Mark Elms, Labour and other targets

We puddle now through the rain to Lewisham Town Hall, where local Labour centrist legend Sir Steve Bullock is due to hold a cabinet meeting on service cuts.

Sir Steve’s cabinet is positioning the ax (with a perverse enthusiasm, some say) over services the council could cut to fund its £3m share of the government’s in-year demand for £1.16bn local government savings.

But that, alas, is not all. Weirdly keen to shine in this first leg of the coalition’s local government service-slaughter challenge, Lewisham council has bullocked ahead and forecast a budget gap of up to £60m for 2011 to 2014 (although it’s still in the dark about government plans for key grants). It has already instructed officers to identify services to push up front for this second phase of the massacre. There’s little evidence the council is fighting for alternatives to keep the poor in this deprived borough afloat – moderate council tax increases in the top bands next year (the council is not compelled to accept Osborne’s incentives to keep increases down) or halts to the capital and PFI programme.

‘It would be easy to declare our opposition to the cuts the coalition is proposing,’ Bullock said in his May AGM address, as he piddled on any notion of combat with the government.

It is easiest of all to embrace the cuts ethos wholeheartedly. Lewisham cuts targets include a mass of jobs in the children and young people’s service, adult social care jobs and care packages, and daycare support for people with learning disabilities. Increased charges are proposed for services like meals on wheels and non-residential care (the complete hitlist is here).

It’s all very Hammersmith and Fulham when you get down to it. H&F Tories partly financed their much-celebrated lowered council tax by charging elderly and disabled people more for services like meals on wheels and homecare – the council ‘sacrificed free home care on the altar of a council tax reduction for which there was no legal requirement,’ Lord Justice Sedley said when three local people sought a judicial review of the Hammersmith charging decision.

The three didn’t win their review, but they drew attention to the truth of Hammersmith’s low council tax. I know that Labour readers will thrash me for comparing one of their councils with H&F’s Tory basketcases, but I’ll do it anyway, and will welcome a proper discussion when everyone calms down. Alternatives to cuts on the Lewishams scale must be found. After all, we’re supposed to be in this together. We’re not if local solutions are about piling costs on the poor.

I digress. Back to Lewisham town hall, where the NUT fronts a healthy-sized rally as the cabinet prepares to meet:

Lewisham cuts protesters

More photos from the event

I dip a toe in the rally, where I find that it is indeed Bullock and Lewisham Labour that people want to scrag. The coalition government gets a pass to quite an extent. The PCS is here, as well as the NUT and NASUWT, which means it’s just like the good old days, before the Tories got in – leftwing unions outside a town hall, screaming bloody death at the local Labour in-crowd. I waft round in an odd wave of nostalgia.

I speak to Kathy Duggan, a local primary school teacher, and NASUWT’s Lewisham secretary. She talks about the council’s response to the cuts agenda, and Gove’s plans for schools and academies, as you’ll see. She’s also furious about Mark Elms and his £200,000+ salary – boy, the unions came down hard on that one:

I also speak to Karen Jonason – a soon-to-retire deputy headteacher at Lewisham’s Pendragon school for children with learning disabilities. She’s circulating a petition to keep Crofton Park library open (Sydenham, Blackheath, Crofton Park, Grove Park and New Cross libraries are tagged for closure on Bullock’s list). She’s also a longtime Labour party member. She makes no excuse for this, even though I ask her to. ‘You fight from within.’

She thinks targeting Crofton Park library is ridiculous – ‘it’s always full of people, with kids always on the computers.’ Elderly people are regular library visitors, which Jonason believes saves the council money – ‘there’s a direct relationship between people staying active in the community and being able to live independently and look after themselves.’ The council believes that its libraries proposal would save about £750k – an amount Jonason feels is small beer.

Jonason’s argument is with council priorities – if money must be found, building and refurbishment work should be postponed ahead of cutting ‘small services’ like neighbourhood libraries.

I couldn’t agree more. There’s big money in these parts, but you need to know where to look for it. The council’s dreadful, and dreadfully expensive, PFI contracting process to date would be an excellent place to start – the National Audit Office has just rapped Lewisham’s knuckles for allowing its Brockley Housing project costs to increase from £44.6m to an extraordinary £115.91 million. Osborne’s spending review will assess PFIs, and the NAO is keen to hear more about their value:

As part of planned assessment of PFI housing through the 2010 comprehensive spending review and in view of a period of restraint and efficiencies in public sector spending, the department (for communities and local government) should consider PFI in the context of its other housing investment programmes, assess the different types of project used and ensure that value for money is a primary focus in terms of the selection of PFI as an investment option.

That’s where the real money is. Jonason knows, and I know, and we all know that these immediate service-slashing economies are false economies. Bullock’s huge list targets people we (literally) can’t afford to target. Makes you wonder what will happen when we really need to save.

An amusing little update: in another Gillian Duffy moment (time Labour politicians were shown the off-switches on their microphones) Sir Steve calls his concerned constituents fucking idiots. And me paying Lewisham well over £100 a month in council tax, too. How rude.

Lord Justice Sedley continued:

‘The object of this exercise was the sacrifice of free home care on the altar of a council tax reduction for which there was no legal requirement.

How Hackney cuts

Updated 11 July 2010. Information on cuts lobbies and organising groups at the end of this blog.

Have started to spend time in Hackney, with people likely to be affected by public sector cuts. Will post interview extracts here while I work on a longer piece with video, and go back to people to see how they’re getting on:

Anthony Rhoden:

I meet Anthony Rhoden at a Saturday afternoon Hackney Unites clinic for people who need free workplace and employment advice. Two Russell Jones and Walker solicitors are there as advisors, as well a TUC and local union rep.

A longtime (now unemployed) chef and restaurant worker, Rhoden says that he is a Unite organiser for bar and restaurant employees -‘there’s a lot of problems in the catering industry – there were lots of problems even before the recession. It happened to me all the time – wouldn’t get paid, or wouldn’t get all my pay. People don’t know they have rights. You get bullied all the time.’

In a recession, though, people count themselves lucky to have a job, even if they’re abused in it. That’ll be nowhere more the case than in Hackney. Hackney’s unemployment figures are already the worst in London, with a June 2010 TUC analysis putting the ratio of people claiming jobseekers’ allowance to available jobs at 24:1.

‘There’s no work anywhere,’ says Rhoden. He looks at me oddly when I put to him the coalition’s idea of moving the unemployed to areas where there are jobs. Like me, he’s not sure such a place exists. It ain’t in an obvious vicinity, that’s for sure. Joblessness will be even worse in Hackney, and in places like Lewisham and Deptford, if the public sector is hit as badly as the coalition proposes to hit it. Councils and the NHS are the biggest employers in these areas – there’s almost nowhere else to go.

Rhoden says he wants to start his own catering business, but that he signs on for now. He lives in temporary accommodation in Wigan House (he’s lived there for three years, waiting for his old block to be rebuilt) and relies on a housing benefit to meet his rent of about £100 a week.

The conversation takes a turn for the disturbing when we get to the subject of this housing benefit and the government’s targeting of it: Rhoden refuses to believe that housing benefits will be cut. He doesn’t talk about campaigning against the cuts – he says that he never ‘gets involved in the politics. I’m not a political person. The politics never changes anything and it never helps us.’

Now I’m looking at Rhoden oddly. Very. I wasn’t expecting this – I was as primed as ever for anger and a tide of anti-Cameron obscenity, but had nothing up the sleeve for denial. I tell Rhoden that George Osborne has housing benefits very much in his sights, and that if Osborne wins, Rhoden may find his housing benefit entitlement takes a ten percent hit.

Rhoden shakes his head. He says again that ‘there’s no way that they’ll cut the housing benefit.’ I say I hope he’s right and that I hope he knows something I don’t. The truth is that I suspect that Rhoden is exactly the type of guy Osborne is after – and exactly the type of guy Osborne wants the everyone-on-welfare-is-a-scrounger brigade to get after – because he’s been collecting JSA for more than 12 months. If he continues to collect JSA, which he may have to if his catering business idea doesn’t fly, he could be looking at losing ten quid a week, even as a council tenant.

‘There’s no way that they’ll cut it,’ Rhoden says firmly. ‘There’s no way they will do that. They will leave housing benefit alone.’ I has absolutely no idea how to interpret this confidence. It could be innocence – if Rhoden doesn’t follow politics, he may not know that Osborne is after housing benefits. That’s hardly a happy thought – he’s unlikely to be the only one. I suppose it could be the misplaced hauteur the right forever bangs on about – Rhoden isn’t worried about benefit cuts, because he’s confident the state will forever pick up his various tabs.

Of course – he wouldn’t be the only one. There are plenty of people with high expectations of handouts. One of the Russell Jones and Walker solicitors makes this point when she tells me that her firm was involved in a lot of final deal negotiations for well-placed City staff when the banks crashed.

‘The reality is that it didn’t hit them very hard,’ she says. ‘They negotiated good deals to leave, and then not very long after they left, they were negotiating good deals into other jobs.’ She says that by comparison, it can be very difficult to negotiate reasonable deals for people leaving the public sector.

She and the other Russell Jones and Walker solicitor say that from their perspective, very little has changed in the banking industry. They say that people are still awarded bonuses, but they just have them deferred so that they appear to be collecting nothing, or a lot less right now. ‘They like it like that. It looks like they’re not taking very much now, but they will just collect it all in the future.’

I wonder if the grassroots is up for a fight for public services, though. I want it to be, but that’ll hardly make it happen. Who would lead such a fight? Public sector trade unions? Hah. The PCS may put up a geniune fight, but Unison won’t.

I attend a meeting of Hackney locals and trade union members which is led by Brian Debus – a man who is walking testimony to Unison’s hatred of popular pro-public service, leftwing activists. Debus is one of the four Socialist party activists Unison has banned from office for demanding that Unison stop funding the pro-privatising Labour party. There is a great deal of difference between what Unison does and what it says.

This meeting of about 50 people knows that. It agrees that unions are too weak and too slow to organise effectively against the coalition juggernaut.

Union membership is low. Strike action is notoriously difficult to organise. Solidarity strikes are illegal. Legal strike action is painfully hard to achieve: unions must ballot, then request permission to strike from industrial action committees that are made up of people who’d prefer to make history as negotiators, rather than pinkos. If strikes go ahead, they may backfire. The Murdoch media hates the public sector and strikers, and will doubtless happily publish coalition press releases that claim public services were easily delivered on days when half the public sector workforce was out.

The meeting decides that the fight for services has to be rooted in communities, like the poll tax resistance. I think of Rhoden at this point, and wonder what will happen when he works out that the money is about to go.

Lobbies and meetings this week:

Camden TUC meeting to organise against cuts on Monday 12 July

Lewisham council: lobby against council cuts at Lewisham council buildings, Catford, Wednesday 14 July 5.15pm. Organised by the NUT.

News of cuts at Lambeth, and proposals to try and keep local people in employment.

Southwark Unites will hold a meeting against the cuts on Monday 19 July.

More to come.

Twitter Updates for 2010-07-01

  • RT @greenroofsuk: Icelandic whaling begins>On plus side, they mite b planning 2 pay Barnet council back in whaleshit #
  • I might leave a comment on Cleggie’s site, but would rather communicate the old way – put pen to paper, then wipe my arse on it. #
  • Hope the Tamils come back to Parliament Sq. I’d like to see Boris try & kick them out…http://bit.ly/ceHOpF #
  • @AlJahom @Charonqc Agreed. Ban this & ban that – achieves nothing. I’m a non smoker (ish) & couldn’t give a shit if others smoke round me in reply to AlJahom #
  • @TiggerTherese Well, exactly. Lots of people wd like a whole doco to explain things that have happened to them… in reply to TiggerTherese #
  • @bilbobaggins2k r u ginger? @moreutterpiffle & I have both had sex with a ginger (1 each) in reply to bilbobaggins2k # Continue reading

Poor people: too declasse to save?

So.

During the recent election campaign, I attended a packed parliamentary candidates’ hustings meeting in Lewisham-Deptford, my home manor. I bring it to you now as evidence that anyone relying on the political class to fight for public services should head out now to lie down on the M4 (the middle class does seem prepared to sacrifice the poor).

The meeting was just so appallingly civilised.

Five prospective MPs sat before the voting public in the middle of a recession, an expenses scandal, a public services funding crisis and – lest we forget – a war, and people just sat there and politely heard all five out. I found it hard to credit.

Perhaps we were looking at a crisis of representation. The audience was overwhelmingly white (which Lewisham-Deptford is not), apparently well-appointed, and inclined to kowtow, as the middle class seems fated to when presented with a lineup of wannabe service-cutting zealots. Well-mannered people asked civilised questions about MPs’ expenses, and touched on the recession and topup fees. Their prospective overlords gave answer in turn. I can say for a fact that I’ve been to less cuddly key parties. Middle class foment was as wedded to the horizon as it ever has been.

Things almost picked up about 20 minutes in when a commotion kicked off down the back, but alas – nothing useful was allowed to come of it. A young, local black man made his way into the meeting. His name was Tony Hambolu and he told us that lived on Deptford’s Tanners Hill estate. Straightaway, he got stuck into incumbent and prospective candidates about his cramped living conditions, and unemployment, benefits and social problems on Tanners Hill. He had to shout to make himself heard over a suddenly-ranting, one-issue long-hair – a bloke who had the face to tell Hambolu to shut up and stick to relevant topics, as you’ll see in the video below – but he stuck with it for as long as he could.

Hambolu saw the problem with the meeting – and indeed with millennium politics – immediately.

‘When they’re sitting in your face, you don’t want to tell them the truth!” he yelled at his fellow audience members while pointing at the candidates. ‘There are people in council flats that have got six children, living in a three bedroom flat, living on benefits every two weeks. What do you want to do about it? Please tell me. How are you going to help people? How are you going to help people?’

‘Let’s stick to the issue,’ the ranting socialist said. ‘Let’s stick to the real issue, which is environment and technology.’

Hambolu didn’t think environment and technology was the real issue, particularly. The yelling went on for a while. ‘You’re all full of shit, man,’ the kid said in the end. He stomped out. That, unfortunately, was that. Nobody on the platform, or in the audience, asked him to stay, or went outside to call him back in, or insisted that the candidates dealt with the points that he raised.

A commentator on a Deptford blog later put it this way:

“Tony had a point, but talked over everyone, lost his temper and ended up effing and blinding. His emotions got the better of him – a real shame because he really had something to say.”

There was an uncomfortable truth in there somewhere: that people may participate in democracy, but they must toe arse-tight etiquette lines while at it. Raise a difficult point in a loud, angry voice, and you’ll be abandoned on the grounds of taste.

I had a camera, so followed Hambolu out of the meeting and asked him to expand on his views.

‘They’re putting money in irrelevant things,’ he said. ‘You’re characterising the wrong things. Housing, benefits issues, work, lots of people are out of work. The safety of our children…they are not tackling those problems, and they expect us to vote for them. All these MPs, they don’t look for the real people, the real voice, the people that actually have problems. All these people work. They don’t know about the real issues going on in society.’

PS – please excuse the ghastly standard of the second part of the vid. Have improved since then.

Women – hear me roar

Right.

Liberal Conspiracy – a site I generally love with a passion – has managed to find yet another educated, well-off woman to write a ‘women are victims and sad fannies’ piece.

I can’t tell you how furious this stupendously male vision of the female state makes me. (I’ve got a couple of articles to finish in the next day or two, and after that, I’m going to write on this in more detail). I leave you with this for now:

The young woman in the piece tells us that she’s had the good fortune of an excellent education, health, and choice and opportunity (which, in my opinion, should pretty much be where the article ends):

“I am twenty-one years old. Female. British. Middle class, and agnostic. I attended a good university, and came out with an arts degree. If I want to make money, I can, and if I don’t, I can borrow it without impediment. I don’t feel the need to compulsively buy things. I’m healthy, and I don’t hate myself.

No one will stop me if I want to leave my country, stay in my country, sleep in until midday, go out and not come home, get a boyfriend, get a girlfriend, study, drop out, claim benefits, get married, or do none of the above.

Am I the freest woman in the world?”

The answer to that question is ‘Yes – on the strength of your description of yourself, you are among the freest women in the world, by about the length of the Gobi,’ but that doesn’t stop our heroine embracing the liberal left’s cherished notion that educated women who choose how to live their lives and control their fertility, etc, are forever doomed, by virtue of their genitalia, to a life sucking on the hind tit (a tit, by-the-by, that will always be half empty):

“Except that I’m not. I can’t walk home at night alone without looking over my shoulder. I will never fight on the front line for my country. I will statistically earn less than my male peers for doing the same job, and if I stop to have children my career will almost inevitably suffer.

I am bound by social conventions, those barriers we place in our own minds, received from others. I wouldn’t dream of never shaving (and neither would most British men and women). I was desperate to pluck my eyebrows and wear a bra by the age of 12. If I don’t exercise, I feel guilty.

Every accomplishment is a second-long thrill, followed by the question: ‘what now?’ If I went into politics, I would have to spend my life lying and smiling and caressing egos before I got anywhere near to power.”

The writer makes an attempt to weave religion into the piece – I think she’s trying to argue that liberation from God ought to liberate women from social constraint – which indeed it does, but of course – no female writer today is allowed to think or imply that this liberation is genuine. All statements women make about liberation must, by today’s misogynist definitions, acknowledge that for women, there is always a catch – that even if we have degrees, good jobs, and control over our fertility, we are still small, scared, and on the receiving end.

I put this comment the article. I was pissed off at the time, but hell – why not? A girl is surely allowed to tell blogworld where it’s gone wrong:

“Is there actually an active campaign here now to find as many women as possible who will paint themselves as victims in 600 words? Am I the only women of the liberal left’s acquaintance who feels this obsession with publishing this type of whinge is sexist in the extreme? Why not just replace half the site with a nice pic of a Stepford wife?

This article is fucking offensive and I’m keen to know why its type is continually solicited, by both the blogworld and the mainstream media. Anorexics, bulimics, depressives, girls who are too scared to walk down the street – talk about falling over yourselves to reinforce male stereotypes of women as sad, weak little creatures. I’m a woman and a feminist and I’m sick to the teeth of this whining, middle class shit. Stop talking about your minor worries for Christ’s sake. Your personal experiences are neither representative, nor important. Neither are mine. Nobody cares. Start writing about people other than yourselves and get a sense of perspective. Use your advantages to help people who haven’t been as lucky as you. Women are smart, strong and capable. Stop insisting that we’re all just creeping around quietly, waiting for a good raping.

Jesus Christ, but this fucks me off.

And while we’re at it – if we’re all so concerned about women as equals, and we’re all such great feminists and so in tune with the female mind, why are there two pictures of gorgeous young birds in their underpants on the homepage?

As I say, I’ll come back to this soon. I want to expand further on stories of feminist success, and clearly need to write something that is substantiated, and speaks a little more of maturity. I hope the liberal left will join me.

The Labour people need

Never one to pass up on local democracy’s offerings, yours truly recently attended the new Lewisham council’s inaugural AGM.

I went partly because I pay council tax in Lewisham and like to clap eyes on the hapless schmucks in charge of it at the dawn of each municipal term’s disasters. There was another draw, though. It struck me that as one of Labour’s outright London wins at the recent elections, Lewisham had real potential as a pain in Cameron and Clegg’s mingled butt, particularly in the fight for local public services. Lewisham is a place where Labour could round on the coalition’s cuts programme, and begin to restore the ‘tacit covenant’ that Jon Cruddas and Jonathan Rutherford believe Labour must have with constituents – ‘a covenant about housing, work and security, a sense of neighbourliness and community.’

So it was that I arrived at Lewisham’s AGM with my tongue hanging out. Would third-term mayor Sir Steve Bullock be my kind of Labour? A frothing, Ted Knight-esque commie threatening sabotage and overspend to defend services seemed a bit much to hope for, but I thought Sir Steve might say a few fighting words about wrangling extra funds out of government for Lewisham’s poor. At the very least, he might pretend resistance.

Sir Steve and I began to go our separate ways in the ideological sense about a minute into his AGM address. It occurred to me that his speech sounded less like a warning to the Cameron-Clegg coalition than a job interview for it. Certainly, he evidenced distaste for a Labour rebellion against the coalition threat.

‘It would be easy to declare our opposition to the cuts the coalition is proposing,’ he began. ‘I intend to invite the leaders of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat groups to meet to discuss Lewisham’s relations with the government.’ Sir Steve hoped good relations with central government would ensue.

So far, so hopelessly civilised.

Like so many of today’s political visionaries, Sir Steve was eager to retail the notion that massive public spending cuts were crucial to the restoration of the national economy. ‘Whatever the outcome of the general election, severe cuts would have been made to public expenditure… unless we transform the way public services are delivered, the impact on our community could be devastating.’

The specifics of this transformation weren’t available at the AGM, so I got Sir Steve on the phone after it. I’ve covered local government for a long time now, and know all too well that the phrase ‘transforming the way our public services are delivered’ tends to present in real-life as abortive outsourcing initiatives, failed public-private partnerships, and/or replacing staff with useless web applications.

We had a nice chat, but didn’t get far with it. ‘It’s early days,’ Sir Steve pointed out. He assured me he was not an outsourcing zealot – ‘I’m not going to follow a privatisation agenda for the sake of it’ – but he’ll work with the private sector when there’s advantage in it. We’ll wait and see if any other ideas are in the ether. What we can say now is that cutting jobs, or sending them out of the borough would be disastrous. The council is the biggest employer in Lewisham.

Regarding local Labour’s relationship with the Cameron-Clegg coalition: Sir Steve expected respect. ‘One of the lessons of the past is that you consult local government [before implementing change], rather than implementing change and seeing what happens.’

I asked Sir Steve if the coalition had indicated it would consult. He said it hadn’t indicated that it wouldn’t. I told him tales of Tory Hammersmith and Fulham council, which keeps council tax down by charging the poor for homecare and meals. I’ve seen the H&F cabinet’s consultation process in action, too, at protest meetings: it largely involved running for it when furious meeting attendees went postal.

Sir Steve said he drew strength from a recent gathering of local government worthies, where new communities secretary Eric Pickles flashed a powerpoint slide that read ‘localism, localism, localism.’ Indeed. Tony Blair once had a slide that read ‘education, education, education.’ Powerpoint isn’t always a genuine read.

That’s it for now: post-election local Labour rhetoric as the party begins its fightback on behalf of – well, itself, mostly, on this early evidence, but hopefully others. Suffice to say for now that Lewisham needs local public services. It has high child poverty rates, high unemployment and problems with youth crime. Cruddas is right – a tacit covenant would be good. An explicit one would be better. I’ll hang out for either.

Hello

Am putting together some longer things atm and not publishing much until the election is over. Will mostly be on Twitter @hangbitch making childish remarks about the election for the next week or two.

The pits

1518__450x450_20091218_gr3-greenwich-snow-056-vv2-1000I’ve owned dogs all my life: labradors, retrievers, yorkies and a large, lovable, spectacularly hairy number whose father could have been anything. ‘Wow,’ people would say when she walked past. ‘What’s that?’ Now, I have a pit breed dog. I wanted to give a good home to a dog that might otherwise not have found one.

So the tale begins:

It’s been nearly 20 years since the dangerous dogs act made it into law – and to the top of our (rather competitive) rankings for misguided legislation. Neither people, nor dogs have come out in front with the DDA: those who know and care for dogs and people are – well, baying for change.

The number of dog-on-human attacks has not altered for the better in 20 years. Some argue the numbers are worse, and others say they’re the same. Nobody says they’ve dropped. The world of dog attack statistics is a maelstrom of politics, misinterpretation, inaccuracy and hysteria: we’ll try to unpick the numbers as we go on.

The act has been no picnic for dogs, either: with its emphasis on banning breeds (the pitbull type terrier, the Japanese Tosa, and the rarely-seen-here-anyway Dogo Argentino and the Fila Brasileiro) the DDA has succeeded mainly in contributing to the global destruction of the reputation of dogs that had – particularly in the pit-type dog’s case – a great history as favoured companions and champions. They were never bred for conflict with people, as we’ll see.

By virtue of their illegality, they’ve become attractive to a small number of dog owners who like the thought of a canine fiend. They’re thrown into pits for illegal dogfights (I know three rescue dogs, Ace, Tazz and Channa, who were rescued from owners who used them as pit bait. Their new owners walk them in Greenwich park, where we walk our dog).

In America – another convert to breed specific legislation – unlucky pit type dogs have ended in the hands of the sadistic likes of Michael Vick. The story of the rise of the pit dog as doggie enemy No#1 in the last 30 years is not, as it happens, about a dog type at all. It’s a story about man’s endless capacity for viciousness and violence, and of his eagerness to hold the animal he tortures responsible for its reaction to him.

Another irony of breed specific legislation like the DDA is that it is difficult to be specific about the breeds it aims to ban.

There’s no breed standard for the animal the DDA describes as the ‘type known as the pit bull terrier.’ There is just a bunch of dogs that might look the part, and have pit-type DNA. There’s the small, strong, courageous American pit bull terrier, recognised by the the United Kennel Club and made famous (in a good way) by Petey on Little Rascals. There’s the American staffordshire bull terrier, which is recognised by the American Kennel Club. There are the ones that confuse a lot of people and are legal here, but not in some states in America – bull terriers and staffordshire bull terriers. Then, there are the thousands of perms and combs of the bull and terrier dogs that were first bred centuries ago to produce pit breeds. There are the thousands of dogs that may have a pit-type heritage that owners don’t know about. There are the dogs bred for size and savagery by psychopaths. There are the thousands of dogs that look pit-typeish to some eyes, but aren’t: boxer mixes, mastiff mixes – anything, really, with a big head, a wide mouth, and/or rose ears.

There is, in other words, good reason why it’s a waste of time trying to decide a dog’s personality on the basis of its face, but that is what BSL wants to do. The upshot is the sort of madness that befits our nervous, but lightweight, age: an obsession with a dog’s type and looks, rather than canine behaviour and the all-important dog-owner relationship, a sensationalising media with an evil-dog fetish that leaves no room for balanced discussion about the many factors that contribute to dog attacks, static, or worsening, dog attack statistics, and a ground (some might say class) war between people who own pit and bull breed dogs and people who don’t (more on that as we go on).

None of which is to say that pit type dogs haven’t killed and injured in the last 30 years, because they have. It’s just that their type is the least of it. They don’t come out of the box as uberkillers with special fangs and an innate inclination to go batshit. Bloodhounds (used to track and kill slaves and convicts), German Shepherds and Dobermanns (associated with Nazis), Rottweilers, St Bernards, huskies and labradors (starving, ill treated sled dogs) have all been accused of the same over the years.

‘The greatest pup in Mongaup today is a brindled Bulldog, as brave as he is hideous. Every woman who meets the brindle pats it, seems disposed to kiss its ugly mug, and says: ‘Good dog! Good dog!’ Washington Post, 1907

—–

‘They can be absolutely enchanting,’ Dogs trust CE and founder Clarissa Baldwin says of pit breeds. Baldwin is at pains to make clear that her organisation has ‘zero tolerance of dog aggression’: to want to shift the political emphasis from dog breed to dog deed is not to suggest unconcern about canine aggression. Quite the reverse – it’s to know that life will improve neither for dogs nor people until, as Baldwin says, political attention switches from the dog to the individual ‘at the other end of the lead.’

This is particularly true for pit type dogs – the great irony of their reputation today is that they were bred for an unusually trusting, exceptionally good humoured relationship with humans, and to be able to distinguish quickly between people and dogs (some pit dogs are aggressive with other dogs if they’re not socialised, because of their dogfighting history).

Richard Moore, the manager of the Dogs Trust Harefield rehoming centre (and owner of two geriatric staffies) discusses this with me in some detail. The trust-in-people trait was vital for great fighting dogs: when they were wounded in the pit, they had to be able to turn off their aggression the moment someone stepped in to handle them. Pit dogs that were aggressive towards people had short careers and lives.

That left a dog type bred to expect the best from man, and to trust him, even when injured. Make no mistake – the magic is still there. Treated well, pit breeds are notable for a sublime joie de vivre and enthusiasm for people through which, in one’s soppier moments, one may almost glimpse the divine.

That is why they have a loyal fan base, and descriptors like ‘enchanting’. It is also why – as Baldwin says – the responsibility for the behaviour of these dogs lies so absolutely with the people in charge of them. When a pit type dog attacks a person, you know that someone has turned that dog against type. As Malcolm Gladwell put it in his seminal New Yorker article on the dangers of generalisation, ‘a pit bull is dangerous to people, then, not to the extent that it expresses its essential pit bullness but to the extent that it deviates from it.’

So it is that the Dogs Trust trust is lobbying all three political parties to shift the DDA’s emphasis. Baldwin wants all dogs microchipped at point of exchange, so that dogs can be traced to original breeders – the trust is working with local authorities on a UK wide chipping campaign. Baldwin also wants doggie Asbos – the early identification of dogs and owners that have begun to cause trouble, and compulsory obedience training, neutering, and leads and muzzles for problem dogs.

The Communication Workers Union, which represents postal workers (6,000 of whom are attacked by dogs each year) and keeps numbers on dog attacks, is of like mind. ‘We’re very much of the ‘it’s the deed, not the breed’ point of view,’ says spokesman Karl Stewart. ‘And we’d agree that the DDA’s emphasis on breeds has missed the point somewhat.’

The CWU wants the DDA changed to allow prosecution of owners whose dogs attack on private property. At the moment, the law only targets people with dogs ‘that are dangerously out of control in a public place,’ which isn’t terribly helpful for posties, who by law must deliver mail to all addresses.

——–

No owner can say that their dog will never attack. What owners can say is that they will never encourage aggression.

Malcolm Gladwell again: ‘the dogs that bite people are, in many cases, socially isolated because their owners are socially isolated, and they are vicious because they have owners who want a vicious dog.’

And, as Randall Lockwood, a senior vice president of the ASPCA, told Gladwell: ‘a fatal dog attack… is usually a perfect storm of bad human-canine interactions—the wrong dog, the wrong background, the wrong history in the hands of the wrong person in the wrong environmental situation. I’ve been involved in many legal cases involving fatal dog attacks, and, certainly, it’s my impression that these are generally cases where everyone is to blame. You’ve got the unsupervised three-year-old child wandering in the neighborhood killed by a starved, abused dog owned by the dogfighting boyfriend of some woman who doesn’t know where her child is. It’s not old Shep sleeping by the fire who suddenly goes bonkers. Usually there are all kinds of other warning signs.’

——–

In January 2002, a teenage girl call Pauline Broughton was walking past a house in a small, poor, rural New Zealand town called Patea when three pit bull type dogs jumped the house fence and attacked her. The dogs did terrible damage – they pinned the girl face down to the ground, and ripped skin and muscle from her arms, legs and buttocks. They probably would have killed her if neighbours hadn’t fought them off.

I was communications manager at South Taranaki district council then – and Patea (and dog control) was in the council’s jurisdiction. The national press was on the phone in a flash, asking about the dogs’ breed, and if they had a history of aggression.

The Patea dog control officer, a local woman who had a couple of kids herself, told the mayor and chief executive that she’d only ever received one complaint about the dogs. That’s what we told the press. It all hit the fan then – Patea locals read that claim of one complaint, and rang the papers to tell a very different story. It turned out they’d been complaining about the dogs and their aggressive behaviour for more than a year.

I went down to the environmental services department to check the records myself. I found the dog control officer there, tearful and shaking and working through a pile of paper that she’d printed out. ‘I wish this would go away,’ she kept saying. ‘I wish it would go away.’

It turned out that Patea residents had made at least 11 formal complaints about the dogs, and mentioned their behaviour numerous times to the dog control officer. The dogs’ history was classic – intact, unsocialised animals, and negligent, aggressive owners who weren’t interested in their neighbours’ concerns, or instructions from the council. The dog control officer had visited the property several times and told the owners to keep the dogs restrained, but the truth was she was too frightened of the owners and their dogs to pursue a stronger course of action. Council set dog control policy: it was ridiculous of the council to think that a lone officer who lived locally would be able to handle such a situation. You need special dog teams for problem owners and their dogs.

—–

Not long after we got him, I took our pit breed puppy out to a small piece of grass next Lewisham’s Coldbath estate.

A bunch of kids from the estate were playing football on a concrete pitch nearby. I didn’t take much notice of them, because I was playing with the puppy, but then I noticed them, all right: they were stampeding towards us like pitch invaders, screaming and shouting with hoodies fluttering and more and more kids joining them…

Aha, I thought. Perhaps this is it. The dog’ll be pinched and I’ll be tomorrow’s Daily Mail lead and office toast – another nice, white, middle-aged lady with her handbag lifted and her old fanny raped by a horde of sweating newish Britons… although things turned out rather lower-key than that. The youths thundered up to us, said hello, then dropped to the grass to play with the puppy. They were absolutely thrilled with him, and just – well, perfectly civilised and polite.

‘Can I pet your dog?’

‘Is that a little pit?’

‘Is that a little staff? Sick, innit?’

‘What’s his name?’ ‘How old is he?’ ‘Where did you get him?’ They kicked their football for the puppy and ran round with it so that he could chase, and he got so excited that he did little piddles all over the place. When it came time to leave, the kids thanked me and went back to their game.

Thus it has been ever after. This kind of dog opens doors, and eyes, to the truth of one’s own prejudices. It is true that there are kids out there who want these dogs and use them as weapons: it’s just that they’re not the whole story. To say that a dog type is inherently evil, or that kids are inherently evil, and that there is nothing else to it, is to take the easy road. On more than one occasion, I’ve watched a bunch of kids in hoodies and my dog race around with each other, playing like kids and dogs do, and I’ve thought -‘it’s awful that these kids and these dogs get such a blanket bad press.’

Next article – a trip to a Dogs Trust rehoming centre and more on attack numbers.

Get the Flash Player to see this video.


1518__450x450_20091218_gr3-greenwich-snow-056-vv2-1000I’ve owned dogs all my life: labradors, retrievers, yorkies and a large, lovable, spectacularly hairy number whose parents could have been anything. ‘God almighty,’ people would say when she walked past. ‘What’s that?’ Now, I have a pit breed dog. I wanted to give a good home to a dog that might otherwise not have found one.

So the tale begins:

It’s been nearly 20 years since the dangerous dogs act made it into law – and to the top of our (rather competitive) rankings for misguided legislation. Neither people, nor dogs have come out in front with the DDA: those who know and care for dogs and people are – well, baying for change.

The number of dog-on-human attacks has not altered for the better in 20 years (some argue the numbers are worse, others say they’re the same, while nobody says they’ve dropped. The world of dog attack statistics is a malestrom of politics, misinterpretation, inaccuracy and hysteria: we’ll try to unpick the numbers as we go on).

The act has been no picnic for dogs, either: with its emphasis on banning breeds (the pitbull type terrier, the Japanese Tosa, and the rarely-seen-here-anyway Dogo Argentino and the Fila Brasileiro) the DDA has succeeded mainly in contributing to the global destruction of the reputation of dogs that had – particularly in the pit-type dog’s case – a great history as favoured companions and champions. They were never bred for conflict with people, as we’ll see.

By virtue of their illegality, they’ve become attractive to the small number of dog owners who like the thought of a canine fiend. They’re thrown into pits for illegal dogfights (I know three rescue dogs, Ace, Tazz and Churnel, who were rescued from owners who used them as pit bait. Their new owners walk them in Greenwich park, where we walk our dog). It’s estimated that 30% of the dogs in Battersea are staffie, or staffie crosses).

In America – the world’s other convert to breed specific legislation – unlucky pit type dogs have ended in the hands of the sadistic likes of Michael Vick. The story of the rise of the pit dog as doggie enemy No#1 in the last 30 years is not, as it happens, about a dog type at all. It’s a story about man’s endless capacity for viciousness and violence, and of his eagerness to hold the animal he tortures responsible for its reaction to him.

Another irony of breed specific legislation like the DDA is that it is difficult to be specific about the breeds it aims to ban.

There’s no breed standard for the animal the DDA describes as the ‘type known as the pit bull terrier.’ There is just a bunch of dogs that might look the part, and have pit-type DNA. There’s the small, strong, courageous American pit bull terrier, recognised by the the United Kennel Club and made famous (in a good way) by Petey on Little Rascals. There’s the American staffordshire bull terrier, which is recognised by the American Kennel Club. There are the ones that confuse a lot of people and are legal here, but not in some states in America – bull terriers and staffordshire bull terriers. Then, there are the thousands of perms and combs of the bull and terrier dogs that were first bred centuries ago to produce pit breeds. There are the thousands of dogs that may have a pit-type heritage that owners don’t know about. There are the dogs bred for size and savagery by psychopaths. There are the thousands of dogs that look pit-typeish to some eyes, but aren’t: boxer mixes, mastiff mixes – anything, really, with a big head, a wide mouth, and/or rose ears.

There is, in other words, good reason why it’s a waste of time trying to decide a dog’s personality on the basis of its face, but that is what BSL wants to do. The upshot is the sort of madness that befits our nervous, but lightweight, age: an obsession with a dog’s type and looks, rather than canine behaviour and the all-important dog-owner relationship, a sensationalising media with an evil-dog fetish that leaves no room for balanced discussion about the many factors that contribute to dog attacks, static, or worsening, dog attack statistics, and a ground (some might say class) war between people who own pit and bull breed dogs and people who don’t (more on that as we go on).

None of which is to say that pit type dogs haven’t killed and injured in the last 30 years, because they have. It’s just that their type is the least of it. They don’t come out of the box as uberkillers with special fangs and an innate inclination to go batshit. Bloodhounds (used to track and kill slaves and convicts), German Shepherds and Dobermanns (associated with Nazis), Rottweilers, St Bernards, huskies and labradors (starving, ill treated sled dogs) have all been accused of the same over the years.

‘The greatest pup in Mongaup today is a brindled Bulldog, as brave as he is hideous. Every woman who meets the brindle pats it, seems disposed to kiss its ugly mug, and says: ‘Good dog! Good dog!’ Washington Post, 1907

—–

‘They can be absolutely enchanting,’ Dogs trust CE and founder Clarissa Baldwin says of pit breeds. Baldwin is at pains to make clear that her organisation has ‘zero tolerance of dog aggression’: to want to shift the political emphasis from dog breed to dog deed is not to suggest unconcern about canine aggression. Quite the reverse – it’s to know that life will improve neither for dogs nor people until, as Baldwin says, political attention switches from the dog to the individual ‘at the other end of the lead.’

This is particularly true for pit type dogs – the great irony of their reputation today is that they were bred for an unusually trusting, exceptionally good humoured relationship with humans, and to be able to distinguish quickly between people and dogs (some pit dogs are aggressive with other dogs if they’re not socialised, because of their dogfighting history).

Richard Moore, the manager of the Dogs Trust Harefield rehoming centre (and owner of two geriatric staffies) discusses this with me in some detail. The trust-in-people trait was vital for great fighting dogs: when they were wounded in the pit, they had to be able to turn off their aggression the moment someone stepped in to handle them. Pit dogs that were aggressive towards people had short careers and lives.

That left a dog type bred to expect the best from man, and to trust him, even when injured. Make no mistake – the magic is still there. Treated well, pit breeds are notable for a sublime joie de vivre and enthusiasm for people through which, in one’s soppier moments, one may almost glimpse the divine.

That is why they have a loyal fan base, and descriptors like ‘enchanting’. It is also why – as Baldwin says – the responsibility for the behaviour of these dogs lies so absolutely with the people in charge of them. When a pit type dog attacks a person, you know that someone has turned that dog against type. As Malcolm Gladwell put it in his seminal New Yorker article on the dangers of generalisation, ‘a pit bull is dangerous to people, then, not to the extent that it expresses its essential pit bullness but to the extent that it deviates from it.’

So it is that the Dogs Trust trust is lobbying all three political parties to shift the DDA’s emphasis. Baldwin wants all dogs microchipped at point of exchange, so that dogs can be traced to original breeders – the trust is working with local authorities on a UK wide chipping campaign. Baldwin also wants doggie Asbos – the early identification of dogs and owners that have begun to cause trouble, and compulsory obedience training, neutering, and leads and muzzles for problem dogs.

The Communication Workers Union, which represents postal workers (6,000 of whom are attacked by dogs each year) and keeps numbers on dog attacks, is of like mind. ‘We’re very much of the ‘it’s the deed, not the breed’ point of view,’ says spokesman Karl Stewart. ‘And we’d agree that the DDA’s emphasis on breeds has missed the point somewhat.’

The CWU wants the DDA changed to allow prosecution of owners whose dogs attack on private property. At the moment, the law only targets people with dogs ‘that are dangerously out of control in a public place,’ which isn’t terribly helpful for posties, who by law must deliver mail to all addresses.

——–

No owner can say that their dog will never attack. What owners can say is that they will never encourage aggression.

Malcolm Gladwell again: ‘the dogs that bite people are, in many cases, socially isolated because their owners are socially isolated, and they are vicious because they have owners who want a vicious dog.’

And, as Randall Lockwood, a senior vice president of the ASPCA, told Gladwell: ‘a fatal dog attack… is usually a perfect storm of bad human-canine interactions—the wrong dog, the wrong background, the wrong history in the hands of the wrong person in the wrong environmental situation. I’ve been involved in many legal cases involving fatal dog attacks, and, certainly, it’s my impression that these are generally cases where everyone is to blame. You’ve got the unsupervised three-year-old child wandering in the neighborhood killed by a starved, abused dog owned by the dogfighting boyfriend of some woman who doesn’t know where her child is. It’s not old Shep sleeping by the fire who suddenly goes bonkers. Usually there are all kinds of other warning signs.’

——–

In January 2002, a teenage girl call Pauline Broughton was walking past a house in a small, poor, rural New Zealand town called Patea when three pit bull type dogs jumped the house fence and started to tear into her. The dogs did terrible damage to the girl – they pinned her face-down to the ground, and ripped skin and muscle from her arms, legs and buttocks. They probably would have killed her if neighbours hadn’t intervened. I was communications manager at South Taranaki district council then – and Patea (and dog control) was in our jurisdiction. The national press was on the phone in a flash, asking about the dogs’ breed, but if they had a history of aggression. The Patea dog control officer, a local woman who had a couple of young kids herself, told the mayor and chief executive that she’d only ever had one complaint about those dogs, so that’s what we told the press. It all hit the fan then – Patea locals read that claim of one complaint, and rang the papers to tell a very different story. It turned out they’d been complaining bitterly about those dogs and their aggressive behaviour for at least a year. We went down to environmental services to check the records ourselves. That’s when I found the dog control officer, tearful and shaking and trying to organise the pile of paper she’d just printed out. ‘I wish this would go away,’ she kept saying to me. ‘I wish it would go away.’ We went through the pile of paper together. Patea residents had made at least 11 formal complaints about those dogs, and mentioned them numerous times to the dog control officer. The history was classic – intact, unsocialised animals, and negligent, aggressive owners who weren’t interested in their neighbours’ concerns, or pointers on dog training and control from the council. The dog control officer had visited the property several times and told the owners to keep the dogs restrained, but the truth was she was too frightened

Baldwin thinks government is adult enough to overturn breed-specific legislation. I am not as confident. These are conservative times, and the middle class’ negative, righteous view of pit breeds and the people who own them is entrenched in our DNA:

Not long after we got him, I took our pit breed puppy out to a small piece of grass next Lewisham’s ColdBath estate (the estate backs on our twee block of new build flats).

A bunch of kids from the estate were playing football on a concrete pitch nearby. I didn’t take much notice of them, because I was playing with the puppy, but then I noticed them, all right: they were stampeding towards us like pitch invaders, screaming and shouting with hoodies fluttering and more and more kids joining them…

Aha, I thought. Perhaps this is it. The dog’ll be pinched and I’ll be tomorrow’s Daily Mail lead and office toast – another nice, white, middle-aged lady with her handbag lifted and her old fanny raped by a horde of sweating newish Britons… in fact, things turned out rather lower-key than that. The youths thundered up to us, said hello, then dropped to the grass to play with the puppy. They were absolutely thrilled with him, and just – well, normal and polite to me.

‘Can I pet your dog?’

‘Is that a little pit?’

‘Is that a little staff? Sick, innit?’

‘What’s his name?’ ‘How old is he?’ ‘Where did you get him?’ They kicked their football for the puppy and ran round with it, so that he could chase, and he got so excited that he did little piddles all over the place. When it came time to leave, the kids thanked me and went back to their game.

Thus it has been ever after. This kind of dog opens doors, and eyes, to the truth of one’s own prejudices. It is true that there are kids out there who want these dogs and use them as weapons: the point I’m trying to make is that they are not the whole story. To say that a breed is evil, or that kids are evil and that there is nothing else to it is to take the easy road. On a few occasions, I’ve watched the kids and the dog race around with each other and I’ve thought -‘it’s awful that these kids and these dogs get such bad press.’

Get the Flash Player to see this video.