Why otherisation is so destructive

Otherisation makes people feel vulnerable – they are made to feel powerless – and it forces them to build walls around them to protect themselves.

I have seen it among non-white English people and I see it between us among in the UK. Groups within groups within groups.

I too find it very hard to talk about otherisation without feeling defensive and vulnerable. Apparently, you can’t break through it by being too appeasing and agreeable, however. That means that if you want to unite people, you will likely draw anger and other negative feelings first.

Not an easy position to be in for anyone.

How crazy otherisation can get

Some time ago, I read about a family that was being bullied to pieces because several people in the family were autistic. I think this was somewhere in Somerset. Next, I read about a Newcastle case in which a family was being bullied in a similar way as that family in which several people are autistic.

Different about them is… that they have red hair. That small difference
alone seems to have been enough to trigger massive community bullying.

They too were forced to move as the bullying included smashed windows
and graffiti. You can live with graffiti, but you can’t live with smashed

Ya can’t make it up.


Free Siyanda!

I just wrote this to my MP.

Dear Mr Morgan,

Do you like jazz? If you do, the name Soweto Kinch surely will ring a bell. He is one of the people pushing the campaign to help free Siyanda. 

(He, btw, was first ignored and then kicked out of a pizza place in London. It happened in August 2019. When I found out that Julia Roberts publicly endorses the restaurant, I reached out to her representatives in the US. Surely, she would want to know about the incident, and there was a video recording of it. World-famous, Oxford-educated but black so he was not welcome. It won’t have been the first time he was abused and it won’t have been the last time, sadly. And it’s not about him being famous and Oxford-educated, of course. But I am not writing to you about him.)

I am writing to you as a constituent of Portsmouth South because I am deeply concerned about an incident of racial violence and consequent police misconduct that occurred in Wales. Yes, Wales is far from Portsmouth, but what happens in Wales also matters for Portsmouth.

The victim’s name is Siyanda Mngaza. She is a young disabled black woman who suffered racially motivated violence. But SHE was the one who was charged and convicted by an all-white jury of grievous bodily harm with intent. Her attackers must have laughed so loudly that they had to hold their bellies.

Siyanda’s arrest and subsequent conviction is undoubtedly by virtue of police negligence, misconduct and racial bias. Her sentence of 4.5 years was determined on 13th March 2020. Siyanda’s solicitors have already submitted an appeal challenging  this verdict. 

Below is a brief overview:

  • Siyanda is 4” 10’ and was 20 years old when the attack happened
  • She was attacked by 3 people, 2 of them male and twice her age
  • Due to recent reconstructive surgery on one of her legs, Siyanda was unable to run and could not flee from her attackers
  • There were 5 witnesses, 3 of which were Siyanda’s attackers and the other 2 are friends of the attackers
  • The attackers were not taken into custody, arrested or charged
  • All 5 witnesses – the attackers and their friends – were permitted to remain at the site of the incident and their statements were not taken until the following day
  • Siyanda suffered terrible injuries which are documented in her medical records
  • Siyanda told the officers at the time she had been racially attacked, yet they admitted in court they did not investigate her allegations of a racial assault

There has been widespread discrimination of black people within the UK and its punitive justice system for a long time and people have had enough, just like people have had enough of the abuse and violence that women are often subjected to.

Since the launch of the national campaign, the ‘Free Siyanda’ petition has gained over 500k signatures, clearly showing the strong public support she has. 

I would like the UK parliament to be made aware of this injustice, thereby allowing it to be rectified. Ergo I am kindly asking if you could voice this issue in parliament and do anything else you can in aid of Siyanda’s plight and help bring it to a swift end. Given the level of public support and sheer incompetence shown by the Dyfed-Powys police, this travesty cannot be allowed to go unnoticed and remain unremedied.

Should you wish to view further details regarding Siyanda Mngaza and her campaign please view:  www.freesiyanda.com 

Thank you for your time.

Kindest regards,

Angelina Souren

[Supported to write this by Siyanda’s family and friends.]

Free Siyanda petition – https://www.change.org/p/dyfed-powys-police-free-siyanda

She was ON HOLIDAY, too! For 1 night. Just a little getaway.

Turning inclusivity into semantics

Yesterday evening, I was supposed to take part in a Medact reading group to discuss this paper:
Selvarajah S, Deivanayagam TA, Lasco G, et al Categorisation and Minoritisation BMJ Global Health 2020;5:e004508. Accessible via this link: https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/12/e004508   

BIPOC? BAME? Minoritised? White, black, coloured, Asian?

Otherisation – possibly a term coined by Oxford neuroscientist Kathleen Taylor – is much broader than skin tone. Otherisation leads to discrimination and marginalisation and with marginalisation and discrimination come health disparities. While it is good to be aware of that, and perhaps also document it, the solution does not lie in semantics.

The solution lies in inclusivity.

How did I arrive at this conclusion? I am BAME, a minority nationality in the UK, but I am never included as part of BAME because BAME = non-white skin tone, isn’t it? And I am white.

The first GP I encountered in England did not (seem to) believe me when I said I was a scientist. He also wrote in my file that I had an alcohol problem, without ever having discussed alcohol with me, let alone what kind and how much. It was the result of an innocent language hiccup and his bias, towards older women and/or unmarried women, I think, rather than towards migrants. I was 45.

His colleague, the great younger guy I saw next, a week or so later, discovered the problem. He noticed my confusion when he started explaining that alcohol abuse had negative health effects, at the start of the appointment. He ordered a blood test to make sure that my sugar levels were fine.

He also opened and drained a cyst on my back. He gave me his trust and belief in me when I said that I’d be fine in a few minutes and needed nothing and that the best they could do was leave me in peace and not force me to talk so that I could regain my breath after I started hyperventilating. (It’s related to a childhood incident; it was made worse by teachers in my early school years. It’s no big deal and I figured out how to deal with it a long time ago; these days, it’s very rare for me to hyperventilate.)

He’d already noticed it during the treatment, bless him. To him, I was a person, not a label.

Health and healthcare disparities also affect people with mental health issues and physical disabilities. In the UK, people with non-negligible disabilities currently are five times more likely to be food-deprived. Nutrition-deprived. There you have one major cause of health disparities.


As a result of otherisation, discrimination, marginalisation, in a country with excessive inequality.

Older adults, too, just like people who are not white, often receive less good healthcare. People who aren’t white are less likely to be referred to a specialist (called “consultant” in the UK). Or for tests. The hospital.

The solution to healthcare and health disparities is to treat everyone as a human being, not as a label. Education. Unfortunately, in order to do that, we have to convince the powers that be that these health disparities exist (and how they come about, to a large degree, that is, to the extent that they are not caused by for example by the nature of a disability).

In some cultures / countries, that is frowned upon as something to be abolished. Collecting data on skin tone and ethnicity at every medical facility because it is experienced as discriminatory. In others it is seen as something that we must do first in order to be able to remedy the problem.

So we’re back to labels.

It’s not about labels. It’s about acknowledging that we are all human beings and deserve the same basic levels of housing, nutrition and other necessities in order to be in good health.

I hope that the Medact reading group ended up deciding to write and submit a comment to that article in the BMJ.

(I may not have the equipment needed to take part in such online meetings, I’ve discovered. I have some figuring out and possibly some configuring to do. But I also had a sudden bout of sciatica, so I was cranky and occasionally yelping, which would have been an annoying distraction for the other participants anyway. That will pass. And I’ll find a way to solve my equipment problem.)


Watch the video below. How do you step into the shoes of Cameron?

What I “know” or “understand” about autism is next to nothing.

But having the camera crew there, that’s

a) a deviation from routine, which is upsetting to him;

b) creating a flood of sensory impulses, which throws his brain into overload mode;

c) undoubtedly accompanied by bright lights, which does makes things worse. Or do TV crews no longer require bright lighting nowadays?

I don’t consider his room calming either. It screams WHITE. Painting it a different colour might make a huge difference. Do I know that for sure? No, of course not. I have no experience with autism (other than with my very mildly autistic friend, as I learned a week or so ago) and hardly know a thing about it. But this white is not calming. And if I think about how an autistic person’s brain might work and remind myself that white does not exist but is the combination of all colours, then perhaps the use of one primary colour might be relaxing for an autistic mind whereas white might do the opposite.

It’s been said that colours that are relaxing during the day can give off a very different vibe at night. Is that also the case for autistic people? I have no idea. But does anyone else have an idea?

Does his room have an ability to play soothing music or other sounds that he finds soothing?

How do autistic people respond to white noise? Does anyone know? Has anyone ever looked at whether noise-cancelling headsets can support them, and if yes, how you could make those in such a way that the headphones don’t cause too much sensory input?

The Met is out of control


…one of its officers abducts and kills a woman. It takes days to ID her body, on the basis of dental records.


…other officers manhandle and arrest women who want to hold a vigil for this woman and claim the right to breathe freely while female without encountering abuse and violence.

I haven’t found the word yet that describes the Met’s behaviour.

The words “provocative” and “oppressive” come to mind and I hear an echo of regimes like Gaddafi’s in Libya, the suppression of the Uyghurs in China and what’s going on in Myanmar and Hong Kong.

And the right to protest and demonstrate – a human right – is about to be demolished if the proposed new legislation passes that will accomplish this.

This should be making all of us very nervous.

Because… what exactly is going on here?

Because this does not add up from a democratic point of view.

Even Priti Patel – OF ALL PEOPLE! – wants the Met’s actions reviewed.

Were the Met’s actions a protest against this new legislation that will curtail the right to protest, demonstrate and hold candlelight vigils? Or is the Met an organisation of callous sadists?

But the people are not going to be squashed.

20:55: Next, I learned about this…

Why Megan Markle may be the best thing since sliced bread for the UK

Because she is opening people’s eyes for what they didn’t want to see and made them listen to what they didn’t want to hear. Because it will slowly make them aware that the issue is broader than racism and extends to many other -isms and -igynies and -phobias.

I just spotted this image on Twitter. When you – I – say that some thing or some place is toxic, you may feel that maybe you’re exaggerating a little bit and do your best to remain pleasantly silent. Adjust, adapt.

That stops when you see and hear others say it. That is the big merit of Megan and Harry, all the things they have spoken out about, chosen not to stay silent about.

These are CNN headlines from June 2020:

Draconian curbs to the right to peaceful protest in the UK around the corner?

The past few days, I noticed a few tweets that made me wonder what they were about.

This morning, I spotted a retweet of this article:


Silencing Black Lives Matter: Priti Patel’s anti-protest law

Why hadn’t I seen anything about this on the sites of the BBC and The Guardian or in e-mails from The Independent? Is that because of the dreadful news about what happened to Sarah Everard?

(By the way, do you also feel that the police may have know he had a problem? Why was he transferred to patrolling embassies and so on, which probably meant that he was much more visible, after the Met hired him in 2018 and why were they on to him so quickly after Ms Everard disappeared? Even if they spotted that his path crossed hers, there normally would have been a big threshold toward suspecting him, unless a camera caught him and Ms Everard so clearly that the police had no choice but to zoom in on him? I wondered what his job was before the Met hired him. He may have been a security guard at a port before.)

So I did a search and found this:


Civil liberties groups call police plans for demos an ‘assault’ on right to protest

An article that I had missed in The Guardian, dated 11 March 2021

“Civil liberties campaigners have warned of a “staggering assault” on the right to protest, as police detailed how they would enforce controversial government proposals to restrict demonstrations.”

“On Thursday, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) published its plans for the future of policing protests, two days after the government announced proposed new laws granting more powers to officers and the home secretary.”

“Among other things, the police, crime, sentencing and courts bill will give Priti Patel powers to create laws to define “serious disruption” to communities and organisations, which police can then rely on to impose conditions on protests.”

From the article by Ian Dunt:

“On Tuesday, the Home Office published the police, crime, sentencing and courts bill. It covers a wide range of areas, from sentencing to digital information. But it has a specific section on the policing of protests. And the function of this section is simple: It aims to silence them.”

This bill has 307 pages.

The Guardian:

Matt Parr, from HMICFRS, said: “The right to gather and express our views is fundamental to our democracy. But this is not an absolute right. The police need to strike the correct balance between the rights of protesters and the rights of others, such as local residents and businesses.

“We found that the police too often do not find the balance between protecting the rights of the protesters and preventing excessive disruption to daily life, which even peaceful protest can sometimes cause.”

As Ian Dunt pointed out… this is the essence of protesting. To get heard and to be seen and to be noticed. There is no point in going to the middle of a forest and protest there. And the right to protest is a basic human right.

The Guardian also published this, a day later. Yesterday.


Is the Sarah Everard vigil ban part of creeping curbs on the right to protest?

Mounting concern that ministers are using pandemic to curtail freedoms in the UK

DEFRA consultation on regulation of genetic technologies (closes 17 March)

DEFRA currently has a consultation called “the regulation of genetic technologies”. Post-Brexit adaptations or not? Will we drop the phrase “even if their genetic change(s) could have been produced through traditional breeding” or not?

Post-Brexit, animal welfare protections are being abandoned. We can’t let that continue unbridled. This consultation is not just about animals, however. It is also about agriculture, bacteria and foodstuffs.

If you want to weigh in, you have up to 17 March, 1 minute before midnight. It will take you some time and you’d better have a bunch of references and links to data ready. 

It consists of two parts, that is, the actual consultation is Part 1. You can come back to Part 2 later after you’ve completed Part 1. I have been working on Part 1 so far. 

When I downloaded the 14-page document that goes with this gene editing consultation, I spotted several problems. There is a pretence of an emphasis on science and there is at least one or one half paragraph that has nothing to do with genetic technologies (obfuscation).

The document starts as follows:
“Building back greener is integral to creating a healthier, more resilient world for future generations and the Prime Minister has highlighted the need to take a more scientifically credible approach to regulation to help us meet some of the biggest challenges we face.”

This is the document’s fourth paragraph:
While GE is unlikely to be able to address all these complex challenges, a whole range of innovative approaches could help us make progress over time. These could include increasing agro-ecological approaches for land management, the use of robotics and artificial intelligence, vertical farming, and the development of undervalued protein sources.

The part in blue has nothing to do with gene editing. So why throw it in? The first sentence seems to suggest that there may not even be a need for gene editing. What is the purpose of this paragraph? To obfuscate? 

On page 5 it says:
“Our position follows the science, which says that the safety of an organism is dependent on its characteristics and use rather than on how it was produced.” 

That, with all due respect, sounds like pretentious nonsense. No references are given, no scientists are mentioned, no agencies or universities are named.

Anyone wishing to take part in this consultation, however, is supposed to provide evidence and literature references and the consultation is clearly not intended to draw the public’s opinion.

Also on page 5 of the consultation document, DEFRA mentions that Japan, Brazil, Australia and Argentina take a different position than the EU and there is the suggestion that the EU’s view is flawed. 

“Now the transition period has ended, retained EU law requires that all GE organisms are classified as GMOs irrespective of whether they could be produced by traditional breeding methods. This was confirmed by a Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) judgment in 20181. This is not consistent with the position taken by most countries who have reviewed their respective regulations like Argentina, Australia, Brazil and Japan, which have concluded that certain GEOs should not be regulated as GMOs.”

There is also a 2-page Gene Editing Explainer, which tells the public what to think, again without providing any literature references or links.

(Only Rothamsted Research in Hertfordshire is mentioned in it. Wikipedia says:
“previously known as the Rothamsted Experimental Station and then the Institute of Arable Crops Research” “one of the oldest agricultural research institutions in the world, having been founded in 1843”. It is located on the campus of “Rothamsted Enterprises”. I assume that it is comparable to some of the departments of Wageningen University and Research. I am unfamiliar with it, had never heard of it before.)

I am a little disgusted with the approach taken by DEFRA here. I have taken part in DEFRA consultations before, when that particular PM mentioned at the start of the document was not PM yet. I may not often agree with DEFRA, but DEFRA’s consultations did not use to annoy me. This one does.

It is a political document, isn’t it?

I may be way off, but I hear the PM’s voice in the background and I sense the assumption that the public at large does not have the capability to understand the science and/or that the public is not well informed enough to be able to contribute to this consultation.

(Note that research in Germany showed that providing more information did not make the public more accepting of the use of genetic technologies; link below. These kinds of studies are not my field of expertise and there may be plenty of studies that found the opposite. But if that were the case, then why did DEFRA provide so little information?) 

Below are my two cents, so far. Also biased, namely skewed toward caution, and written off the cuff.

In my opinion, organisms developed using genetic technologies such as gene editing (GE) must continue to be regulated as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) even if their genetic change(s) could have been produced through traditional breeding.

  1. Genetic technologies can have side effects that are not necessarily instantly clear. An example could be that the changes that Dr He introduced in a pair of human twins in China to make them immune to HIV could also have resulted in “off-target” changes and scientists are largely still in the dark about this. (Natural breeding does not have the potential for unintended changes that CRISPR still has.)
  2. The application of genetic technologies may also impact animal welfare differently than when their genetic change(s) are produced through traditional breeding. 

Regarding the question as to the risk associated with the application, the problem is that we cannot predict what we don’t know yet.

If you look back into history, you can see that in the past, we’ve often hailed as great progress what we later ended up banning.

  • We gave a Nobel Prize in medicine for the development of DDT. It almost eradicated the American bald eagle and that is only one aspect of its many side effects. DDT causes nerve damage and affects the hormone-producing systems of many animals, among other things lowering their fertility. In the United States, it was the environmentalist and marine biologist Rachel Carson’s work that eventually led to a ban on DDT and other pesticides.
  • We didn’t even foresee the blatantly obvious consequences of insecticides, namely that their use would affect pollination as well as bird populations.
  • Should I mention thalidomide? DES? That ibuprofen may affect male fertility?
  • Many people are pushing to have other harmful pesticides banned, such as glyphosate and chlorpyrifos. That isn’t because they’re afraid of progress. It’s because these substances are not as harmless as we thought.
  • When I was still based in the Netherlands and a board member of the Environmental Chemistry (and Toxicology) Section of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society, our section organised a symposium on brominated flame retardants. They were already being found in tissues of animals in the Arctic. Did we see any of that coming? No, we did not. Subsequently, there was a push to phase them out in favour of others that turned out to have similar problems.
  • Did we expect to do damage to the ozone layer when we introduced CFCs?
  • Should I mention PFAS? (You may want to look into the situation in the Netherlands, where PFAS in soil have caused major upheaval because the Dutch want very little of it in their soils and the stuff is everywhere. When permitted levels were lowered, construction ground to a halt all over the country.) But we all thought that non-stick coatings (also called Teflon, PTFE, polytetrafluorethylene etc) were the greatest thing since sliced bread. People with pet birds started noticing disastrous effects. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFAO), also known as C8, dissolves well in water and does not decay. It is now globally present in the air and in seawater. In the Netherlands, discharges by the Chemours plant in Dordrecht led to increased PFOA concentrations in the Merwede river and in the groundwater along its banks. In the U.S., a former DuPont plant in West Virginia released more than 1.7 million pounds of C8 into the region’s water, soil and air between 1951 and 2003. C8 was phased out after a class-action lawsuit that alleged that it causes cancer. Chemours now makes a new compound called GenX instead, for which safety thresholds have yet to be established. Regular water treatment methods don’t remove it from drinking water. GenX may be safer than C8, but it is also alleged to have caused tumours and reproductive problems in lab animals.

None of what I just wrote has anything to do with the use of genetic technologies. My point is that we never know with 100% certainty that all forms of progress are safe and we have missed the blatantly obvious in the past. This uncertainty also goes for genetic technologies. 

I also think that dropping “even if their genetic change(s) could have been produced through traditional breeding” would likely make the regulation harder to apply. It would have companies trying to find all sorts of shortcuts (to “prove” that the effect of the technology they used could also have been produced through natural breeding). It might lead to frustrating discussions and costly legal proceedings. It might even lead to more campaigning, protests, etc.

(I did not look into how Japan, Brazil, Argentina and the United States handle these matters.)

There might well be effects on trade as well. German consumers for example traditionally have put great emphasis on ensuring that their food is as “clean” as possible.


From the abstract:

“The consumers who are more accepting of genetic modifications are younger, less educated and less concerned about their nutrition. The average effect of our provided information is negligible. However, the initially less opposed become slightly more opposed. Our results thus do not support the view that a lack of information drives consumer attitudes. Instead, attitudes seem to mostly reflect fundamental preferences.”

Many of the questions and the choices for answers in the DEFRA consultation survey are blatantly biased and it is quite clear that DEFRA would like to see the phrase “even if their genetic change(s) could have been produced through traditional breeding” dropped.

Am I being too critical? I don’t think so.

See also for example these two articles:

https://angelinasouren.com/2018/12/11/an-opinion/ by Cecile Janssens, professor at Emory University. A quote: “Most DNA mutations do nothing else other than cause the disease, but DNA variations may play a role in many diseases and traits. Take variations in the MC1R “red hair” gene, which not only increases the chance that your child will have red hair, but also increases their risk of skin cancer. Or variations in the OCA2 and HERC2 “eye color” genes that are also associated with the risk of various cancers, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease. To be sure, these are statistical associations, reported in the scientific literature, some may be confirmed; others may not. But the message is clear: Editing DNA variations for “desirable” traits may have adverse consequences, including many that scientists don’t know about yet.



So, what exactly is the science that DEFRA claims to be following? It is not this kind of science.

It is too soon to abandon caution. 

12 March 2021
Here is the PDF with my response: 


I expected Part 2 to take as long as Part 1 – I imagine that the start of Part 2 is the point at which many give up – but it did not. And in essence, it was a repeat of Part 1.

Help Sellafield whistleblower stand up because #equality is for all of us

This caught my eyes in the BBC news this morning:
Senior equality consultant Alison McDermott was hired in 2017 to work on Sellafield’s equality strategy. When she did that, however, she got fired. She is standing up for herself and in doing so, she is standing up for many others.
She has no funding. On Twitter, she wrote 

“The other side have unlimited resources, and have already spent in excess of £250k to defend my claim, all of which comes from the public purse.” 
She’s set up a crowdfunder for herself. Please help if you can. Thanks.

Here is some more pretend-hacking for you

This guy is not really talking about hacking. He is just pretending that he is hacking so that he can hide that he does not even know how to switch his computer off. And if he is hacking after all, oh well, just block the guy on Facebook and you’re done.

Oh, ha, Meterpreter. Does not exist in real life, of course. That hacker is just making that up, too. Just like Metasploit. Does not exist either. Just like there is no poverty in the UK. Evil people are just making that up for political reasons. That there is a shitload of deep poverty in the UK, along with a lot of hate for women and other kinds of hate. Not true. Ask Piers Morgan.

“Let them eat biscuits” – kids, disabled people and other humans – food deprivation in the UK

This morning, I attended another online meeting about the escalating inequality, poverty and associated misery in England and the rest of the UK. That is, I was 15 minutes late, so I missed a few things.

It was also about how useless the UK government’s response is, as usual.

The only “advantages” coming out of the pandemic are going to the pals of the politicians who get large contracts to supply services and tangible products that they have no previous experience with. (This has led to a lawsuit, as you know, with the court ruling that the UK government is breaking the law through the lack of transparency. The judge wrote: “The Secretary of State spent vast quantities of public money on pandemic-related procurements during 2020. The public were entitled to see who this money was going to, what it was being spent on and how the relevant contracts were awarded. “)



14 million people in the UK live in poverty, it was said. That’s slightly under one entire quarter of the population.

Severely disabled people are currently five times more likely to be food-insecure.

Some links:




Comments from food-insecure people have included that they’d much rather have cash or vouchers over parcels. They are much better at stretching money than they are given credit for, getting cash or vouchers enables them to take food allergies into account and also allows them to buy fresh fruit instead of the obligate tinned peaches and mandarins, cereal instead of cornflakes and helps them avoid the cookies – or “the bloody biscuits” as the person in question put it.

From the chat:

“Let them eat biscuits.”

“The global humanitarian sector has been significantly moving away from food parcels to food vouchers. Cant believe in UK we still at food parcels discussion.”

“Most local authorities in Scotland have been providing cash payments to families, food parcels are not the go-to everywhere in the UK.”

Continue reading

Covid in the UK

Some time ago, I posted a comment on LinkedIn about how sewage monitoring could be used to focus test efforts. (I’d heard about it from a friend in the US.) Testing was still problematic in the UK back then. Very limited testing was going on.

Sewage monitoring avoids contact with infected people and the virus bits found in sewage are not infectious. More importantly, its results are much more representative than testing a specific group (for example on the basis of their profession).

This morning, The Guardian headlined:

It concerns a study by Term, a collaboration involving universities and the Joint Biosecurity Centre. Sounds good, right?

Then comes this bit:

“One of the problems we are working on is how to communicate the data to public health teams.”

Wow. Just wow. Remember who this comes from. A collaboration involving universities and the Joint Biosecurity Centre.

You could carry it out at sewage treatment plants to help you focus on broader areas (less detailed picture than when you test schools’ sewage). But if you don’t know how to communicate the results then that is a real problem and you probably urgently need some social sciences input.

What does this boil down to? Why would public health teams be reluctant to do something with these data? A fear of turf invasion? (Fear of loss of power and control?) Lack of faith in the data? lack of faith in science? What?

Read the article:

Choose happy chickens. Not Happy Eggs.

In my in-box just now, with photos and a video of thousands of miserable-looking chickens crammed in sheds:


Dear Friend,

Britain’s The Happy Egg Co. is one of the largest “free-range” egg producers in the U.K. The company’s marketing materials depict happy hens roaming vast green fields, but PETA U.K.’s footage tells a different story: The majority of the birds seen on farms supplying Happy Egg Co. had portions of their beaks cut off. Debeaking can cause lifelong acute or chronic pain.

On all three farms investigated by PETA U.K., they found that the corpses of dead birds were left to rot among the living.

Happy Egg Co. presents itself in a bright, cheery way to mislead consumers into believing that its products come from “happy hens.” In reality, the chickens live in filthy, severely crowded sheds and are subjected to debeaking.

Whenever animals are used for profit, they always suffer. “Cage-free,” “free-range,” and other feel-good labels are largely meaningless.

The best way to help hens is to stop eating eggs. There are so many great substitutes for eggs that you can easily continue to eat your favorite meals—just replace a few ingredients.


Chickens Left to Rot on Farms Supplying Happy Egg Co.: A PETA U.K. Investigation

Is this the ultimate narcissistic song?

Easy come, easy go, that’s just how you live, oh
Take, take, take it all, but you never give
Should have known you was trouble from the first kiss
Had your eyes wide open
Why were they open? (Ooh)

Gave you all I had and you tossed it in the trash
You tossed it in the trash, you did

To give me all your love is all I ever ask
‘Cause what you don’t understand is
I’d catch a grenade for ya (yeah, yeah, yeah)
Throw my hand on a blade for ya (yeah, yeah, yeah)
I’d jump in front of a train for ya (yeah, yeah, yeah)
You know I’d do anything for ya (yeah, yeah, yeah)

Oh, oh, I would go through all this pain
Take a bullet straight through my brain

Yes, I would die for ya, baby
But you won’t do the same

No, no, no, no

Black, black, black and blue
Beat me ’til I’m numb…

(By which I mean: is this a narcissist moaning that his victim isn’t more grateful for his abuse and flinging nonsensical criticisms in her direction? Turns my stomach, this song.)

Dealing with brain-based illness in society

For a long time, we’ve been criminalising brain-based illness but more and more voices are saying that we should turn away from this approach and stop sending police officers to deal with health crises. One of those voices belongs to U.S. Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley.


Pressley, Porter, Cárdenas, Scanlon Re-Introduce Bill to Reduce Violence Against Individuals with Mental Illness and Disabilities

February 25, 2021 Press ReleaseLegislation Empowers State and Local Governments To Create Mental Health First Responder Units

Bill Text (PDF) | One-Pager (PDF)

WASHINGTON – Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07), along with Congresswoman Katie Porter (CA-45), Congressman Tony Cárdenas (CA-29), and Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon (PA-05),  today reintroduced legislation to reduce violence against individuals with mental illness and disabilities. The Mental Health Justice Act would make it easier for state and local governments to send trained mental health professionals instead of police when an emergency hotline is called because an individual is experiencing a mental health crisis.

Fifty-four members joined the lawmakers in introducing the bill, and companion legislation was introduced in the Senate by Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Cory Booker (D-NJ).

“We should be sending culturally competent and trained mental health professionals to respond to community members in the midst of a mental health crisis,” said Congresswoman Pressley. “The Mental Health Justice Act would help end the criminalization of our neighbors with disabilities and provide them with the resources and care that they need and deserve. I’m grateful to Congresswoman Porter and colleagues for their partnership on this important bill.”

“We should be connecting people in crisis to care, not tossing them in jail,” Congresswoman Porter said. “Mental illness is not a crime, and we have to stop treating it like one. Most police officers are not trained to care for individuals experiencing a mental health crisis, which too often tragically leads to unnecessary violence. I’m proud to reintroduce this legislation that would make our communities safer for all.”

“The way we’ve criminalized mental health disorders and developmental disabilities has led to an increase in police-related violence and, in serious cases, death,” Congressman Cárdenas said. “We must drastically change policing in America – that means not treating everyone as a threat. This legislation will change emergency response protocols so that mental health providers are first on the scene of a mental health emergency. This will make our neighborhoods safer, and build trust between police and the communities they serve.”

“For too long, the problems of people living with mental illness and disabilities have been ignored, and they have ended up in our criminal justice system — often with fatal consequences,” Congresswoman Scanlon said. “In order to address their needs, and change the culture of policing in this country, we must direct resources to meet those needs in a way that provides alternatives to and diversion from arrest, abuse and incarceration. I am proud to join my colleagues in introducing this common sense legislation to provide resources to meet the needs of members of our community living with mental illness and intellectual and developmental disabilities.”

The Mental Health Justice Act would create a grant program to pay for hiring, training, salary, benefits and additional expenses for mental health provider first responder units. Grant recipients will receive technical assistance from experts through the Disability Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). States and localities that choose to use their own funding for program costs would also be able to apply for access to this expertise. 

The Treatment Advocacy Center estimates that 1 in 4 fatal police encounters involve someone with a severe mental illness, making the risk of death 16 times greater for these individuals than for others approached or stopped by law enforcement. Those who are arrested are often charged with minor, nonviolent offenses. As a result, jail and prison systems are overcrowded with thousands of individuals who would be far better served by other community resources.

The Mental Health Justice Act is endorsed by a robust coalition of advocacy organizations: Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Center for American Progress, Center for Law and Social Policy, NAACP LDF, Human Rights Watch, American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, The Arc of the United States, National Association of County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability Directors, National Health Care for the Homeless Council, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Clinical Social Work Association, National Association for Rural Mental Health, American Association on Health and Disability, Lakeshore Foundation, American Group Psychotherapy Association, National Alliance to Advance Adolescent Health, Kennedy Forum, Postpartum International, Association for Behavioral Health and Wellness, American Association of Suicidology, American Association for Psychoanalysis in Clinical Social Work, Disability Concerns – Christian Reformed Church in North America, Disability Concerns – Reformed Church in America, Justice in Aging, Trevor Project, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, TASH, American Society of Addiction Medicine, 2020 Mom, Union for Reform Judaism, American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychological Association, Public Citizen, Autism Society of America, CommunicationsFIRST, Association of University Centers on Disabilities, National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Drug Policy Alliance.

A one-pager on the Mental Health Justice Act can be viewed here.

Throughout her time in Congress, Congresswoman Pressley has led efforts to dismantle and reimagine our criminal legal system and prioritize trauma-informed mental health services instead of policing and criminalization. 

  • In November 2019, she introduced H.Res 702, The People’s Justice Guarantee, a comprehensive legislative framework that lays out a bold, new vision for justice in the American criminal legal system. The groundbreaking resolution contains provisions calling for the decriminalization of mental illness and the creation of first-responder agencies and community partnerships to respond to people in crisis who are living with substance use disorders, mental health conditions, and in poverty, in place of armed officers.
  • Earlier this month, she introduced H.R. 8544, the STRONG Support for Children Act, a bill that takes a holistic, reparative, and community-based approach to addressing the growing crisis of childhood trauma and recognizes the role that systemic racism and inequalities have played in traumatizing children for generations.
  • In December, she introduced H.R. 5325, the Ending PUSHOUT Act, to end the traumatic criminalization of Black, brown, and indigenous girls in school. Earlier this summer, she introduced H.R. 7848, the Counseling Not Criminalization in Schools Act, to reduce the growing presence of school-based police officers and invest in school nurses, social workers, mental health practitioners, and other professionals trained in trauma-aware practices.

Are we going to watch it happen? Homes aren’t Bitcoins.

So the UK has this impending explosion of homelessness building up, apparently.

Are we all just going to stand by and watch it happen?

Letting the homelessness tsunami happen will increase health disparities even further. Pandemic-related job losses have impacted the socioeconomic disadvantaged (women, minorities) disproportionately.

What solutions can we come up with to prevent this Covid-related flood of homelessness?

At the same time, we have so many homes and large buildings standing empty and not accruing any active income from being used. They’re mere investments, waiting for time to pass and their value to increase so that they can be sold off.

As if they were Bitcoins instead of homes.

We could start making an inventory of these empty homes and prepare them for evicted people to move into. For purely practical reasons, that might work. It is a lot of work to remove people from homes that were standing empty anyway. The same practical reasons may also mean that the flood of evictions will soon be simply too massive for courts and bailiffs to handle. These two practical factors might work very well in tandem, eventually.

But the latter is not the case yet at the start of this wave of homelessness.

I’ve found over the years that it is useless to contact any existing organisations in the UK. They all have their own agendas and they rigidly stick to those agendas, has been my experience.

So if something like the above needs to be done, it will require setting up new groups of people who will DO THIS.

Homeless? You may soon no longer be breaking the law

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Robert Jenrick MP, has told the House of Commons that the Vagrancy Act should be “consigned to history”.

Oh, that’s good of him, isn’t it?

At the same time, the UK government has quietly eroded the corona virus eviction protection – which was much less extensive than the one in the US to begin with – Lime Legal informed me this morning. It pointed me towards this article:


Autism. A little understanding goes a long way.

I have often written and said that I have no experience with autism, that I don’t know anyone who is autistic.

I was wrong.

For years, I had been following Henny K and her music work with autistic children – many of her clients cannot speak – to some degree. I had e-mailed her once or twice and gotten slightly unexpected responses, but figured that she was simply very busy.

Then I ran into the video below (bottom of page). Oh! I had no idea that Henny is autistic! A whole new world opened up.

Some time ago, when I found myself slightly annoyed with the responses from a friend in the Netherlands, the coin dropped. Might she be…? I looked at some checklists, thought back to experiences I had had with her over the years. (I have known her since the early 1980s, from before I went to university.) Some things seemed to click. Yes, she might be slightly autistic, and that realisation suddenly put my experiences – the one that annoyed or exasperated me, lol – in a very different perspective.

I also looked into what you should do if you suspect that someone may be autistic. You cannot “diagnose” someone else, but you can tell the person about your suspicion so that they can look into it and possibly find tools and methods that may make life a little easier for them, if they are indeed autistic. So I did.

There was no specific response.

A few weeks later, while we were Skyping, she said “Oh, by the way, you asked whether I might be autistic.” Turns out that her sister’s daughter is a psychologist and she bluntly told her mother “You’re autistic.” one day. The two sisters have talked about it and have also concluded that their dad is slightly autistic as well.

She is not highly autistic, my friend – to the extent that I can assess that – but the puzzle of her has now clicked into place for me. I’ve for example been in discussions with her in which she would suddenly apply such a “warped” kind of logic that I didn’t know how to respond. And I have gotten angry, too, a few times.

But there was something else that happened in recent years that had baffled me and that, so I now understand, comes from that inability to assess certain things from the perspective of others, who apply a different kind of logic. This is not “lack of empathy”. They step into other people’s shoes a lot. More than most of us. It’s just that when they step into another person’s shoes, the view can be very different from ours.

(Logic is not always what we think it is, no. We often apply logic on the basis of what we already know. It was one of my parrots who made me aware of this, that others can apply logic and still arrive at very different conclusions.)

Below is the video that I referred to at the start of this post. It took me a while to wrap my head around this. But eventually, I started to get a sense of it and once you do, you understand why environments with lots of flickering lights and lots of noise can be so hard to deal with for autistic people.

A little understanding goes a long way.

From now on, I can approach my friend with a lot more compassion than I had done in the past decades. (Oh yeah! I can be amazingly patient – or so I have been told – but I can also be very impatient – and I know it.) All it takes is for me to step into her shoes and try to see the world from her perspective. And then a lot of things start making a lot more sense and you – I – stop demanding the impossible.

My friend is only slightly autistic but the way in which she is little bit different has often annoyed me in the past and I have also sometimes attributed too much importance to remarks she made. At other times, the way in which she is different has also delighted me.

Observing the extent of neurodiversity can be like tiptoeing through a fairy tale land with delight and wonder. Oh, look at that elf and that gnome and that troll! Oh, saw that fairy flutter by on her delicate gossamer wings? And there, there is a genuine giant!