Please note; the following document can be downloaded as a .PDF file by clicking here

National Information Forum Newsletter No. 23. (July 2010)

EDITORIAL
Rather than dwell on the Coalition cutbacks and tax increases, we begin by recommending a book by freelance journalist Sarah Wise. The Italian Boy (Jonathan Cape, 2004) may be thought to have structural defects, but even its occasional digressions are fascinating. It tells the story of 19th century grave robbers who turned to murder, and is brilliantly successful in vividly and forensically illuminating the fate of London’s poor in the 1830s. It should serve to remind the reader of the remarkable progress that we have made in social welfare, lest we are ever tempted to dismantle the welfare state.

ooo

Reflecting on the nominations for the Labour leadership do you feel that when it comes to the vote provision should be made for ‘none of the above’?

ooo

And when you read of the massive minimum prison sentences [rightly] passed on particularly vile criminals does the thought ever cross your mind that your tax will be used to keep these monsters throughout their incarceration?

ooo

What are we to make of the proposed 20/1 formula between the highest and the lowest paid? From 1 October 2010 the minimum wage will be £5.93 an hour. Based on a 40 hour week, this would imply that the lowest pay in any full-time employment would be £12,334. Twenty times that figure is £246,680, which seems to allow plenty of scope for excessive pay at the top. Or are we missing something?

ooo

How do we distinguish between information and propaganda? When we first sent troops into Afghanistan in 2001 it was, as we understand it, to locate and destroy Al-Qaeda strongholds. Now the mission seems to have evolved into a wider campaign against the Taliban and a problematic attempt to establish democracy. We are told from above that the deployment is vital to Britain’s security and that progress is being made, but it is difficult not to think that the war is stoking up even greater resentment and that such political change as we have achieved may yet prove to be ephemeral. And all at such a growing and painful cost in Coalition and Afghan lives. Scepticism is also growing, and the sudden departure of Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles and the sacking of General Stanley McChrystal do not inspire confidence.

COALITION PROGRAMME FOR GOVERNMENT
Attention is drawn to the Coalition Government’s ‘Programme for Government’ (www.programmeforgovernment.hmg.gov.uk). The section on the NHS includes a guarantee to increase health spending in each year of the parliament, cut administration costs by a third (diverting funds to front-line services), reduce the number of health quangos, introduce a right to choose a GP regardless of where you live, help elderly people to live at home for longer, and prioritise dementia research within the health research and development budget. But why is this information copyright?

SIR PETER BALDWIN
We regret the passing of Sir Peter on 9 May. He was an inveterate friend to the Forum as to many disability charities. A career civil servant, he retired as Permanent Secretary in the Department of Transport in 1982, but continued to espouse the cause of accessible public transport. A self-effacing man, he brought reason and wisdom to give practical expression to the enthusiasm of disability campaigners.

CRUCIAL NEED TO HELP DISABLED CHILDREN
In the drive to control spending it is important not to lose sight of genuine and imperative needs. The June issue of the RNIB’s magazine NB highlights a research article from the open-access journal BMC Pediatrics on the prevalence of childhood disability and the characteristics and circumstances of disabled children in the UK. The article is based on an analysis of the Family Resources Survey.

These are familiar findings, showing that disabled children, particularly those from black/minority ethnic/mixed parentage groups and lone-parents households, experience higher levels of poverty and personal and social disadvantage than other children. Enthusiasm for cost-cutting and for the withdrawal of benefits from people who don’t really need them must surely be balanced by a zeal adequately to address the needs of those who desperately need help.

There is an abstract at www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/10/21/abstract.

DIGITAL BOOKS FOR PRINT-DISABLED PEOPLE
Benetech is a California-based, non-profit-making organisation that builds software and provides technology for disabled people. It was founded and is led by Jim Fruchterman, a technology entrepreneur and former rocket scientist. Through a project called Bookshare it aims to give people with print disabilities equal and timely access to books and other print materials.

Bookshare, operating from the USA, already offers more than 70,000 digital books and other digilatised reading. This material is provided in compressed, encrypted files that can be read using various forms of adaptive technology. Membership is restricted to people who can prove appropriate disability and organisations that serve such people. The intention is to ensure that only qualified individuals can use the service.

Membership is free to qualifying US students (currently funded by the Office of Special Education Programmes of the US Department of Education). Otherwise, members pay a one-off set-up fee of $25 and an annual fee of $50.

A growing list of ‘partnering publishers’ are collaboratinge in the project, the latest being Cambridge University Press (academic and scholarly books) and Simon and Schuster.

More at www.bookshare.org.

JOHN VINCENT’S NETWORK E BULLETINS
We are forwarding separately the latest issue of this invaluable (but free) bulletin. In future, rather than sending it to you automatically, we invite you to contact John if you wish to be added to his mailing list.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE LOST ART OF ORATORY
Ron Aldridge
I don’t know how many of you caught the recent fascinating BBC documentary Yes We Can - The Lost Art of Oratory, but I thought I’d just pass on a few thoughts I had after watching it.

The programme focused around the inauguration ceremony of Barack Obama. It prompted Dianne Abbot, MP, to say that with President Obama, ‘oratory had been re-introduced to politics.’

Here was a highly intelligent man who spoke with clarity, purpose and conviction. It may not be enough to save the world, we’ll have to wait and see, but this ability to speak so well and so convincingly has truly captured the world’s imagination.

I think this is because most of the political ‘speaking’ of the last few years has had a depressing preoccupation with ‘spin’, and as we know, ‘spin’, by its very nature, is not authentic. We associate oratory with authenticity. We need to believe in the speaker.

Gore Vidal likened the preparations of great orators to those of great actors. Churchill’s commitment to his speech was like Olivier tackling Hamlet. Great orators, like great actors, are great performers.

Like great actors, great leaders create and sell us on an alternative vision of the world – a better world of which we are an essential part.

Churchill idealised his countrymen with such intensity that in the end they approached his ideal. Ghandi, it has been said, made India proud of itself. Washington also had that great leader’s gift of making people believe they could be part – that they were part – of a great nation. Martin Luther King, a rhetorician of rare power, had that same genius.

When you consider such towering and theatrical leaders, you come to realise that leadership is not just a performing art, it may well be the greatest performing art of all – the only one that creates institutions of lasting value that can endure long after the stars who envisioned them have left the theatre. And oratory – great oratory – is the externalising and expressing of these leadership qualities – the presence of presence.

Presence comes from within. It begins with an inner state, which leads to a series of external behaviours. You can put on the behaviours, but by themselves they’ll lack something essential. They’ll be hollow noise and nothing else.

We’ve all heard politicians say, “I feel your pain,” when we know they’re simply saying what they think we want to hear. Compare that to Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech, which obviously sprang from his deeply held beliefs and motivated a generation to overturn four hundred years of assumptions and behaviours.

Think about the last time you were really moved by an actor in a live theatrical performance, or in a T.V. drama, or in a film. Really moved to feel something deeply, to understand something more completely, to think about something from a new perspective, or even, perhaps, to change your mind about something.

Now think about the last time you were truly moved in the same way by a presentation made by a leader in your organisation. I’m not saying moved to tears, but moved to understand a different point of view, be excited about a new possibility, or to be motivated to adapt and grow with changing times.

The goal of the actor or the leader in these instances is the same – to connect with the audience in some fundamental way. Unfortunately most people will say that this experience is much rarer in the office than it is at the cinema.

Which is exactly the point. The skills of oratory that actors use to move, convince, inspire or entertain have direct and powerful applications in the worlds of business, politics, education and organisations in general. They are not only useful for leadership, they are essential. Great leaders, like great actors, must be confident, energetic, empathetic, inspirational, credible and authentic.

That leaders and actors share some skills and characteristics should come as no surprise. Actors and leaders face a common challenge. They must form connections, communicate effectively, and work with others as a team. They must be prepared to play different roles, as the situation requires. They must be prepared to influence and move people every day. Just as actors play a variety of roles, we all play roles, as people and as leaders.

Ex President Clinton reminded us that people remember very little of what you say, they won’t remember your exact words, but what they will never, ever forget, is the way that you made them feel. And if you want your audience to feel something, then you must ‘feel’ it too.

GETTING IT RIGHT
Actually all the signs are that when it comes to people with a learning disability, the NHS is getting it wrong. Mencap marked Learning Disability Week (21-28 June) by publishing a survey which found that 46% of doctors and 37% of nurses admitted that people with a learning disability have received a poorer standard of healthcare than the rest of the population. Mencap’s ‘Getting it Right’ charter, which focuses on the adjustments that healthcare professionals need to make, can be downloaded at www.mencap.org.uk/ldw, where there is also a campaign film. The campaign has the support of the Royal College of Nursing and the General Medical Council.

WORKING LONGER
A survey conducted by Research Plus (for Prudential UK) among 1,001 adults aged 45+ has found that nearly three out of five people planning to retire in 2010 would be willing to work on in order to enjoy a higher income on eventual retirement. A quarter would be happy to work for five years more, with 7% of these people willing to put in another 10 years. The findings indicate that it is those already over 65 who are most willing to keep working, more than 62% saying they would stay in employment to boost their retirement savings. Vince Smith-Hughes, head of retirement income at Prudential, cautions the importance of considering retirement many years ahead, and making sure you get financial advice to help you plan retirement. Nothing here, unfortunately, about work for its own sake.

WE HATE NO. 31: GUTTER JOURNALISM
Marry, sir, they have committed false report; moreover, they have spoken untruths, secondarily, they are slanders; sixth and lastly, they have belied a lady; thirdly, they have verified unjust things; and, to conclude, they are lying knaves.
William Shakespeare: ‘Much Ado About Nothing’, Act V, scene 1.

In approaching this subject, we are acutely aware of the need to avoid intellectual snobbery. If we should speak of ‘quality’ newspapers, there is an implication that there are others that lack quality. This may not be so. They may simply be different as ‘pop’ differs from ‘classical’ music. A range of publications cater for a disparate audience of varying literary abilities.

Nor should ‘tabloid’ necessarily be seen as a pejorative term. There is no good reason why fine journalism should not appear in tabloid format. Equally it is apparent that extreme views are by no means confined to the tabloid press. They commonly feature in the broadsheets, as for example Simon Jenkins’ recent article in The Guardian in which he argued that the entire defence budget should be cut. “We are safer,” he said, “than at any time since the Norman conquest. Yet £45bn is spent defending Britain against fantasy enemies.” There is nothing wrong with honestly and rationally opposing the status quo. As will be apparent to readers of our News Briefings, we personally are antagonistic to all religious institutions, would like to see the dismantling of the monarchy, and favour assisted dying.

By ‘gutter journalism’ we mean rather those elements of the popular press which, instead of reporting fairly on the broad highway of news and arguing from a rational base, have their nose in the detritus of human activity. Their focus is on gossip and scandal. It is not that journalists who follow this path cannot write well (though they may be locked in their own ethos), rather that they choose to appeal to the baser instincts of society. In taking this direction, in pursuing an intrusive and prurient interest in the transgressions of celebrities and human fallibility, sometimes dishonestly, they know that they are in tune with an unhealthy appetite for sensation among large swathes of the British public. They are prepared to be casual with the truth or manipulate it selectively so as to suggest culpability. They also, from time to time, demonstrate a partiality for a range of prevailing prejudices. As such they have a disproportionate and dangerous capacity to influence political opinion.

What is really troubling in gutter journalism is a tendency to demonise minorities. We recall that when we published our guide for refugees and asylum seekers, How to Make a New Life in the UK, one daily newspaper criticised it for referring immigrants to sources of advice on their legal rights!

Back in 1957, Richard Hoggart’s The Uses of Literacy explored a fear that the growth of mass communications could be exploited to debase standards and bring about a greater trivialisation in productions for a majority readership. Even at that time a massive increase in, and the extraordinarily low level of, new-style popular papers was seen by Hoggart as posing an ominous threat of cultural debasement and vulgarity, stimulated by the need for papers to achieve a viable circulation. Recent developments suggest that his concerns were well-founded. Self regulation has had limited success. The Press Council, founded in 1953, was widely seen as ineffective, and in 1991, following the Calcutt inquiry, was replaced by the Press Complaints Commission, reinforced by a code of practice. Despite this, the number of complaints received has steadily increased, raising concerns around declining ethical standards of sections of the press. In a YouGov poll in 2008, journalists were rated the least trusted of 23 professions, the overall level of trust having fallen most of all groups. Similarly, in research commissioned by the Media Standards Trust, 70 per cent of all respondents disagreed with the statement ‘We can trust newspaper editors to ensure that their journalists act in the public interest’.

It was the sometimes reckless reporting surrounding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann that finally brought matters to a head, prompting a House of Commons inquiry on press standards, privacy and libel, under the auspices of a committee of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. The second DCMS report, published on 24 February 2010, makes disturbing reading. While recognising the importance of the freedom of the press to report and comment on events, public figures and institutions, to be critical of them and provide a platform for dissenting views, it notices that “there have been times when events have led the public and politicians to question the integrity of the methods used by the press, and the competence of the PCC as an industry regulator”. It notices that, like its predecessor, this body has been seen as lacking teeth, too closely allied to the press industry and insufficiently proactive in upholding standards.

The report’s consideration of press standards was mainly based on the McCann case and The Guardian’s revelations regarding phone-hacking and blagging – the practice of obtaining information through deception. It presents a dismal picture. In respect of the McCanns it speaks of “an inexcusable lowering of standards” and “inaccurate, defamatory reporting”, concluding that self-regulation had signally failed. The verdict on illegal phone-hacking at the News of the World is even more disturbing. The committee reports: “Throughout we have repeatedly encountered an unwillingness to provide the detailed information that we sought, claims of ignorance or lack of recall, and deliberate obfuscation”. This behaviour, the report concludes, reinforces the widely held impression that the press generally regard themselves as unaccountable and that News International in particular has sought to conceal the truth about what really occurred.

And so, we contend, our hatred of gutter journalism is well made. There is much more that could have been said in relation to individual cases: those of Michael Todd and Stephen Gately for instance. This is not the place to comment on the DCMS’s recommendations for reform, beyond noticing that there continues to be no enthusiasm for statutory regulation. Rather we prefer to go back to Richard Hoggart, who observed that the freedom from official interference that we enjoy, coupled with the tolerance we are happy to show, seem to allow “cultural developments as dangerous in their own way as those we are shocked at in totalitarian societies.”

This information sheet has been compiled by Ann Darnbrough and Derek Kinrade. The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of the National Information Forum. Earlier News Briefings and the ‘We Hate’ series are available on the Forum’s website: www.nif.org.uk.

---

Please note; the following document can be downloaded as a .PDF file by clicking here

National Information Forum Newsletter No. 22. (June 2010)

DETENTION OF THE INNOCENTS
The Coalition Government has announced (www.ukba,homeoffice.gov.uk) that it is committed to ending the detention of children for immigration purposes. Immigration Minister Damian Green will be leading a wide-ranging review to achieve this, setting out plans in the coming months. The review will be considering alternatives, and opening a dialogue with those who have a relevant interest. The government is nevertheless firm in its resolve to return those with no right to stay in the UK. In the meantime, evidence from The Children’s Society and UNICEF indicates that destitution among asylum-seeking children is growing and that unaccompanied immigrant children struggle to cope with the mental trauma experienced on their journeys to the UK and are vulnerable to exploitation.

CARE SYSTEM COMES UNDER FIRE
In a blistering article on the TES Connect* website, Adi Bloom reports on a lecture given by Sonia Jackson, Professor of Social Studies and Education at the Institute of Education in London. The lecture followed a long-term study of 200 children in care. Professor Jackson said that there are approximately 60,000 children looked after by local authorities in England. Children who have been in care make up less than one per cent of the population, but account for half the inmates in young offenders’ institutions and a quarter of adult prisoners. As young adults, 80 per cent end up unemployed and a significant number also homeless. Girls in care are eight times more likely to be teenage mothers than their peers elsewhere. Professor Jackson saw this as the continuation of a tradition begun in 1834, when the Poor Law mandated that destitute children should be placed in workhouses. She argued that 150 years on little had changed: “coming into care was…equivalent to being thrown on the educational scrapheap.” Education could play a vital role in determining the future of children in care, but in practice they are routinely steered down vocational routes and away from paths that might lead to higher education.

For the full report go to www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6043027. Thanks to John Vincent for drawing attention to this site.

*The TES Connect website is published by TSL Education Ltd which is also behind the Times Educational Supplement.

A VERDICT ON THE COALITION
Harmer Parr in a letter to The Guardian (18 May) finds that the political philosophy underpinning the new coalition government is Groucho Marxism: “I have my principles, but if you don’t like those, I have others.” We could not possibly comment.

NATIONAL INSURANCE CHANGES
From April a new Carer’s Credit and changes in the way that Carer’s Allowance can be claimed have been introduced. The credit will mean that many more carers will be able to build up their basic state pension and second state pension. Details at www.direct.gov.uk and in the March edition of Touchbase. No doubt there will be much more to come in the near future, and perhaps less welcome.

SNOWDON AT 80
We were remiss in issue 20 to omit the news of Lord Snowdon’s 80th birthday, which was celebrated on 5 March by a splendid reception at Porchester Hall in West London. This slip was particularly unfortunate given that two of our Forum people, Ann Darnbrough and Dr. Richard Lansdown, are long-standing members of the selection panel of The Snowdon Award Scheme, which organised the event. The Scheme began in 1981 when Snowdon, himself affected by polio as a child, saw that many physically disabled young people were being denied the opportunity to pursue further education or training simply because they could not afford the extra costs resulting from their disability. He set up a trust using £14,000 he had earned for photographing the royal family. His continuous personal commitment, allied to dedicated fund-raising, has allowed the Scheme to grow. Six students were helped in the first year; since then nearly 1,600 people have benefited from around £2 million in grants. The reception was suitably spectacular, including performances by members of the Royal Ballet, an indoor rowing challenge between past and present members of the top six university rowing clubs – including all four members of Great Britain’s gold-medal coxless four team from the Beijing Olympics - and singing from Maria Friedman. In the historic photograph at right, trustees, members of the selection panel and Esther Rantzen join Lord Snowdon in a celebration of both a special personal anniversary and a voluntary job well done. You may recognise some of them.

GOD’S LAW
On her US radio show, Dr. Laura Schlesinger said that as an observant orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident and posted on the Internet.

“Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination…End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, providing they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15:19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev.11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there degrees of abomination?

7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev.11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I’m confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan.
James M.Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept of Curriculum, Instruction and Special Education, University of Virginia.

(It would be a damn shame if we couldn’t own a Canadian).”

Thanks to Chris Bazeley for this.

NEW GUIDANCE ON END OF LIFE CARE
In May, the General Medical Council published new guidelines for doctors on advance care planning for patients nearing the end of life, including how to manage advance requests and refusals of treatment. It emphasises the need to follow the wishes of dying patients and the vital importance of good communication between doctors, patients, their families and the healthcare team. Unsurprisingly, the guidance is rooted in a key principle that doctors must start from a presumption in favour of prolonging life and must not be motivated by a desire to bring about a patient’s death. But it accepts that there is no absolute obligation to prolong life irrespective of the consequences for the patient, and irrespective of the patient’s views. For the first time, the guidance covers how to respond to ‘advance decisions’ made by competent adults against the possibility that they may not be able to make their wishes known when decisions are to be taken. There is also advice on doctors’ responsibilities after a patent has died and how they should approach conversations about organ and tissue donation. The full text of the guidance, Treatment and care towards the end of life: good practice in decision making, is available at www.gmc-uk.org. Advice on making an ‘advance decision’ can be found at www.compassionindying.org.uk, where a form can be downloaded.

THE SILENT DESTROYER
Paul Desmond, director of the campaigning organisation ‘Am I Number 88’, has produced a simple poster drawing attention to the dangers posed by hepatitis C, which is said silently to have infected 100,000 Britons, often causing fatal liver damage. According to the poster, many will have been infected through transfusion or inoculation. Most harm occurs over a 20-30 year period by alcohol and the common use of medicines whilst undiagnosed. Early diagnosis and simple advice avoids this. In this country, particular risks are attributable to major surgery or transfusion before 1992, a caesarean section or the use of immune and clotting products before 1994, and transplants or dialysis. Surgical risks often remain across Africa, Asia, South America and Eastern Europe, and from syringe re-use in some overseas inoculations and injections. Hepatitis C tests are recommended for anyone who has been exposed to any of the above risks, all prison inmates and street injectors and, routinely, employees who handle blood. The danger is exacerbated by the fact that most hepatitis C patients have no symptoms until real damage has been done. If in doubt you are advised to consult your GP or contact the Hepatitis C NHS helpline on 0800 451451.

WE HATE NO.30: HYPOCRISY
“Be as you would seem to be”
Thomas Fuller: ‘Gnomologia (1732)

Double-speaking has been a favourite convention in the theatre for many years, much exploited by Shakespeare as when in ‘The Merchant of Venice’ the money-lender Shylock, being introduced to Antonio, says in an aside to the audience: “How like a fawning publican he looks! I hate him for he is a Christian…” But to Antonio’s face he says “Rest you fair, good signior; your worship was the last man in our mouths.” In this way characters in life, as on the stage, will say one thing, but carry another in their minds. To be hypocritical, in its literal meaning and in practice, is to play a part.

When Gordon Brown was heard to refer to Gillian Duffy as “a bigoted woman”, the media seized on that comment, accidentally picked up on air. Yet the essential point, surely, was that it exposed the insincerity of the blandishments previously heaped on the unfortunate woman. To be fair, Brown’s lapse, which has cost him dear, was made in the heat of the moment, under pressure. Sadly, even in less stressful circumstances, it is part of many politicians’ stock in trade to flatter people and say what they are thought to want to hear, rather than telling them the unvarnished truth. The received wisdom is that this is the way to win votes, and that the Prime Minister’s fatal error was only to leave his microphone switched on.

But this view could be mistaken. The electorate is cannier than politicians think. A classic example of this arose during the 1966 general election. Alf Morris, who first took his seat in the House of Commons in 1964, had supported Sidney Silverman by agreeing to act as a teller for his successful bill to abolish the death penalty. Friends and colleagues told Alf that by supporting Silverman he had committed political suicide, given the fierce opposition to the measure in Manchester. His Wythenshawe constituency was home to both parents of Leslie Ann Downey, one of the child victims of the Moors murderers. Thus when the 1966 election was called, Alf was told by even his closest friends that he had no chance at all of being re-elected. Canvassers reported that the only issue being raised on doorsteps was Alf’s involvement in the campaign to end the death penalty. In practice, however, Alf stood by his controversial stance yet doubled his majority over his Conservative opponent. He drew the moral that most voters are concerned more about trust and a readiness to stand by firmly-held convictions. Whereas, voters generally are able to sniff out hypocrisy and self-interest.

Yet it can be argued that hypocrisy is part of the human condition: that even our acts of kindness and goodness have an element of self-interest. Alain de Botton in Citizen Ethics in a Time of Crisis argues “What looks like goodness must involve either obedience or perverted forms of egoism (the biographers can be expected to unearth the details in due course). Self-interested motives are glued to the underside of every apparently benevolent act.” In political leaders it may be difficult to distinguish between the national interest and self interest – the quest for power.

Certainly there is a hierarchy of seriousness in the hypocrisy stakes. Most of us, from time to time, have been guilty of what Dean Inge called ‘innocent hypocrisy’. As when we give effusive thanks for a gift that we detest. The motive here is not to hurt the giver’s feelings rather than a desire to deceive.

Somewhat more dubious are those who lead a double life: allowing themselves to be seen as pillars of society when secretly having some very questionable habits. Dr. Johnson made the point – you may think oddly - that there was nothing more unjust than to accuse someone of hypocrisy because they failed to live up to the values they professed and to which they aspired. In particular, of course, sexual infidelity is ordinarily a prime, though commonplace, source of hypocrisy. One that is certainly hated by its victims.

But it is religion that is the happiest hunting ground of hypocrisy, all too often blurring the line between genuine sanctity and the pretence of sanctimony, (companions these two in the Concise Oxford Dictionary). In hating hypocrisy in this context we even have the support of the 1662 Prayer Book, which asks the “Good Lord” to deliver us, among other things, “from hypocrisy”. Most sinister of all are those priests who, having been ordained into holy orders, purporting to be ‘God’s representatives on earth’ and seen as occupying the moral high ground, have systematically and persistently sexually abused young children. For them there is really no excuse, and we concur, at least metaphorically, with Matthew 18:6. And those who suppose that by protecting them they are preserving the reputation of their church are not only hypocritical but misguided.

---

This information sheet has been compiled by Ann Darnbrough and Derek Kinrade. The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of the National Information Forum. Earlier News Briefings and the ‘We Hate’ series are available on the Forum’s website: www.nif.org.uk.

---

Earlier electronic versions of the National Information Forum's Newsletters can be downloaded as .PDF files from the Electronic Publications Page

---

Unless you advise to the contrary we will continue occasionally to send you information of this kind. Conversely, we want to give you the opportunity to network with other member organisations through our information sheets. Please let us know if there is a more personal e.mail address by which we can reach you. Membership is now free.
 
Ann Darnbrough and Derek Kinrade

UPDATED July 2010