SubScribe Google+

Wednesday, 3 April 2013

Feckless, reckless, shameless, and far from blameless

Philpott and the Mail The Derby tragedy is not about handouts 



Evil, wicked, tyrannical, depraved, twisted, stupid, boastful, manipulative, selfish, misogynist, vindictive, narcissist.
Arsonist, knife attacker, rapist, child killer.
Benefits scrounger.

So many labels apply to Michael Philpott; which is the worst you can think of? 

Philpott is, by all accounts, a thoroughly nasty piece of work.  He is violent, controlling and demanding. He requires the limelight, treats people as possessions and lashes out when he doesn't get his own way.
There are plenty who do that; rather fewer father fifteen children by five women; fewer still expect society to support them. Philpott is, thankfully, unique in setting fire to his home as five young boys and a little girl slept upstairs.

For the redtops and the 'broadsheets', the story is all about the darker sides of being human. About love and lust, sex and violence, heroism and villainy, betrayal and revenge and - most of all - about life and death.
If you are part of that conceit 'Middle England' and read the 'middle market' papers, it's much simpler - it  all comes down to money.

It's sweetly appropriate in a way, in that it reflects our perception of our class system. We are vaguely aware of an affinity between the aristocracy and the 'lower orders' - lots of sex, lots of children, lots of untidiness - while the prissy middle classes look up and down in despair and disdain, then look around to see who's cheating them out of something.
This is the mindset of the Mail and Express, the wannabe world of house prices and nannies.  They hate the toffs with their privileges, but wish they were part of that society, so dare not put the boot in beyond a little titter when a comely filly falls off her stilettos at Ascot. And they hate the poor, but they are terrified of joining them, so they go to great pains to prove that there is a malign underclass.

In Michael Philpott, they had a scrounger who lived off his wife and mistress's social benefits;  a man who had discussed his lifestyle on the Jeremy Kyle Show and been the subject of a documentary with Ann Widdecombe. It was cut and dried. Here was a man so determined not to lose a penny in handouts that he would risk six children's lives to win custody of another five and in the process secure a bigger house.
And for the Mail there was a bonus - the chance to have a dig at social workers who 'did nothing'.

But there was so much more to this story. Philpott had stabbed a former lover who had left him, spitting out the cliché 'If I can't have you, no one else will'. He had served time in prison for attempted murder and GBH, and police are investigating another woman's allegation that Philpott raped her. 
There was his play-acting and insouciance after the fatal fire; his grasping attitude towards money raised for the funerals; the plans to auction teddy bears that had been left among the flowers in the obligatory mawkish tribute outside the gutted semi.
All of this was covered in all the papers, as was Philpott's unconventional sex life: alternate nights between his wife and mistress, dogging expeditions, and threesomes with his best friend. And to cap it all, there was the sexual encounter between his wife and Paul Mosley - both convicted with him yesterday -  on the snooker table before the petrol was poured in the hall and set alight. Was this some kind of kinky farewell to the games room that had been built to provide extra accommodation for the huge family? How did the Mail fail to make that connection?




It's too easy to hate the Daily Mail, but there was just so much wrong with its coverage of this tragedy, starting at the top left-hand corner, even before the splash heading.

Man who bred 17 babies by 5 women to milk benefits system is guilty of killing 6 of them

This is not only offensive, it isn't even accurate. Michael Philpott has 15 children: three by his first wife, two by a former lover, five by his second wife, Mairead, four by the mistress Lisa Willis, and one by an unnamed woman.  Mairead and Ms Willis each had a child of their own before they met Philpott and these two were among the 11 who lived at Victory Road, Derby. Ms Willis, who had a caravan in the garden with her five, left the home early last year. The remaining six  died in the fire. So he did not 'breed 17 babies', and only (I write that word with a wince) five of his offspring were victims of the arson. And there is absolutely no evidence that any of these children was conceived 'to milk benefits system'.

Revealed: His past of attempted murder; schoolgirl sex and rape claim

Hurrah! This is all justified.

Social workers did nothing despite his boasts on TV of sordid lifestyle

Derby social services have instigated a serious case review in the light of yesterday's manslaughter convictions. This appears to be par for the course, as you'd expect when six children die at the hands of their parents. The Mail makes much of the Philpotts' depravity, of their spending taxpayers' money on such luxuries as the snooker table, the two 50" TVs, the Nintendos  and PlayStations, the 'full Sky package'. All this was apparently to the detriment of the children, who were left to live on a quarter share of a hamburger and some chips.
And, glory be! Philpott was a fully paid-up member of the Great Unwashed. We are told he bathed only once a  month, and that he showed no hint of shame when he claimed in court  that petrol was on his clothes because he hadn't washed for months.
Yet all of this is at odds with other accounts, from the  school for example, that the children were happy and well-turned out and well-behaved. Pictures of the children laughing on a trampoline or cuddled up to Philpott show them nicely dressed and with clear-skinned round faces that do not suggest malnutrition or neglect. Spruced up for the cameras? Maybe. But from the outside, what was there to alarm the social services? Why should they have shown any particular interest in this large but apparently coherent family?

The Derby house fire was one of those stories that required no embellishment. Every detail uncovered through the trial added to the horror, as has the background that has emerged since the verdicts. Yet look at the language of the Mail splash:

He treated his 17 sons and daughters like cash cows - generating a staggering benefits income of £60,000 a year.
Yesterday Mick Philpott remained shameless to the last....

From there we are force-fed adjectival hyperbole, so that in seven front-page paragraphs we have
  • drug-taking layabout, who embodies everything that is wrong with the welfare state... 
  • an appalling attempt to frame Philpott's former live-in lover...
  • the cramped three-bedroom semi...
  • the cynical trio...
  • incredibly, the tragic Philpott children...
  • not being regularly monitored by social workers despite dangerous living conditions...
  • father's notorious appearances on national television...
  • boasted of his sex-obsessed and benefits-funded lifestyle...
  • 'Shameless Mick'...
  • plotted to 'get rich quick'...

Please, please stop. This is formulaic journalism built on the unsubstantiated premise that Philpott wanted Ms Willis and her children under his roof simply because they represented more money in his bank account.
In a thoughtful, but instantly ridiculed, column for the Independent, Owen Jones predicted even before the Express and Mail went to press that some would see the case as an indictment of the welfare state. 

The Philpotts say nothing about anyone, except for themselves, just as the serial murderer GP Harold Shipman says nothing about middle-class professionals...the Philpott case relates in no way to people on benefits in this country...

He was dead right. Venture inside the Mail and after the pages of prurience about Philpott's 'depravity', we come to A.N. Wilson, who makes the preposterous assertion:

The trial spoke volumes about the sheer nastiness of the individuals involved. But it also lifted the lid on the bleak and often grotesque world of the welfare benefit scroungers - of whom there are not dozens, not hundreds, but tens of thousands in our country.

You may recall we are living in austerity Britain; people are losing their jobs in alarming numbers, for those in work, wages do not keep up with inflation. Times are tough and the poorest in society are the most squeezed. There is, or should be, no blame attached to claiming benefits to which you are entitled. The suggestion that tens of thousands are doing so to finance a selfish and debauched lifestyle is ridiculous and repellent.
(For a more relevant set of figures, take a look at this database on the Guardian website. It puts it all in better perspective.)

There is, sadly, an underclass in this country; there are, sadly, people who play the benefits system, just as there are those who play the tax avoidance system. We have seen Shameless and Skins and Skint and Jeremy Kyle, none of it pleasant viewing. 
But this knee-jerk attack on the 'benefits culture'  politicises the personal and turns the deaths of six children into a stick to beat the poor, wilfully ignoring the most pertinent facts.

Philpott is a controller, a manipulator. He stole his first wife from his brother, who had come to visit him in prison. The other women in his life were all young and vulnerable. 
  • Heather Kehoe, mother of two of his children, was 14 when he started 'grooming' her;
  • Kim Hill, the lover stabbed 27 times for daring to leave him, was 15 when they met;
  • Mairead, his second wife, was 19 and 'at rock bottom' when they got together, 
  • Lisa Willis, the caravan lover he tried to frame, was a 16-year-old unmarried mother when Philpott invited her to live in Victory Road.
He controlled these women to the extent that it took the utmost courage for Ms Willis to leave. Mairead was so under her husband's spell that she stayed with him even after his stupidity had killed her six children. She stuck to their ridiculous account of events, declining to change her plea even when it was clear that no jury would believe such a pack of lies. And she paid for her gullibility with the deaths of six children, a 17-year jail sentence and a lifetime of remorse.

This is not a tale of benefits; it is a tale of a misogynist bully with paedophile tendencies. He forced 'his' women to go out to work and to do all the household chores for no reward. Their wages and state benefits went into his bank account, and if they dared question him, they were beaten and abused. This is the behaviour of the street walker's pimp. 
Or think of Josef Fritzl, who created an apartment complex in his basement  for his 18-year-old daughter Elisabeth and then lured her into it by asking for help with a door.  He kept her prisoner there for 24 years, regularly abusing her and fathering seven children.  Like Philpott, Fritzl was wicked and controlling and abusive and had a skewed idea of family loyalties; but it was his strange 'love' of his family that led to exposure when he allowed Elisabeth to take her sick teenage daughter to hospital and was exposed. 
Then there was the 'British Fritzl' of Sheffield, who abused his two daughters over decades, so that they became pregnant 19 times between them. And the Scottish father who repeatedly raped his three daughters - again fathering children - and was brought to justice when two of the three persuaded the third to go to the police many years later. In childhood and adolescence, each had believed herself to be the only victim.
And then there is the most extreme example of Fred West, whose wife Rosemary was a teenager when they met. The mother of many children, she stuck by him as he pulled her so far down into the gutter that she murdered her own child among others and is now in jail for life. 
Nobody mentioned benefits in any of those cases.


We are all driven by so many influences that it is facile to suggest that anyone is motivated by a single aim or concern. Michael Philpott undoubtedly had a liking for money - look at his demand that he be given leftover funeral cash in Argos vouchers  - and he will not have liked losing the cash  that Ms Willis and her children brought in.
But to suggest that these children were born for their state benefits potential or that he torched his house for a few more quid is to ignore all the shades of grey. He revelled in being the centre of attention; he did not tolerate rejection - as Miss Hill learnt  the hard way -  and he wanted total control of his children. 
His mind was almost certainly on all three as he plotted to wreak his vengeance on Miss Willis; he could see himself as the victim who became the hero of the hour, with all the attendant television coverage he could expect - rather like that American couple who hid their son in the attic and told the world that he'd been swept away by a hot-air balloon they'd built in their garden. 
Philpott's scheme would exact revenge, win him back his children, get him a new house and bring him the fame he craved. Any extra welfare payments  were likely just fringe benefits. 
The domestic violence and sexual antics that went on behind closed doors define his warped approach to life far more sharply than the public view of an idle man brazenly living on the backs of others.
And no, A.N. Wilson, this is not a 'perfect parable for our age'.


A few real products of 'welfare UK' that we take for granted
(Please add to this list)
  • Free healthcare for everyone, whatever their income or status
  • Children with fewer fillings
  • Vaccination and nutrition programmes to beat rickets, measles, TB, polio, whooping cough
  • The end of ancient poor laws
  • Pensions for widows and widowers
  • Full-time education for everyone to the age of 16




A little game of  Guess the Paper

These are the intros from the main Philpott story in our national papers this morning. Can you spot which is which?


1 Seemingly overwhelmed by grief during an appeal for information about the killer of six of his children,  Mick Philpott buried his face in a tissue and wept.

2 A man with a history of violence and controlling younger women was convicted yesterday of killing six children in an 'evil, stupid, shameful act' as part of a twisted attempt to frame a former lover who had dared to defy him.

3 Britain's most evil scrounger Mick Philpott faces life behind bars for killing his six children in a desperate bid to get an extra £1,000 a month in hand-outs.

4 Evil Mick Philpott and wife Mairead were found guilty yesterday of killing their six children in a blaze.

5 Michael Philpott was a man who ruled his house like a 'kingpin', disrespecting the two women he lived with and revelling in beating the system, a former government minister has said.

6 He treated his 17 sons and daughters like cash cows - generating a staggering benefits income of £60,000 a year.

7 For the past 11 months, Mick and Mairead Philpott have lied, play-acted and sought to connive their way out of responsibility for their six children's deaths. Yesterday, a jury found that the married couple had started the blaze which killed their young family.

8 An ex-lover of child-killing monster Mick Philpott yesterday revealed he tried to murder her in a frenzied knife attack - but spent just three years and two months in prison.


Answers:
1, Telegraph; 2, Guardian; 3, Express; 4, Mirror; 5, Times; 6, Mail; 7, Independent; 8, Sun


And finally...


If you really want to read the Philpott story in its entirety, balanced coverage, sober writing, and some real insight, the best place to look is the Derby Telegraph. The paper has put on extra pages and turned out a stunning website. The 29-page supplement may have been a bit over the top, but after swimming through the morass of slime that has been published today on the subject, the 40 stories published on the Telegraph's website today and the many more produced through the trial have been a breath of fresh air. Many congratulations to Editor Neil White and his team, most especially crime reporter Martin Naylor, fellow reporter Caroline Jones and online publisher Julie Bayley.





How do you see the future of journalism? Do you still have a paper delivered or pick one up at the station on the way to work? Do you prefer print, Kindle or iPad? Or have you given up on the mainstream media and switched to Twitter and blogs? Please join in the SubScribe survey here. Thank you.









Friday, 29 March 2013

Why we need working-class hacks

Journalism isn't an outpost of Eton and Oxbridge



Copy boy grows up in Glasgow's inky world of teleprinters and Linotypes, moves south to take his place in the vanguard of a technological revolution and rises to become editor of the most famous paper in the world. Oh yes, and on the way, he joins the Royal Marines and becomes a champion boxer.
What a film! The credits roll with our hero rolling up his sleeves to read the galley proofs, alone in a vast room lit only by a brass banker's lamp with a green glass shade. 
Except that this isn't a movie; it's real life, and the story doesn't end there. Our editor is sacked after five years and moves to another great newspaper group, swapping one overpowering proprietor for another. By the age of 57 he has edited five newspapers and moved into the managing director's corner office. A decade later he is firmly part of the Establishment, a millionaire equally at ease at Royal Ascot and point-to-point; with a wee dram or a bottle of Dom Perignon.
It couldn't happen today.

Charlie Wilson is one of the great characters of late 20th and early 21st century journalism - a man with a silver tongue in a foul mouth. But if he were starting his career today, he'd be lucky to get through the door.
Our trade has taken to calling itself a profession and as such, it has room only for graduates - and graduates with a bit of money behind them. We have turned into a world inhabited by the white middle classes. Is this a good thing?
Today's twentysomething Wilson would have gone to university and almost certainly have  been enterprising enough to finance himself, but then what? Would his news instincts have been honed or diluted? Would his doggedness be enough to win a slot on a decent paper from which to launch his career? Probably. But I wouldn't bet on the chances of others of his generation who were just a step behind him.


More than 85 per cent of  journalists under 40 have a university degree, and many have a postgraduate qualification as well. When they emerge with a mortar board and £15,000 of debt, they can expect to work for nothing for months, according to a survey published last week by the NCTJ. Perhaps unsurprisingly, 65 per cent of new entrants have a parent who is a professional, a manager or a director. How else could they afford to join our happy band? Only 3 per cent come from a family of shop-floor or other unskilled workers. As Alan Milburn's report on social mobility last year remarked: 'Journalism has shifted to a greater degree of social exclusivity than any other profession.'

Social exclusivity is not what we need in a journalist; we need the rough diamonds and the smooth talkers, the chancers and the charmers - and from all ethnic groups. We cannot populate our newsrooms entirely with people from a cosseted world where everyone has good hair and calls their parents Mummy and Daddy. They must go down a bundle at the dockyard or outside the sink school with rocketing fifth-form pregnancy rates.
We used to be a trade of great diversity and mixed talents, but we're in danger of becoming homogeneous. It is to be applauded that national newspapers now offer graduate training schemes and they are effective in creating journalistic high-flyers,  but demand for places is such that papers can be very picky. For the past twenty years or so, graduate berths at The Times, for example, have gone overwhelmingly to those who studied at Oxbridge. 
So we have Eton and Oxford in Downing Street, Eton and Oxford at City Hall, Eton and Cambridge in Lambeth Palace, and now Eton (in the case of Boris and a handful of others) and Oxbridge in the fourth estate. It's all a bit too cosy for my taste.
Don't get me wrong: young journalists fresh from Oxbridge are delightful, confident, assertive, free-thinking, obviously talented and a real asset; but we should beware of shutting the door on natural talent that hasn't had the benefit of nurture. The survey report points out that the growing demand for a postgraduate qualification is reinforcing the elitism, since financial assistance for such courses is not widely available. Couple that with the trend for unpaid internships and the surprisingly low average pay, and it's easy to see how a journalistic career is being pulled out of reach of the ordinary working class. Milburn says that efforts to address this have been fragmented and lacking in vigour: 'Journalism, with a few honourable exceptions, does not seem to be taking the issue of fair access seriously.'
It is also alarming that there are proportionately far fewer non-white journalists than in the general population; 95 per cent of our workforce is white.

We do not live in the Victorian age of paternalism. It is perhaps to be expected that employers, especially those with shareholders to answer to, will seek to get more work from fewer people where possible. This has become more urgent in the recent years of recession, which came just as the internet age was turning the thumbscrews on the newspaper industry. Advertising was falling, raw material prices rising, and on top of all that, publishers found that they had to offer their products not just in print and on the web, but in tablet, android and mobile forms as well. Multi-tasking was the order of the day because there was no money to hire extra staff. Indeed, staff had to be cut and wage costs had to be driven down.

Most of us will be familiar with the executive's sympathetic face that somehow manages to kill the joy of promotion. 'We'd love to pay you more, but we're all under budget constraints at the moment...but when the belt is loosened, you'll be the first in the queue..' But the belt never is loosened. The older, more highly paid reporters, feature writers, subs, picture staff and middle-benchers are gently levered out of the door, to be replaced by eager underlings willing to work for tens of thousands less.

The NCTJ survey found that the average (median) salary of a journalist in Britain last year was £27,500, compared with £26,664 for employees across all occupations. This was a 22% increase on the average in 2002, compared with a 26% rise for workers as a whole. Taking the rate of inflation over that period, everyone lost in real terms.
It is important to point out that these findings do not  tally with last year's official UK reward statistics, which put journalism at 99th in a league table of 400 occupations, with an average salary of £35,213. The discrepancy probably arises from the different samples - the national survey is based on pay-as-you-earn tax receipts, the NCTJ figures from a self-selected group of 1,067 workers who filled in an online questionnaire.

My instinct is to put my faith in the 'official' statistics, largely on the basis that people who answer questionnaires tend to be those with a point to make. The respondents to the journalism survey were, however, reassuringly diverse, both in age and in their fields of work: 30% were local paper reporters and writers, 10% from the nationals, 18% from magazines, 15% were in broadcasting, 8% worked online and the remainder worked in books, PR and other peripheral areas. The presence of such a good sprinkling of Fleet Street workers might have been expected to raise the average salary figures, but it seems not.
Just under half of the respondents earned between £25,000 and £40,000, 21% were paid between £40,000 and £75,000, with only 3% earning more. At the other end of the scale, 22% earned less than £25,000, and 3% less than £5,000. 
Those with more experience commanded the greater salaries, as you'd expect. So where is the attraction to the brightest but less well-off graduates, those without access to a bank of mum and dad? Especially when you take the dreaded internships into account. The NCTJ found that 95% of those who had started work in the past three years had previously been an intern or undertaken some work experience. This usually lasted between three and twelve weeks, but for some it went on for a year, and it was almost universally unpaid - with the vast majority not even having their expenses covered. 
Pitch that against the £29,000 being offered to graduates by the country's  top 100 employers this year, and the £45,000 for freshers in the legal, financial and energy industries and we seem like poor relations. 
Our industry has pushed the self-destruct button so carelessly and so often that there will be little public sympathy for journalists complaining that they are overworked or underpaid, but we are moving towards the point where we are. We have seen the redundancies across the national and regional press, how 'local' newspapers are being edited from 50 miles away, while town centre offices are run by a trainee and a cat. 
Most of Fleet Street has combined its weekday and Sunday operations, so that everyone has to be available at all hours, every day of the week. Remember those days when night workers - mostly subs - had the concession of a four-day week because of the unsocial hours? Long gone. We're all in the same boat now, every news organisation must function 24 hours a day, requiring extra flexibility and extra skills from its dwindling news staff, whose pay is being forced down with every 'exit programme'.
Is this what our Oxbridge high-flyers signed up for?  Of course not. They tend to go bounding off to features or leaders or the comment pages, or to radio and television, and to the greater things for which they were born. As teenagers they were marked out as the opinion formers of the future and that is their destiny - some even become cabinet ministers or the mayor of London.

And so we have developed a two-tier journalistic society. The Morlocks on minimal pay churn out material for print, web, tablet so fast they have no time to check a fact or polish a caption. These are not just subs, but news editors, reporters, photographers, picture desk staff.
Then there are the Eloi, the picture byline classes who have access to people of influence and the freedom and expense accounts to take them to lunch. They have time to think before they write, so they can choose every word with precision, and still be away in time for the opera (or soap opera). 
The super-elite of this bunch, the best of whom are not Oxbridge educated and - horrors! - may even not have been to university, can earn ten times as much as the Morlocks downstairs. This is justified because these are the star names that bring in the readers; you can always get another general reporter or downtable sub, but if Matthew D'Ancona, Jeremy Clarkson, Polly Toynbee, Charlie Brooker, Matthew Parris or Caitlin Moran jump ship, readers may do too.
What is being forgotten is that readers may also say goodbye to a paper blighted by misspellings, factual errors and bad grammar - or maybe such concerns are not regarded as sufficiently important to ease the load or raise the status of those charged with producing the news pages.
It's worth remembering that it was the unattractive Morlocks toiling in the dark, not the beautiful  Eloi dancing in the sun, who had survival sussed.



How do you see the future of journalism? Do you still have a paper delivered or pick one up at the station on the way to work? Do you prefer print, Kindle or iPad? Or have you given up on the mainstream media and switched to Twitter and blogs? Please join in the SubScribe survey here. Thank you.




Friday, 22 March 2013

Death of a teacher

Littlejohn may not have killed Lucy Meadows, but he didn't add to her life



It's more than a year since I last stepped foot in the office. The thought of returning terrifies me - the questioning, the people who won't know what to say, the fact of being a stranger there after 30 years' service. Most of all, vain and shallow as it is, I'm embarrassed about my appearance.
But one day I'll go in, it'll work out one way or another and I'll come out the other side. After all, it's just stage fright.

Lucy Meadows must have gone through the same emotions magnified a thousandfold at the start of the school term in January. Goodness knows what sort of a Christmas and New Year she must have had. But we may well soon learn - from a coroner's court - and it won't be a comfortable experience.
Miss Meadows, 32, had taught at a primary school in Accrington for three years. Until December she had been known as Nathan Upton, husband of a school governor and father of a little boy. At the end of term the children were told, class by class, that Mr Upton would return to school after Christmas as Miss Meadows. At the same time parents were informed in a newsletter listing a series of staff changes.
The school emphasised its support for Miss Meadows, who responded to local media interest with a statement thanking the school and governors, adding: ‘I’d now ask for my privacy to be respected so that I can continue with my job, which I’m committed to and which I enjoy very much.’

New year, new start, new life. If only...

Lucy Meadows was found dead at her home on Tuesday, and Twitter is alive with recriminations about the press, which is being blamed for her apparent suicide.

It didn't take long for Miss Meadows's privacy to be disrespected and for the story to reach  the Mail and the Sun. Both wrote of the 'shock' for pupils and made much of the low-key manner in which the school had broken the news to parents - would it have done better to have made it a big headline, or to call a public meeting perhaps? Both papers carried  a picture of a solitary outraged parent who talked about his son being worried that he'd wake up with a girl's brain. Anonymous children were said to be confused; one said Mr Upton was popular, others commented on his pink fingernails, long purple hair and sparkly headbands. 
Yes, pink fingernails, long purple hair and sparkly headbands. Seems to me that the popular Mr Upton had been laying the ground quietly and carefully. Someone had done a rather charming crayon drawing of him (top), which was posted on the school website; the children clearly accepted him as he was and the school trusted them to accept Miss Meadows as she would be.

Was this a story at all? Tens of thousands of people in Britain have gender dysphoria - the sense of being a man in a woman's body or vice versa. Thousands seek medical help  and about 300 a year take the ultimate step of a 'sex change' operation, more properly described as gender reassignment. So it's unusual, but not that strange. We've come a long way since April Ashley.
Or you'd have hoped we had.
Does the fact that Miss Meadows was a teacher - and of primary school children - make it more newsworthy? Is there something intrinsically shocking about someone trying to achieve their natural identity? Would we write a news story about Miss X the Year 4 teacher who came out as gay over the school holidays?
Is it, perhaps, a local newspaper story, but not one for the nationals?



These are the sorts of questions the former Essex Chronicle editor Alan Geere wrestled with last July when a teacher at a high-achieving Chelmsford secondary school made  the same transition as Miss Meadows. The story started exactly as the one in Accrington: a letter to parents informing them that Mr X would be returning as Miss Y. The letter praised the teacher's courage and pointed parents to a website where they could learn more about the process. In his blog, Mr Geere wrote about his lonely hour trying to decide whether to publish. 

I sought out m’learned friend - not really a privacy issue if you don’t name him – and a couple of editor chums, who said they would run with it, both with tasteful provisos.
My biggest concern was not the legal, or even ethical, position but what would the 100,000 or so readers of the Essex Chronicle make of it. 
But, having found references to the letter on Twitter, spoken to pupils and got a response from the head, I ran this story, which I think shows the school in a very positive light and shows us to be a responsible local newspaper.

Mr Geere also tweeted the question 'would you run this story?' But in spite of posing it three times, he appears to have received no replies.  After the event, there were only two comments on the paper's website, one taking issue with the photograph used with the story, the other asserting that the paper had got it totally wrong.
My view, for what it's worth, is that the story should have been a top single on an early right-hand page. To splash on it suggests sensationalism, regardless of how sensitively handled or positive the text is. 
Remember, this was a nationally renowned school, not a tiny church school with 169 pupils, which may, depending on your view, make it more or less newsworthy.


Supposing, for the sake of argument, that both are legitimate news stories, the next question is are they a valid area for comment? Twitter's fury  has been directed at the Mail's Richard Littlejohn for weighing in the day after his paper ran the news report.

Nathan Upton is now in the early stages of gender reassignment treatment. He issued a statement which read: ‘This has been a long and difficult journey for me and it was certainly not an easy decision to make.’
So that’s all right, then. From now on, kiddies, Mr Upton will be known as Miss Lucy Meadows.
What are you staring at, Johnny? Move along, nothing to see here. Get on with your spelling test. Today’s word is ‘transitioning’...
Has anyone stopped for a moment to think of the devastating effect all this is having on those who really matter? Children as young as seven aren’t equipped to compute this kind of information.
The school shouldn’t be allowed to elevate its ‘commitment to diversity and equality’ above its duty of care to its pupils and their parents. It should be protecting pupils from some of the more, er, challenging realities of adult life, not forcing them down their throats....
Nathan Upton is entitled to his gender reassignment surgery, but he isn’t entitled to project his personal problems on to impressionable young children.
By insisting on returning to St Mary Magdalen’s, he is putting his own selfish needs ahead of the well-being of the children he has taught for the past few years.
It would have been easy for him to disappear quietly at Christmas, have the operation and then return to work as ‘Miss Meadows’ at another school on the other side of town in September. No-one would have been any the wiser.
But if he cares so little for the sensibilities of the children he is paid to teach, he’s not only trapped in the wrong body, he’s in the wrong job.

The Mail has taken the column down from its website, and the outpouring of disgust on Twitter, spurred on by Alastair Campbell, has resulted in 30,000 signatures on a petition calling for Littlejohn to be sacked. There will be a vigil outside the Mail offices on Monday evening.

Littlejohn is hired, at great expense, to air controversial opinions - as are many others across Fleet Street. There are dozens of such columnists; it's their job to write what their bosses might describe as unpalatable truths. A strident tone and an apparent absolute conviction of their rightness seem to be the prerequisites, They also have to have thick skins, since at least half the population will probably find their words offensive.
Long-sightedness should also be a requirement. Such columnists have a duty to look ahead to the 'collateral damage' that might be caused by their words and to pick their targets carefully. Editors and features editors need to exercise the control that goes with their titles to make sure that star writers don't attack the vulnerable.
People in the public eye through their own choice - politicians, broadcasters, professional celebrities - may be seen as fair game. A dedicated young teacher who just wants to be left alone as she goes through an intensely difficult phase is not.

We can't blame the Littlejohn column for Miss Meadows's death; we don't know enough about her circumstances. She may have been struggling with the medical side of the transition;  she may have been missing her family - Ruth Upton had moved out of their home; maybe there had, after all, been problems with colleagues or pupils at school adjusting to the 'new' teacher. We do know that Miss Meadows had been upset by press intrusion in January, and it is pretty certain is that Littlejohn's acerbic commentary didn't make matters better.

Helen Belcher, director of TransMedia Watch, said that Miss Meadows had endured  "a huge amount of monstering and harassment by the press when she was very vulnerable.That level of press attention could not have helped her mental state one bit."
The pestering prompted Miss Meadows to seek advice from the trans community. Jane Fae, who produced some of the facts at the foot of this blog, writes in the New Statesman today that she had seen emails sent by Miss Meadows in January in which she talks of her good luck in having a supportive head. But the stress of her situation is also visible. She talks of the press offering other parents money for a picture of her.
The Guardian quotes the emails in more detail"I became pretty good at avoiding the press before Christmas. I live about a three-minute walk from school so they were parked outside my house as well as school. I'm just glad they didn't realise I also have a back door. I was usually in school before the press arrived and stayed until late so I could avoid them going home." Another said 'I just want to be me'.

I don't think that Miss Meadows's personal life was newsworthy and certainly not  a suitable topic for comment, but  just suppose for a moment that it was. If you want to write on any subject, surely the first task is to gather some facts and talk to some experts, rather than simply spout off on the basis of an agency rewrite from your own paper. Is Littlejohn right to assume that the children would find this transition harder to cope with than the teachers? I'd surmise that, far from being 'unable to compute', young children would be better equipped to deal with such a change. They are adaptable and accepting and have not been weighed down with the burdens of prejudice or experience. Littlejohn says that many of them still believe in Father Christmas. If they can accept that a man can fly around on a sleigh pulled by reindeer and deliver presents to every child in a single night, they can probably believe that a man can become a woman. And not judge.

A few years back I worked closely with a gently spoken man, let's call him P, who was separated from his wife. We would chat in the small hours about wine, motorbikes, cars, but  mostly about our children - he missed his very young son and daughter who lived in Scotland. Over the months, P started to grow his hair very long, eventually tying it back in a ponytail, I thought nothing of it, other that to envy its lustre.
Then an email came from the boss class saying that P had something called gender dysphoria and would henceforth be dressing as a woman and be known as Katherine. 
Unbeknown to most of us, Kathy had been dressing as a woman outside of the office for a while. She had now made the decision to make the journey to surgery and beyond - and that meant she had to live as a woman for two years before she would be considered for the operation.
This, I suspect, is the stage that Miss Meadows had reached at Christmas. It isn't as simple as Littlejohn suggests; you don't just pop off to hospital as a man and come out a woman. There are many drugs to take before and after. Doctors have to be as confident as they can be that you are completely sure that you want to change gender, and one of the tests is how you cope with life in the new guise. How do you tell your parents, your wife, your husband, your children? How hard is it to make that first visit to the GP, to go through all those specialists, counsellors, clinics? What kind of mental tortures must you have suffered that you are prepared to jump through all these hoops? 

No wonder 34 per cent of transgender women and men attempt suicide.

So, Mr Littlejohn, Miss Meadows was being 'selfish and insensitive' was she? Much better to hide away in shame, like some Victorian maiden with child, and then start a new life 'on the other side of town'.
Kathy tells me: 'As the parent of two loving, secure, sociable, confident children who are happy at their schools and academically at the top of their years, I refute Littlejohn's assertions. My children and their classmates apparently were equipped to compute this. The only person who isn't is Littlejohn.
'There were a couple of parents who were unpleasant to me - but nothing worse than turning their backs  when I entered the playground. But eventually they got bored with it.' Her son suffered some bullying at primary school - mostly, she thinks, because of prejudice against a well-spoken English boy rather than his parent's gender -  but has had no such problems at secondary school. Her daughter, who attended the same primary school, had no issues at all. 

Newspapers and their columnists should not underestimate the levels of tolerance and understanding in this country, especially among children, who are much more resilient than they are often given credit for. But mostly, they should let people out of the public eye live their lives in peace. If we haven't learnt that much from the hacking saga, Leveson, and the clamour for press regulation, then we have learnt nothing. 
Columns like Littlejohn's and the vitriol that pours daily from the Mail do nothing to advance the case for a free press. From that point of view, this couldn't have happened at a worse time. If we end up shackled, everyone will suffer. We all need to look to ourselves and wise up.



 Sometimes we get it right

The press may have been culpable in the case of Lucy Meadows, but here is a happier story from Essex.
Roger  was open about his gender dysphoria when he went to work in a general store in Clacton  in 2006. He explained to everyone the long processes he would have to go through before he could undergo surgery, including the need to live for two years as a woman.
The staff all rooted for him and threw a farewell party for Roger one Friday and greeted Lizi with welcome gifts the following Monday.
Lizi went on to have her operation in 2010 and there was a double celebration at the store a year later when her gender was legally recognised with a new birth certificate. Lizi was 63 and the change meant she could retire immediately, rather than wait to 65 as Roger would have done.
Colleagues gave her a rousing send-off, which was reported in the local Gazette -  a joyous story that was entirely positive and balanced.
You can read it here.

Some facts

  • 300,000 - 500,000 people in Britain have experienced some degree of gender variance
  • 60,000 - 90,000 of these want 'a complete role adaptation'
  • 10,000 of these have approached a health professional
  • 6,000 of these have undertaken transition to a new gender role
  • 80% of transgender people were born male
  • The average age for transition surgery is 42

More people are 'coming out', so that the number of people receiving medical help, has doubled in recent years. This is attributed to
  • Greater general knowledge and understanding of transsexualism
  • Increased NHS provision
  • Helplines, local support groups and web-based forums that allow people with gender dysphoria to meet and gain confidence
  • Anti-discrimination legislation
  • 'Somewhat more respectful press coverage.

Even so,
  • 34% of transgender people have attempted suicide at least once
  • 19% have suffered verbal abuse
  • 10% have faced threatening behaviour
  • 5% have suffered physical abuse
  • 2% have suffered sexual abuse


A Twitter campaign in January elicited a thousand complaints about the healthcare offered to transgender people, the GMC is expected to look in detail at 39 allegations of abuse. The trans activist Helen Belcher reported to a healthcare conference on Monday that:
  • 98 documents were presented to the GMC last month
  • 15 may have to be set aside for technical reasons, but those being investigated include
  • 10 cases of sex abuse or inappropriate intimate examinations
  • 19 patients who say they were refused medical treatment
  • 1 patient who alleges a coercive threat of withdrawal of treatment
  • 4 allegations of inappropriate or damaging treatment

  • 63% of people who suffered alleged abuse did not complain at all because they did not trust the system to give them fair treatment
  • 21% had had previous complaints dismissed
  • 39% of complaints related to GPs
  • 17% related to mental health services
  • 22% related to gender specialist services
Newspapers tend to write about the 'average' cost of transgender treatment, and of 'sex changes on the NHS'. Costs vary from case to case, but include
  • For the vast majority of  MtF (male to female) people who seek treatment but not surgery, the cost over a lifetime is unlikely to be more than £1,000
  • For those who go on to surgery, the cost over 20 years will be about £2,500 for hormone and endocrine intervention, and
  • The surgery itself will cost about £11,000
  • For FtM people the cost of hormone treatment over 20 years is about £15,000
  • Full gender reassignment costs about £50,000 - but most FtM people do not undergo this surgery
  • Case management for both men and women costs between £1,000 and £3,000
  • The Revenue will recoup about £2,000 from prescription charges in England

*Sources:
Gender Variance in the UK, Gires, 2009



How do you see the future of journalism? Do you still have a paper delivered or pick one up at the station on the way to work? Do you prefer print, Kindle or iPad? Or have you given up on the mainstream media and switched to Twitter and blogs? Please join in the SubScribe survey here. Thank you.