The problem with seeking scapegoats instead of justice: it allows crime to flourish even more

I remember it well. It was 1992. I was having chronic marital problems and under heavy stress. I suppose, at those times, when there is internal conflict, everything external appears to be in turmoil too. For some reason, society just seemed a bit more lawless then. It was the year Rachel Nickell was killed on Wimbledon Common in London in front of her two year old son, Alex. A beautiful woman, Rachel was only 23 with everything to live for. Yet she was brutally stabbed 49 times that fateful day, July 15th, when she took her son for a walk.


Desperate to charge her murderer, anyone it seems, the police fixated on Colin Stagg, who, to them appeared to fit the photokit. He lived in the area, a noticeable drifter and they needed to charge someone urgently to stem the sense of national outrage at the killing of this innocent woman. He was selected as the murderer soon afterwards and, aided and abetted by a vengeful press, they took Stagg's life apart. Everything about him was put under the microscope to 'prove', show and demonstrate why he was the killer. His name became synonymous with Rachel's. But Colin Stagg, from the moment he was arrested, kept saying he was innocent, and said it persistently, even when he was dogged in his daily life by TV cameras expecting some kind of confession. In that climate of outrage, no one was listening.

He had been charged because of two things: an undercover policewoman, working in a kind of 'honeytrap' investigation to lure a confession from him, and an 'expert' psychologist who 'profiled' Stagg as the likely murderer. Stagg served 13 months in prison awaiting trial and when the prosecution brought its case against him in court, it was thankfully thrown out by a little known judge, Mr Justice Ognall. As Boris Johnson wrote in 2006, Stagg was the subject of a trial by the press, a kind of "irrational media hysteria".

Boris continued: "The awfulness of the killing provoked the press to paroxysms of outrage. So deafening were the calls for retribution that the police were driven quite out of their wits. There being no forensic evidence, they were forced to look for likely suspects, and in Colin Stagg they found a man who ideally suited the tabloid agenda. He was runtish and rat-like, and yet also into body-building. He lived on his own. He was given to wearing dodgy-looking singlets and he was a devotee of the ancient pagan religion called Wicca. He had a picture of the Cerne Abbas giant inscribed on a black-painted wall in his flat. Someone said that they had seen him, or a man very like him, on the common on the morning of the murder - and that was enough."

In short, he was different from the norm and difference always means fear. He didn't stand a chance of being acquitted under those circumstances.

A Very Brave Judge
Yet, Justice Ognall bravely stood up to all the media and parliamentary bullies baying for blood, showing his own "audacity and common sense", and threw out Stagg's case. He had been lured by the undercover policewoman to admit things he never did because he fancied her and wanted to please her, and there was not much else that was real evidence. Yet the media hounded Stagg for years afterwards, always hinting that he was the killer who got away! Even though a newspaper paid him £43000 ($80,000) to take a lie detector test, which he passed, they still kept at him in the absence of anyone else being charged.


However, while Stagg was banged up and undergoing trial by media, Robert Napper was free, on the loose and on to his next victim in Scotland. Even when his own mother reported him to the police for a confession of rape from him, nothing happened. Just like Rachel, Samantha Bissett was young, pretty and had a four year old daughter, Jazmine. Napper kept stalking her for a while, watching her every move, then in November of 1993, armed with three knives, he crept into her basement flat and stabbed her 8 times, then cut her up and dismembered her body. As if that wasn't enough, he raped and smothered her four year old daughter with a pillow.


He was later caught and admitted manslaughter under diminished responsibility, along with two other rapes. Psychiatrists believed Napper had paranoid schizophrenia and Asperger's syndrome at the time of the killing. He was sent to Broadmoor high security hospital in 1995 where he stayed until the development of advanced DNA testing. It revealed that the tiny particle of DNA, which was swabbed from Rachel Nickell's body, did match his, and was confirmed in 2004. Despite being interviewed by police a few times since, Napper never admitted anything, until yesterday: December 18, 2008. He confessed to the killing of Rachel Nickell, 16 years after he callously mutilated her. This sad case has led to significant changes in how the police approach a murder enquiry, but it came too late to save Rachel or Samantha.

In August 2008, Colin Stagg was awarded over £700,000 ($1,250,000) for his false accusation and imprisonment, but I don't think any amount of money could make up for at least 12 years of hell that man went through, especially as he wasn't officially acquitted until 2006. He was never out of the papers which felt it their duty to play judge and jury.

What is so tragic about this case is that there are many people worldwide being accused of crimes they did not commit because of convenience, expediency and the desire for a handy scapegoat, while the real criminals are left free to continue in the same vein. Troy Davis, who has a pending execution over his head in Georgia, America, comes to mind. He has always maintained his innocence, yet regardless of the new developments with the witnesses, he is still being treated sceptically. The public do not deserve scapegoats for crimes, because they are still at the mercy of the real perpetrators. The public can only feel safe when the actual wrongdoers are caught and genuine justice has been applied.

As Boris aptly puts it: "Whom shall the media blame? The tabloids should realise that they are very largely at fault for the disaster. They decided not so much that Stagg had done it, but that this was what their readers wanted to hear, and they hammered away at it so vociferously that the criminal justice system was driven almost to insanity.

The Stagg case is a perfect example of why we should not allow ourselves to be ruled by tabloid editors. The Daily Mail's MMR panic has brought us an increase in measles, and the general panic over paedophiles has all but driven men from primary school classrooms. It needs brave politicians to resist this kind of nonsense, and brave judges to tell the media when they are wrong."

Indeed. Otherwise we simply reap what we sow.

Why it is suddenly cool to be Black in Britain: Thank you Simon Cowell - and Barack Obama!

Last night, the equivalent of the Berlin Wall came crashing down in Britain on our television screens. Alexandra Burke, one of the most talented singers I have ever seen on TV, sang her heart out to become the undisputed queen of Britain's X-Factor (the sister of American Idol, but a much better, more inclusive version). Barely two weeks ago, moved by one of her renditions, Simon Cowell had said to her: "You make me proud to be British!" Last night he was clearly speechless as her performance soared to a fantastic level. Her duet with superstar Beyonce will be unforgettable!

As a Black woman in Britain, watching two deserving Black acts in the finale (the stunning JLS group and Alexandra) I too felt extremely proud to be British. I have always been proud, as I adore this country, but being an older Black person having lived through the prejudices, discrimination and sheer invisibility of being Black, last night had tremendous significance beyond the obvious for anyone of African origin in this country. It was really cool to be Black, and proud, and talented on TV screens that have been starved of Black faces, starved of Black input and starved, in particular, of Black presenters, panellists and judges! (Thank you, Simon Cowell - and Barack Obama!)

To understand the magnitude of what happened on ITV last night, one has to be both Black and British. It doesn't matter what the programme is ever about, especially reality ones, the foregone conclusion (until Leona Lewis in 2007) is that only a White winner will suit the expectations, the marketability and the 'image' required - and only White winners have been voted for by the public to match that racist perception. Even when a Black person reaches the final, one knows the coveted prize will be elusive to them because they are normally fighting the odds of what is mind-numblingly patronising, traditional and routine: that anything not White is inferior. It was not so long ago in 2002, for example, on the BBC's Fame Academy, most Black people felt that the runner-up, Lemar, was robbed of victory because the public weren't ready to vote for anyone Black in such a new series. But there was a kind of poetic justice when the winner, David Sneddon opted out, disillusioned and unable to cope with the pressure, and Lemar went on to become one of Britain's best known recording artistes, doing justice to his amazing voice and talents.

On any day of the week, there is very little on our screens, especially at peak times when the big audiences are engaged, to indicate a truly multicultural society where one has real choice in programming, or a different fare to enjoy. You will be hard pressed to find any Black voices on anything, especially Black experts or key players. There is a lot of window dressing, tokenism and peripheral activity by minorities within our media but they are still very firmly in the background, kept well away from the lottery-sized salaries and influential positions. This in turn helps to keep minority communities invisible, out of the competition, robbed of key opportunities and chronically underexposed.

A Change in Public Perception
If one trawls back through every programme with a major prize attached to it, one would be hard pressed to see any Black names involved. Consigned to the perennial label of 'also rans', Black people knew that there was no way one of them would win, but at least taking part gave them some exposure, even if they were doomed by their colour to be eternally second-best, and many grabbed the opportunity to be at least involved. While including minorities as obvious fodder, this illusion of 'fairness', was so predictable as to be terribly demoralising and sad, especially for Black people nationwide looking for inspiration and some assurance that they were actually visible. Last night, the incredible happened in public perception: for the first time it really didn't matter about their colour! Two Black finalists, looking good, full of talent and looking cool, destroyed the usual tokenism associated with such coveted events. Let me repeat that for the unbelieving: There were TWO Black finalists of three, not just one, and they both came first and second, destroying the myth (hopefully for good) that only a White person can ever be a winner in the media in such events, especially when cute and astonishingly talented little Eoghan Quigg, could have stolen the moment. (Thank you, Simon Cowell - and Barack Obama!)

They were good for the viewing figures too. Normally averaging between 8 and 10 millions, the X-Factor has turned into one of Britain's biggest shows. But last night it hit the jackpot with a staggering 15 millions who switched on to watch (a quarter of the UK's population) when the average for a good programme is around 7 million these days). It is no coincidence at all that an unknown Black guy with a strange name becoming American president is changing perceptions everywhere, quietly and relentlessly, about the value of being Black. Suddenly it feels wonderful to be 'normal', not extraordinary or tokenistic, but normal. My only disappointment is that this did not happen on the BBC, the country's leading channel, which should be ahead of the field in reflecting our multiculturalism, through representation and inclusion, especially when the licence fee has to be paid for by all. Instead it happened on the commercial channel which has the bottom line as its top concern.

Ah well, with Barack Obama on the verge of occupying the White House, an incredible feat of achievement by any standards, and relentlessly changing world opinions, the British public has also had a sea change in perception with the outcome of the X-Factor. At this rate, programme-makers might even begin to get bolder and less traditional, less biased and more inclusive in their output. Who knows, I might yet see, in my lifetime, the two established no-go areas for Blacks on British television fall as well: period dramas having Black stars in the leading casts and Newsnight having a Black presenter - though I can't afford to hold my breath!

For today, I am deliriously happy, I am awestruck and amazed. Yes, our own Berlin Wall of perception came tumbling down last night with a huge and reverberating bang. The future looks very promising for our society but, above all, it really feels good, chic and cool to be Black and truly British. It has taken 40 years of my lifetime to reach this point, but how exciting the next 40 years could be! (Thank you so much, Simon Cowell - and Barack Obama!)

Victory, Grant Park, high emotions and a brand new President... wowwowwow!! (Day 7)...Live from Chicago!

I am crying as I write this, full of emotion for an awful lot of reasons. I can barely see the keyboard but I have to get this out, both to Newsvine and to Britain. I will feel better when I have said it, if I can find the words to say it.

But this is no time to rush things, so let's begin at the beginning. I started November 4, 2008, being interviewed by phone by Alice Gomstyn of ABCNews.com in New York. She had read one of my articles about the potential impact of an Obama president on 'people of colour' and wanted to question me further. But the day was about to get even better. I was told that I had a letter at the front desk, would I collect it? Yes I did, and received a cheque for one of my books I had actually given to someone after we had been speaking about her problems with her daughter. But she felt the meeting was so helpful, she wanted to pay for the book to help my work. Being surprised at this gesture seemed to be a pathetic understatement.

My emails told me, about midday, that crowds were already gathering in Grant Park. I was promised a ticket from someone rather senior at Illinois HQ but, as the person wasn't around when I was there on my last day, I didn't get it. I resigned to watching on TV. Then a supporter mentioned in an email how her sister didn't want to go and she could take a guest. Suddenly quite a few emails were fired off asking to be her guest. I thought I would do the same too, but didn't think I stood a chance, not really with so much demand. But back came the magical words, to my surprise, "Elaine, sure, please be my guest!"

Joy of joys, I would be in a prime spot in Grant Park!!

Tammy Mack was slim, beautiful with a lovely personality. As soon as she saw me, she hugged me as if she had known me for ages. She was glad I wanted to come as she didn't want to be on her own. We were at the park by 5.30pm in the ticket holders line. There were so many people there so early, when we started to move inside she took my hand firmly and said, "I don't want you getting lost, so let me hold your hand." I felt incredibly blessed at that moment, as though I was with a relative and not someone I barely knew.

Tons of checkpoints later and we were in. The atmosphere was electric as more and more people arrived squashing us all together like sardines, but happy sardines revelling in the moment. Sadly, I did get detached from Tammy who went to see in some friends, but found myself, about 12 rows from the front, among a group of four, headed by Joe who was pretty knowledgeable, pretty vocal and pretty good at taking photographs. He began to announce to everyone around me how I was from the UK, to gasps of wonder! I felt like a star! :o) When the results began to come in through CNN, every Obama win was cheered wildly, amidst shouts of YES WE CAN!, and much dancing with glee, while every McCain win was greeted with loud groans and thumbs down!!

Winning by a Landslide
Then the moment everyone had waited for. CNN announced that Obama was the 44th President of the United States and Grant Park erupted. It was a huge landslide, as I had expected and predicted this past week. People just started hugging me, and each other. The men around me were holding their heads in wonder or crying in sheer disbelief. I kept pinching myself that I was actually the only Brit for miles standing among new friends, of all colours and creeds, saying YES WE DID!! in the middle of Chicago, it seemed so unreal. Words cannot describe that incredible moment in history. People who had feared that Obama might have been robbed of his victory felt they could now exhale in relief. They could stop living on their nerves, they could shout for joy and savour the impossible. And, boy, did they let go!!

The star spangled banner was sung to herald the new man in the White House and the crowd joined in. It was so moving. When President-Elect Obama and his First Family came to the stage, I couldn't believe I was standing just a few feet from them and could see them up close. Wow, wow, wow! Then when he gave his awesome acceptance speech, and told the story of the life of that 106 year old voter, interspersing every event in her lifetime with YES WE CAN! it was more than magical. It was simply surreal as we all shouted the words in unison after him.

Coming out of the park I was interviewed by television crews from Latvia, the Netherlands, Japan and the great NBC which did a long piece on me, as they were obviously fascinated by a Brit being there and wanted to know why. I hope my son in Japan see the interview I did with that crew. My instincts told me I was in the right place at the right time.

For me, the election of Barack Obama heralded a few simple things: in the Park
* People hugging one another without even thinking of race, gender or creed;
* People bonding together very easily without fear or mistrust.
* A black woman giving high fives to all the white people she met while shouting "We did it for President Obama!"
* A young white guy wanting to exchange views about it all, checking on my welfare and how I was going to get home, wanting to see me back safely if I had any fears.
* Blacks appeared to be walking taller and with new confidence in an America that now reflected their presence at the highest level.

The Real Potential
It was a most amazing experience standing without food or water for over 6 hours yet not feeling hungry or thirsty in the least, because the moment was so overwhelming. Yes, we were all tired by midnight, but who cared? There was just no other place I wanted to be except to witness the dawn of a new America in the home state of the man who was about to make that possible.

This morning I opened my mailbox and there was the most amazing email, from Tanilan, on Newsvine. It said simply:

"Last night as the election came to an end and Obama took the stage in Chicago, you were the first person I thought about! Thank you for coming to America and helping out with our political process! You are awesome and, I think I share the same sediments as many on the vine, we love you!"

That just did it, as the tears started afresh. I love you too, my American adopted family. Thanks for the awesome welcome, the hospitality and the tolerance. I have learnt so much about America, about its elections, its people and its potential. As usual, Britain is light years behind America, but we always follow in its footsteps so look for change across the Pond too because everything you do have an effect on us. Believe that we are truly envious of your new beginning today.

A British Barack might not happen in my lifetime, but it is inevitable. However, I saw the American one, up front and personal, and, just for the moment, that's good enough for me! Personally, thanks to Newsvine and my new insights, my life will never be the same again either.

In a few years time, when he has finished his term of office, when I am back in Britain reminiscing on this moment, when someone says: "Elaine, where were you on November 4, 2008 when they elected Barack Obama?"

I will smile smugly, eyes glistening with joy as I answer: "In Grant Park, Chicago, shouting YES WE DID!" And that kind of experience is priceless. As an 'ordinary' person, I helped to make history, and was there when it happened, far more than an official reporter would have done.

Great thanks to Tammy Mack, to Joe, to all my Newsvine friends, to the unknown guy who walked halfway with me because he wanted to hear my views and to make sure I was safe. God Bless America!

Indeed.

Why the notion of valuing true diversity is a false and uncomfortable one!

Many people who know me and my pioneering equality work in the UK will find this post, in particular, rather strange, and might, in fact, fall off their chairs in some surprise! But that is the beauty of evolving in life from one stage to another. If we are learning, we are always developing and always changing perspectives. If we are entrenched in what we believe and have closed minds, we've stopped learning and are in danger of solidifying into fossilised rocks of dubious certainty. It has to be far more exciting to learn!

Being on a holiday in Chicago by myself has allowed for a lot of free thinking time and I believe the most profound thought I might have had on the whole trip was triggered by a comment from a member of an online diversity group I had joined. Some members had not taken kindly to comments by two other French members and had blasted them somewhat for their views. One member, in particular was so upset by this, she wrote:

"I am very disenchanted with a group entitled Diversity for Obama that does not welcome diverse comments from its members and does not stop to think that everyone may not be familiar with email etiquette."

She had made an excellent point which immediately gave me a new insight into my own work, as I had spent the last 15 years advocating diversity in very strong terms. Retired from it now, it was easier to see the wood from the trees and appreciate that accepting true diversity, not the cosmetic form like our recent 'Black History Month' etc., actually comes with a cost for each group/individual.

The problem with a desire for diversity is that the ideal usually falls far short of the reality. We are basically selfish in our cultural and social needs and genuinely fear difference. Hence diversity tends to be only acceptable when it conforms to our expectations, does not appear threatening and reinforces our cultural perceptions and beliefs!! Thus diversity is fine, but only from a detached and comfortable position, as we each vigorously protect our own corners. The minute that diversity encroaches on our specific values and traditions, questions our beliefs or challenges what we cherish, it ceases to be attractive and causes us to feel vulnerable and exposed.

In essence, the current notion of diversity as practised by the majority communiy, in particular, is simply monoculturalism in a slightly extended form!


The False Concept of Diversity
In fact, the whole concept of welcoming diversity is a false one because, for each species, gender, type etc., to survive, as is, each has to protect its own culture. The minute it allows for genuine diversity to encroach, it has to accommodate, and even integrate, the culture, needs and expectations of others, which then dilutes what was there in the first place and even challenges its traditions and beliefs. However, if the additional diverse entity is broadly similar, then the reverse happens: it strengthens what was there originally, while giving it new perspectives.

What is pretty clear about acknowledging, appreciating and valuing diversity in any genuine way is that each cultural group has to be prepared to respect other groups, accept parts of what they value and even integrate some of their customs to accord that respect. How many people are prepared to lose what they already have and hold dear to accommodate the expectations, traditions and beliefs of others? After all, we simply cannot appreciate, value or celebrate what we are not prepared to practise ourselves. For example, immigrant minorities in the UK are expected to learn English and be able to speak it, but having any knowledge of their language is not even addressed by the majority, which immediately negates an integral part of their culture!

That is why, in any mixed society, genuine diversity has mainly been practised by minority groups. They have had to integrate or assimilate the majority culture in order to be accepted, respected and valued, to feel included and psychologically comfortable in their identity. On the other hand, members of the majority can afford to deal with such diversity in a detached way, to pay lip service, in fact, while continuing with business as usual, because their culture, group, association etc., sets the standards, the laws, the goalposts, the decorum and the protocol of acceptance for everyone else to follow.

In essence, minority groups that crave inclusion practise diversity by having to accommode aspects of majority culture while members of the majority can take it or leave it and are often untouched by it.

The whole concept and promotion of diversity is a fine and noble one, but unless everyone is prepared to lose some of their cultural heritage and beliefs, true diversity will always remain a luxurious pipe dream, especially to majority groups with the power to avoid practising it, while being an imposition to minorities who are impotent to avoid its diluting and inevitably absorbing effects.

That is why cultural celebrations like 'Black History Month', which are aimed at educating the majority while valuing diversity, will always remain peripheral to majority culture until there is a genuine desire to actively accommodate other cultures by moving beyond words and actually practising the ideal in some respects.

First Day Blues And Some Surprises - (Day 2)- Live from Chicago's Obamaland!

Having managed to sleep for a few hours, but acquiring some bags under my eyes that perhaps needed to be declared to customs, I decided to take in my terrain. The trouble with booking any hotel abroad from your home country is that we can only see it using our own perception and experience because that is all we have until we see the reality. Little Britain is just that: little! One hundred miles for us is an awful long way to travel, like Scotland, which is 350 miles from where I live. That's another country entirely, both politically and geographically, despite being a part of the UK! So we don't handle distance well.

The hotel's blurb on the Internet said it was 'only 13' miles away from Chicago. I did a quick calculation. Where I lived in Berkshire was 12 miles from my nearest town, and that usually takes me exactly 15 minutes to reach it. There should be no problem, I thought, getting to downtown Chicago. Should be a cinch. Famous last words. As I do not trust my own knowledge on my first day in any new place, I love to ask for help from the locals. But here it seemed that the actual distance from the hotel to Obama's HQ differed according to who said it and which staff were on duty!! The problem with their limited perception meant that they had no concept of a lone traveller coming thousands of miles from home, not knowing a lot about her surroundings and genuinely needing help. Though quite helpful, they treated me as a native and it was a baptism of fire.


The Journey Downtown
I had signed on at HQ to do just one three hour shift on my first day, to get the feel of it all and to work my way in slowly. I was keen to get on with that as it started at midday and I had allowed an hour and a half to get there. I had been warned that I needed a taxi to the station, at a cost of $10-$15 max., and then $5 on the train, both of which I had budgeted for, and had taken into account, when I booked this particular hotel at their special rate. Everyone said the trains were about every half an hour. No problems, I had allowed plenty of time, but they disagreed about the length of the train ride. A couple of people said only 20 minutes while others said at least 35 minutes. No problems, either, I would get there in good time. Breakfast was a continental fare and having stocked up on that, I worked out my details for travelling quite easily, or so I thought, and ordered a taxi.

The taxi duly arrived and took me to the station in the expected time costing $14. Easy. All seemed well and going to plan. I began to smile with confidence. The waiting room was empty, I had obviously just missed a train. No problems. I had at least 75 minutes to get the next one and to reach there in time. I decided to really study the time table and discovered to my cost that the trains DID run regularly, but did not always stop at my station, and the next one was not due for three whole hours! Gulp! Panic. It meant getting there when my shift had ended! Not a great start to this auspicious day. There was only one answer for it: another taxi. "$50 dollars ma'am," the driver said cheerily.

The colour must have drained from my face turning me from Black to White in that split second because he suddenly seemed concerned and offered to give me a discount of $5 dollars, but he couldn't go any lower. "Downtown is a fair distance, ma'am," he offered helpfully. So much for being only 13 miles from Chicago, when the other taxi should have taken off at least five miles already! I decided Britons and Americans obviously used different kinds of miles to measure their journeys!! I had no option but to take it and it did take 35 minutes by car, travelling mainly on the highway. What kind of '13 miles' was that, I wondered. With tips, my taxi fares had already taken a staggering $62 from my daily budget and I still had my meals to pay. I suddenly felt very deflated. Not even when I pulled up outside the headquarters did the excitement return. I was just glad to have reached at last.


The Illinois Obama HQ
This hub of activity was a revelation in itself. It boasted a sign on an impressive building until you went inside, walked down to the basement and saw where it operated from. I had never seen so many people crammed into bare offices, on bare wooden desks, with bare walls and nothing but their motivation to cheer the place up! Every staff, no matter how senior, had to double up in the space provided. Nothing like this in the UK for our parties activities. They could take some lessons here! The only decoration being motivational drawings of the campaign provided by many pupils and others who had wanted to put their thoughts about Obama into words.

One said "I Barackandroll every day", another "Barack is simply the BEST", or "Barack for our President," all expected, of course, but the outpouring of love and the sheer volume of it was both moving and unexpected. Just as well because the place would have been pretty depressing in some respects. No plush offices, no clear hierarchy of power, no men in suits, except for Ken Bennett, the state director, whom I bumped into looking like everyone else in humility and wonderment. He smiled cheerily at me in the never-ending queue of us waiting patiently for instructions and asked where I was from. Of course, I couldn't miss the opportunity to tell him how I had come all the way from England to be there on the phones! "That's impressive. There'll be a lot of work for you, especially," he said ominously, with a broad grin, just as he was waylaid by Mike Flannery and a camera crew from CBS wanting to do an interview and a shoot.

I also managed to see the inscrutable Malik while he was trying to get through the queue. The political director for Illinois could pass for a student. I hope I didn't stare at him too much in amazement. I just had to have a few words with him. Everyone had mixed feelings now, he said. On one hand, they want the elections over, but it is also an exciting moment which they will never have again, so they wanted to savour it and enjoy it too. "No matter what happens after this, it will never be the same as now," he said, wistfully. "But it is very hectic here now and I must dash." He seemed so young, so vulnerable and so...well...ordinary. Not like a big office holder in the UK. Yet he was spearheading the political part of the state campaign. Wow!


On The Phones
The constant stream of rainbow people coming in by the minute was amazing to see. It just never stopped. One woman was on her lunch break. She wanted to do some phoning during that time. Another woman had been there all morning, She was just having a rest. It seemed to be about 40% men and 60% women, which was surprising at that time of day to see so many men devoting their time freely. No distrust here between the races. No angst, no racism, no fear. Just simple cooperation, trust, respect and mutual appreciation. Obama was certainly breaking down those barriers and teaching people how to work together for a common goal. Being together on a mission in such confined space would have changed perceptions somewhat. Most people there were on repeat days. They loved it and they didn't stop coming. Barack Obama's personal ambition has inadvertently ended up giving many unknown people the four most essential things they seek: to be significant, appreciated, valued and included, and you could see it in the joy on their faces as they waited.

I wasn't allowed to use my own cell phone, being from abroad, and they didn't have enough to go round but I didn't have to wait long and began my shift with a few butterflies in my stomach. I had to ask for volunteers to come in to ring key battleground states or to go to Indiana over the weekend to knock on doors and speak to people. I was fired up and ready to go!

I gingerly made my first call but I got a voice mail. Phew, that helped to steady the nerves. A few numbers had their mailbox full! I was not surprised. In fact, most of my list were obviously at work so I had to leave a prepared message, except that I cheekily slipped in a line of my own that said I had come all the way from the UK to give a hand so I hope they would come and join me on the phone as I would love to have their company! What they will make of that, and my accent, when they hear it, only heaven knows, but I began to smile. It felt good hearing all the other cheerful voices in the room saying their little spiels, cajoling, recording, or thanking parties for their support. I was certainly among friends. I began to relax but was still only leaving voicemails.


Hitting The Jackpot
I was beginning to despair of ever speaking to someone when, halfway through the list, I hit gold! I rang the next gentleman in line and his daughter answered. No, her father couldn't help, she said, as he was not well. However, her husband wanted to help and she would call him. His name was Evens and he came on the phone, marvelled immediately that I didn't have an American accent, then proceeded to complain that he had always wanted to do something but no one had called him.

I apologised profusely explaining how short-staffed the campaign was, which is why everyone like him was needed! When I asked if he could go to Indiana, oh, yes, he said. He would do two shifts on his day. Would he bring anyone with him? Yes, about seven people. "No, make that 12," he added, "I don't want to miss anyone off the list from my church. Perhaps I should get a carrier and bring more," he said, half to himself. "Put me down for 20 friends. There are many people I know who want to help and this is the last weekend. We might as well make the effort. I''ll ring back later to give their names and details."

I couldn't thank him enough for making my day!

Another round of voice messages followed and just as I was on my last call I heard another human voice. Gosh, I was pleased. It belonged to someone called Lorraine. There was a child crying in the background who refused to be pacified as she tried vainly to talk to me. "Just a minute," she requested and took him aside, but nothing doing. He screamed even louder. She must have taken him into another room because the noise was distant. "I am so sorry," she said. I told her that I should be the one apologising having rung at the wrong time. We laughed together and she said she definitely wanted to do a phone bank shift as she couldn't do the journey to canvass. I gave her the necessary details and was just about to say goodbye when she said. "Are you British?" Yes, I said, smiling. "You've come all the way from there to help us?" she asked with some surprise. "Yes," I replied, rather proudly.

"Oh, my goodness! God bless you, girl! You are some lady. God bless you so much and keep you safe. Welcome to Chicago and thank you from the bottom of my heart. Thank you. Thank you. You inspire me, girl. I've got to get on those phones but I must see to my kid. God bless you."

I was so busy listening to her I didn't realise that a few tears had fallen on to my list. Tears of sheer joy and amazement at hearing the passion and genuine care in this stranger's voice. Two people from different countries who were joined by a dream, and inspired by a vision of how one person could make a great difference to our world. But, right now, we were making a difference to each other. I felt incredibly proud of my afternoon's work.

I filled out my sheet with a smug smile, while still dabbing uncontrollable tears from my eyes: 39 calls made (the number allocated per shift), 4 people answered, 2 YES, 2 MAYBE, 17 messages left. Value of experience: Priceless!

I momentarily remembered the $62 spent. What $62? Suddenly money was the last thing on my mind. I would be back tomorrow for two shifts, even if I had to go hungry!

PRESS RELEASE: From The UK to Chicago And Obama, With Much Trepidation!

HOT NEWS!

Elaine Sihera, Change Expert for Britain's Fifty Forward, founder of the British Diversity Awards and Diversity Leaders UK, is making a special trip to Illinois for one main reason: to be a volunteer in the Barack Obama campagn. She explains it below in her own words:

"I am making my first trip to Chicago next week (Oct.27-Nov.6) from the United Kingdom. I feel like a mad hatter because I decided to do that only a few days ago. Reason? I have been a keen armchair follower of Barack Obama's campaign for the past 15 months, from my flat in Berkshire, being totally awe-inspired by what has been unfolding in the USA, to the extent of having written over a hundred articles on his progress.

Suddenly last week, I couldn't bear to watch history being made from the sidelines anymore, and made my decision to go to Chicago and be a volunteer on the front line, to meet fellow supporters, persuade the doubters, work on the phones and be right in the heart of it for those crucial few days. Being an empowerment and motivational expert, I guess those skills should come in handy in these last moments when the prize is so near and yet seems so far!

Yes, siree, I am all FIRED UP and READY TO GO! And I cannot believe I am doing this, dropping everything and flying off on my own, not knowing where I am going and what I will be doing. But that is the power of this unknown man to persuade, to inspire and to lead, that he has me following meekly behind in sheer admiration and excitement because of the possibilities of his presidency. It could have a dramatic effect on us here in Britain, especially on minority perceptions, beliefs, expectations and dreams. So it is not an idle journey.

In fact, for me it is no ordinary journey  either. It is a trip I really shouldn't be making because I did not know I would still be alive to do it, having been very ill since March 2007. I am a diabetic, but one with a difference. My body has been rejecting every medication during the whole time Obama has been campaigning. My life since last year has been nothing but one medication trial after another, tablets and injections, in rotation, all rejected by my body. But I kept hearing "Yes, we can" in the distance and it has inspired my own fight back, along with the intense desire to actually see him reach the White House. Some days it is one hell of a battle and all I can do is give in and lie in bed, feeling terribly weak and beaten. I was even advised to have an ambulance on standby as medical staff feared I was heading for a coma and doctors thought I might have had a stroke or heart attack months ago.  Other days, like now, I could climb mountains. But every single day I kept telling myself: "Yes, I can" too. And here I am still smiling, against the odds.

Apparently I am unique in that problem in Britain. I love being one of a kind, but, just for this, I would love to be like everyone else!  However, I am certainly not complaining because I am here, enjoying life, still writing and still smiling, in an unbelievably positive way. I feel strongly that what has been happening in America has been having an effect on me too and i give thanks. I know I cannot take my days for granted, so I thought what better way to spend them than to be a volunteer at Campaign HQ in Chicago, to share in this amazing moment. No matter what happens to me after that, it would have been well and truly worth it. 

History is being made in America in a few days time. It will be one of those magical moments we will be remembering 30 years on, wondering what we were doing on that night. It will be easy for me to recall because I will be right where it all happens and it seems unreal as a Brit.

I have a wish list of stuff I hope to achieve, like presenting the only book on diversity management in Europe to the Senator and the Mayor, interviewing both Michelle Obama and Jill Biden and perhaps take in an Oprah Winfrey show. That would all be such a wonderful experience. But they would be just the icing on the cake of actually being able to make the trip in the first place and making my small contribution to the campaign team.

So Chicago, here I come. I really can't wait to meet everyone.
 
And, YES, I certainly CAN!!"

-END-

Elaine is also a public speaker on education, personal empowerment and diversity management.
For interviews or speaking requests: Elaine (or her assistant, Gwenllian) can be reached directly by email at: elaine@elainesden.org OR gwen@elainesden.org

One of the highest achievers in her community in Britain, Elaine is the most noted and quoted Black Briton on the Internet. Google her for yourself to find out, or visit her interesting websites:

http://www.elainesden.org
http://www.helium.com/user/show/63465
http://www.mscyprah.newsvine.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTES FOR EDITORS
1. A photograph and video of Elaine are available on www. elainesden.org.)

2. SEE BELOW for examples of Elaine's comment on the American elections, particularly on Barack Obama.

3. This former education manager and empowerment consultant is the TOP INTERNATIONAL WRITER on emotional health (over 800 articles and 6 books to her credit) and diversity management. She is particularly suitable as:
* An opinionated writer on topical issues (See sample articles below)
* A useful resource in any media discussion
* An expert guest on a panel/programme related to her interests
* A hot FEATURE item (her life so far is both unbelieveable and incredible)
* A presenter on radio or TV programme
* A motivator on human interest presentations: particularly youth, women, minorities and seniors

4. Elaine's latest book is: 10 Easy Steps To....Growing Older Disgracefully! (by Anser Publishing £9.99)

5. ELAINE SIHERA is an expert consultant and the former chief architect of the very successful Diversity Leaders UK, a not-for-profit community agency for equality and the celebration of difference. Elaine is the leading independent authority on diversity development and practice in the U.K. A public speaker on education, diversity and emotional health issues, she is also the author of Managing the Diversity Maze and the founder of the British Divesity Awards.

How Madonna and Guy Have Fallen Victim to The Greatest Cause of Stress in Life: Relationships

(photo: www.charlotteobserver.com)

Madonna and Guy Ritchie have announced their divorce after much denial. The Daily Mirror gleefully claims to be ahead of the 'competition' in knowing that they were about to break up. But what is there to be smug about when any relationship breaks? The pain is probably even more because everything is played out on the public stage, robbing them of the privacy other members of the public take for granted. So the couple are likely to focus, initially, on how they are a perceived than on the real issues they need to sort out. There will now follow a severe time of stress for them, especially where young children are involved - and there are three in this case.

Stress affects everyone to some degree, but severe stress is a feeling of being unable to cope and is a reaction to excessive demands and pressures made upon the individual. It is most likely to be maintained by a feeling of personal rejection, insignificance and worthlessness. If it was an amicable mutual split, then the stress won't be too much.However, if one of them wanted the split more than the other, that's where the main problem will lie: dealing with that sense of rejection, and that could be pretty stressful. Stress robs you of your good looks, your disposition, your health, your youthfulness, and can even take your life. It is particularly unpleasant and harmful when pressures build up or are prolonged indefinitely; when we are unable to control the demands placed upon us, when we are constantly anxious, and when support is not there when we need it.

Most of the focus has been on reducing stress in the workplace. However, what has escaped everyone’s notice is the lethal level of stress caused by simply moving between relationships, especially where the desire for a break is not mutual, or where one is stuck in a relationship which makes one or both parties feel impotent, unhappy or simply miserable. These situations occur on a regular basis, often taken for granted as a necessary part of life, yet causing incalculable emotional damage in their wake.


Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
With many relationships lasting only between six months and a year, most people can expect some additional resulting trauma on at least three to four occasions in their lifetime. These are problems which most people try to avoid without ever quite succeeding, because the mere notion of expecting relationships to fail ensures that they do, in a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Stress from a break-up is thus the worst kind of stress because it contains personal rejection, momentary insecurity and loss of status/esteem for at least one party, not to mention the financial costs which may be attached. Yet it has been underestimated in its effects and overlooked by government provisions.

When we feel rejected, controlled or unappreciated, everything else in our lives pales into insignificance because we lose our sense of belonging, joy and worth. This affects whatever we do until we feel better. Bereavement of any kind and moving house might come top of the list of any stress-inducing activities, but being stuck in an unwanted relationship, which affects at least 20 per cent of couples, or being momentarily rejected by a partner, should go right to the top of that list because of the ongoing consequences they have for everyone involved.

Madonna and Guy are going to need all the emotional support they can have over the next few months because being a celebrity does not make them immune from the effects of a break-up. In fact, that actually makes them more exposed to its consequences as they come under increasing scrutiny.

The REAL Reason for Prejudice, Discrimination and Bias

For 12 years, from 1993, I was a very successful diversity consultant and trainer, advising all kinds of organisations in the UK - from huge companies like British Telecom, with 100,000 staff, and the Royal Navy, to small minnows like Coulsdon School - to encourage greater diversity and cultural understanding in the workplace. Being a pioneer in the field, it was easy for me to make a difference in corporate Britain by promoting effective personnel management as a business priority which impacted positively on the bottom line. I must have trained hundreds of staff across Britain during those years, primarily on the concept of diversity and appreciating its benefits and pitfalls. Through our magazine, New IMPACT, we also raised awareness of diversity, a relatively new import from America, and I also introduced the British Diversity Awards to recognise and reward good corporate practice. In that public way, winners could be useful champions to promote good management even further.


I thoroughly enjoyed what I did, and undertook a 5 year research stint into the topic, which led to the only definitive book on diversity in the UK (Managing the Diversity Maze). Throughout those years, though many people were very comfortable with difference and could understand the need to be tolerant, a growing number really felt threatened and this affected the personal perception of their lives. I found myself fielding questions, that appeared to relate to diversity, from very fearful, insecure people who worried about the effect of a multicultural society on what they held dear and how such cultural issues affected them personally. They wondered why they had to change to accommodate anyone else who was different when it was their country, especially when they did not share their values; they fretted about losing their traditions and history, blamed 'foreigners' for everything and complained of even losing their rights. Many of them came across as racist and intolerant, and were accused as such by others, despite their denials to the contrary and their deep ignorance of other cultures. However, I felt they were reasonable concerns cloaked under the label of diversity. They just sounded all 'wrong'.

Then there was another broad grouping who smiled a lot, took everything in their stride, was pretty knowledgeable on immigration and diversity issues, seemed to revel in solutions rather than just focusing on the problems and understood the benefits of diversity and how it could be used to full effect. They mainly needed affirmation for their beliefs appearing much more secure in themselves.

I pondered frequently on what caused the main difference between those two groups of people.


Our quality of life
Then it hit me six years ago, with my own marriage break-up, during one of those Eureka moments I seem to have often. I discovered that everyone of us, without exception, desired four main things to complete our life and find happiness. Each of us wishes to be significant (hence the obsession with celebrities), appreciated, valued and included, what I called my SAVI Self-Enrichment Concept. The degree to which we desire each item depends on what we place as priority in our life. A minority member, feeling excluded from mainsteam action, would value being included most, while an ambitious executive would yearn to be significant. A housewife or carer, toiling away unnoticed, is likely to put being appreciated and valued as tops in their needs.

The main difference between the two groups was one of emotional wellbeing- the quality of their life and their feeling of comfort with it. Those who felt good about themselves, who felt successful, wanted and valued in their relationships, who were dating successfully too and felt confident in their persona, had no time to fret and worry about others. They felt at peace with their world and did not see others as a threat. They did not seek scapegoats because they felt more responsible about their lives. They enjoyed being empowered to decide their own future and could understand the personal need for self-fulfilment, regardless of culture, creed, gender or race.

Others not so fortunate, who lived alone and felt lonely, who were not advancing in their jobs, who had a lot of hurt, disappointment and losses in their lives through failed relationships or stagnant careers, perceived things very differently. They genuinely did not know how to interact with others effectively, to get the necessary boost and reinforcement to their emotional wellbeing. The end result is that they felt limited in their aspirations, victim-like in their interactions with potential partners and afraid for the progression of their careers, often seeking scapegoats to feel better. This encouraged them to see anyone different, younger or older, male or female, etc., as a real threat; appearing as 'racist', 'ageist' or 'sexist' when that was perhaps not their intention.


Lack of emotional health priority
Both groups of people adopt different coping mechanisms, especially in the absence of good emotional health. Our society makes provisions for improving physical health and mental health, but the most important part of that wellbeing triangle, emotional health, is completely ignored. In a nutshell, emotional health concerns three major factors: self-love, self-belief and self-esteem, all three impacting on each other. They affect our level of achievement, the quality of our relationships with others and the way we view the world, whether positively or negatively. The state of our emotional health directly controls our physical one in the form of 'moods'. Continuing low moods keep us in a depressed state and ultimately lower our immunity, thus exposing us more frequently to clinical problems. Hence there is a direct correlation between our emotional health and how good we feel physically. (Sihera 2006)

One is usually expected to cope with a relationship breakdown - an essential aspect of our lives - at any time, while carrying on with our work as if nothing has happened. Yet, every crisis affects our perception of ourselves and when it involves rejection, it strikes at the heart of our esteem and robs us of our value. We would have been feeling very crappy, and incapacitated, with things falling apart around us. Only robots can ignore the fallout, long or short term, of a relationship crisis or loss of a loved one. Those two items cause the greatest distress for us but often lack the attention they require from others.

Emotional health and empowerment are at the heart of our existence and diversity management. The way we feel emotionally can attract or repel diseases. If we feel vibrant, happy and alive, we are more likely to remain healthy than someone steeped in unhappiness, depression, victimhood and regret. It is a simple equation. When we feel good, nurtured and valued, and we love and appreciate ourselves, we seldom feel threatened because we find it easier to empathise with others and their situation. It gives us the confidence to get out of our comfort zones, to experiment with the unknown and to share our lives and perspectives with others. With the life quality being dictated by personal feelings, if someone is unhappy in their personal life, feeling excluded and invisible, whatever is going on at work is going to suffer in a major way, hence why many people who are hurting emotionally vote with their feet from work through regular absence.

The key question is: How can you appreciate someone else, value someone else, celebrate their difference and diversity if your own personal life is falling apart, if you feel emotionally caustic or barren, culturally ignorant of others and a victim of life through hurt and loss? That's a very difficult thing to do in those negative circumstances. It's like asking someone to give away what they haven't got!

A lack of good emotional health is therefore responsible for a lot of things in our lives and that's where the main focus should be before physicians even treat ill-health. Take some time to find out something about the life of that person: their joys, their sorrows, their hopes, their fears, their desires because wherever there is chronic illness and strong prejudices, bad emotional health is not far from it! Charity has to start from within us. Only when we feel emotionally at peace with ourselves, enjoying greater self-confidence and high esteem, do we feel inclined to spread that joy outwards and value others, to really appreciate the empowering strengths of living in a diverse community and, most important, to appreciate ourselves and the amazing beings we are!

Four Key Reasons Why Barack Obama Will Be The Next United States President (One Year On)

I came on Newsvine in the first week of July of 2007 and immediately got embroiled in heated debates about whether Barack Obama stood any kind of chance to be President of the USA. My belief in his eventual success was unshakeable, and stood confidently firm, even in the face of all the arguments. In fact it was a rather lonely time then, trying to defend my corner as a seemingly 'naive' newcomer in the face of so much scepticism and so many learned Americans telling me otherwise, especially when a few repeatedly pointed out that it was their country and they knew far more about the form than I did. But that cemented my belief even further. Often outsiders can see what we cannot because, being outside of the situation and untainted by its partisan nature, they can see the bigger picture.

I had nothing much to go on except my instincts and, to the smug political pundits, that was nothing on which to base such an important prediction in the face of 'past experience' and the 'evidence' against an Obama victory. However, being a confident person, I remained steadfast, as my instincts have never failed me in my life. I have not seen any reason whatsoever along the way to change my mind either. Even when I saw the dire comments of what would happen at various points in the campaign, especially how he would be beaten by Clinton, I still didn't budge. So when I now see those sceptical pundits announcing with a flourish that Barack will be the 44th President, I smile to myself knowing that they are ONE YEAR too late with their prediction. It's good to be smug sometimes, especially when one was supposed to have been so wrong and so ignorant of the form! It is fascinating to see them justifying his impending victory with all kinds of spurious reasons except the main one: that the man is extraordinary and exceptional in what he has done, considering he emerged from nowhere to beat everyone else to be key leader for these troubled times.

A lot can happen in three weeks, of course, but barring any catastrophe, Barack is home and dry in the White House. It will have happened because of the reasons I stated one year ago. John McCain has said that even though Obama is currently 'measuring the drapes' he is a fighter and will carry on fighting with the hope of overturning the current position. He is not out yet. Well, I have news for him. None of the old comeback tricks will work this time, but I applaud him for continuing with that hope. It makes for a more interesting contest to the finish, and will give him an honourable exit as well. One cannot begrudge him that.

Written in July of 2007 and posted on Newsvine in November, 2007, Four Key Reasons Why Barack Obama Will Be The Next President demonstrates why Barack will be victorious as well as how belief and faith can move mountains and also confound the sceptics.

One year on, every word is a winner. Well done, Senator! :o)

The problem with Republicans changing the rules at this stage and the main consequences of it

(courtesy: newsbusters.org)

There are four crucial weeks left to the American elections, a very long time to test political fortunes. To the Democrats it must feel like the end is so tantalisingly near yet so achingly far away, in view of what is possible for both sides of the race up to then. Already, the Republicans are baring their nasty fangs. Bereft of innovative ideas, deprived of any real leadership and with no obvious solutions to any of the country's pressing problems (goodness knows there are many!), the intreprid Republicans, headed by John MCcain and Sarah Palin, have decided to take leave of their collective senses and get stuck into the mud instead.

The problem with accusing your opponent of anything at all that smacks of smear, slander or simple nastiness, is that two can play the same game. Having been in the line of 'terrorist for friend' fire all weekend, Barack Obama's team is now hitting back with a short documentary about McCain and Keating, an association that would have been better left unearthed in view of what is happening in the current economic meltdown.

According to David PLouffe, Obama's campaign manager:
"At noon Eastern on Monday, October 6th, we're releasing a 13-minute documentary about the scandal called "Keating Economics: John McCain and the Making of a Financial Crisis". it will be available at KeatingEconomics.com, along with background information that every voter should know. The point of the film and the web site is that John McCain still hasn't learned his lesson."

Oh, dear. I am sure the last thing that McCain needs right now is for the public to be reminded of what a hash he helped to make of the economy through deregulation.

When one resorts to smears about others, especially when there is little truth in them, one can expect the following five things to happen:

1. It emphasises how little one knows of the issues and has to resort to negative distractions to divert attention from one's inadequacy and ignorance. One is simply hiding one's unsuitability behind a handy scapegoat.

2. It draws attention to the poverty of one's leadership, especially when leaders are supposed to be statesmanlike, not street fighters hitting below the belt.

3. It loses sight of the important reasons for the election and seeking office: i:e the country and its nation, not the candidates themselves.

4. It demeans the whole office being contended, in this case the presidency if the United States.

5. It tends to unleash the floodgates of retaliatory action.

If the Republicans want to have a hope in hell of winning this election, McCain and Palin need to urgently return to providing the exact reasons why people should vote FOR them, not providing spurious claims why voters should vote AGAINST Obama! People will only listen to smears and nastiness for a little while. Some might be influenced by it but the majority soon work things out for themselves. After that, accusations become rather boring and counter-productive, tending to backfire with a vengeance in the end.

Is O J Simpson the victim of retribution rather than the recipient of justice?

O J Simpson has been found guilty, on all 12 counts of his latest escapade, by a Las Vegas jury that sat for 13 hours non-stop in a single day! The verdict came 13 years to the day that Simpson was acquitted of the murder of his wife and her friend. He could be put away for any number of years, from 15 to life, for 'kidnapping' of memorabilia relating to his sporting achievements he claimed were his from the Palace Station Hotel-Casino room. To many people who have waited a while to see Simpson get his come-uppance, they might be rubbing their hands with glee at the verdict. But a few questions, mainly five, need to be asked here in the cold light of day about this judgement. Is it really justice or basic retribution?

The other four key questions are:
1. What part did tiredness and anxiety play in getting that verdict?
13 hours is an awfully long time to be closeted non-stop trying to get a verdict. The fact that it carried on so long also indicates some major disagreement among the jury.

2. What part did the knowledge of the acquittal anniversary have on the discussion of his innocence or guilt? To what extent was this 'payback' time for Mr Simpson?

3. And what if he really was innocent of what happened in 1995, should his past really have any bearing on what has happened in this case?

4. And what validity does the verdict of an all-White jury, with uncomfortable comparisons to a Jim crow court, carry against a Black man suspected of killing a White woman, against a backdrop of endemic racism in America?

Whatever one's feelings about O J Simpson, the one thing that is important to acknowledge is that real justice has to be perceived to be done. Every citizen deserves that, regardless of who they are.

There are two very clear racial perceptions in the United States:
a. For many Blacks, it is that they will never get real justice because they are Black, in a system controlled, maintained and executed by Whites..

b. For many Whites, it is that Blacks condone criminality by their peers and view crime lightly judging by the percentage of minorities in prison.

Both perceptions are stereotypic and inappropriate, though with some foundation based on history and experience. But until you bridge them in some way, how can any justice be perceived to be done by either side?

Has real justice been done in this case, or has the man himself and his history made a fair judgement almost impossible for him?

Have Standards in Palin's America Fallen so Terribly Low?

What do the vice-presidential debate and a racist incident that same day in a middle school have in common? Not much, on the face of it, but on a deeper level, they are both indicative of the state of America today; the low expectations of value, the low expectations of leadership and the increasingly low acceptance of what counts as right and wrong.

First of all, the debate. There has been much comment, most of it hot air, around the anticipated gladiatorial battle between Joe Biden for the Democrats and Sarah Palin for the Republicans. In many other cases, this would have been a non-event: so completely predictable in outcome, so false and superficial and so patroniising to public intelligence as to be almost nonsensical. Yet, the outcome has been presented as some kind of victory for Biden and a 'did much better than expected' scorecard for Palin. Phew, relief all round. She can rest easily now! This assessment is despite the fact that Sarah Palin scored an average of only 32% favourability rating across all the main polls compared to 57% for Joe Biden, a significant difference of 25% between them!

But when did a very competent man dumbing down his skills to suit an incompetent female opponent, who is clearly out of her depth, rate as a fair contest? When did a candidate choosing to answer only the questions she wanted while ignoring the rule of the debate become a true sign of talent and leadership? And when did a stream of regurgitated sound bytes from John McCain count as original answers to test personal capability? In case no one wants to say it, wants to admit it and is still pretending that the emperor has some clothes on, I will point out the bloody obvious: No amount of cribbing, cramming and ramming will make this lady any better than she has been or any more suitable for the highest placed deputy in the world.

Sarah Palin is so mediocre for a possible Vice President, she could even be dangerous to the country's reputation and growth. I will say that again in another form for those who might have missed it first time: Sarah Palin needs to stop now before she digs herself any deeper into a hole which is getting increasingly wider and more overwhelming! America needs to have a good look at itself and where it is going for the good of its children - its future and the mere thought of Sarah being anywhere near the hot seat of power. This has nothing to do with whether Obama is elected or not. Forget him. It has a lot to do with the standards of one of the most powerful countries, the pride in itself and where it wishes to go. If it sees Sarah Palin as a possible leader then that is NOT the America I have been in admiration of all my life, that we in Britain have envied so openly or the country that has set a commanding lead for others to follow.

America is the leader of the free world, for God's sake. Is Palin really the best they can proffer for the rest of that world to emulate? Someone who didn't do as badly as expected? What happened to someone brilliant, intelligent, knowledgeable, learned, inspiring, motivational, admirable, fantastic and articulate, to name a few? Aren't those qualities allowed at the top anymore in the new low-bar, anything-goes America?


School of bias
Apparently not, otherwise more effective action would have been taken in the case of the middle school teacher for seventh graders, in Marianna, Florida, who used the CHANGE word to represent an acronym which called Barack Obama a nigger. He wrote it on the blackboard for the kids to see it. He emphasised the word for their benefit. His offending sentence was reported as "Can you Help a Nigger Get Elected?" In a classroom of young kids in multicultural America, in the 21st century, this was possible. As a former teacher, I kept thinking of those kids of all colours and creeds, especially the ones who were Black and represented young 'niggers' in his eyes, having to sit through that whether they liked it or not. They would have been exposed to that poisonous label of disrespect, their value immediately crushed under the weight of racism and privilege, forced to endure that person's meanness, prejudice and vindictiveness, a captured audience in a sea of mediocrity.

I also thought of this man each day shaping those malleable young minds whatever way he chooses, denying the presence and value of some kids at the stroke of a pen, while raising the value of others at a whim, kids entirely at his mercy, and I felt a kind of impotent rage. What did he get for this gross abuse of power? 10 days suspension and some sensitivity training. What happened to instant dismissal from the education system and being prosecuted for breach of trust? What are we coming to when a system can condone such naked racism by having such a person still teaching the young?

I guess it is the same system, the same authority, the same new low-bar America that would willingly accept Sarah Palin to be a bona fide, skilled, articulate and deserving possible president in a heartbeat. The one suddenly regarded as 'qualified' for high office. The best many believe they have available to lead the most powerful country in the free world!

Gulp!!

HOT NEWS! Why it was right for Britain's Metropolitan Police Commissioner to be Sacked!!

(pic courtesy: www.thislondon.co.uk)

Sir Ian Blair, the beleaguered head of Scotland Yard and the UK capital's police force, has been sacked by the mayor of London, Boris Johnson. And one could say: About time too!

Whatever he was good at, managing a staff crisis obviously wasn't one of them. He has presided over the worst senior management debacle in the history of the Force by allowing one of his high ranking deputies to actually take the Yard to a tribunal for alleged discrimination, harassment and victimisation. The same officer even received threats from anonymous colleagues, which appeared to have been ignored by the Met. The Black Police Association, that normally works with the majority officers to promote diversity, especially in recruitment, even threatened to withdraw from the recruiting process and to stage protests outside Scotland Yard. All that seemed to have fallen on Sir Ian's deaf ears! Fiddling like Nero while Rome burnt, Ian Blair's handling of the crisis in his Force over the past few months has been a shambles and a disgrace for the highest ranking officer in a multicultural Britain.

One of his former assistant commissioners described him as 'detached, aloof and arrogant', someone who 'did not listen', which was exactly how I found him when I invited him to the British Diversity Awards. Even though he was acting on my behalf to present awards to deserving recipients, his manner was so aloof and condescending, compared to all my other presenters, it sent a chill through me, as a Black woman fighting for equality and justice. I felt that this was not a gentleman I could ever work with or even wish to work with. I've never been able to forget his manner, especially when I was on his side, aligning with his diversity goals and the Met was actually sponsoring the event!

If the Metropolitan Police needed new leadership, especially after the Charles De Menezes shooting tragedy, and the very low morale of the dedicated officers serving with him, it is right now. Boris acted superbly by taking a difficult decision at a difficult time because 2010, when his contract expired, is just far too long a wait. It has been a real surprise that Ian Blair had not exercised his own judgement ages ago and tendered his resignation, gracefully. But what can one expect of someone who believes he is right and everyone else is wrong?

The Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, has publicly affirmed her support for him when she accepted his resignation. That was a wrong move and a slap in the face for the hard work being done by everyone for a cohesive workforce. Sir Ian needed to be publicly thanked for his service, but not publicly supported or praised. That should have been done privately. This poor judgement demonstrates, once again, why the current Labour government is really in the pits, and digging even deeper!

There is no doubt that Sir Ian Blair made a valuable contribution to the progress of the Metropolitan Police during his tenure. But the mark of a real leader is being the first to acknowledge when you are wrong, when something could have been handled with more sensitivity and understanding and when to call a halt. In all three areas, particularly in relation to simple staff management and motivation, Ian Blair failed miserably.

Boris Johnson did the right thing in acknowledging the significant part Sir Ian played in fighting terrorism, introducing the safer neighbourhood schemes and falling crime levels by applauding his 'lasting and distinguished contribution to policing in London'. That is well deserved. But someone else's leadership is sorely needed and London cannot afford to wait a moment longer simply because, if the Met Police is occupied fighting among itself, how can it be fighting crime effectively?

I am no Conservative supporter but, just for now, I say Boris for Prime Minister! What a difference to see someone who makes decisions without even blinking!

Does Society Favor Men?

Well, the only way to answer this question is to ask: Is the Pope Catholic?

Of course society favours men. Men have always been in charge and in command of their world. They built it, they dictate behaviour in it and they control it. The biggest and most noticeable area is in jobs and careers. Only today I was reading the latest fascinating surveys on the best and highest paid jobs for women, and even in careers where women are represented at least 75% (like nursing, paralegal, human resources etc), somehow that 25% of men manage to earn at least $5000 annually MORE than the women! How does that happen? How can the majority earn less than the minority in those fields? And that trend is repeated across society. Worse still, even in fields like IT where men dominate, they still earn far more. So, right across the board, society favours men much more than women, which is why they earn an average of 20% more in pay than their female colleagues. But we have to look at the root of the favouritism to appreciate how it is maintained.

Women, of course, began with a disadvantage. Up to a few years ago, society was run by men, for men and to reflect men and their values and ideals. Women were invisible, as their 'natural' place was regarded as being in the home. A lot has happened in the past 50 years to change those perceptions, and we do have some women forging ahead in isolated instances. Many young women are also achieving much more academically to give them that brighter start in life, and a few are reaching the boardrooms. But they still represent only about 2% of what is possible. Men still have a strong grip on the economic, political, educational, media and technology structures of our society, the important bases of power, continuously recruiting and nurturing in their own image and likeness, especially where men are regarded as 'natural' authority figures. In this way they maintain their iron hold on opportunities and access for all.

Some might argue that women are getting more access to male domains and so society is beginning to favour them above men. But access is not influence or power, which men have retained in abundance. Access gets you on the ladder, to survey enviously those already in place. Without the men in power opening that door wider to let women through, women will always have that glass ceiling obstructing their progress to greater heights. It means that the good intentions might be there to improve the balance of opportunities and contributions between men and women, but vested male interest and a firm hold on power ensures the actual action remains tiny and the status quo continues to favour men for a long time to come.

Why Do People Stereotype?

Stereotypes reflect flat, one dimensional caricatures of people which bear little resemblance to the variety and diversity inherent in any group or race, but they surface all the time in any culture for easy categorisation and comprehension of cultural behaviour. We hear a lot about stereotypes and why we should not use them, but there is nothing wrong with stereotypes, per se. We tend to judge each other by generalisations in order to understand every aspect of life, especially when faced with difference, a kind of shorthand way of addressing new groups without having to note every minute detail every moment of the day.

The brain, like any computer, works from the macro to the micro when absorbing information, seeking coherence and order by using the information it already has to sort items and people in the fastest, most stereotyped and efficient way until more data becomes available. At the first, or macro, stage, the only effective way to view people of all ilk is to focus on their similarities, what they are perceived to have in common from our state of ignorance, especially what links them together, whether positive or negative, in order to appreciate their culture/behaviour/perspectives.

When more information becomes available, sorting switches to the micro, or individual level, to focus on the differences that set the person or group apart in their own right, and to establish the level of familiarity and comfort in dealing with the strangers or new situations. This automatic second stage process by the brain sorts out interactions on a micro level, assigning individual characteristics to a host of originally 'sameness' features. Once we appreciate the uniqueness of that individual, we begin to feel more comfortable with them and there is no further need for stereotypes. We tend to accept them as they are.

So, while it may be wrong to assign something negative across a whole group of people, it becomes offensive as a stereotype ONLY if we know better, yet still persist in classifying those people in stereotypic ways. It is also the negative nature of stereotypes which makes them offensive because we really cannot accept a positive stereotype like, "Many African Americans are great athletes" (which appreciates and applauds their prowess), or that "Asians are good academic performers who end up in high status professions" (something which enhances that ethnic group by increasing its social and economic appeal) then react in an aggrieved manner when negative stereotypes are used as well.

We cannot know every human being individually, so we have to start with certain assumptions about them, based upon our limited knowledge of their background and origin. This would include the primary differences relating to gender, race, ethnicity, age, ability, religion and nationality - the more readily observable characteristics. For those who wish to be prejudiced or discriminatory, or who lack confidence in themselves, this is where the process stops. A quick analysis usually catalogues the group or person into a 'rigid box of acceptance or rejection', dominated by stereotypes and feelings of fear.

If the original perception remains unchanged, despite added knowledge to the contrary, that's where negative stereotypes become damaging and prejudicial. Any further assumptions would be deliberate and used for a particular purpose which is rarely ever meant to be complimentary to that person or group, and particularly to feel superior.

Dealing with prejudice in today's society

Prejudice is a natural by-product of making choices in life. We are presented with a diversity of choice daily, from which we are required to select what matters to us most, what we like best, the things which keep us in our comfort zones and anything that enhances us the most, while resisting the rest. From choosing a partner to choosing a fashionable item, we are exercising the prejudice of accepting one thing while rejecting another. So we are all guilty of exercising prejudice in some form and we all have our prejudices relating to lifestyle and culture.

However, such prejudices become an issue where choices are mainly negative, made out of deliberate malice to show dislike, to stem personal fear, to demonstrate superiority, to exclude others and to denigrate or deny their presence and rights. In fact, prejudice becomes intolerable when it is applied to people who cannot change their colour, their disability, gender or sexuality. One always has the opportunity to lose weight, if one is too big, to stop smoking, if the smoke offends others, or to stop behaving badly, if it annoys one's peers. But prejudice against people who cannot change who they are, or their identities, hits below the belt and becomes unacceptable.

Dealing with such prejudice is often a traumatic process for those on the receiving end, especially if they are not supported by the system, by neighbours or the community. People affected by mindless prejudice often feel impotent to deal with it and many are left scarred by its effects. However, the room for those malicious types of prejudice is gradually contracting because of the global exposure to difference, the networking opportunities to deal with people of different cultures and communities, and the educational advantages available. In fact, the vast amount of information available on the Internet and elsewhere, the dramatic increase in travel over the years and the proliferation of social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook, are doing more to break down such prejudices, and the barriers to the acceptance of diversity, than anything that has gone before them. They now make it difficult to exercise real prejudices, especially when one has been out of one's locality or is trying to make 'friends' on a global scale.

Dealing with prejudices have never been easy, and prejudices will always be there. But thanks to education, technology and greater exposure to one another, such prejudices can gradually be minimised instead of being allowed to cause real damage.

Growing up in a different world: How do we teach values?

Teaching solid values which help to build character is very important in families. Values are the legacy of a good home and provide the basis of acceptable behaviour. They also decide the moral standards of a family, they give confidence in dealing with specific issues and situations and provide the essential link from one generation to another.

However, the teaching of values in any age or any society is not an easy one because of the fluid and questionable nature of the values themselves, and the ever changing demands in behaviour of each new age. A few years ago, values were universally based on religious Christian teachings. The bible was the foundation for the values we adopted, with a fear of God as the decisive element to ensure we kept to those values. Most values related to the individual and keeping his/her place harmoniously within the wider community. Religion also affected expectations and behaviour relating to marriage.

For example, a grandmother who would have been brought up in a very restrictive Britain, as far as women are concerned, would have been taught the values of behaving like a 'lady', not having sex before marriage, not having children out of wedlock and not daring to think of divorce because of the vows made and the loyalty to the husband and home which was expected. Try teaching such values to young women of today! Yet those values would have made the grandmother the confident, accomplished (or even fearful) woman that she is now. They would have dictated her perspectives on life, and her perceptions of it, and would have been the cornerstone of her development in a male dominated society.

Today our values are more social in form, technological rather than religious in application, more pragmatic to suit the moment and entirely concensual. Youngsters tend to match their peers in behaviour so as not to feel left out, adopting values which are likely to be at odds with the outmoded values of their parents. Therefore values can never be passed down without some modification and acceptance of change due to the transient nature of society, the constantly changing morals and behaviour, the innovatory nature of life itself, and the natural social experiment of the young to forge their own values to deal with new situations.

It means that in a 20 year span, values would have been greatly modified or completely replaced altogether because of the changing times. For example, I grew up believing that to steal from anyone, especially shops and work, was wrong. Yet a recent survey in the UK showed that 38% of the nation engage in petty theft , especially at work,of one kind or another daily. Such theft is no longer regarded as morally wrong but a kind of retribution for fleecing the customers. Many people have the reasoning that the shops rip off the customers in high prices so they have no regret stealing from them through actions like keeping change they were not entitled to, or wearing clothes they bought and returning them to the shops as faulty.

Teaching values are important for the confident development of the young, and to keep the generations connected to each other, but that teaching has to be flexible enough to recognise that yesterday's value is likely to have less relevance and are more likely to be today's amusing folk tales.

Sorry Barack, this pains me to say it, but I have to vote for Paris Hilton instead! :o)

I hate to do this to my presidential intended, especially one so deserving of the office and all that, and after all that campaigning too, but I have to switch my allegiance to Paris Hilton for president, and with her having chosen sweet little Rihanna for Vice President too. What a team they will be, particularly for galvanising the men to join them in governing effectively in the White House. The men would be so busy being goggle eyed at the ladies, they could both get some very tricky policies through without a murmur!

Paris is eminently qualified, according to her latest advertisement. Her brief but dramatic advert shows that:

a. She has an energy plan, which is more than John McCain has.
b. She is pretty articulate and sweet with it too.
c. She tells it like it is and does not mince her words with niceties (calling her rivals "bi*ches").
d. She can look beautiful (which is more than McCain ever can!)
e. She is quite ready to lead (Boy, I can see LOTS of men itching to follow her in her swimsuit all the way to Capitol Hill!)

In fact, I think Paris and Barack would make a wonderful pair in the White House as they are both supposed to be 'celebrities', they both have that and elusive X factor and we are obviously in the celebrity age. i could also campaign for them both at the same time. Saves lots of angst on my part having to choose! (This is getting more exciting by the minute!)

And why did I switch my strong allegiance so quickly, despite the hand wringing?

Because Paris is indeed very hot, as she says, and us hot ladies have to stick together when the chips are down!

Kudos to President Paris, I say!

(PS..Her advert has been seen over 2 million times in a few hours already!)

Four Key Elements of the MySpace Age

The MySpace Age is indicative of the dramatic change in the world we have known, primarily in the way we now relate to one another. This age is characterised by the following: individual expression, technology, communication and connections.
1. The MySpace age is the age of the individual. An age where individual expression is paramount compared to the old age of collective information, suppressed information, information censored by authority and being denied access to it. Emphasis is now on personal profiles, extending one's reach globally to others, instead of just to our extended families, and sharing in a cultural enrichment of artistic, social and literary expressiveness. The blog is now king which gives everyone a voice. People have always wanted to be heard and now there is an instant personal comment and expression on every world event. The ubiquitous blog gauges world opinion through individual utterances, while giving the blogger authority, presence and significance.

2. Technology defines the MySpace age. Without it, we would still be back in old times, doing things in the limited traditional ways: being limited to our geographical, cultural and social boundaries and in both our imagination and creativity. Technology offers complete freedom of expression, in a new order and with new tools, which is sometimes frightening in its implications; one that is still feared by older people while being bewildering in its array of possibilities. Without technology the MySpace age would simply not be possible and its development carries with it the need for new mindsets, new ways of thinking and new ways of approaching the fascinating lives we now lead and accepting what is possible.

3. Communication is at the heart of the MySpace age: communicating with ourselves, with others and with our world, and with a new kind of urgency and voice. Everyone is encouraged to communicate through the use of technology, using all forms of the multimedia available, which is why sites like YouTube, Photobucket and Itunes dominate. There is the constant need to upload, download, make a video, blog and play music. These sites are witnesses to new and creative forms of expressiveness which bridge all social and cultural barriers.

4. Connections: friendships and connecting with others appear to be the raison d'etre of the MySpace age. We are all encouraged to make new friends across the globe, send out our pictures, our thoughts, fears and aspirations to share with everyone in our special circle of friendships, and to have them appreciated, validated and reinforced. If you are not connected to others you are not yet a part of the MySpace age; an age which leaves loneliness and isolation behind and offers a tantalising world of new experiences, new friendships and exciting new connections, well outside our own small and limiting localities and social and cultural boundaries.