The Daughter of Time

Francis Bacon (1561-1626) Novum Organum:

With regard to authority, it is the greatest weakness to attribute infinite credit to particular authors, and to refuse his own prerogative to time, the author of all authors, and, therefore, of all authority. For, truth is rightly named the daughter of time, not of authority. It is not wonderful, therefore, if the bonds of antiquity, authority, and unanimity, have so enchained the power of man, that he is unable (as if bewitched) to become familiar with things themselves. 


Some years ago, I was clearing out the loft in our house. It's not very comfortable; there is enough head room to sit in it (while avoiding the swinging light bulb) but no room to stand. I was going through a pile of mildewed books that my mum and dad had collected and was sorting them into 'will-never-notice-it's-gone' to 'don't-even-think-about-chucking-this-out' piles, when I came across a book called 'The Daughter of Time' by Josephine Tey. Intrigued, I opened it up and for the next hour I sat cramped in the loft and read it.

 The story is obstensibly a fictional one, but it is actually an examination of the facts surrounding the disappearance of the princes in the Tower and whether Richard III did indeed have them killed or if someone else did it. The book concludes that it was Henry Tudor that did it and it convinced me, but I'll leave you to read it. What was more important about the book was the care that the author had taken to put together her case and her ability to look beyond what had become an accepted truth - that Richard III had killed the princes. I didn't realise how important the book was to me until today, when it was confirmed that the skeleton found under a car park , was that of Richard III. To prove it, the archeologists found the location of a long demolished church, compared DNA from a relative, re-modelled the skull and analysed the wounds, which had come from a battle.

Why is it important to me? Because of this. So much of your time as a politician is spent creating paper trails about what actually took place and so much of your time is spent reading trails that others created in the hope that someone one day would actually seek out the truth. Sometimes the creators don't even know they are doing it; but when they do their job exceptionally well it can really matter. For example, I didn't realise how important maps were, until I had to research the land that a local school was getting built on. Then I understood why my father had held onto old maps of our town and why someone had to collect them in case they needed to be checked. Again, I was looking for the history of the local canal, which tied into it and I spent a couple of months trying to get an out-of-print copy of a book on the subject, only to discover it in a cupboard in my own house. My dad had bought it when it had first come out and had kept it.

Recording is so important. Libraries are so important, because when a myth has built up, they can contain the means by which to find out the truth. It can be painstaking and bitsy, but it is there. And sometimes just one sentence can make all the difference in an account. In the Daughter of Time, it was a casual reference in a history book to Henry Tudor systematically killing all claimants to the throne after he had taken it that made the difference. For me, it was a single detail on one of those maps that became vital.

The truth is out there. But it depends both on those who record it and those who seek it and sometimes it can take centuries for it come out. Truth is the daughter of time and depends on the pedants and hoarders of this world to keep it safe. I now wish that I had not been so casual in throwing out so many of my parents books. And I am glad that I kept 'The Daughter of Time'. It taught me far more than I thought.

London is on the March

Here come the first casualties of the Health and Social Care bill. Thousands are marching today to save Lewisham A&E, which was going to be downgraded to shore up the neighbouring South London Trust (which they are not part of). The item's six or seven down the Beeb's list just now - apparently a shrieking tennis player doing the dying swan in Australia is more important.The terminology is also infuriating.Since when did trusts make profits or losses? They are either funded or underfunded. Auntie please take note. But it's started, and these people will not be ignored. If only they had understood what was happening last year and come out in those numbers..

A Job for Dr No?

It's the New Year - time for pastures new, striking out, going where you've never been before... How about a nice GP job on the isle of Arran? I can highly recommend the island itself. And there's a helicopter. Just wondering where Dr No is..

So Beautiful

I was going to post a Christmas carol here for the season. Then I came across this and just had to post it. Wishing you all a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year..

Compulsion and Choice

It wasn't going to last. Just a couple of weeks after UKIP was riding high on a wave of sympathy, following the removal of a child from a UKIP voting couple, they have come crashing to the ground because of one Geoffrey Clark, who thinks we should bring in compulsory abortion for Down's Syndrome and spina bifida to reduce the national debt. He also thinks that free euthanasia advice should be offered to over-80's. UKIP tried to back him at first and then ditched him, in the face of shocked protests from Mencap and the media in general. Someone in Labour or Conservative HQ will be watching in silent satisfaction at this mess - I have no doubt that since UKIP's resurgence, the party nerds will have been trawling UKIP websites looking for someone foolish enough to catch out in this fashion. And Geoffrey Clark has been well and truly caught.

On the surface, I agree with that shock and indigation at his views. It's especially depressing after a wonderful summer of the Paralympics that we're back to auld claes and porridge as far as the disabled are concerned. Another part of me is feeling profoundly uncomfortable with the whole scenario.

It's this. The abortion rate for  DS in the UK is round about 92%. Apart from the fact that this means that Geoffrey Clark's master plan to reduce the national debt would be a failure, it also means that the only difference between Geoffrey Clark's views and the general public's, is compulsion. It is not Geoffrey Clark's values that are really being questioned; it is the fact that he would make a common choice, mandatory.

 What is the actual choice for someone carrying a child with DS? There's abortion. Or, if they choose to have the child, years of fighting with the state for help and support. A piss poor amount of money going into research for the condition and bleak employment prospects. A choice has been made, but it's been made by our society, not by the parent of the child. The choice that they are offered, is in reality, just short of compulsion.

Again, take the dismantling of the NHS. On what pretext was that done? Why, choice. The right to choose a GP, a hospital, a private provider. In reality the government has chosen to bomb the NHS and we will shortly have to chose which health care insurer that we are going with, because it shure ain't going to be the government. And don't expect your National Insurance contributions to go down correspondingly.

Chesterton once said, ' To admire mere choice is to refuse to choose'. In saying this he identified what has become a growing phenomenon; the idea that choice trumps all. It's a good tactic for shutting down debate by branding those who question the values behind a choice as intolerant, and it's a good tool in government for shunting people in a direction they might not otherwise take, by portraying it as a choice.

I do not disagree with those who slam Geoffrey Clark on mandatory abortion. I am just so disappointed that the debate went no further. So much went unsaid this week, and an opportunity was missed to examine our own values with regard to those with DS. If we had done, maybe we would have realised how shockingly close our own views are to his. And maybe we would have made an informed, responsible choice to turn away from them.

Says it All, Really

I came across this picture of a poignant message left on a lamppost at the NHS protests from March.

Says it all, really.

The Child Exploitation Debate in the Commons - John Hemming's Speech

Here is some of John Hemming's speech from the Child Exploitation debate in Parliament today. For the full debate, click here.

As at 31 March 2011, 160 girls in care had had their first child before the age of 16 and 120 had had their first child at the age of 16. So what happens? We know that the girls at Duncroft school were punished for complaining about Jimmy Savile. If a child in the power of the local authority wishes to complain about their treatment, they have to complain to an employee of the local authority or someone funded by the local authority. Where is the independence in that? The lack of independence in the complaints system is why many cases of abuse are not picked up until the children subject to the abuse become adults—not necessarily at age 18 but when they get the required confidence aged 25, 30 or later. Very rarely, a Gillick-competent child in his or her mid-teens may make contact with one of the very rare solicitors who are willing to take on the local authority, but usually nothing happens at least until the children are adults.

One of the worst examples of a cover up comes from Jersey. Children in Jersey had the chief of police, Graham Power, and the health Minister, Stuart Syvret, to protect their interests. However, in 2008, as soon as action was taken to investigate historical abuse, the health Minister was sacked and the chief of police suspended. What hope did those children have? It is now roughly the fourth anniversary of the sacking of Jersey’s chief of police, Graham Power, and he has put out a statement to coincide with it. I will not read it all because time is limited, but this is part of what he says:

“I would however simply for the record, remind readers what has been established from a number of credible and independent sources and disclosures. Namely, that my suspension was based on falsified documents, fabricated evidence, misleading information provided to States Members and the public by Jersey Ministers, and the testimony of a number of senior individuals who have since been publicly discredited.

The events relating to Jimmy Saville and other revelations have heightened the general awareness of the issue of Historic Child Abuse, and the substantial difficulties which stand in the way of those who attempt to bring abusers to justice.”

This cover-up has been continued by the UK Border Agency, which assisted Jersey in avoiding scrutiny by banning a US journalist, Leah McGrath Goodman, from Jersey. She is now applying again for a visa, and I hope that the Minister will expedite it.

Teresa Cooper, who says that she was held down by six members of staff and injected with drugs while at Kendall House at the age of 14 and that she was also sexually assaulted in a drugged state, is continuing at the age of 45 to battle to get the evidence to find out why the Government did not act to stop that. We have a duty to provide her and other survivors with the records they ask for.

There have also been numerous police operations, including Operation Rose in Northumbria, Operation Care in Liverpool, Operation Aldgate and Operation Gullane in Yorkshire, Operation Goldfinch and Operation Flight in south Wales, and Operation Camassia in Birmingham. Frequently, such operations do not get to the bottom of the issues. A few, such as that in Kincora, managed to make the link between the abuse and people external to the institution. We need to empower the survivors by providing them with the information to argue their cases. Perhaps we can then also consider the question of who turned a blind eye.

It is often easier to see that there is a cover-up than to get to the truth. For example, if people listen to last Friday’s interview with Stuart Syvret on BBC Radio Jersey—it will be available on iPlayer for a few days—they will hear how the BBC is acting as a tool of the establishment by trying to prevent him from arguing his case. Mike Stein, in his excellent article in Child and Family Social Work in February 2006, explains how widespread this problem was, with a possible one in seven of children in care being subject to abuse. Australia has implemented an all-embracing inquiry, which is a good idea, although the details are complex. I believe, however, that the priority should be to empower the survivors.

We also need to act urgently to find out what is happening to children in the care system today. In the year to 31 March 2011—I do not have the later figures—according to the SSDA903 return, 430 children aged one to four, 350 children aged five to nine and 630 children aged 10 to 15 left care for “other reasons”. These are the children who have left care and we do not know what has happened to them. Have they been trafficked, have they been abducted or have they run away to live on the streets because they were unhappy in the control of the state?

The statistical system used in the USA is called AFCARS—the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System— and records when children run away, but our Government do not bother. Clearly, they do not care sufficiently to ask local authorities to tell them. When I asked the erstwhile Minister, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), to record such instances and change the statistical basis, his response was that to find out nationally how many children are trafficked from care, abducted or run away would lead to

“an unnecessary increase in reporting requirements.”—[Official Report, 13 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 642W.]

We need to go further. We clearly cannot trust all local authorities to tell the whole truth about everything. We already have a system for auditing what happens to the money. We really ought to have a system for checking whether we are told the truth about what happens to the children, or do the Government only care about the money and not about the children?

The secrecy, lack of transparency and consequent failures in accountability clearly failed children in the past, but they are also failing children today. We need to protect the rights of children and adults to complain and bring in greater scrutiny of family court proceedings. It is the secrecy that arises from the family courts that allows the system to avoid scrutiny and local authorities to simply say, “We are acting in the best interests of the child,” when clearly they are not."