could feel myself sinking into depression, it was making me ill, I couldn't do right for doing wrong in the eyes of my manager and it was starting to erode away my confidence and self-esteem. It was wrong because I don't have a job to go to, I only have a week's notice to work and ... well now I'm scrabbling around looking for a job!
But here's the thing: I'm not scared. I feel invigorated. I feel that anything is possible. The more banal truth is that I will probably temp for a while before opting to take another job that doesn't stretch my creative abilities and that I like well enough but doesn't inspire me. Why should I be any different to the vast majority of the drones? But unless and until that happens, I am determined to see the world as mine, just waiting to be claimed. I am determined to fly by the seat of my pants and believe that because I am prepared to take a chance, life might just take a chance on me.
I'm happy! I feel like a child wriggling her toes in the hot sand of the sort of beach that doesn't really exist in Britain outside of our imaginations. I know I am alive and that somehow things are going to be more than okay.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
More on 'Sink Estates'
The below was also posted earlier as a response to the suggestion that we should condemn everything that is creating "this situation", and that having done that we should have the balls to do something about it, rather than brush it under the carpet.
Right. But who here is brushing it under the carpet, and what exactly are we supposed to do as individuals. Condemenation on a talkboard is just so much hot air.
I have lots of ideas that I think might be workable and might make a difference, having seen some of them work in other situations. As a child I realised that if you put all the 'bad people' in one place it was a recipe for disaster and that you would create estates that no one wanted to live on, in order to keep the 'bad people' away from everyone else. I knew that if you wanted to make society work, you had to stop creating ghettos, you had to try and make sure that 'good' and 'bad' lived cheek by jowl, because it was far more likely that 'bad' people living in a 'good' environment would see the benefits and feel the motivation to emulate the good rather than the bad.
It's not so easy these days. Social housing is totally fucked, thanks to decades of appalling policy decisions, so estates generally become holding areas for those in need, and some of those in need are less 'socially acceptable' than others.
Things that have worked.
A 'sink estate' in the North-East was so bad that everyone who could move out did. As fewer people were left, the local authority moved them out, completely did the estate up and then offered housing to people from outside the area who didn't know of its reputation and saw it for what it could be - a decent environment in which to live and make a go of it. Pretty drastic, but it shows that an improved environment and a different perspective can work.
Education - giving people the tools and the motivation to make the most of themselves, understanding that this should not all be measured 'academically' and therefore looking to fund apprenticeships again, giving everyone the chance to learn a trade if they want to and are able to. Education is investment in the future, spend more on that than fucked up conflicts overseas.
Investment - get estate dwellers involved in doing up their estates, get them involved in setting up tenants associations that are involved in the running of the estate and have a vested interest in making the place the best it possibly can be.
Policing - invest in community policing if needs be, but make their presence felt so that everyone feels safe.
Adult education and literacy - channel this. TV adverts are all very well and good, but bring it to the places where it is most needed.
Investment in social housing and a change in the law regarding private tenants - Tenants are treated like scum by the law. Constantly having to sign tenancy agreements, never knowing when they will have to move to the next flat with all the expense that involves. Social housing was not just a net to catch those in need, but ensured that just about everyone could look forward to decent housing unless and until they decided to buy for themselves. We'll never get back to that but there needs to be a greater understanding that we need more of it.
And finally an understanding that this will all take time, that there is no quick fix and that there will always be a minority of people who don't give a fuck. For a change focus on the people who do and stop pretending that everyone is - as I said before - the lowest common denominator by virtue of their address.
As a postscript, the fact that this debate is taking place in a thread about Shannon Matthews is ... interesting isn't really the word, but it will have to do. Just as everyone who lives on a 'sink estate' isn't the scum of the earth, so most mothers with an abundance of children, possibly (shock horror) by different fathers, would not dream of behaving in the way that Ms Matthews allegedly did. Her geographical location does not make her a representative of a type of mother in any way, shape or form.
Right. But who here is brushing it under the carpet, and what exactly are we supposed to do as individuals. Condemenation on a talkboard is just so much hot air.
I have lots of ideas that I think might be workable and might make a difference, having seen some of them work in other situations. As a child I realised that if you put all the 'bad people' in one place it was a recipe for disaster and that you would create estates that no one wanted to live on, in order to keep the 'bad people' away from everyone else. I knew that if you wanted to make society work, you had to stop creating ghettos, you had to try and make sure that 'good' and 'bad' lived cheek by jowl, because it was far more likely that 'bad' people living in a 'good' environment would see the benefits and feel the motivation to emulate the good rather than the bad.
It's not so easy these days. Social housing is totally fucked, thanks to decades of appalling policy decisions, so estates generally become holding areas for those in need, and some of those in need are less 'socially acceptable' than others.
Things that have worked.
A 'sink estate' in the North-East was so bad that everyone who could move out did. As fewer people were left, the local authority moved them out, completely did the estate up and then offered housing to people from outside the area who didn't know of its reputation and saw it for what it could be - a decent environment in which to live and make a go of it. Pretty drastic, but it shows that an improved environment and a different perspective can work.
Education - giving people the tools and the motivation to make the most of themselves, understanding that this should not all be measured 'academically' and therefore looking to fund apprenticeships again, giving everyone the chance to learn a trade if they want to and are able to. Education is investment in the future, spend more on that than fucked up conflicts overseas.
Investment - get estate dwellers involved in doing up their estates, get them involved in setting up tenants associations that are involved in the running of the estate and have a vested interest in making the place the best it possibly can be.
Policing - invest in community policing if needs be, but make their presence felt so that everyone feels safe.
Adult education and literacy - channel this. TV adverts are all very well and good, but bring it to the places where it is most needed.
Investment in social housing and a change in the law regarding private tenants - Tenants are treated like scum by the law. Constantly having to sign tenancy agreements, never knowing when they will have to move to the next flat with all the expense that involves. Social housing was not just a net to catch those in need, but ensured that just about everyone could look forward to decent housing unless and until they decided to buy for themselves. We'll never get back to that but there needs to be a greater understanding that we need more of it.
And finally an understanding that this will all take time, that there is no quick fix and that there will always be a minority of people who don't give a fuck. For a change focus on the people who do and stop pretending that everyone is - as I said before - the lowest common denominator by virtue of their address.
As a postscript, the fact that this debate is taking place in a thread about Shannon Matthews is ... interesting isn't really the word, but it will have to do. Just as everyone who lives on a 'sink estate' isn't the scum of the earth, so most mothers with an abundance of children, possibly (shock horror) by different fathers, would not dream of behaving in the way that Ms Matthews allegedly did. Her geographical location does not make her a representative of a type of mother in any way, shape or form.
Karen Matthews, yet another excuse to rail at 'sink estates'
Karen Matthews has been remanded in custody, charged with child neglect and attempting to pervert the course of justice. From what we can ascertain, it would appear that her daughter, Shannon, was never kidnapped, although this is supposition, based on the fact that she has been remanded on charges - yet to be proved - that suggest this was the case. So, what we can say is that it was allegedly, a ruse, if so, it was most probably a money-making ruse and, again if these allegations are true, one in which the welfare of Shannon was an afterthought if that. There seems to be plenty to condemn Karen Matthews for.
However, in the wake of this shocking case, what we get is not just condemnation of Karen Matthews for her alleged offences, but an attempt to treat her as a typical resident of a 'sink estate'. Whatever else she is, she is far from a typical anything. The fact of having a number of children by different fathers does not turn a woman into a Karen Matthews. Ones geographical location does not make one think that the faux kidnapping of ones own daughter is a good way of making a quick buck. But that hasn't stopped the stereotyping, the call for sterilisation of young uneducated women, the cries that they should be denied benefits because that will stop them. And underlying all of this is the notion that the inhabitants of 'sink estates' are all the same. The below was posted on a talkboard earlier today:
What we are left with on these "sink estates" are those that decades of economic growth and unprecedented education have left behind. Other measures are called for - accepting there is always a small chance there is something left in the genepool there worth lavishing a uni education on.
And this was my response, this is in part what I think of the current desire to characterise all residents of these estates as potential Karen Matthews, as people who are beyond 'redemption':
No we're not. Or we're not necessarily only looking at that. Sink estates are not some homogeneous mass. All sorts of people live on them, some having a better time of it than others, many wanting to make their environment better but not having the first clue, or maybe the motivation, to do it, and some who don't give a fuck and by and large offer nothing of much or any good to society at large.
For many a sink estate is just their address and they do what they can to make the most of it. If you need housing and you get moved to a 'sink estate' you're not going to refuse it, even if that is not where you want to live. If you live on one you do not necessarily fit the stereotype that everyone conjures up when they hear the words 'sink estate'.
I was brought up on what had once been a decent estate but had become a 'sink estate' by the time we moved there. We lived there for 5 years and then moved to a better place, mostly because being transferred was easier in those days and my dad had died so we went to the top of the list on compassionate grounds. Of course it wasn't called a 'sink estate' in those days, it was more likely referred to as a shithole, but while we were there I managed to get into a grammar school and while I was well aware of everything that went on around us, the drugs, the alcohol, the muggings, burglaries and general squalor, it wasn't who my family or I were. It wasn't our next door neighbours either. It wasn't every resident on the estate then and I know it's not every resident on every 'sink estate' now.
Defining 'sink estates' by their lowest common denominator is part of the problem.
However, in the wake of this shocking case, what we get is not just condemnation of Karen Matthews for her alleged offences, but an attempt to treat her as a typical resident of a 'sink estate'. Whatever else she is, she is far from a typical anything. The fact of having a number of children by different fathers does not turn a woman into a Karen Matthews. Ones geographical location does not make one think that the faux kidnapping of ones own daughter is a good way of making a quick buck. But that hasn't stopped the stereotyping, the call for sterilisation of young uneducated women, the cries that they should be denied benefits because that will stop them. And underlying all of this is the notion that the inhabitants of 'sink estates' are all the same. The below was posted on a talkboard earlier today:
What we are left with on these "sink estates" are those that decades of economic growth and unprecedented education have left behind. Other measures are called for - accepting there is always a small chance there is something left in the genepool there worth lavishing a uni education on.
And this was my response, this is in part what I think of the current desire to characterise all residents of these estates as potential Karen Matthews, as people who are beyond 'redemption':
No we're not. Or we're not necessarily only looking at that. Sink estates are not some homogeneous mass. All sorts of people live on them, some having a better time of it than others, many wanting to make their environment better but not having the first clue, or maybe the motivation, to do it, and some who don't give a fuck and by and large offer nothing of much or any good to society at large.
For many a sink estate is just their address and they do what they can to make the most of it. If you need housing and you get moved to a 'sink estate' you're not going to refuse it, even if that is not where you want to live. If you live on one you do not necessarily fit the stereotype that everyone conjures up when they hear the words 'sink estate'.
I was brought up on what had once been a decent estate but had become a 'sink estate' by the time we moved there. We lived there for 5 years and then moved to a better place, mostly because being transferred was easier in those days and my dad had died so we went to the top of the list on compassionate grounds. Of course it wasn't called a 'sink estate' in those days, it was more likely referred to as a shithole, but while we were there I managed to get into a grammar school and while I was well aware of everything that went on around us, the drugs, the alcohol, the muggings, burglaries and general squalor, it wasn't who my family or I were. It wasn't our next door neighbours either. It wasn't every resident on the estate then and I know it's not every resident on every 'sink estate' now.
Defining 'sink estates' by their lowest common denominator is part of the problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)