The UK, Corruption and the Peaky Blinders

Corruption, and those who practise it, is in the news at the moment. This is the best place for the problem, as the practitioners do not like scrutiny. It is remarkable, however, that when corruption is discussed, it is at a national level. David Cameron, when he made his famous gaffe, told the Queen that Nigeria and Afghanistan are two of the world's most "fantastically corrupt" countries. The Afghan delegate to the Anti-Corruption Summit responded by pointing out that:
 "...clumsy Western intervention in Afghanistan allowed corruption to flourish...We inherited...a fantastically corrupt system...".
 Even more remarkable, in the light of Cameron's remarks, is the fact that an Anti-Mafia Italian journalist, Roberto Saviano, has told an audience at the book festival in Hay-on-Wye that Britain is the most corrupt country in the world. He said:
“If I asked you what is the most corrupt place on Earth you might tell me well it’s Afghanistan, maybe Greece, Nigeria, the South of Italy and I will tell you it’s the UK...It’s not the bureaucracy, it’s not the police, it’s not the politics but what is corrupt is the financial capital. 90 per cent of the owners of capital in London have their headquarters offshore".
For me, though, the greatest surprise was to find that there is actually a league table of corruption, but without divisions,  as in the Football League. Run by Transparency International, its Corruption Perception Index of 2015 lists 168 countries in order of least corruption down to the worst. Denmark ranks at Number 1, while the bottom ranking of joint 167 is held by North Korea and Somalia. Britain ranks 10th and the USA 16th. As might be expected, countries at war feature heavily in the lower rankings, and to be fair to David Cameron, Nigeria ranks 136th and Afghanistan 166th. It would be grossly unfair to suggest that the populations of these countries are happy with this situation. There is a weary resignation to the fact that corruption is rife. As Raymond Bonner has said of the Philippines (number 95 in the table):
"The Philippines is a country in which a man of morals can't be president, in which a politician who hasn't been linked to any wrongdoing isn't assumed to be honest, but merely better at hiding his corruption."
The CPI was compiled by experts, but the Global Corruption Barometer of 2013 was compiled from direct research in 95 countries by asking samples of people: "Have you paid a bribe in 2013?". Australia, Denmark, Finland and Japan scored lowest, with only 1% of interviewees admitting to bribery, while in the UK, 5% replied "Yes", below Georgia and the Maldives. Sierra Leone was bottom of the table, with 95% of their sample owning up to bribery. 7% answered "Yes" in the USA; Russia is strangely absent. David Cameron was no doubt gratified to see that 44% of Nigerians and 45% of Afghans replied in the affirmative, and I was happy to see that only 12% of Filipinos confessed to greasing palms. Just how honest the responders were in these countries is open to question.
Corruption on  the scale it exists in so many countries is unbelievably harmful, as it deprives native populations of desperately needed resources. Remarkably, though, corruption is seen by many people as being entertaining. We see this in the success of scandal-raking tabloid newspapers, and some very successful TV series. The Sopranos, Spiral, and many other crime series are immensely popular with a worldwide public, even if the "good guys" are really only the lesser of a number of evils. One such series as this is the BBC series "The Peaky Blinders", where you are hard put to it to find a single honest, upright character. The writer, Stephen Knight, himself a "Brummie", based his programme on a Birmingham street gang of the early 20th century. The hard core of the gang - in the TV series - is the Shelby family. The head of the gang, and undisputed mastermind, is Tommy Shelby, a decorated WW1 hero who welds his rabble of street scruffs and psychopaths into a highly efficient organized crime unit over the first two series, using all manner of violence, bribery and intimidation to dominate Birmingham and London. The third, and current, series sees them involved in a vicious gang war with an Italian gang (who kill Tommy's wife) and Tommy's involvement in a plot to arm Russian anti-Bolsheviks, which brings him into conflict with dark, unseen, sections of the security services. The Blinders have now become so strong that they can force the sacking of Socialist and Communist trade union officials. They may rob from the rich, but never seem to get round to giving to the poor, even if Tommy scores a victory for the working class by becoming intimate with an exiled Russian countess.
I have to say that the programme is very entertaining, with authentic scenery, convincing plots (fortunately fictional), red-hot sex scenes and sparkling dialogue, even though the heroes are anti-heroes who seem to want to join the ruling class. "The Peaky Blinders" is a "Threepenny Opera" for the 21st century, with Tommy Shelby as an up-to-date Captain Macheath.
So what is it about corruption that entertains? Is it a secret yearning on the part of the viewer to engage in such activities, or is it a kind of catharsis? I know that I feel glad to return to normal after watching such programmes - even if I do watch the next episode!

Donald Lock: Another Innocent Victim

There are some subjects to which I hope never to return, but, somehow, I always find my way back to them. One such subject is mental health homicide, which I first commented upon in March 2013, when I wrote about the murders of Sally Hodkin by Nicola Edgington in 2011 and that of 16-year old Christina Edkins by Philip Simelane in 2013. In 2015, I wrote about the murder in Croydon of Andrew Else and the savage killing of 60-year old Jennifer Mills-Westley in Spain. All four were killed by mental health patients; all are now forgotten by everyone but their grieving families. The murder of Andrew Else was not even reported on the national news. It was almost as if these horrible events were becoming a matter of routine.
This week, however, saw a trial which has catapulted the mental health homicide issue into the headlines: the sickening murder of Donald Lock, a 79-year old retired solicitor stabbed to death by Matthew Daley in July of last year. Daley, like all the other killers mentioned in the cases above, is a mental health patient. There are depressingly familiar features in Donald Lock's murder to all the other cases mentioned above (and hundreds of others not mentioned): the brutal randomness of the attacks; the perpetrators' pleading of diminished responsibility; the baffled anguish of the victims' families; the failure of the mental health authorities to assess the dangerous nature of the perpetrators and their needs.
In this case, I am happy to say, the mental health authority has been publicly called to account by the national media. The Chief Executive of Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Colm Donaghy has said, under questioning, that they "got things wrong". This grossly obvious fact was followed up by his telling the BBC: "On behalf of the trust, I apologise unreservedly because the care we provided to Matthew Daley should have been better. I also want to offer my sincere condolences to the family of Don Lock and everyone else affected by this tragic, devastating incident."
The timing of his apology is interesting. Mr Lock's son, Andrew, said outside the court after the trial that the Lock family had not, up until that point, received an apology from the trust. This echoes the treatment of Julian Hendy, founder of the "100 Families" website, whose father was killed by a mental health patient in 2007. Mr Hendy received no apology from the relevant NHS authority; all official sympathy was directed to the family of the perpetrator. Until the end of the trial, the same thing seems to have happened in this case. Andrew Lock went on to say:'As a consequence of the failings of the NHS and this verdict, it is clear that Dad would still be here today if they had done their job properly..."
So, at last, this dreadful issue has attained national prominence. The Daily Mail points out:

"It was revealed that Daley's desperate parents warned doctors at least four times he could kill and begged them to section him – but nothing was done; NHS England has been brought in to investigate potential failings in ten killings involving patients of Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust over the past five years; in an extraordinary admission, the trust's chief executive apologised 'unreservedly' to the families of Mr Lock and his killer".

Relatives of the hundreds of families whose loved ones have been murdered by released mental health patients will doubtless be thinking that it is about time this issue was given greater prominence. The 100 families website has details of 1232 such killings across Britain between 1993-2016, but regards this as an underestimate: " They are a considerable underestimate of the total as not every case is reported or known publicly."
There is also the fact that the mental health problems of violent or murderous offenders are not always made public.
So, while the critical publicity of Sussex Partnership is welcome, it is premature to expect much of an improvement in the situation. Colm Donaghy, under questioning by an admirably persistent Channel 5 reporter, said that he could not rule out a similar killing happening again in his area of responsibility. Presumably this applies to other areas in the UK, so no-one should feel reassured.
Finally, there could be a nasty twist in the tail to this story. Matthew Daley will, presumably, be sentenced to a long period of incarceration - but it might not be too lengthy. If he responds well to treatment, he could be released early. This, hopefully, will be reported by the mass media, but the official response will be that every effort has been made by dedicated medical staff to treat him, and that he will be released under supervision. It may turn out well, or it may not. Nicola Edgington, mentioned above, stabbed her mother to death in 2005 and pleaded diminished responsibility at her  trial. In 2009, her secure unit psychiatrist recommended her release, as she was "mostly stable". In 2011, she murdered 58-year old Sally Hodkin. Another case, taken here from the "100 Families" homepage, gives one more example:
"In February 2004, on the day he was due to be admitted to a psychiatric hospital, mentally ill Leslie Gadsby killed his father Arthur with a hammer. Less then two years later, in December 2006, he was conditionally discharged from hospital by a mental health review tribunal, with the agreement of hospital managers and Mersey Care NHS Trust.
In March 2010 he fatally stabbed his mother."
I am sure that all readers and contributors to Rhymes and Routes will join me in sending the deepest condolences to the family of Donald Lock, should they happen upon this posting. I fervently hope that Mr Lock's relatives will not have to face up to the galling but possible release of Matthew Daley - perhaps to kill again. I also hope that the whole of society and the media will continue to take this matter more seriously.

The Titanic, an Approaching Crisis and Supply Teachers

When it comes to problems in education, the present government reminds me sometimes of Captain E. J. Smith, captain of the Titanic, who is supposed to have said, after his doomed ship struck the iceberg: "Don't worry; we're only stopping to take on a little ice". Whether he said this or not, the same complacency and disregard for the facts is typical of government ministers and the DFE when confronted with evidence of an approaching crisis in education: a growing teacher shortage.
Today's BBC website spells out the best indicator of the problem, which is the amount of money schools are spending on supply staff:

"Primary and secondary schools in England struggling to recruit teachers spent £821m on supply staff last year, it has emerged.

Analysis by BBC News shows the equivalent of £168 was spent on each child in order to hire in extra staff to cover vacancies and absences.
Teachers unions say the amount of money spent reflects a "serious teacher recruitment and retention crisis".
Yet, a DFE spokesman says:
"The number and quality of teachers is at a record high, with over 1,000 more graduates training to teach secondary subjects now than a year ago. The overall teacher vacancy rate is 0.3% and has remained around or below 1% for the past 15 years."
Oh, so that's all right then. Of course, it is not; only by willfully ignoring and distorting the facts can the anonymous DFE spokesman be so complacent. Five months ago, the Labour Party shadow education secretary, Lucy Powell, told the Guardian:
"...half of all schools had unfilled positions at the start of this year and are being forced to turn to unqualified staff, temporary supply teachers, non-specialists and larger class sizes to try and plug the gaps".
The BBC quotes the head of a supply teacher agency:
"Becca Morgan, who set up the supply agency Principal Teachers in Catterick 16 years ago, said her company was currently experiencing its busiest ever period.
"We start dealing with schools looking for supply teachers at 6.30 in the morning and I often stop answering calls at midnight. To put it bluntly: without companies like mine the reality is that the education system would grind to a halt."
If Ms Morgan sounds a tad defensive, that is because supply agencies have been accused of putting profit before the provision of suitable staff. There is some justification for this charge. When supply teaching was farmed out to private tender, some agencies were providing some highly unsuitable staff, but this is not relevant here. Perhaps more relevant is to point out that the figures for the cost of supply teaching would be even higher were it not for the fact that Headteachers use Teaching Assistants to cover teaching absences and vacancies, which they are not supposed to do. This is borne out by the example of the Robert Clack School in Dagenham who, says the BBC:
 "... spent the most on supply teachers in England. According to the government's data the school spent £953,807 on extra staff - the equivalent of £526 per child.
Dr Neil Geach, the school's chair of governors, said:
"The figures as reported do not reflect reality... We do not use unqualified staff or cover supervisors to cover teaching groups - our children's education is too important."
It follows, then, that the reason most schools do not spend as much money as this is due to their deployment of Teaching Assistants (and others!) to plug the gaps.
One category of people being left out of this discussion is one to which I so recently belonged: the supply teachers. The figures quoted by the BBC might give the impression that supply teaching is a highly lucrative occupation. For the individual supply teacher, this is not the case, and I can attest to this from personal experience. In 2000, I worked as a local education authority (LEA) supply teacher for two terms. After stoppages, I received £120 a day. When I retired in 2011 and went to work as a supply teacher for an agency, I eventually received, after stoppages, £110 a day. This drop in income is explained by the fact that the agency takes a large cut out of what the supply teacher would once have been paid by the LEA. Whoever is doing well out of the present crisis, it is not the ordinary supply teacher.
What of the future? I think it depends on teacher recruitment. If the recession recedes, the government improves teacher pay and conditions and sufficient teachers are recruited and retained, supply agencies might be much less busy. If things continue to deteriorate, thanks to government complacency, the agencies could be busier than ever.They might even improve the pay of the teachers who work for them.

SATs and the Education Factories

For most of us who were at primary school in the 1950s and early 1960s, our memories are generally happy. This is not to say things were easy. Post-war British schools were obviously poorly resourced compared to those of today, and, for all 11-year olds in the state sector, there was the dreaded 11-Plus exam, which was supposed to determine our abilities and future educational (and life) prospects. There was also corporal punishment, meted out in various forms and remembered with feeling by those who received it to the present day.
But, by and large, there was no pressure on us as youngsters to sit, revise for, or pass as many tests as children face today. Memory plays tricks, but I can remember sunny afternoons when we abandoned lessons to play games outside while being supervised. School life, viewed admittedly through lenses of nostalgic hindsight, seemed to be more relaxed and somehow happier then. No school would dare give its pupils free time like that nowadays, as well I know.
For this reason, I have some sympathy for the parents who kept their children off school yesterday as a protest against excessive SATs testing, even though, like shadow education secretary Lucy Powell has said, I cannot condone children being taken out of school. Anyway, 40 000 parents have signed a petition calling for a boycott of SATs tests to be held later this month. The Children's Laureate, Chris Liddell, said yesterday:
"We should be turning children into readers with the pleasure that gives, rather than relying on a testing culture".
Pleasure is distinctly lacking in today's primary schools, and I speak from experience, having taught in many, both as a supply teacher and a permanent member of staff. This is not to say that every primary school I have been in has been a dismal, joyless place (some were), but the pressure of preparing children for SATs exams is ever present, even in the pleasantest of schools, and that pressure can be intense, for pupils, parents and staff. As Michael Rosen wrote in yesterday's Guardian, in an open letter to the Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan:
" We have now reached a point in English primary education where children will be locked into a sequence of “reliable” tests at four, at the end of year 1, end of year 2 and end of year 6...One vehicle for this “reliability” is based on a lie: that questions about spelling, punctuation and grammar have only right and wrong answers."
On his blog,he states: " It's not really the children being tested. Their results are being used to test the teachers and the schools."
The BBC website sums up the argument against SATs testing very well, saying:
"In an open letter to the education secretary, campaigners have warned of schools becoming "exam factories" and that testing causes stress and can make young children feel like "failures"."
Now, as might be expected, the educational establishment have reacted to yesterday's events with extreme displeasure. The first reaction to consider is that of (Hello again!) Sir Michael Wilshaw, OFSTED chief:
"The government is right to introduce greater structure and rigour into the assessment process. Those who oppose this testing need to consider England's mediocre position in the OECD education rankings," said Sir Michael.
The OECD stands for "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ", which has a mission to: "...to promote policies that will improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world." All very laudable, but when it places countries in an educational ranking system, it does not allow for cultural or educational differences between countries. Chris McGovern, head of the Campaign for Real Education, would do well to be aware of this. According to McGovern:
"The importance of testing was emphasised by Chris McGovern...
He said that any short-term stress was worth it if in the longer term it meant that children finished school with better results...We're three years behind the Chinese at the age of 15. We are a bit of a basket case internationally."
He is clearly unaware of the fact that Chinese children do not learn in the same way as UK children, relying heavily on rote learning and that Chinese and Japanese schools are even more regimented and exam-oriented than ours, so far at least. Sir Michael Wilshaw, as ever, fails to explain why OFSTED has not dealt with this problem before, despite being in existence since the 1990s.
Nick Glibb, Education Minister, provided an unintentional lighter moment, saying:
"Schools should not be putting pressure on young people when taking these assessments.
"I've been to many schools where the children don't even know they're taking the tests," said Mr Gibb."
I suppose this is possible. I had forgotten Mr Glibb's existence; I didn't even know he was still Education Minister. I think I see pigs flying in formation over Hounslow...
As I have previously observed, Mrs Nicky Morgan and the educational establishment seem to spend so much time reading "Alice Through the Looking-Glass" that they seem to have passed through the looking-glass themselves. I myself have seen the results of SATs and parental pressure upon children, especially the 11-year olds taking their pre-secondary school SATs. I have seen children in tears because they have not gained the highest grades in their results and feared their parents' reaction. I even knew of a case where one child was threatened with violence by her father if she failed to get three Level Five grades in her three exams. These are extreme reactions, but not uncommon. Many parents see good SATs results as necessary for their child's future secondary school place, unaware that most secondary schools administer their own tests for new pupils on arrival, calling the need for Primary SATs at 11 years of age into question. In fact, I have been told by some secondary teachers that they test children in Year 7 because they have no confidence in the Year 6 SATs results! The real reason for the Year 6 SATs tests is to check on primary school teachers and their schools, as Michael Rosen has said. Schools that do not do well in their SATs are penalized by OFSTED, which explains the pressure on teachers, who in turn pressurize their pupils.
Interestingly enough, private schools (and academies) do not have to implement SATs. A Daily Telegraph article of 2012 spelt out the reason for this:
"Less than a fifth of independent preparatory schools now voluntarily stage exams in the three-Rs for 11-year-olds – half the number in the late-90s. David Hanson, chief executive of the Independent Association of Prep Schools, said the tests – compulsory in the state sector – were increasingly seen as a “minority sport” among private headmasters.

He also criticised the “obsession” with literacy and numeracy in state schools, claiming that a national drive to improve standards in the basics was actually damaging pupils’ education, particularly among boys."
I wonder if Nicky Morgan sends her children to an independent school?

Anyway, it looks as if more tests are on the way for our primary schools and, despite Nick Glibb's delusions, will lead to more teaching to the test, and our schools becoming more like education factories than ever. I wonder: will children and staff need to clock on and clock off at the beginning and end of the school day?