Friendly encounters

The conversations with friends and family have been moved from this blog, which I'm keeping for more serious stuff. 

Stay in touch with Ian, Helen, Susan, Rachel and the rest at Friendly Encounters.

How to copy a paragraph or two from protected pdf files into Word

1. Open the pdf file and scroll down to the text you want to copy, so it's in the middle of your computer screen.
2. Take a copy of what's on screen using the PrintScreen key, PRTSC.
3. Paste this into a Word file.
4. Save the Word file as a web page (not single file web page).
5. Go to an online OCR (optical character recognition) site, such as http://www.onlineocr.net/
6. Upload to the OCR site the image from the files folder you created in Step 4.
7. Tell OCR to do its stuff.
8. Select and copy the result into Word.
9. Correct any errors - OCR isn't perfect yet.
10. Pat yourself on the head, have a beer and accept that some nerd is going to call you a moron for not knowing a simpler way, but don't give a toss because this works.

NUJ statement on Leveson emailed to all members today 28/11/2012

Tomorrow Lord Justice Leveson will publish the findings of his inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics in the press and his examination of the relationship of the press with the public, police and politicians.

It was a year ago that the NUJ fought to be a core participant in the inquiry. We had to battle to ensure that the voice of working journalists was heard, and not just that of owners and the editors of the national press. To inform our submissions and evidence we set up a Leveson email address and asked all members to contribute their concerns, experiences and views. In particular we asked members who wished to contribute evidence to the inquiry to come forward anonymously if they felt unable to speak openly about their experiences.

We came into the inquiry with a strong view on the present Press Complaints Commission. At the NUJ's 2011 delegate meeting in Southport - after a long and fruitless campaign for reform of the PCC - delegates voted for it to be scrapped and to campaign for its replacement. This came on the background of previous policy built up over many years of campaigning for change within the regulatory framework of the press and for a properly accountable media complaints commission. All union policy is made democratically from decisions taken at delegate meetings and by the union's ruling lay body the NEC.

From the outset of the Leveson inquiry, we demanded a conscience clause to safeguard journalists who object to being made to act unethically in the pursuit of a story. The industry - both the PCC and the Society of Editors - has repeatedly refused to bring in a conscience clause, despite the Home Affairs Select Committee backing the NUJ's campaign as long ago as 2003.

We highlighted the vital role a trade union plays in any workplace, and how in journalism the NUJ plays a role in maintaining standards and standing up for ethical journalism, as well as the bread and butter industrial issues of pay and conditions. We explained to Lord Leveson that an NUJ workplace chapel is not simply the vehicle for putting together pay claims and campaigning for better terms and conditions it is also the place where members can raise issues of concern on ethical matters, on staffing levels, and on bullying and editorial pressure within their workplace.

It is significant that the unfolding scandal at News International happened in a workplace where the NUJ has been effectively blocked by Rupert Murdoch, where journalists working across the titles have been denied the collective representation of an independent trade union for a generation.

We pointed to a model of regulation the NUJ is particularly familiar with - the Press Council of Ireland (PCI). The PCI is recognised under statute once it meets minimum standards which guarantee independence from ownership control. These minimum standards include civic society involvement and representation of the profession of journalism, which is provided by the NUJ. There is no direct or indirect State involvement in the regulatory system or in the work of the Press Ombudsman. No publisher is forced to join. If they do they enjoy legal privileges including a defence in libel actions. If they decide not to join they forfeit that benefit.

The new, slightly beefed up PCC proposed by Lords Hunt and Black represents more of the same. It does not propose a conscience clause; they have ruled out the involvement of working journalists in the make-up of a PCC mark 2; and worryingly it suggests that this should be the body to determine who gets a press card. A system that could withdraw an individual journalists' press card - and livelihood - would transfer accountability from the publisher to the journalist. This is unacceptable and would be akin to the licensing of journalists, something the NUJ is wholly opposed to.

The NUJ has argued for an independent regulatory body - independent of government and of the industry - that will:

• protect free expression and a free press
• ensure high standards of journalism
• have the authority and ability to regulate all commercially-driven press
• include, as does the Irish Press Council, union representatives
• fully defend journalists who protect their sources
• enshrine a conscience clause for journalist
• take to task the bullying newsrooms exposed by our evidence to Leveson, recognising the vital role trade unions play in media newsrooms
• have the power to instigate investigations, including acting on complaints from journalists
• provide a right of reply
• be backed by the ability to impose sanctions, such as fines
• take third-party complaints, not allowed in the current system
• represent members of the public

One of the red letter days of the Leveson inquiry was when John Hendy QC, NUJ counsel, had the opportunity to quiz Rupert Murdoch - he even got the media baron to admit that a conscience clause could be a good thing. When Murdoch was asked about the testimony from a journalist working for his titles who had experienced bullying, he said: “Why didn't she resign?” As Lord Leveson had to point out, “I think the problem with that might be that she needs a job.”

The Inquiry has revealed the unhealthy relationship between politicians, the police and sections of the press. It has been a powerful argument for the need for greater transparency between the political elite and the leaders and acolytes of powerful media conglomerates.

The NUJ's position has been misrepresented and attacked in many quarters of the press - including in The Sun, which accused the union of trying to end free speech in the UK, and create a press akin to that in Zimbabwe or Iran. The NUJ has been accused of supporting state control of the press.

The union does not back statutory regulation of the press. We support an independent system of regulation - independent from the industry and, crucially, from government. The long years the NUJ has campaigned for a more accountable press and for high standards of journalism have gone hand in hand with countless campaigns defending press freedom, battles to protect journalistic sources, and fights to extend the public's right to know. Our participation at the Leveson Inquiry has been a continuation of those campaigns and battles.

Yours sincerely,

Michelle Stanistreet

You can read all the NUJ submissions to the Inquiry here www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=2453

The Intense World Theory for Autism

I've pulled out the following question and answer from an interview with the originators of the Intense World theory of autism on Wrong Planet, a well-regarded website for and by people with autism.

It explains the key differences between the Intense World theory and older ideas about autism.

Q8. "Unraveling the Paradox of the Autistic Self," by Michael V. Lombardo and Simon Baron-Cohen, states that "neural evidence provides a key clue that an 'egocentric' response in the brain (i.e., Self = Other) is actually the result of an impairment in self-referential coding of information." Do you believe an elusive sense of self is a universal autistic characteristic? Does Intense World Theory account for this impairment?

Answer. Well, we would not agree with their analysis and theory. This is just another theory that is a relic of the theories of mental retardation. It is contaminated by older theories that there is a deficit in the ability of the brain to develop a theory of mind, the ability to see and respect others thoughts feelings and emotions.

This archaic theory has also led to gross misinterpretations of the mirror neuron discoveries. According to the Intense World Theory, autists could actually be seeing much deeper into the minds, thoughts and emotions of themselves and others, which triggers active avoidance and lock down behaviors. It also requires the ability to simulate others as if you where them and to extrapolate to where their thoughts and behaviors are leading them.

Seeing into the minds of others can be extremely disturbing. Even if autists don't feel this is true for themselves it is because their brain has developed strategies to cope with this extreme insight leaving them seemingly isolated.

This theory of a deficit in self-referential coding or theory of egocentricity is also likely to be incorrect for another reason. Self-referential coding is the foundation of human consciousness. To be conscious of yourself and others requires you to have to be able to localize yourself in space and time. If you enter an isolation tank, anesthesia, or deep meditation you can lose track of yourself, where you are, who you are, what time it is.

So impairment in self-referential coding will also mean that autists are barely conscious and living in peaceful state of diffused consciousness (pain is based on a sense of self, locality). It is most likely the exact opposite of autists. They are in an extremely localized state, extremely aware of themselves, extremely aware of others and in a battle for their life to hold back the intensity and pain of it all.

Comedian Janey Godley gets tough with journalists

I am told Janey Godley is now accusing me in her blog, which I haven't read, of threatening her. So I reproduce here, verbatim and in full, the communications between us. There have been two emails from me to her and one from her to me. We have not spoken.

The story referred to in the first email is a first draft of the one that appears in the previous post. I emailed this draft - which can be read in the Addendum below - to Janey for comment.

The version on the blog has been edited slightly from that draft.

Monday, December 05, 2011 10:00 AM

Hi Janey,

Here's the story I have at the moment.

I'm not happy with the ending.

If you think ending and headline can be changed - to something like "Janey Godley steps in to save struggling children's charity" - please let me know.

Douglas

Monday, December 05, 2011 10:43 AM

I don't want a children's charity to close down as a child who suffered abuse in the past its the last thing I want. I was unaware of any resignations and withdrawal of funding, it certainly wasn't at my request. I have spoken to the women today and am sympathetic to the whole outcome of this issue. I have never put myself up as a role model for children and as far as my comedy goes I can take a bad review as good as the next person, I just never expected one from a kids charity.

I am stunned that a family connection between three charities chose to single me out online and continued to question my feminism and commitment to children. I was even more shocked that people who represent abused and hurt children opted to use registered charity names on twitter to both insult and victimize me. I now accept that the three people were naive to social media, they have sent me a personal apology which I accept. I would do anything in my power not to have the kids lose their charity, I have never denied my strong opinions- When I was wrong online in the past I apologised immediately -I am outspoken and am a strong campaigner for children and will continue doing what I can raising money for them.

Thanks Janey Godley

Monday, December 05, 2011 1:47 PM

Hi Janey,

Thanks for the speedy response and apologies for not getting back sooner. I've been out on a job and am heading out on another one soon.

I note you don’t dispute the facts I report.

I note too your feelings about the ----- Project closing as a direct result of all this. I don’t doubt your sincerity.

As I say in the story, everyone involved is on the side of the underprivileged and disadvantaged - for social justice and against the tossers who got the country in the mess we're in. So it's unfortunate that they are all now tearing lumps out of each other. Personally I think you were pretty patient with the feminist at first and she should probably have taken the hint, before you told her to fuck off and leave you in peace.

I know all these people well. They’ve been friends for years and they're good guys. They are inexperienced with Twitter and they have been naive in using it. But they are smart, hard-working and well-intentioned.

As I said, I don’t like the ending of the story at the moment. But it's the only story I’ve got right now.

I was planning to go out to the ----- Project in the New Year and write it up. I would still like to do that, if it’s there. If Janey Godley has helped in the meantime to keep it afloat – rather than sinking it with all hands – it would make an even better story.

Douglas

PS I gather you've been asking who I am. I'm a full-time freelance journalist, writing mainly about children and education these days. I have written for the Herald, Scotsman, Daily Record, Evening Times, Sunday Herald, Independent, Times and Guardian, as well as many magazines. I was shortlisted for features writer of the year at the annual publishers awards in Edinburgh last week.

Monday, December 05, 2011 5:35 PM

I have yet to receive a reply to this second email but I am told Janey has responded to it on her blog by accusing me of threatening her.

This seems as accurate and honest to me as her characterisation of the charity volunteer's comment - that Janey calling herself a comedian was an "insult to all things funny" - as "horrific personal abuse".

Addendum

Original rough draft sent to Janey for comment

I’ve a sad story for you this morning. It involves a Scottish comedian called Janey Godley and two small children’s charities in one of Scotland’s most deprived areas.

Janey describes herself as “a Scottish Stand up Comic, Actor, Journalist, Playwright and Blogger.” She takes pride in being controversial, referring to herself on Twitter as “The most outspoken female stand-up in Britain”.

Janey is very experienced online. At the time of writing she has no fewer than 43,765 tweets to her name. As you read this there will be many more. Janey tweets every few minutes.

Here are a few recent ones:

"I suggest we take all the guardian APP staff and execute them – that'll show the fuckers"

“A Union Jack in Glasgow means ‘I am mental, I own a dangerous dog and I batter fuck out of my common law wife if Rangers get beat.’”

“McMullan is now telling us anecdotes and 'funny things happened' as if we are his mates- i want the cunts face to fall off”

“So if hunt down Clarkson & shoot the cunt in the face i can say I was influenced by him and just claim insanity? am off (click loads up gun)”

The other protagonists in the story are people who have little online experience but who do good work, some of it paid, a lot of it unpaid, for a couple of charities that help disadvantaged children and their mums.

One of them, a feminist and Twitter follower of Janey, whose outspokenness on social issues appealed, was relaxing one evening when the language Janey was using caught her attention.

So she went on Twitter to ask if the frequency of the word “cunt” in Janey’s tweets – over a hundred times in a couple of days – was a feminist statement. “I said that I was interested, that I thought there might be some ideological reason that the word was being used.”

The two of them had a Twitter chat for an hour or so, before Janey ran out of patience and ended the conversation thus:

“i had boy soldiers in my family who fought for my freedom of speech how fucking dare u assume it needs explaining to u”

At this point, if the charities people had more online experience, they’d have walked away. Instead a colleague and friend of the feminist took umbrage at Janey’s last tweet and tweeted the following to her:

“Calling yourself a comedienne is an insult to all things funny. Call yourself a children's role model? Hope not.”

She made the mistake of tweeting this from the Twitter account of a small charity for single mums and children that she gives up much of her spare time to work for.

Janey’s response was instant and savage. Over the next day or so she tweeted the name of the charity no fewer than 65 times, drawing the attention of her almost 5000 followers - some of them very influential - to what she referred to as “horrific personal abuse”.

That abuse, remember, was to be called “an insult to all things funny”. It would be surprising if Janey hasn't had ten times worse abuse at an average Saturday night gig.

During the course of this Twitter-storm, another worker for a charity for disadvantaged children in the same town stepped in and tweeted as follows to Janey:

“You are a patron of our children's charity. Would you say these words to our young people?”

Again Janey took offence and tweeted this charity's name 15 times to her followers, drawing attention again to the “abuse” she was being subjected to. The second charity worker tweeted twice more as follows:

“We never questioned your motives Janey"

“Sorry you are offended Janey.”

The attempt to smooth ruffled feathers came too late. By this time some of Janey’s followers had taken up the story and were spreading her “horrific personal abuse” version.

Unaware of the full story and unwilling to trawl through the archives, two board members of the second charity, resigned at the weekend. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations withdrew its support. [THIS WAS AN ERROR ON MY PART. SCVO HAVE NOT BEEN INVOLVED.] Prospective funders have pulled out.

As I said, Janey has influence.

The upshot of all this is that a small charity for disadvantaged children in one of the most deprived areas of Scotland - which was being kept afloat by the dedication, long hours, hopes and prayers of the people who work there - will now be closing after Christmas.

It's a sad story. And one of the saddest aspects is that all the people involved are actually on the same side – the side of the disadvantaged. But instead of being out there attacking the selfish, uncaring and over-privileged, the corrupt politicians and rapacious bankers, they are sitting at home over red-hot computers tearing big lumps out of each other.

And it's the children the charities were helping who will suffer the most.

Again.

Janey Godley bullies children's charities who thought she wasn't funny

I’ve a sad story for you today. It involves a Scottish comedian called Janey Godley and two small children’s charities in one of Scotland’s most deprived areas.

Janey Godley describes herself as “a Scottish Stand up Comic, Actor, Journalist, Playwright and Blogger.” She takes pride in being controversial, referring to herself on Twitter as “The most outspoken female stand-up in Britain”.

Janey Godley is very experienced online. At the time of writing she has no fewer than 43,765 tweets to her name. As you read this there will be many more. She tweets every few minutes.

Here are a few recent tweets to give you a flavour of Janey Godley's humour:

"I suggest we take all the guardian APP staff and execute them – that'll show the fuckers"

“A Union Jack in Glasgow means ‘I am mental, I own a dangerous dog and I batter fuck out of my common law wife if Rangers get beat.’”

“McMullan is now telling us anecdotes and 'funny things happened' as if we are his mates- i want the cunts face to fall off”

“So if hunt down Clarkson & shoot the cunt in the face i can say I was influenced by him and just claim insanity? am off (click loads up gun)”

Children's Charities

The other protagonists in the story are people who have little online experience but who do good work, some of it paid, a lot of it unpaid, for a couple of charities that help disadvantaged children and their mums.

One of them, a feminist and Twitter follower of Janey Godley, whose outspokenness on social issues appealed, was relaxing one evening when the language Janey was using caught her attention.

So she went on Twitter to ask if the frequency of the word “cunt” in Janey Godley's tweets – over a hundred times in a couple of days – was a feminist statement. “I said that I was interested, that I thought there might be some ideological reason that the word was being used.”

The two of them had a Twitter chat for an hour or so, before Janey Godley ran out of patience and ended the conversation thus:

“i had boy soldiers in my family who fought for my freedom of speech how fucking dare u assume it needs explaining to u”

At this point, if the charities people had more online experience, they’d have walked away. Instead a colleague and friend of the feminist took umbrage at Janey Godley's last tweet and tweeted the following to her:

“Calling yourself a comedienne is an insult to all things funny. Call yourself a children's role model? Hope not.”

She made the mistake of tweeting this from the Twitter account of a small charity for single mums and children that she gives up much of her spare time to work for.

Cyber bully

Janey Godley's response was instant and savage. Over the next day or so she tweeted about the charity no fewer than 65 times, drawing the attention of her almost 5000 followers - some of them influential - to what she referred to as “horrific personal abuse”.

That abuse, remember, was to be called “an insult to all things funny”. She has had worse abuse, I am sure.

Janey targeted in particular with her tweets any children's charity funders who follow her.

During this cyber bullying onslaught, a worker for a second charity - for disadvantaged children - came to the defence of her friend and tweeted as follows to Janey Godley:

“You are a patron of our children's charity. Would you say these words to our young people?”

Again Janey Godley took offence and tweeted about this second charity 15 times to her followers, drawing attention again to the “abuse” she was being subjected to. The second charity worker tweeted just twice more as follows:

“We never questioned your motives Janey"

“Sorry you are offended Janey.”

Influence

The attempt to smooth ruffled feathers came too late. By this time some of Janey Godley's followers had taken up the story and were spreading her “horrific personal abuse” version.

Unaware of the true story and unwilling to trawl through the archives to separate fact from heated emotion, two board members of the second charity resigned at the weekend. Prospective funders may well pull out.

Janey Godley might be short on humour and compassion but, as I said, she has some influence.

The upshot of all this is that a small charity for disadvantaged children in one of the most deprived areas of Scotland - which was being kept afloat by the dedication, long hours, hopes and prayers of the people who work there - is likely to close soon after Christmas.

It is a sad story. And one of the saddest aspects is that all the people involved, including Janey Godley, are supposed to be on the same side – the side of the disadvantaged. But instead of attacking the selfish and uncaring - the corrupt politicians and rapacious bankers - they are sitting at home, over their computers, tearing big lumps out of each other.

And it's the children the charities were helping who will suffer the most.

Quis custodiet

Can anyone tell me how a man like Chris Woodhead survived so long as chief inspector of schools in England?

I've interviewed most of the top inspectors and decision-makers in Scottish school education and what they share, to an extent that still surprises me, is something Woodhead manifestly lacks - a powerful and, if you scratch the restrained surface, often passionate concern for social justice and the welfare of every child.

A man like Woodhead, with no interest in at least half the kids in school, or belief in the value of education for them, would not just be out of place in Scotland's school system.

He would be unemployable.