On the same day of Lord Justice Leveson’s report on how the press is going to be regulated, a survey is published on the high salt content of cheese.
The press is obsessed by itself. It is frantically worried that it is going to be told what it can and cannot do. Its connection to the police, politicians, and the entertainment industry is its life blood, and its poison.
The Leveson Enquiry and Salty Cheese

To look at it another way it is an expose of how humans communicate unfettered by political correctness or the service nicety of the public and third sectors.
Humans huddle together to gain influence, power, or survival. It does not matter – it is the nature of humans. Like the Royal Family’s close ties to the Royal Families of the Arab states, like attracts like. Politicians need the press’ access and influence to the electorate to win power. The police want to keep in with the press to forward their aims and to cover up or turn a blind eye when things go wrong. Look at Hillsborough – the immediate press reaction was to blame the fans not the police.
Then why are we so shocked?
The marketing and selling of democracy emphasises freedom and fairness. It creates the illusion that power can be monitored and held to account. To be fair democracy appears to be able to do this but not until long periods of time have passed while blameless individuals are hurt. Democracy does not react quickly. It needs evidence of repeated failings topped with a heinous injustice such as the what happened to the Dowler family.
The Leveson Enquiry and Salty Cheese

Democracy does not react to the building pressure of low level crimes but to the peak of bad behaviour. The marketing of democracy lulls us into a false sense of fairness that is  not true.

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2012
All rights reserved
Disclaimer: This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only.
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique.

The General Synod voted to reject women bishops. No Women Bishops

The House of Bishops voted 44 for and 3 against, the House of Clergy 132 for and 45 against, and the House of Laity 132 for and 74 against.  The House of Laity scuppered the vote. Its members are not part of religious institutes or clergy. They include committed churchgoers who are unelected and chosen by the vicar on the basis that somebody has to do it.

The argument stated by members of the laity who voted against women bishops was that the unification and concept of one church was under threat: and that the church would split if women bishops were allowed. The Church is trying to be an umbrella church to many other different churches with opposing views.
The general response appears to be concern and wonderment that this can happen in the modern secular world of 2012.

But are we in danger of making the fixed assumption that organisations are always there to serve the populations stated in their mission statements and values?

It might be broadly assumed that organisations in the public and charity sectors must be like this. For example the NHS was created to provide the UK population with free health care at source. Yet “appalling” examples of health care have been cited in today’s news.
Cuts and political ideology could be argued as a reason for this?

But then witness a Board Meeting, or senior management meeting and there seems to be other conflicting powers at work. Budgets, perception of what the organisation is, areas of change, and personalities bear down on what the organisation is trying to do. The organisation can be divided into the staff on the ground dealing with the client group and others at a more senior level have forgotten or never experienced who the client group is, dealing with reports and data. Workers dealing directly with the client group doggedly stick to their task feeling that even attending meetings is taking them away from their work. Managing the tension between these two points of view is what is demanded in these times of cut backs and ideology.

The Synod has the unenviable task of representing modernity to attract people to its cause, and working with the traditionalists. In an attempt to keep the Church unified, the politics of personalities, cultures, and countries under a Unified Church has come before the people it serves.
No Women Bishops

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2012
All rights reserved
Disclaimer: This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only.
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique.

Israel and Palestine: Group Dynamics
The Israeli and the Palestine issue has flared up again. Egypt has now backed Gaza, and the question of war is in the news.

This conflict has been a modern issue since the British Mandate for Palestine in 1922. This ‘agreement’ promoted the division of the British protectorates – Palestine, to include a national home for the Jewish people. This area had been in control of the Middle East since the 16^th Century.
Mix this with the arrogance of the British Empire in believing the world was there to cut up at its own convenience, coupled with the effects of the Holocaust of the Jews – saying that it was never going to work would be an understatement.

Political commentators link the escalation of the violence to elections in Israel and an insecurity that makes it its own worst enemy. The phrase “Own worst enemy” is generally applied to people – individuals. So perhapsan analogy of a group of people might be helpful?

The members in the group come from all over the world. The group is dominated by a sub group of  members who are wealthy and powerful. They influence the group and the rules that govern it.

Among many conflicts two group members are in constant conflict which flares up into violence periodically. Both these members have had abusive pasts unimaginable to others in the group. Other group members wring their hands partly in guilt, partly in denial, with varying degrees of support for either side: but ultimately do not want to be involved, or feel powerless.

The two group members in conflict are similar but in very different situations. Both come from a similar origin in the Middle East historically respecting and incorporating each others’ religions into their own. One has the financial backing of other powerful members of the group and lives a wealthy lifestyle; the other has less support from these group members, but has a lot of moral support from large sections of the group. This group member lives their life in hardship, poverty. Both are very, very angry with each other, constantly blaming and attacking each other.

A group facilitator would be looking at the conflict between the two group members, mindful that there is an element of a set up about this dynamic. These two members have been manipulated into this situation by the self-interest and greed of the descendants of the powerful group members.

The exploration of this abuse, and the feelings behind it might create an opportunity to keep the ‘presenting past’ back in the past so that the present situation can be looked at in a more objective way.
This element of the past never being resolved and playing itself out in the present is repetitive, and stuck. In the group the representatives of the main powerful players from the 1920s would be encouraged to stand up and take responsibility for their roles.
Unless the original hurts are addressed – the group cannot move forward.
Israel and Palestine: Group Dynamics

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2012
All rights reserved
Disclaimer: This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only.
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique.

Cycles of Democracy
So Mr Obama won the US election by appealing to the Hispanic vote along with women and young people. Not to be underestimated was his military like election campaign with Obama’s army of volunteers  maximising voter turnout.

His opponent Mr Romney, a multimillionaire, whose wealth & power enabled him to run a close campaign but he could not win even though at face value his business acumen looked attractive to lift the US out of financial crisis. Commentators in the US are predicting that Republicans are going to have to re-invent themselves. White middle aged men voting republican are losing influence, as their numbers decrease and Latino populations increase.

In the UK the Bishop of Durham Justin Welby is set to become the next archbishop of Canterbury partly for his business acumen, and conflict resolution skills. The Government is led by a group of privileged white male Etonians who are seen as wealthy,upper class and out of touch with the general population.
What a topsy turvy world it is!
But what does it mean? It seems the US and the UK are on different cycles. The cycle of Labour/ Conservative and Democrat/Republican are not in synch. The downturn in the UK is being governed by a conservative led coalition, and the downturn in the US being led by their first black democratic president. The UK is still in recession and the Conservatives appear no better with their apparent business edge in resurrecting the economy as does Obama with no business edge in the US.

This relationship between business and being able to improve the economy seems impractical and voting populations do not believe it. The private sector appears ineffective in job creation as it is dependent on confidence and trade, while the public sector creates jobs from an ideology at times out of touch with the economic environment.

Perhaps this is the difference: ideology versus business is what differentiates the governing parties in the free world. The business people would say that money and wealth enhances everyone’s life while the ideologues say it benefits the business people more: benefitting everyone else is a side effect.

Are you republican or democrat, conservative or labour? Are you motivated by money, ideology or both? How did you get there? Was it your family, experience, or choice?
Lets hope we never find out – as Obama’s volunteers might have exploited it!
Cycles of Democracy

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2012
All rights reserved
Disclaimer: This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only.
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique.

Communication in Cultures
Patients arriving for an advice appointment at a local charity located in a large NHS building are turned away. The NHS reception staff haven’t heard of the charity, even though the charity has been in the building for 18 months. Is this just a lack of knowledge, communication or a difference in culture?

The culture only hears what the culture recognises. The NHS is a large scale organisation set up in a hierarchy and departments. The charity is a small stand- alone organisation supporting residents in the local community. It would be unusual for a patient to enter the NHS saying they were asking for advice, the phrase which the NHS reception staff might not have understood. They would be more familiar hearing a visit to the GP, or the name of a department.

NHS communications are run through meetings of departments which have a treatment link: there is no natural link for a charity giving advice in an NHS situation, so the charity remains invisible in meetings and communications.
The issue of culture between the public sector and the voluntary sector remains.

This idea can be expanded to different cultures within cultures. The voluntary sector runs charities with Boards of Trustees. These are volunteers who give their time to what the Voluntary Sector calls Governance. Governance is strategic not operational. The Board gives leadership to the organisation through mission statements, aims and objectives, and governs the finances. The Board and the CEO steer the charity in a constantly changing financial and political environment.

There is an obvious tension between the CEO and the Board which can be exasperated with a difference in culture. Some trustees will have skills that are not linked to the business of the charity. They might be business people, in Advertising, Finance, HR, or law. They are there to give back something to their local community by offering these skills which would be unaffordable to many small charities.

If the charity provides support services to students in schools, then there can be a tension in cultures between what the charity is doing compared with the trustee lawyer who is trying to focus on finance. Questions on finance might not be understood by the CEO or staff because their focus is on service delivery.

The issue of power is also present: in that the trustees are volunteers who effectively employ the salaried CEO. It is not an equal relationship so the both sides have to facilitate a professional common ground.

CEOs understandably do not want trustees meddling in operational issues, and trustees want to use their different skills to forward the aims of the Charity. For either side to say that they do not understand, or do not have the skills takes courage, skill, and confidence. The key to this is the relationship between the Chair of Trustees in giving a clear consolidated view of what the Board needs, and the CEO and senior staff explaining what abilities and resources they have to provide this.
This is easier said than done!
Communication in Cultures

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2012
All rights reserved
Disclaimer: This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only.
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique.

What is the unconscious? Do you believe in it? How is it relevant today? The most obvious place to start is the supermarket. Clever sales techniques such as the smell of baking bread as we go through the door, or the way products are placed and constantly moved around the store so that we buy them. Subliminal messages encourage us to buy things that we do not need, usually to support a life style that we are buying into.

Go and watch Derren Brown suggesting a product logo to two marketing men, who end up creating an image that he had previously drawn. We are all open to suggestion. The Unconscious would argue that we are open to suggestion far more effectively subliminally than we are consciously. After all the conscious has so many rules and regulations to stop you buying something it is more effective to bypass it!

Packaging is a good example. The way the product is packaged can make or break the sale. Twenty years ago opening the box of your apple computer was a revelation. It had pictures of colourful flight balloons all over the front with a welcome message hoping you would enjoy your apple mac inside. Unheard of when all you expected were a set of instructions. The colour and the way it was manufactured made you think it had been created for you!

Freud discovered the unconscious in the freaky city of Vienna in the late 19th Century. A city full of creative ideas with a submissive female population of servants employed in households run by dominating authoritarian men. A man of his time he was sexist, got it wrong and fell out with anyone who did not agree with him. Yet the unconscious survives today, with the daily Freudian slips, and references to childhood influencing adulthood.

Then Jung’s idea of the Collective Unconscious: a shared history of humanity might neatly explain the idea of history repeating itself. Why do we not learn from history? Like our own individual lives the repetition might be telling us something that we choose to ignore.

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2012
All rights reserved
Disclaimer: This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only.
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique.