Former troops need more than pity and charity

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/05/returning-troops-attitudes-victoria-prosser

Version 0 of 1.

When Victoria Prosser stood up during the election debate to heckle David Cameron, perhaps too much attention was given to how she was dressed and not enough to the point she was making – how some returning armed forces people end up homeless. This point was a good one, in contrast to Cameron’s vapid response, about how money should be given to armed forces charities to help them. Cameron didn’t actually say: “Our brave boys and girls… Vote Conservative!” and dab his eyes with a union jack hanky, but he’d been caught on the hop, so you can’t expect everything.

Then again, the situation with the “difficulties” of returning service people is too complicated for a soundbite. There are some who end up homeless; others who return physically disabled and find themselves sucked into endless, complex, bewildering fights for their rightful benefits. Then there are those who return with post traumatic stress disorder, or other debilitating mental health difficulties, which can take years to develop fully.

Then there are the many success stories – the majority who leave the armed forces and get on with their lives, though even they sometimes have difficulty finding jobs. Sometimes, this is linked to public stigma – the cliche of the former British squaddie with anger, alcohol and drug problems hasn’t embedded itself as deeply as the Vietnam vet with flashbacks has in American life, but it’s out there. Obviously this is unfair and unhelpful. However, just as obviously, it very much suits governments, economically and socially, to neutralise the problems some armed services people face and try to “change the conversation”, redirecting attention elsewhere.

Lord Ashcroft’s Veterans Transition Review, and the parliamentary response to it, produced worthwhile interesting points, but these have been overshadowed by a bizarre sustained focus on stigma, with much blame ladled out to the media (and sometimes even the public) for propagating it. It’s as if suddenly stigma is the biggest issue, and telling off the media is the most important item on the agenda. Anyone who disagrees is somehow pro-stigma, intent on spreading the lie that our streets are full of marauding, homeless, unemployable former squaddies. Either that or they’re dismissed as charities with a vested interest in painting as negative a scenario as possible – as if charities could or should do anything other than talk about the people they are directly helping.

In truth, no one wishes to stigmatise returning service people and this is far from the most important item on the agenda. It’s merely the least expensive and easiest to sort out. (Huff and puff about the badly behaved media – job done!) The real difficulties are complex, expensive and far-reaching. Moreover, part of the problem seems to be the automatic reliance on charities, even if there are a lot of such charities and even if some of them are government-affiliated. How can it be right that Britain trains people and sends them to fight in wars, but, when some of them return, broken in need of aid, it’s mainly deemed a problem for charity and all about helping by giving money to charities? How wonderfully kind of Britain!

This attitude was evident in Cameron’s response to Ms Prosser’s question – the blether about charity, rather than direct government responsibility. There’s a shameful ethical disconnect, widely rooted in general attitudes to returning troops. It’s as if some people want to believe that problems are being dealt with – that all needy former service people are gently convalescing in bathchairs in stately homes, just like the old footage from the world wars. Similarly, it’s as if the government wants to create a scenario where simple, decent public concern for returning troops is deemed unhelpful, even potentially prejudicial. It will be a dark day for returning service people when a refusal to ignore myriad complicated problems some of them face is restyled as creating stigma.

Meek shall inherit a rail replacement bus service

It was interesting to note the underwhelming public reaction to the warnings to avoid rail journeys over Easter. Some official decided that the busy Easter period was a brilliant time to undertake major engineering works. But there were no riots, not even many complaints, just a stoic British acceptance that our trains are never going to run properly, especially not when large sections of the public really need them.

I’ve travelled by train during Easter before – it was akin to an aboriginal trek, with the addition of branches of Upper Crust, for all your refreshment needs. My journey involved much languishing at stations, as if starring in some misguided low-budget remake of Brief Encounter. After changing trains twice, passengers were finally herded on to the dreaded connecting bus service, in the manner of mournful beasts bound for the abattoir.

All the time, people were trying to juggle luggage, small children and Easter eggs, as if plunged into a nightmare alternative reality, fashioned by the unlikely dream team of Dante and Cadbury’s. It’s always nice to be officially warned to avoid such horror, but perhaps they could redirect their energy into actually sorting it out?

Ruby sets the record straight. Nearly

Baker and author Ruby Tandoh has tweeted about “coming out”, presumably as a lesbian, adding, “p.s. for those who thought I fancied Paul Hollywood or that I’d ever bang him to get ahead – JOKE’S ON YOU, YOU MASSIVE SHITTING MISOGYNISTS”.

Which I presume nicely synthesised all the frustration Tandoh felt as a contestant on The Great British Bake Off, when she was accused of using teary-eyed feminine wiles on presenter Hollywood.

All happiness to Tandoh, although I’m confused about this recurring issue of whether people find it difficult to accept so-called “femme” lesbians, because they look “too heterosexual”.

I would have thought that men in particular would have scant difficulty accepting this lesbian type because, visually at least, they are the most similar to the “lesbians” found in pornography. Porn’s definition of lesbian is a woman interested in other women, solely for men’s pleasure, until they are fully converted to heterosexuality by male sexual prowess. A routine part of the sapphic experience, I’m sure.

Along with the mythical porn “lesbian” is what I’d term the “lie-sexual”, where prominent public figures start hinting about their innate (though usually tantalisingly unproved) “bisexuality”.

This phenomenon is in no way confined to women. In the 1990s, the Suede frontman Brett Anderson had everyone hooting with the gem: “I’m a bisexual who’s never had a homosexual experience.” (It would be grand if Anderson could update us on his present status.)

Very recently, actor James Franco decided that he was gay, except for the fact that he didn’t have sex with men. So, hmm, let’s see, that’s perhaps not very gay at all, then?

• Comments will be opened in the morning