Prejudice is a thing that comes in all shapes and sizes. I
guess after the abuse my lads experienced a couple of Sundays ago thanks to the
colour of their skin, I have been rather hyper alert to it. It’s a bit like when
you have a near miss when driving. For the next thirty minutes or so you find
yourself beset with a kind of ultra-caution. Check the blind spot, check the
blind spot and check the blind spot again. Then after a while you get back to
merely checking the blind spot once.
The last fortnight has been a bit like that. Obviously it
has been a case of scanning the mirror for blue lights rather than compulsive
attention to the blind spot. I haven’t been pulled again. Instead I have
received a helpful letter from our local Chief Superintendant of Police. She
was disappointed that I chose the route of this blog to air my grievances and
concerns instead of going to her personally. I can understand this and I fully
sympathise. And by not picking up the phone an arranging an appointment with
Kate Thompson, I guess I have shown a prejudice of my own. I have met her
before on a couple of occasions and I was favourably impressed. The ‘word on
the street’ about her is pretty good too. The word is that she is a good cop. So
what prejudice guided me to choose the blog road instead of a call to the Chief Superintendant?
Hillsborough.
I did everything by the book in the days and weeks after
Hillsborough. I followed official channels. I trusted the system. I had faith.
Well, I guess everyone knows what happened next. 23 three
years of cover up happened next. It stripped away my faith in the system. It
was instrumental in me choosing to adopt the Wikileaks approach this time around. It made me
prejudiced.
To be prejudiced is to pre-judge. To make your mind up about
someone in advance. To guess in advance how they will behave and react. My
post-Hillsborough prejudice told me that the police would use any official
complaints procedure to bury away the facts abut what happened to the lads for weeks and months until they
would gather dust in some lost filing cabinet.
Maybe instead of following the instinct of my prejudice, I
should have had faith in Kate Thompson and not tarred her with same brush as
the officers of the South Yorkshire Police of the 1980’s.
But I didn’t.
I allowed my prejudice to gain the upper hand and for that I
owe an apology and I am more than happy to offer it up in this chosen
public domain.
Sadly my lack of trust in the police doing the right thing
runs deeper than Hillsborough. Having been with Carol for almost a quarter of a
century, I have absorbed the experience of far too many incidences when her
family was treated with appalling prejudice thanks to the colour of their skin.
All too often, the police played a shoddy role in such incidents. All too often
the police were responsible for the incidents in those shameful days before the
Stephen Lawrence inquiry. Carol and her family were good people treated very
badly. It leaves a bad taste. It leaves distrust. It leaves prejudice.
This goes to show that prejudice works on different levels.
Sometimes we develop a prejudice as a result of something that has actually
been done to us. I was at Hillsborough. I was lucky to survive it. I saw how
the South Yorkshire Police behaved that day. I reported it. And my words along
with the words of thousands of others were buried. Instead, a pack of lies were
told and the blame was laid at our door.
The result. Prejudice.
I wasn’t there when the police behaved so appallingly to
Carol’s family in the 70’s and 80’s. Instead I have heard about it. And it has
added to my prejudice. It’s a second hand prejudice, but a prejudice all the
same.
The other day I finally managed to lay my hands on a hard
copy of the document that was circulated to the 22 members of the Dumfries ‘Pubwatch’ scheme asking them to vote on a banning order for my two sons. I have taken a photo and
posted it below.
Yeah, yeah. More Wikileaks!
It is the very essence of bureaucratic prejudice. Ghastly
and mundane. It represents an attack on two individuals; an attack carried out in secret. The way it casually besmirches their reputations is repugnant. I very much doubt if the club steward who wrote the words is any great lover of Shakespeare, but maybe I do him a disservice. Maybe I am being prejudiced. He would do well to consider these words from Iago in Othello
History is littered with endless millions of similarly drab and dry documents. The railroads that carried millions toDachau and
Buchenwald and Auschwitz ran on similarly
blasé and dreary pieces of bleak officialdom. The clerks who filled out the
paperwork in triplicate had long since ceased to see living, breathing human
beings. They had cashed in their humanity for a pension scheme. Their prejudice
had become completely ingrained. I doubt if they saw each individual document
as a death warrant for a real person with dreams and ambitions. Instead they
saw a mere number. A face from a cartoon. A Christ Killer. A Kike. A Yid. A bad
person. A person who deserved everything they were about to get.
Who steals my purse steals trash. 'Tis something, nothing:
'Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands.
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed.
History is littered with endless millions of similarly drab and dry documents. The railroads that carried millions to
Poll ID:277 is that kind of document.
What does a person reading this poisonous little document
learn of my son?
‘On 16 December 2013,
a steward within a member premises allegedly observed Courtney Frankland within
a toilet cubicle snorting some sort of white powder. Frankland was with Dyonne
Green at this time. Police were contacted and both were searched by police. No
drugs were found.
Both persons have
been put forward for a ban by the member premises.’
This wasn’t the first draft. In the first draft there was no
use of the word ‘allegedly’. That of course was added by Constable Adam Potts
who was doing his bit to make sure that the Pubwatch member, ‘Chancers’, didn’t
accidentally land themselves in any hot legal water.
So let’s pick apart the prejudice
One person – the steward - made a statement and not so much
as a shred of evidence was found to back up that statement. The police could
hardly have tried any harder to find some sort of evidence that the steward was
telling the truth. But they failed. There was no evidence to find.
At this point did it occur to them that out of a hundred
people in Chancers at the time only two were mixed race? Did it occur that this
might have had something to do with the steward making up such a fairy tale?
No.
Instead his words were allowed to become gospel. His words
were briefly scanned by Constable Adam Potts who duly helped out with the
addition of the word ‘allegedly’. Did it cross Adam’s mind that the evidence
suggested that the steward had got something wrong? Obviously not. He
instinctively took the steward’s side and put his name to the steward’s words.
Why? Only Adam Potts can answer that one. I can only speculate that Adam has a
low opinion of young lads who are out on the town on a weekend night. A
prejudice. A prejudice that persuaded him to blindly take the word of the
steward at face value despite his colleagues finding not so much as a shred of
evidence to back the allegation up.
So Poll ID:277 became a living and breathing thing out there
in the ether. Members of the 22 pubs and clubs involved in the scheme were
asked to cast their votes.
By the time I received the document, 6 had cast their votes.
Three had voted for Courtney to be banned from every one of
their premises for three years. One voted for 2 years. One for a year. One for
6 months.
Did any of them take a moment to consider the implications
of what they were doing? Seemingly not. On the basis of a single completely unsubstantiated
allegation, they casually decided to exclude my son from socialising with his
friends for three years. Wind the clock back to when you were 21. Social life
is a big thing at that age. Imagine if you had been banned from most of the
places in your home town at that age. For three years. For nothing. It’s a big,
big deal. Every time you get a call from friends asking if you fancy going out, you have to
say no. Can’t come I’m afraid. I’m banned. Until 2017.
For nothing.
Did Adam Potts stop and think about that?
Did the ones who cast their vote think about that?
Did they think about the huge impact they were about to have
on a young man’s life? Or did they just click a button and forget all about it?
Did they allow their ingrained prejudice to guide their fingers?
Last week the Queen signed a royal pardon for Alan Turing
some 63 years after his death. So what has that got to do with anything?
Well, here’s a question for you. Name me the person most
responsible for Britain
prevailing over Hitler?
Easy. Winston Churchill.
So name me the person after Churchill most responsible for Britain
prevailing over Hitler?
In my book that person was surely Alan Turing. He was the
mathematical genius who headed up the team in Hut 8 of Bletchley Park who
cracked the German’s Enigma code. At this point in the war Hitler’s U Boats were on the
verge of shutting down the Atlantic supply lines and starving us into
surrender. Cracking the Enigma code told us where the U Boats were hiding. Once
we knew that, we started to sink them. At last the convoys started to make it
through and the tide of the war turned. Without the genius of Turing, we might
well have lost in 1942.
After the war he more or less invented the computer. Not a
bad CV.
So why the Royal Pardon?
Well Alan Turing was gay and that wasn’t allowed in those
days. There was huge and ingrained prejudice against homosexuals. It was
illegal of course. And anyone who was found to be gay was assumed to be a
subversive. A security risk. A closet communist. A traitor in the making. After
all, two of the Cambridge Spies had been gay.
So all of Turing’s efforts suddenly counted for nought. The security services
hounded him mercilessly. He was kept under constant surveillance and harassed
constantly. Eventually he was arrested and charged with gross indecency. There
was no evidence that he slept around and was about to hop into bed with a flaxen
haired KGB toy boy from Vladivostok .
Instead he was in a long term relationship. Every one of his acquaintances
spoke of his fierce patriotism and his loathing of Nazism and Bolshevism alike.
Did that count for anything? Did it prevail over prejudice? Did it hell.
They offered him a hell of a choice: prison or chemical
castration. He chose chemical castration. But they still hounded him. They
banned him from his work and followed him everywhere he went.
After two years of this he could take no more and he
committed suicide. He was one of the greatest Britons of the 20th
century, but blind prejudice drove him to his death. And now 63 years later we
are pardoning him for a crime that doesn’t even exist any more.
Imagine how many nasty, evil documents like Poll ID:277 must
have filled cabinet after cabinet as the security services drove Alan Turing to
his grave. Did any of those bureaucrats take a step back and think about the
man and all he had done? Obviously not. The prejudice prevailed