Edinburgh, summer, suicide.

Trigger warning; suicide. 

For most of the summer, I lived in Edinburgh, working at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe. It was an experience, to say the least. Working six days a week for six weeks for no money was difficult. 

It's worth pointing out, though, that we were one of the better treated groups of workers who did the festival. We were given £40 a week for food and given good accommodation, which is a lot more than many other workers are given. The problem is that there are a line of people waiting to take your place if you drop out, so the only people who can afford to work there are those desperate to get into the arts industry and/or those who are rich enough to subsidise themselves while they work. That and the fact that there are no unions for the workers.. but anyway. I digress. It was something that angered me throughout my stay in Edinburgh (that, and how inaccessible Edinburgh/the festival itself was), but it isn't the main point of this post.

I will ill for most of it. It was the first major depressive period I'd had since the spring, I think. Except this time I didn't have a doctor I could go to, or a mum who could help support me. It made me realise how much I rely on my parents, and how lucky I am to have them be able to support me in the various ways that they are able to. Too many people I know can't access this kind of support simply because of money or distance or bullshit like that, and when I'm myself (ie. when I'm not ill), this kind of thing makes me absolutely furious. 

When I was in Edinburgh things were bad. I didn't really have the support network of friends that I thought I had there, either. I mean, I have some friends up there, but only one or two would I feel comfortable going to in the state that I was in for a lot of the time I was there. 

It got to the point where I was making plans, almost everyday, and waiting to carry them out. I was planning to kill myself for most of the time I was awake. I couldn't tell my parents at home because they would (understandably) worry. I couldn't tell the people I worked with because we didn't have that kind of relationship. I talked to my mum about cutting the trip short and coming home early, but I couldn't leave the company without me for the rest of the festival, because they only had about ten of us working. I've pretty much lost count of the number of times I cried in bathrooms or walking home or trying my best not to when I was on a front of house shift at the venue. 

It came to a head when I rang my mum, explaining all that I could without worrying her too much, and we talked about whether I should leave. I counted down the days until I left, and I knew that I had Committee Training the last week of August, and that all of my travel had been booked for it, that I'd see some of my friends, that it was worth trying to hold on till then. And somehow, I managed to.

Before I came home, I got a tattoo. The tattoo is from this poem. The poem has hung in my room for the past two years, above my bed. I know it almost off by heart. In as far as possible, it means I'm reminded what it can't do, what it won't change. Permanently inked on my skin, it'll be there until I die. And unfortunately, I think I'll need to be reminded of this for a while yet. 

I've been quiet on here for a while.

I'm in Edinburgh at the minute, I'll be here working for the next five weeks.
I spent most of June in London, mostly with friends.

Things are hard.
Health is difficult.
I have spent what feels like every waking moment thinking about food and weight and appearance recently. I don't know how to stop it coming back, and I don't know why it's coming back, either. 

Today when I was walking to work I felt happy, momentarily, for the first time since getting here. Hopefully it'll become more frequent, or at least happen again.

The world can be quite a lonely place.

ACTION ALERT- stop the prosecution of a woman falsely accused of prostitution who faces prison for breaching an ASBO

I've been sent this by the English Collective of Prostitues, an organisation based in London who represent sex workers. You can find their website here: http://prostitutescollective.net/.

ACTION ALERT . . .

Stop the prosecution of a woman falsely accused of prostitution who faces prison for breaching an Anti-social Behaviour Order.

Please write urgently to protest this injustice to the addresses below. This prosecution is not in the public interest and should be dropped (model letter below).

To: Keir Starmer, Director of Public Prosecutions privateoffice@cps.gsi.gov.uk

CPS, Rose Court, 2 Southwark Bridge, London SE1 9HS

Cc: CPS North East Case Progression Team london.magistratesnortheast@cps.gsi.gov.ukThe Cooperage 8 Gainsford Street, Bermondsey, SE1 2NE (DX161230 Bermondsey 4).

Rushanara Ali MP rushanara.ali.mp@parliament.uk

House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA020 7219 7200

347 Cambridge Heath Road, London, E2 9RA

And: English Collective of Prostitutes ecp@prostitutescollective.net 0207482 2496

On Friday 12 July, 10am at Stratford Magistrates Court, Ms CH faces charges of breaching an Anti-social Behaviour Order (ASBO) which bans her from loitering throughout the whole borough of Tower Hamlets for 26 years. This offence carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.

Ms CH is not guilty of loitering. She lives in Tower Hamlets -- her home is in the red-light area!

What is the evidence needed to prove loitering? “Standing on a street corner looking in the direction of several men” has been enough in some cases. So it isn’t what you do, it is who you are that seems to be the greatest proof of street prostitution. How is a woman who has worked in the past ever able to defend herself and be believed when the case relies on hearsay evidence from the police alone and is heard before magistrates who rubber stamp what the police say.

Ms CH was given the ASBO about four years ago when she was ill and not in a position to challenge it.

There are other factors in this case that should be taken into account:

Ms Hughes is the devoted mother of a three-year-old boy.

Ms Hughes is also a victim of rape and other violence. She has been attacked countless times while working but only reported one attack to the police — she felt compelled to do so because her injuries were so severe and she feared that the man would attack other women.

In the name of women’s safety, ASBOs must be abolished. They are used to unfairly target sex workers for arrest and imprisonment and shunt women around, often into more isolated areas, where they are more at risk of violence.

Protest outside Stratford Magistrates Court 9.30 – 10.30, Friday 12 July and then attend court to support Ms CH. 

Model letter:

Dear

I write [add something about your circumstances and why you are concerned/protesting] to ask that the prosecution of Ms CH for breaching an Anti-social Behaviour Order (ASBO) be dropped. The ASBO is draconian. It bans her from loitering throughout the whole borough of Tower Hamlets for 26 years. Breaching an ASBO carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison

Ms CH lives in Tower Hamlets -- her home is in the red-light area. Every time she leaves her house she risks being arrested for loitering regardless of what she is doing. On this occasion she was waiting for a taxi. ASBOs are deeply unfair. They are given out on the basis of hearsay evidence from the police. No-one needs to come to court to give evidence that a nuisance was caused to them. Magistrates nearly always rubber stamp the police evidence.

A conviction for breaching an ASBO could wreck Ms CH’s life.

Pursuing ASBOs against sex workers undermines safety, shunts women around often into more isolated areas where they are more at risk of violence. The Metropolitan Police have acknowledged that it deters women from reporting violence. At a time when more women are going into prostitution to feed themselves and their families, why isn’t help being provided instead of criminalisation and imprisonment.

There is no public interest in pursuing this case and we urge you to drop the prosecution.

Sincerely,

Response to a letter posted on the Belfast Telegraph website about victim blaming.

(Response to Sue Alexander's email on 10th June as appeared on the Belfast Telegraph website)

Victim blaming (that is, proportioning blame on to the victim of a crime rather than blaming the perpetrator) is coming up again and again in the recent discourse surrounding rape.

Victim blaming is an attempt to place blame for the crime (in particular in a case of rape) on the victim rather than blaming the perpetrator. This happens in ways such as telling women they should not consume too much alcohol, by telling women they should not walk home alone at night (which doesn't make sense, as statistically most rapes are committed by a person known to the victim), by telling women how they should and should not dress and that this is a responsibility of theirs in order not to attract unwanted attention.

Women should never carry any blame or be made to feel in any way responsible for what is a hideous, terrible thing to happen to someone, and the only person who is at fault in a situation of rape is the rapist, never the victim. We need to keep repeating this. You shouldn't have to teach your daughters how to minimalise risks to themselves- we should be teaching our sons not to rape.

Aisling Gallagher
NUS-USI Women's Officer

It's time to put consent on the curriculum.

Tomorrow there will be a vote on an amendment to the Children & Families Bill to include Sex & Relationship Education in the national curriculum. If the amendment is carried, it will go into the bill.

Women's Aid and Brook are supporting the amendment, and are urging people to contact their MPs ahead of the vote tomorrow to ensure that it passes.

Why is it so important?

Currently, sex education is compulsory on the national curriculum, but it focuses primarily on the mechanics and biological aspects of sex, as well as focusing on good sexual health. This amendment "puts the R into sex education" - families can and do play a key role in educating children, but high quality sex education delivered to both boys and girls is a vital tool in empowering young people to overcome societal and cultural pressures around sex education and consent. Sex education isn't just about the biology of sex- it is important that young people learn about the societal aspects of sex and sex in relationships, and particularly about consent.

The programme of sex education delivered in schools should be grounded in a zero tolerance approach to violence against women and girls. By including this amendment in the overall bill, it ensures that schools will be given the resources and materials necessary to adequately equip teachers to carry out the education effectively.

Shadow Home Affairs Minister Stella Creasy said that it is essential we teach children about consent- there have been repeated calls for it and still nothing has been done. It's important not only for young people to know about the biological aspect of sex, but to respect one another and have healthy relationships. Essentially, it's time to put consent on the curriculum.

My experience of sex education is probably quite different to that of young people in England and Wales- and unfortunately this bill doesn't extend to Northern Ireland. However, I believe it's essential that we should be pushing MPs to vote for the amendment, regardless of whether or not it affects our own constituency.

The sex education in Northern Ireland is unsurprisingly strongly influenced by the highly conservative, anti-women, anti-LGBT culture we live in. I didn't receive any sex education. Instead, we had 'social education', where at the age of 12 we awkwardly were talked to about periods and where babies come from. I went to an all girls Catholic school- the most adequate education I received about contraception was in my GCSE Biology class (and when my friend first told me about the implant, I thought she was making it up- which is funny now, but at the age of 15 or 16 with the little education I got, it probably isn't that uncommon amongst students in Catholic schools).

This bill won't cover Northern Ireland, which is already a good few steps behind the UK on a number of important issues, but it will introduce the issue of consent into schools in England and Wales and this is a massive, much-needed step forward. It means that, eventually, a similar kind of thing will be introduced into Northern Ireland, despite the fact that it will probably not be for many years.

You can search for your MP here, and contact them ahead of the vote on the amendment tomorrow. It's time to put consent on the curriculum, and tomorrow is an opportunity to do just that.

Special Advisers Bill

NB: This is a personal blog, and I speak about this bill as an individual. I'm not speaking for the Labour Party, nor am I speaking for the SDLP or NUS-USI. I'm speaking as myself, and will be held account as an individual. If you have any problems or concerns with what I have said, talk to me about them- not my political parties. These words do not reflect any political party nor political organisation. 

PDF of the final Bill: http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/Documents/Legislation/Bills/Non-Executive%20Bills/Session-2011-12/Civil%20Service%20(Special%20Advisers)%20Bill.pdf

Copy of the Belfast Agreement: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/agreement.htm#rights

The Civil Service (Special Advisers) Bill is causing a lot of controversy. In the last fortnight we've seen a lot of immature, childish, and pretty libellous things said about parties and individuals on both sides of the debate. This is a debate that needs to be had with great sensitivity and respect. We're talking about the lives of innocent people who have died during a period of intense conflict- essentially, it was a war.

The Bill stipulates for the appointed "special adviser not to have serious criminal conviction", which means a conviction for which "a sentence of imprisonment of five years or more was imposed" or "a sentence of imprisonment for life was imposed" and applies "whether the person was convicted in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, was convicted before or after the coming into operation of this Act".

"The Department must issue a code governing the appointment of special advisers within 3 months of this section coming into operation" and "the appointment of special advisers must be subject to the same vetting procedures as the appointment of Senior Civil Servants to the Northern Ireland Civil Service". 

A number of amendments were proposed by Dominic Bradley & Alban Maginness- all of which were rejected by Jim Allister, the proposer of the bill. Unsurprisingly. 

The Good Friday Agreement of 1998 stipulates that "the parties affirm their commitment to the mutual respect, the civil rights and the religious liberties of everyone in the community... the right to pursue democratically national and political aspirations, the right to seek constitutional change by peaceful and legitimate means... the right to equal opportunity in all social and economic activity... the right of women to full and equal political participation". 

"The achievement of a peaceful and just society would be the true memorial to the victims of violence". "An essential aspect of the reconciliation process is the promotion of a culture of tolerance at every level of society". 

If we had a Bill of Rights, like we're supposed to, this Bill wouldn't hold up. Criminal convictions do play a part in some jobs, such as teaching, medicine, etc. And *mostly*, I can see why (though the fact that criminal convictions play a part in whether or not you can work in a certain sector opens up another argument to the validity of the convictions and the processes surrounding them- which is another important argument to have, not not one I'm trying to have here). 

But the peace process (if you can call it that) wouldn't have happened if we didn't have political prisoners on side, if they were not sitting at the negotiating table and actively working to end their campaigns of armed resistance. It wouldn't have happened, period. There are many weaknesses to the Good Friday Agreement, but the fact that it actually happened remains a strength. 

To shut out those with criminal convictions from becoming special advisers is not fair. We elect them. We work alongside them. If we're going to open the special advisers can of worms, then why don't we focus on their huge salary? Why don't we focus on the fact it is more often than not 'jobs for the boys', rather than the appointment of an expert in the field? To me, that is more concerning. I'd have no problem with a special adviser having had a criminal conviction if they actually knew what they were talking about when they took up the post- many don't, and that's a huge problem that seems to be too often ignored. We seem intent to shut out those with criminal convictions but ignore the fact that so many of those employed (with and without criminal convictions) are in no way qualified for the job. That's the most important issue, to me.

If we had an adequate programme of reconciliation, victims would feel as though their losses have been acknowledged. Recognised and apologised for. And we haven't done that yet. The reason that emotions are running so high amidst this Bill is because we have no process of reconciliation, we have not acknowledged the hurts of the past and it doesn't look like the current Executive in Stormont are getting any further in any kind of strategy. This is a huge problem. And again, the Bill has overtaken this issue as seemingly a more important one. 

It's a plaster covering a wound that needs properly dressed and a much bigger bandage than the one currently being offered. It'll help for a bit, but in the end, will prove futile in both the reconciliation process and any kind of attempt to foster a tolerant and just society.

Conference-gate; what next?

In March, I was thrown out of USI Congress by my union delegation (Queen's University Students' Union) for voting in a few that contradicted my students' union policy. I  wrote about it at the time, and if you're reading this having not heard about what's happened, I'd advise you to read it only so we're on a similar page for the rest of the post.

When we got back, there was some clarity needed on how I was going to be 'punished'. Again, I wrote about it at the time, and again, I'd recommend you read that post before reading the rest of this.

Last night, the President of QUBSU proposed two motions at the Annual Business Meeting of QUBSU Council (our last meeting of the academic year) to ban me from standing as a QUBSU delegate for national conferences. One would ban me for standing next year, and the second, for the following year (amusingly, I'll have left university by then, but no matter). 

The vote was cast by secret ballot, with the President and I both given the chance to make two statements each. No one else was allowed to speak on the proposed motion.

The QUBSU Council voted down the motion to ban me for the year 2014/2015 (29 votes against, 24 votes in favour) and voted in favour of the motion to ban me for the year 2013/2014 (31 votes in favour, 23 votes against). They've told me that I now cannot stand as a QUBSU national conference delegate for next year.

They can't do this. 

In our union's constitution, it stipulates that delegates to NUS Conference and USI Congress shall be elected by cross campus ballot as in the Council elections (page 38). It also states that any student may offer themselves as a candidate in any Executive Management Committee Election provided that they complete a Nomination Form and return it in person to the Returning Officer before the close of nominations for the Executive Management Committee Election (page 35). The elections for conference delegations are held in a similar way to elections for Council and elections for the Executive Management Committee (ie, the sabbatical officers).

10. CONFERENCE DELEGATION ELECTIONS

National Union of Students (NUS) and Union of Students in Ireland (USI)

10.1 Delegates to NUS Conference and USI Congress shall be elected by cross campus 
ballot as in the Council Elections.

10.2 One delegate to NUS Conference and two delegates to USI Congress may be 
appointed ex-officio.

10.3 All Election materials shall be regulated as in the Council Elections (see Rule 2, 
Section 7).

10.4 Nomination Forms shall be of similar format to those used in Executive Management 
Committee Elections and must be accompanied with a deposit of £40, which will be 
refunded after attendance at Conference. (2007 is the base year for this amount 
which will increase annually by the rate of RPI).

10.5 The Returning Officer shall post on authorised noticeboards at least 14 days before 
the date on which the Delegation Election is to be held a notice declaring:-

10.5.1 the number of delegates to be elected;
10.5.2 the dates and times for closure of nominations;
10.5.3 the dates and times of polling.

10.6 Nominations shall close on the eighth day before the date on which the relevant 
Election is to be held.

The equality and diversity policy of the union (page 77) states that the SU seeks to provide equality to all, irrespective of political opinion, and that the policy applies to all members of the students' union. There is also a mention of a complaints procedure (but nothing saying what it actually is) for those who feel that they have suffered any form of discrimination through the use of the union's representation services (page 79). Rule 4, Appendix 1 of the constitution stipulates that elected student officers (ie. the President and the other sabbaticals) shall be bound by the University’s Student Conduct Regulations, the Equality and Diversity Statement and other Equality Policies of the University and Students’ Union (page 50). 


Secondly, there is no process in the constitution to punish someone for voting against live policy at national conferences. No process. No mention of it. And considering it takes a special meeting and a 2/3 majority of student councillors or EMC members to remove an elected officer from their position (page 54), the move taken last night was unfounded, without precedent, and unconstitutional.

To sum up, the constitution of QUBSU, and in particular:


1. The combination of Rule 2 10.8 (which says that delegate elections will be held in the same manner as elections for the Executive Management Committee(; Rule 2 10.4 (which says that nominations for delegate elections are like those for EMC); and Rule 2 9.6.1 (which says that anyone can run in an election for EMC);

2. Chapter 1 8.2 (which says that the government of the union shall be based on the democratic principle that every ordinary member shall have the fullest opportunity to participate in union affairs);

3. Rule 10 2.2.4 (which says that political belief is a protected characteristic under the Equality & Diversity Policy;

4. Chapter 1 3.2, 3.9.2 & 3.9.4 (which states the aims of QUBSU as supporting equality of opportunity, freedom to participate in union elections, and the freedom of expression);

they had no grounds to do what they did, and I'll be happily handing in my nomination forms next year when nominations open for delegate elections to national conferences.

1. 
   

1.