Monday, 21 February 2022

Revenge Is a Dish Best Served Well Plotted and Proofread

 





I never actually met Hamish (*), but God did I hate him, and that wasn’t from a personal prejudice.

Martin (my husband) was working for a previous employer but still as a clinical nurse specialist. I know that I am biased, but Martin is very experienced at his job and he knows his subject. Hamish started working at the same trust. He had no clinical experience or qualifications and was working as a manager for a non-clinical service; he managed the trust’s buildings. But this didn’t stop Hamish. He very quickly began telling Martin how to do his job and what he “really” should be doing. Hamish’s suggestions were deeply wrong but this didn’t deter him. He was pushing himself into Martin’s role, trying to override Martin, constantly trying to bully him and generally making his working life hell by making doing his job so difficult.

So many evenings, after he got home, I would hear Martin’s complaints about how again Hamish had made his working life so taxing and how Hamish just refused to listen to complaints about his own behaviour and wouldn’t agree to any suggestions that weren’t his own. He was making Martin’s working life unbearable and there was nothing I could do about it. I felt so useless because I couldn’t help Martin, except by listening to how Hamish screwed-up his working day.

Then the idea came to me, I could use my writing to get some revenge on Hamish for Martin.

I was writing a story was about a man who was being homophobically bullied by a work colleague, and I decided to call the work colleague Hamish. The man breaks one evening and ends up killing Hamish in a very bloody attack. From there the plot twists as the man reacts to his crime. My interest in the story was writing about perceptions and how easily we believe anyone can be keeping a secret, even if it goes completely against what we know about a person. When Martin read the story, he took gleeful pleasure in Hamish’s murder. It was so nice to see his stress eased, if only for a short time, by something I had rewritten.

(Hamish left for a “better” job soon after, though he had no idea what I had written. The story remains unpublished but it is on my list to be revised for a planned collection.)

To want revenge, especially when we have received unjust or prejudicial treatment, is a very natural human response, but it is never satisfying. Whatever that other person has done to us, we can never make them suffer the way they made us suffer, most of the time they are not even aware of how much suffering they caused; often it us who are hurt as we are eaten up with the injustice done us and the desire for revenge.

I spent so much time, too much time, plotting how I could get my own back on those who had hurt me when I was a teenager, the homophobes who hurt and rejected me. All it did was eat me up with anger and bitterness, I wasn’t even able to put into context what had happened to me.

Then I wrote a story based on a very traumatic event from when I was a teenager. Writing it I found I was able to take a step backwards and look at what really happened, how I came to put myself in such a position, that it wasn’t my fault, and to begin to understand why those people had behaved so appallingly. Rereading that story now, I see that it is overwritten, with far too much unnecessary backstory, too long and too slowly paced. It will never see the light of day. I was just learning how to write then, but it did show me the power of writing, how writing could open my eyes to why something happened.

That short story also had another big flaw, it was easy to identify who the characters were based on. I’ve since learnt there is no need for anyone else to be able to identify who a character is based on; I actually do not want readers to stand any chance to. So now I take all steps to prevent this (see my blog about writing about real people).

Writing fiction about things that make me angry or events that have caused me pain has become very liberating. Doing so, I have to look at a situation, what caused it, what led to it, the effects it caused; I have to analyse the entire situation. This can give me insight and understanding, it is amazing how the negativity of a situation is diminished by understanding it. I do the same thing with attitudes and beliefs that I don’t agree with and that make me angry. Understanding an attitude doesn’t mean that I will agree with it, but it does mean I can understand where it comes from and the harm it does. Writing against it I can explore the human effects of it.

I have a relative who has very conversative and Evangelical Christian views. Her views are very black and white, no shades of grey, and very simplistic. She bluntly doesn’t engage with any challenges to her views. She is also someone I have known most of my life and, as such, I have been able to study why and who she is. She has given me so much opportunity and understanding of why someone would hold her views. Her attitudes have appeared so often in my writing, giving me the opportunity to explore them and the harm they cause.

Saying all that, this approach isn’t easy and I do not always get it right.

Years ago, and several jobs ago, I was subjected to a rant by an Evangelical Christian colleague. She objected to the Equality Bill, claiming wrongly that it would give LGBT people more protection than Christians and that Christians would be persecuted under it. She claimed that Christians were the most persecuted minority in the country (not true). When I tried to reply to her, she bluntly refused to let me speak, refusing to listen to any view that didn’t match her own. I was so angry at her. Through my anger I began to wonder why someone would take such a blinkered and untrue view and the harm such views were doing. The result of this, after much thought, was the short story “Easter Witness, which was published in my collection Case Studies in Modern Life. I am very happy with this story because I was able to show the negative effects of those views as well as punching holes in that argument.

But I don’t always get it right, especially if I write too quickly about it.

During the Marriage Equality debate here in Britain, there were a lot of untruths and downright lies told about what would happen if same-sex couples could legally marry (all of which have not come to pass). I was so angry that I wrote the short story “To the Heart of Marriage. Unfortunately, I wrote it too quickly and I was too angry when I wrote it. Its arguments are simplistic and it tells the reader what’s wrong, not showing the effects of these negative untruths. It failed. Revenge does need to be written with a cool mind.

But also there shouldn’t be a wish fulfilment element to this, we shouldn’t be using fiction to rewrite history so that we win, so we come out on top, to enact the revenge we were never able to do in real life, because that is so hollow and untrue, and what service are we doing to our readers?

Many years ago, I was a member of a gay men’s writing group. One of the members was writing a novel in which he rewrote his unhappy and repressed childhood. His novel made him, as a young teenager, the winner and always coming out on top of his family’s fights and wars. He had created a thirteen-year-old boy who had the debating and arguing skills of a thirty or forty-year-old man; this child was impossibly wise for his years. That novel made me feel uncomfortable because it was so untrue but he, the writer, couldn’t see that. He was actually taking deep pleasure from it. I realised the discomfort I felt was the discomfort a reader would feel and that it would make a reader stop reading. My fiction has to be honest about human emotions and reactions, otherwise how can I ever hope to hold a reader’s interest? After all, they are the ones giving me their time to read my writing.

Art is the best revenge but only if it’s done honestly, not to settle old scores but to explore the events.

Happy reading

Drew

 

(*) Not his real name.

Monday, 14 February 2022

A Moment after Church


 

Autumn 1985

At nineteen, my main mission in life was to “fit in” with the world around me. If I kept my head down and didn’t draw attention to myself then people would not guess my secret and not hate me for it, as I feared. It was a simple but very flawed plan, though at the time it was all I could see to do.

At that time, most of my world revolved around being a member of my church and being a good Christian because that was what was expected of me with my membership there. It was an Evangelical Anglican church, and being Evangelical they preached that the church had to be all of your life, and I happily agreed with that because I so wanted to fit in somewhere. Up until then I had been an outsider in my life; I didn’t like the things other kids were passionate about, I didn’t follow all the different trends that consumed the other kids around me, I was plainly unpopular, but fitting in was the most important thing where I grew up and I failed at it. Church gave me the chance of a place where I could belong, of a place where I could be wanted, and I grabbed at it with both hands.

At nineteen, church offered me a full social life and happily I jumped into it, I was wanted. There was the church service on a Sunday morning and the Young People’s Fellowship on a Sunday evening, plus the Bible study group, prayer meetings, worship practice, drama group rehearsals, and other meetings all throughout the week, but the most important of all was the Sunday morning Communion (Eucharist) Service, and everyone was expected to attend that.

After this service the congregation would always move into the church hall to have a cup of tea and split off into our different cliques. This social element seemed almost as important as the service itself, or at least we had the chance to discuss the service and then discuss other people’s lives and actions. I so enjoyed this part of the morning, I belonged somewhere and there were people I could talk with. It was an extra forty-five minutes to an hour before I had to return home. The clique I belonged to was the Young People’s Fellowship, the church’s spiritual youth group. For me it was a safe clique to hide away in. We all sat together in church, went to the same church activities together, and when the Young People’s Fellowship met, we’d all agree on the same things, the things we were told we needed to believe and agree on.

That Sunday morning, the church service had been noticeably different. Our regular organist, Nicholas, wasn’t there. Instead, an elderly man, with a bald and domed head, had slowly and awkwardly played the church’s organ, all the hymns at the same painfully slow pace. Now, after the service, it was all anyone could talk about. Where was Nicholas and how terrible the hymns were, some people were even calling the organ playing a disgrace, talking about how we hadn’t fully worshipped God’s glory. Suddenly I felt like an outsider again; I didn’t know what was happening, no one had thought to include me, again I had to find out for myself. I did what I had always learnt to do, I stayed quiet and listened to the conversations around me. If I listened carefully I would always learn something.

Each Sunday morning, during the Communion Service, Nicholas had sat at the church’s organ, playing the hymns with gusto and energy, while his friend, Robin, sat in the pew next to him. Those two men had fascinated me. Nicholas was ten or more years older than Robin and yet they were still friends, almost constant companions at church. People from different ages didn’t mix at church, it was very much divided along age lines. People from the Young People’s Fellowship didn’t mix with the members of the Mothers Union, who didn’t mix with Full Gospel Businessmen’s Luncheon group; everyone was in awe of the church’s council members, and we all looked up to the clergy. But here were Nicholas and Robin, open with their friendship. Nicholas had always been conservatively dressed at church, he wore neat and dark suits, his grey hair cut into a short and neat style. Robin was far more stylish, obviously aware of his clothes and appearance. His hair was always neatly styled, brushed in a careful way and always parted at the side. He wore a suit too, but his suits were always sharply coloured, rich browns, bright blues and greens, neat charcoal, they were always worn over a matching waistcoat and a coordinated tie tied in a large and prominent knot under his collar. He wore several rings on his fingers back when men didn’t wear rings, even married men didn’t wear a wedding ring. The most prominent one was a gold signet ring he wore on the little finger of his left hand and he would absentmindedly turn it around on his finger when he seemed preoccupied.

I was fascinated by these two men, but my fascination was always from afar. I would watch them from my pew in church. I could never speak to them because they were in such a different social circle to me. If I had spoken to them, what would I have said to them? I could never have asked them that question that nagged away at the back of my mind, were they like me? But how could I ask it when I could not even ask it of myself? I wasn’t like that, it was just a mistake, just a phase my life was stuck in, something I could deny and push down as far as I could.

The Young People’s Fellowship was run by two married couples, the clean-cut Richard and Elizabeth, and their growing number of children, and the round and comical Iain and Sadie, who always had the latest electronic gadget.

That morning, Iain almost bounded up to our group as we stood together in the church hall, exclaiming, “Have you lot heard? Nicholas the organist has had to leave the church because he went and married his husband!”

“What?” Elizabeth replied.

“Robin, that friend of his, was his homosexual lover and they went through a mock marriage,” Iain gleefully added.

“That’s disgusting!” Elizabeth said, her whole face twisting up with distaste.

Suddenly the whole group was alive with the subject, talking hurriedly and excitedly about it; this was true gossip that everyone could condemn and they were all condemning it. Homosexuality was disgusting, immoral, a perversion, sin made flesh. No Christian could be a homosexual, they said and they were certain that God condemned it, simply look at AIDS and all the other failings they attributed to being homosexual. And they knew they were right because they were certain they were. Elizabeth and Richard were strong in their condemnation, certain they were right in the way they were always certain their beliefs were always right.

I withdrew to the edge of the group, my hands pushed into the pockets of my duffle coat, and just listened to the words bouncing around me. I knew I failed so often as a Christian, I could not live up to the high moral standards required of me. I struggled to believe all the things required of me because of the inner doubts that plagued my mind, telling me I wasn’t good enough and that I failed at every attempt. The biggest doubt that rang in my mind was that I was already going to hell just for being who I was. I am gay, but at nineteen I couldn’t begin to admit it to myself, it was my dark secret that I dreaded anyone else finding out. The only expression of my sexuality I dared to make were quick and very furtive glances at handsome men when I though no one else was watching me. In the next moment I would be flooded with guilt. I was disgusting and going straight to hell, the guilt told me.

Hearing what those around me were saying, the force of their condemnation of Nicholas and Robin, again I knew I was right to be afraid.

These people around me, they were the people who called me their friend, who told me they were my Christian family, and they were now pouring out the most terrible prejudice and hatred towards homosexuals. Would they turn that onto me if they knew the truth? I couldn’t take the risk so I pulled myself further within myself. Friendships were a risk; I couldn’t let people into my life, but how could I avoid hell? I was lost.

That moment was chilling, I saw all my friends and my faith in a new light, this church wasn’t the safe place I’d always hoped it would be. But in the next breath, I wanted these people to like me and I wanted to be part of this group. If they found out I was gay would they treat me the same way? Would they pour out their prejudice on me and force me to leave this church? I couldn’t take that risk. I had to increase my efforts; I had to ensure I fitted in, even though I couldn’t take the biggest step, I couldn’t change my stripes.

Eighteen months later, I was outed at church and they did behave exactly as they had done towards Nicholas and Robin. I was left with no choice but to leave. I should have known it would happen, I had watched it play out with their treatment of Nicholas and Robin, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

(All the names here have been changed. I am no longer in contact with anyone mentioned here so I do not know what their beliefs and views are now. People do change)

(The photograph illustrating this essay is not a picture of the church where this took place)

 

Drew

Monday, 7 February 2022

No Experience Required

 


For so many jobs prior experience is so important that it is a must, it is often the first thing employers ask for. I have seen so many job adverts, especially on the NHS Jobs website, that start with a list of prior experience that the applicant MUST have before they can even be considered for it. So why is the job of chair of NHS England any different?

Recently, Richard Meddings was chosen as the new chair of NHS England (1), but he has no NHS or healthcare experience, his background is banking.

This is Richard Meddings’s CV:

  • He earned a degree in modern history from Exeter College, Oxford
  • He trained as a chartered accountant with Price Waterhouse (one of the big four accounting companies)
  • He then worked for Hill Samuel (a merchant bank) and BZW (part of Barclays Bank) before becoming financial director of Woolwich plc in 1999.
  • He was a board member of Standard Chartered (a multinational bank) for 11 years and its finance director for seven years.
  • In January 2014, the Standard Chartered "stunned the city" by announcing his resignation, this did come after a period of high losses, a rights issue and a cancelled dividend from the bank. He said it was "totally my decision to leave."
  • In February 2018, Meddings succeeded Will Samuel as chairman of TSB Bank.
  • He is a non-executive board member of HM Treasury.
  • In 2020, he joined the board committee at Credit Suisse (a global investment bank).
  • Meddings was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2022 New Year Honours for services to the financial sector. (2)

Nowhere in here does he have any experience of healthcare or the NHS, this is the first time he has worked outside of the world of banking or finance.

It is argued that he will bring an “outsider’s eye to the NHS” (1) but this is one of the most important roles in the NHS; he will be responsible, ultimately, for setting the strategic direction and goals for NHS England, setting the priorities and direction of travel, and yet this is the first time he has worked for any NHS organisation. How can he realistically be expected to do all this?

Why should the chair of NHS England have NHS experience?

Firstly, part of the essential criteria for the role, as stated by the NHS, is: “An understanding of the pivotal role NHS England plays in improving health and care outcomes for patients and the public” (3). But how can Meddings demonstrate this without any first-hand experience of working in the NHS at any level? Banks are not hospitals. Privately owned banks are not the same as public owned hospitals.

The chair of NHS England is the most important role in the NHS in England, they are the person who reports to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care about the state of the NHS (3).

In brief, the chair of NHS England’s role is:

  • Provide leadership and strategic oversight throughout the NHS England Board.
  • Hold the executive to account for performance.
  • Provide strategic oversight and scrutiny of NHS England’s performance.
  • Provide direction to board members on NHS England’s performance issues.
  • Set an example of integrity and ethical leadership for NHS England.
  • Be responsible for the annual assessment of individual performance by the chief executive and the board’s non-executive directors.
  • Chair board meetings.
  • Ensure the effective induction and development of new non-executive directors.
  • Represent the board in the public arena.
  • Provide counsel, advice and support to the chief executive.
  • Establish productive working relationships with a range of key stakeholders including ministers, senior public officials from across the government, as well as leaders from the wider UK healthcare system, local authorities, regulatory bodies and the media (3).

Now, some of these responsibilities could be carried out by someone with no NHS experience. Chairing a board meeting and representing the board to the public could be fulfilled by someone with no NHS experience, but they are the only parts of the role that I can see could be. All the other parts of the role need some or a lot of NHS experience and extensive knowledge of the structure of the NHS, which certainly does not resemble that of a bank.

It could be argued that Meddings could be briefed and educated on how the NHS works once he takes on the role, but how long will this take? The NHS is not a simply structured organisation and it has complicated roles and responsibilities; providing healthcare is not just one activity, it is a multifunctional and multidisciplined responsibility. Just look at the differences between acute hospital care and the care provided in primary care, they are not the same and not delivered in the same way. How can you educate someone with no NHS experience to the level of knowledge they will need to chair NHS England in any reasonable time scale? Meddings will be working a two to three-day week in the role, being paid £63,000 a year for that work (3).

He will succeed the Conservative peer David Prior, who had previously been a health minister and chaired two NHS trusts (1). Lord Prior had much more NHS experience before he took on the role, why now is this level of experience no longer required for the chair of the NHS England?

Why worry that a banker is now in this role?

The NHS is in debt, actually it is chronically underfunded. In 2018, The Health Foundation, The Nuffield Trust and The King’s Fund think tanks all said that the NHS’s funding needed to be increased by 4%, in real terms, that year just so that it could carry on delivering the same level of service (4). In the financial year 2018–2019, the deficit of the 230 NHS trusts was £2.1 billion (5). In 2019/2020, the NHS provider sector alone had a deficit of £910 million (6). This was all before the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Nuffield Trust calculated that in 2020–2021 Covid-19 alone cost NHS England £5.18 billion (7).

In 2015, as part of the NHS Five-Year Plan, the NHS was required to find £22 billion in efficiency savings (cuts) by 2020 (8), yet this has proved difficult. Part of the 2018–2019 deficit came from failed efficiency savings (7).

Also, because of the Covid-19 pandemic, there are now six million people on hospital waiting lists (9) and reducing this figure is going to cost money and resources.

NHS England is in financial trouble, costs are outstripping funding and the costs of the Covid-19 pandemic keep mounting—the direct costs of treating Covid patients and the indirect costs of the patients who weren’t able to be treated because of the pandemic and the costs of trying to reduce the NHS waiting lists. It seems, looking at Meddings’s appointment, the government wants a financer heading NHS England to sort out the finances, why else would Meddings be given the role? He has no NHS or healthcare experience, yet he has a lot of experience handling the finances of large companies and banks and balancing their books.

Should we be concerned?

Yes, we should be concerned, very concerned.

This announcement was very quietly made; it almost sneaked out with virtually no high-profile media scrutiny. I only found out about it because my partner saw it posted on social media.

NHS England will be in the hands of a man with no NHS or healthcare experience, but he will be ultimately responsible for reducing NHS England’s record waiting lists and balancing the budget, making cuts. What will his priorities be? How can someone with no NHS or healthcare experience, but a lifetime in financial services, know what patient needs should be prioritised?

NHS staff have seen a real term cut in our wages since 2010, due to pay freezes and below inflation pay rises by this government. Nurses are now £3,600 a year worse off due to this (10).

Staff moral is at rock-bottom with all the stress, tiredness and burnout due to working through the Covid pandemic. 27,353 medics left the NHS in the last quarter of 2021 (11). Between April and September 2021, 13,945 nurses left the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s (NMC) register (12), and the NHS is short of 39,000 nurses, 1 in 10 registered nurses’ posts are empty (13). But this could only get worse because a lot of people are considering leaving the NHS because of Covid-19 burnout and the poor conditions we have endured for nearly 12 years. The Royal College of Nursing (RCN), in a recent survey, found that 36% of nurses are thinking of leaving the profession (14), that is over a third. Another survey, by the Healthcare Workers’ Foundation, which surveys all NHS staff across the board, found that 73% of NHS staff are considering leaving in the next year (15).

How will Ricard Meddings turn this low morale and potential staffing disaster around? He only has experience in finance. He has no experience of leading any public sector organisation, he has never been remotely involved with an NHS trust with a staffing crisis. His experience is from the world of banking, and banking has never faced a recruitment crisis, let alone a staffing one.

Meddings’s appointment does show us one very important thing, that the government’s priority for the NHS is controlling it finances, getting spending “under control”. There is only one way this will be achieved, especially looking at the NHS Five-Year Plan, and that will involve cuts in NHS spending. There are no more efficiency savings to be made, the repeated failure to make them in previous NHS spending proves this.

Richard Meddings will be the next chair of NHS England, no wonder the government did not want any scrutiny of this, which they almost achieved.

Drew Payne