The inner city came knocking on Tuesday.
I visited St Joseph's Hospice, Hackney, where smokers are encouraged not to smoke outside the door when ambulances are bringing people in, but to smoke at a bench in the garden. There's a fountain. There are flowers growing. There's a guy in a wheelchair with a tube up his nose having a fag. It's lovely.
The occasion was the launch of a social report “Try Being in My Shoes”, by Social Action for Health, a project that sees patients in GP surgeries who have benefits and social problems.
They save GP time, help benefit patients with sturdy paperwork, try and help patients with their anxieties. If the problems become too complex, they refer the cases to local law centres and other legal aid lawyers. Cases are titrated very cheaply, thousands and thousands of benefits income is saved for sick people,the NHS saves money. It's all win win.
The room is packed. Almost 100 delegates turn up. Healthcare professionals, voluntary organisations, people from the Council, youth-workers, we're all worried and angry.
The report dwells on a transformation of the welfare benefit landscape,cuts in the East End of London and sixteen case studies of ordinary people who the project helped.
Mostly the stories are of disabled men and women who face losing their benefits because of the robotic Work Capability Assessment to decide whether they are fit for work. Their experience of the new dispensation was mostly terrifying and bewildering.
One benefit claimant in the case study was diabetic. She was injecting insulin for her type 2 (late onset) diabetes. Her interview with ATOS broke down when the physiotherapist who was being paid for the 20 minute test disbelieved that she was injecting insulin. In his mind a type 2 case couldn't be using insulin like a type 1 case. Well, my partner has exactly the same condition, I could have told them.
Another patient will have to go on public transport for the test, as the DWP no longer sends doctors to visit the seriously ill. Even if the person is recovering from a heart attack or is agoraphobic. So she says she won't be able to go. She just can't cope. If she doesn't go they'll fail her, but if she does they will discount her disability because she managed to reach the interview, and most-like fail her too.
Vicky Hobart, an expert in public health (“The science and art of preventing disease, prolonging life and promoting health” Winslow 1920) leaves me in no doubt that people have been living longer in Hackney over the last 10 years, and makes me worried that with these cuts people will be dying sooner.
50,000 people will lose civil legal aid in London , more than 5.000 will be in Hackney. That's a 64% cut in Hackney. Nationally 6,000 children will lose legal aid, and 70,000 youths (18-25).
Hah! We got off easy! In Liverpool 10,000 people will lose legal aid!
“Riots are what happens when the inner city comes knocking, and we're afraid to listen.”
Dianne Abbot MP was quoting more or less Ian Duncan Smith, a Tory MP and former party leader with a zeal for welfare reform based on some serious minded study of inner city deprivation, the causes and effects.
The riots in Hackney are Banquo at the feast. The elephant in the living room. The totally bloody obvious.
Today also the inner city began to knock.
Wednesday, 21 September 2011
Thursday, 8 September 2011
The Small Society
Sam is a bank manager who lost his job in the recession. He owns a house and has debts, we're talking tens of thousands. Pretty soon he's in court facing the loss of his home. His family might be on the street tonight.
He comes to the duty solicitor for help, half an hour before his hearing. It so happens we can help. We can ask the District Judge for an adjournment so that Sam can get a chance to restructure his debts. Creditors will often be reasonable when they see you can't get blood out of a stone, and the District Court has extensive powers where no agreement can be reached.
Samantha lives on an estate a stone's throw from here. She has kids too, and lives on survival benefits. She too owes money for a benefit overpayment of thousands, that is being clawed back at £10 a week. When you're living on the breadline that can make a huge difference.
Here again we can do something. We can ask the District Judge to give us time, and make an offer of £5 on the repayments.
My hope is that once Sam and Samantha are back in court again, we will have done deals with their creditors, repayment schedules will have been renegotiated over a longer time-scale, and two families will keep a roof over their head.
That is what rocks my boat, day after day. Keeping people in homes, and off the streets. What's more, Legal Aid pays us to help these two families, regardless of class and colour.
Actually, if the Legal Aid Bill goes through, this won't be true .
In the new Bill I'm allowed to tell the benefit authority that Samantha can only spend 48 p a week on shampoo, but if I have incontrovertible proof that she doesn't owe the money at all, my hands are tied.
Even if I know that I could persuade the benefits authorities that they have misinterpreted the regulations, the words are not allowed to leave my lips. Knowledge of the benefit regulations will no longer be funded by Legal Aid, because the new regime will be so easy to use, so transparent, that knowledge of the law will be an expensive inconvenience.
Put baldly, the Coalition has specifically removed any process invoking welfare benefits legislation from Legal Aid funding, because it's so pure and simple any fool can learn it, apparently (the regulations take up volumes).
The Government will however allow debt work to continue where, as in Sam's case, he is at risk of losing his home. Why it will not fund benefits work in identical circumstances can only explained in one way- class. Presumably the Tory Legal Aid minister, Jonathan Djanogly (known to one and all as "Jingle-Bells") wants to keep the home-owner vote, and isn't interested in people on estates who are not likely to vote for him anyway.
The effect of this will inevitably be that in the future Samantha will likely have a suspended possession order made sooner, be more likely to default, and be evicted in less time than before. District Judges in Hackney will bend over backwards to help families, within the law, if there is a prospect they can work themselves out of a hole. Yet without benefit advice many will fall down the drain, and District Judges must above all keep the machinery of Justice moving on.
It is alarming to me that this year already there has been a 17% hike in homeless people accepted by the Council (think of how many more are turned away). The recession and Housing Benefit cuts are already hitting home. Think how bad it will get once the Legal Aid Cuts start.
If the Bill passes Sam and Samantha have both been bamboozled. For charities like mine could close, and no-one will be left to help either of them.
In Hackney, 64% less people would lose a service, that's over 5,000 people. In Liverpool, it's 80%. For God's sake, are these people trying to cause riots by social engineering, because if I was a mad scientist, this is how I would start.
Our society isn't looking very big now. It seems very small. But we only need 83 MP's to change this Law, so please send them a letter, an e-mail, a tweet, a Wells Fargo pony mail by God!
He comes to the duty solicitor for help, half an hour before his hearing. It so happens we can help. We can ask the District Judge for an adjournment so that Sam can get a chance to restructure his debts. Creditors will often be reasonable when they see you can't get blood out of a stone, and the District Court has extensive powers where no agreement can be reached.
Samantha lives on an estate a stone's throw from here. She has kids too, and lives on survival benefits. She too owes money for a benefit overpayment of thousands, that is being clawed back at £10 a week. When you're living on the breadline that can make a huge difference.
Here again we can do something. We can ask the District Judge to give us time, and make an offer of £5 on the repayments.
My hope is that once Sam and Samantha are back in court again, we will have done deals with their creditors, repayment schedules will have been renegotiated over a longer time-scale, and two families will keep a roof over their head.
That is what rocks my boat, day after day. Keeping people in homes, and off the streets. What's more, Legal Aid pays us to help these two families, regardless of class and colour.
Actually, if the Legal Aid Bill goes through, this won't be true .
In the new Bill I'm allowed to tell the benefit authority that Samantha can only spend 48 p a week on shampoo, but if I have incontrovertible proof that she doesn't owe the money at all, my hands are tied.
Even if I know that I could persuade the benefits authorities that they have misinterpreted the regulations, the words are not allowed to leave my lips. Knowledge of the benefit regulations will no longer be funded by Legal Aid, because the new regime will be so easy to use, so transparent, that knowledge of the law will be an expensive inconvenience.
Put baldly, the Coalition has specifically removed any process invoking welfare benefits legislation from Legal Aid funding, because it's so pure and simple any fool can learn it, apparently (the regulations take up volumes).
The Government will however allow debt work to continue where, as in Sam's case, he is at risk of losing his home. Why it will not fund benefits work in identical circumstances can only explained in one way- class. Presumably the Tory Legal Aid minister, Jonathan Djanogly (known to one and all as "Jingle-Bells") wants to keep the home-owner vote, and isn't interested in people on estates who are not likely to vote for him anyway.
The effect of this will inevitably be that in the future Samantha will likely have a suspended possession order made sooner, be more likely to default, and be evicted in less time than before. District Judges in Hackney will bend over backwards to help families, within the law, if there is a prospect they can work themselves out of a hole. Yet without benefit advice many will fall down the drain, and District Judges must above all keep the machinery of Justice moving on.
It is alarming to me that this year already there has been a 17% hike in homeless people accepted by the Council (think of how many more are turned away). The recession and Housing Benefit cuts are already hitting home. Think how bad it will get once the Legal Aid Cuts start.
If the Bill passes Sam and Samantha have both been bamboozled. For charities like mine could close, and no-one will be left to help either of them.
In Hackney, 64% less people would lose a service, that's over 5,000 people. In Liverpool, it's 80%. For God's sake, are these people trying to cause riots by social engineering, because if I was a mad scientist, this is how I would start.
Our society isn't looking very big now. It seems very small. But we only need 83 MP's to change this Law, so please send them a letter, an e-mail, a tweet, a Wells Fargo pony mail by God!
Thursday, 1 September 2011
It took this country 40 years to build a network of Law Centres.
In the late 60's and early 70's we copied the US and set up charities in barber shops and empty office space. We had weird hair, might have worn bell-bottoms, and listened to the Rolling Stones.
We forced slum landlords to toe the line, we bailed out wave after wave of women striking for equal pay. The Notting Hill Riots happened and the laws got better. Racial equality and sexual discrimination laws were passed, and that helped.
Jimmy Hendrix altered the electrical guitar forever.
In the 80's and 90's Law Centres mushroomed. It was found that giving poor people legal rights that could be enforced massively improved their social outcomes. I mean, what's the law for unless the underdog has a voice too?
I spent some time in Slimelight, painted bone white, wearing rubber and lace. Chrissie Hynde, Souxsie Sue, Kurt Cobain.
In the naughties we had human rights law. The right to a fair trial. The right not to be tortured. Respect for the home and family. Common decency arguments. What's so un-British about that?
In the tweens they're shutting us all down. All the basic advice for people who haven't got the right papers.
It took this country 40 years to build something right. In 2 years it will be destroyed. Whatever your musical preference, please stick up for Law Centres and Legal Aid.
In the late 60's and early 70's we copied the US and set up charities in barber shops and empty office space. We had weird hair, might have worn bell-bottoms, and listened to the Rolling Stones.
We forced slum landlords to toe the line, we bailed out wave after wave of women striking for equal pay. The Notting Hill Riots happened and the laws got better. Racial equality and sexual discrimination laws were passed, and that helped.
Jimmy Hendrix altered the electrical guitar forever.
In the 80's and 90's Law Centres mushroomed. It was found that giving poor people legal rights that could be enforced massively improved their social outcomes. I mean, what's the law for unless the underdog has a voice too?
I spent some time in Slimelight, painted bone white, wearing rubber and lace. Chrissie Hynde, Souxsie Sue, Kurt Cobain.
In the naughties we had human rights law. The right to a fair trial. The right not to be tortured. Respect for the home and family. Common decency arguments. What's so un-British about that?
In the tweens they're shutting us all down. All the basic advice for people who haven't got the right papers.
It took this country 40 years to build something right. In 2 years it will be destroyed. Whatever your musical preference, please stick up for Law Centres and Legal Aid.
40 years
It took this country 40 years to build a network of Law Centres.
In the late 60's and early 70's we copied the US and set up charities in barber shops and empty office space. We had weird hair, might have worn bell-bottoms, and listened to the Rolling Stones.
We forced slum landlords to toe the line, we bailed out wave after wave of women striking for equal pay. The Notting Hill Riots happened and the laws got better. Racial equality and sexual discrimination laws were passed, and that helped.
Jimmy Hendrix altered the electrical guitar forever.
In the 80's and 90's Law Centres mushroomed. It was found that giving poor people legal rights that could be enforced massively improved their social outcomes. I mean, what's the law for unless the underdog has a voice too?
I spent some time in Slimelight, painted bone white, wearing rubber and lace. Chrissie Hynde, Souxsie Sue, Kurt Cobain.
In the naughties we had human rights law. The right to a fair trial. The right not to be tortured. Respect for the home and family. Common decency arguments. What's so un-British about that?
In the tweens they're shutting us all down. All the basic advice for people who haven't got the right papers.
The new crime and legal aid bill will destroy us. Social welfare law as a discipline will become almost extinct. Housing, family, benefits, immigration, all dumped.
I'm not just cheer-leading for Law Centres. The legal aid safety net is woven of private firms, Law Centres, CAB's. All of us will be affected, but most of all the blow will fall on poor people facing acute problems who will have nowhere to turn to.
It's not too late. At the third reading of the bill we need 83 MP's to change their vote. If you have any faith in the idea of justice, common decency and fair play, please write.
It took this country 40 years to build something right. In 2 years it will be destroyed. Whatever your musical preference, please stick up for Law Centres and Legal Aid.
In the late 60's and early 70's we copied the US and set up charities in barber shops and empty office space. We had weird hair, might have worn bell-bottoms, and listened to the Rolling Stones.
We forced slum landlords to toe the line, we bailed out wave after wave of women striking for equal pay. The Notting Hill Riots happened and the laws got better. Racial equality and sexual discrimination laws were passed, and that helped.
Jimmy Hendrix altered the electrical guitar forever.
In the 80's and 90's Law Centres mushroomed. It was found that giving poor people legal rights that could be enforced massively improved their social outcomes. I mean, what's the law for unless the underdog has a voice too?
I spent some time in Slimelight, painted bone white, wearing rubber and lace. Chrissie Hynde, Souxsie Sue, Kurt Cobain.
In the naughties we had human rights law. The right to a fair trial. The right not to be tortured. Respect for the home and family. Common decency arguments. What's so un-British about that?
In the tweens they're shutting us all down. All the basic advice for people who haven't got the right papers.
The new crime and legal aid bill will destroy us. Social welfare law as a discipline will become almost extinct. Housing, family, benefits, immigration, all dumped.
I'm not just cheer-leading for Law Centres. The legal aid safety net is woven of private firms, Law Centres, CAB's. All of us will be affected, but most of all the blow will fall on poor people facing acute problems who will have nowhere to turn to.
It's not too late. At the third reading of the bill we need 83 MP's to change their vote. If you have any faith in the idea of justice, common decency and fair play, please write.
It took this country 40 years to build something right. In 2 years it will be destroyed. Whatever your musical preference, please stick up for Law Centres and Legal Aid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)