www.leonard-cheshire.com – the truth

In October of 2000 I had just finished working for Leonard Cheshire as their National Advocacy Officer (through the Leonard Cheshire Disabled People’s Forum) and was, as such, fully aware of the degree to which the Leonard Cheshire uses disabled employees. Leonard Cheshire use the employment and empowerment of a few disabled people – under 30 out of a staff of 6,000 - to give the impression to politicians, local authorities and policy makers that they are in some way a legitimate ‘disability’ organisation.

As an organisation, Leonard Cheshire has no conscience or qualms about exploiting disabled people for the furtherance of its expansionist aims. An example of this is the manner in which Leonard Cheshire have hijacked the anti-charges campaign not because it affects disabled people but because it affects their business: less disabled people receiving free social welfare support means less Leonard Cheshire victims and less money in their coffers. They give no credit to disabled people’s organisations for starting the campaign other than to align themselves with organisations ‘of’ disable people.

Starting a new career as an artist, needing a couple of web sites for different projects, I noticed that Leonard Cheshire did not have a number of web site domain names that they might have. I purchased www.leonard-cheshire.com. After all, they already had the name of their choice: www.leonard-cheshire.org. Thus, I immediately decided that a site needed to be created which revealed the truth about the Leonard Cheshire; as an artist it had to be an artistsic one. Art is not purely about images or fiction or creating fantasies. Great art reveals a truth about humanity. The site, I decided was to be a work of interventionist art, revealing the truth about charity and its effects and affects. I concluded that the art-work would be about an idea; an idea of freedom from the oppression of charity. It could, and would, use text, images, sounds and ideas to digitally detail our struggle for freedom from a ‘brand leader’ in oppression: Leonard Cheshire.

The site, as a work of interventionist art, was to provide a focus for the identification of the illegalities of a £750,000 National Lottery Charities Board application by the Leonard Cheshire that had failed to be dealt with appropriately by the Minister responsible. Leonard Cheshire misled the NLCB and completely ignored the rules governing applications for an award. No project can be funded by the NLCB if funding has already been approved elsewhere. Leonard Cheshire trustees had already agreed to fund the project out of their £20 million of reserve investments. Proof of this was the fact that Leonard Cheshire had actually advertised and interviewed the 10 staff to run the project prior to actually getting the award. NLCB funding was irrelevant except in saving themselves having to spend their own money on employing disabled people. Leonard Cheshire even failed to advertise one post that was simply appointed internally (against NLCB rules on equal opps). Interestingly, 2 of the 10 appointed from the NLCB funding have already left due to realising the true nature of the beast; and more soon will I suspect.

What was worse was the fact that I had in June 2000 brought to the attention of both the NLCB and the minister responsible for the NLCB, Chris Smith, Leonard Cheshire’s illegal practices prior to the award of the NLCB grant: Leonard Cheshire got the award anyway. Chris Smith now refuses to even discuss the subject anymore in correspondence with me: a typical governmental response to the rights of disabled people.

The site is purely a work of interventionist art – an art work which ‘intervenes’ in a social context critically. It has the principles of honesty and justice. It is a challenge the reactionary forces of oppression that the Leonard Cheshire is. Having the knowledge I did, and developed in collaboration with Liz Carr (see previous article in Coalition on Leonard Cheshire by Liz Carr), the development of the web site became an irresistible force of political expression which charity legislation prevented most organisations of disabled people from building. Charity legislation disallows political activity for all small disability charities but as with everything else, the same laws do not apply to Leonard Cheshire who spend £10,000s a year on political activity. An example of this is the way in which they run a political lobbying department called the External Policy Unit “fronted” by disabled people which publishes a newsletter which is sent to all MPs and Lords in Parliament.

The site is in no way personal and it is a work of art. It is carefully constructed to make a picture of society as it is. The site, as art, is designed to reveal a greater truth about society through the careful positioning and application of ideas. The greater truth being for the site as art, as in all great art, is to reveal and tear away the fantasies that conventional society lives its lives by: charity in this case. www.leonard-cheshire.com was constructed within a social model of disability framework. The web site followed within a long history of political activity, by disabled people specific to the abhorrent existence of the Leonard Cheshire. For example: the initial development of the disability movement by Paul Hunt, UPIAS and others; the Dan actions against Leonard Cheshire this year and the articles by disabled people in this esteemed organ such as Ken Davis, Liz Carr and Ken Lumb.

My previous connection with Leonard Cheshire has led them to seek to make it appear personal and, thus, they have created a smear campaign against me specifically designed to avoid the issues dealt with in the web site. Their press release (currently on their web site) states that I am acting in ‘bad faith’ and that the www.leonard-cheshire.com site is inaccurate, misleading and unpleasant towards individuals. Leonard Cheshire started this smear campaign specifically to scare journalists from taking up the story in the national press. Leonard Cheshire had been through the site with their lawyers seeking to see if they could ‘get me’ on libel or defamation: they could not. Every word on the web site is either true or, in fact, under-estimates their actual wealth, power and devious political practices. Devious practices such as lobbying MP’s to support their own business objectives, funding social inclusion reports whilst they themselves fail to include disabled people, having projects such as Workability to appear as partners with government agencies, et cetera.

Consequently, the only way Leonard Cheshire can silence disabled people’s opposition to their practices was through the World Intellectual Property Organisation Mediation and Arbitration Centre (WIPO) in Geneva (just to get the case heard they have to spend $3000 dollars). They sought to claim the domain name on the basis that it infringes their trade name and that they have common law rights to the name. They won the case, as is usual with big business and WIPO (the anti-capitalist demonstrators have now turned their attention to WIPO). The full submission they made can be seen on the site www.outside-centre.com site along with my rebuttal (all 10,000 words of it) and the rather amusing final decision documents. Their claims are laughable and rooted in the denial of disabled people’s human rights to free speech. If they had wanted the domain name they could have had it: Leonard Cheshire chose not to take www.leonard-cheshire.com, so I did. Leonard Cheshire has spent £10,000s of pounds on web design and development but were not even competent enough to get all domain names that use their trade name or not. Bizarrely, as stated in the decision document in favour of Leonard Cheshire, if I had included “sucks” in the domain name I would have won!

The inability to choose a domain name by Leonard Cheshire is revealing of a very key issue about them: their exploitation of disabled people is not vindictive or personal. What it is, is a combination of pure business combined with a culture of incompetence, dehumanisation of its victims and bad practice. Very much like the slave trade in the 18^th Century. If it were rooted purely in malevolence it would be much easy to challenge but its practice is very much deemed by their trustees and workers to be rooted in benevolence; thereby making it much harder to challenge. Especially, when one considers, their political supporter’s malevolent aim to marginalise and ignore disabled people voices (i.e., Chris Smith and other government ministers).

I have no excuse for working for Leonard Cheshire other than a desire for 30 pieces of silver (and 46 pence per mile expenses). The wealth and political power of Leonard Cheshire will only increase if those that currently work within continue to do so. Leonard Cheshire’s apparent willingness to create debate and appear to be changing only serves to give greater legitimacy to Leonard Cheshire as the actual voice of disabled people. Disabled people’s participation within that process only serves their purposes, not disabled people. As long as University departments, disabled people in any way shape or form, or their service users engage with them they will only go from strength to even greater strength and significance. We must learn (they have given us so many lessons) that the Leonard Cheshire does not actually give a damn about the actual needs of disabled people. Business is business and they will do whatever they need to for business. When will we learn the lessons they have so consistently taught us for the last 50 years?

It is for this reason that it is essential that the Leonard Cheshire Disabled People’s Forum is identified for what it is (a state sanctioned lottery-funded exercise to legitimate Leonard Cheshire) and, as such, it must be marginalised by the Disabled People’s Movement and our organisations. I say this as a former Forum worker and as someone with lifelong friends within the forum. It is not personal; it is business: the business of disabled people’s human rights. Most significantly though is the fact that most people within the Disabled People’s Forum are fully aware of the need to isolate Leonard Cheshire in all its manifestations.

The fact that Leonard Cheshire is so unwilling to even listen to those service users that want to preserve their institutions is indicative in itself. Leonard Cheshire says it works for its service users and listens to them, but even when service users want to keep a home open they will shut it against its own users wishes (as is the case with Le Court). Additionally, Leonard Cheshire did not even ask its own Disabled People’s Forum to support residents who support Leonard Cheshire in institutionalising disabled people (re: the Le Court issues); an identification of the most staggering indifference to even its ‘own’ disabled people. Significantly, the ‘great’ man’s daughter is taking the side of residents at Le Court against Leonard Cheshire; just as Sue Ryder did against the accountants who took control of her charity (go to www.savelecourt.fsnet.co.uk) . Business is business!

As business is business, disabled people have got to attack the business where it hurts. Thus, the web site had a boycott page; a web site page where (initially) One 2 One mobile telephone company are identified as a business that supports Leonard Cheshire. We must boycott and let business know that it is bad business to support Leonard Cheshire. I have changed my mobile phone company purely on the basis that One 2 One support Leonard Cheshire: you must do the same (it costs nothing and you can still keep you same mobile number) if we are to achieve human rights for all disabled people. Business is business! The boycott is essential given that the large charities have most of the media in their pockets.

It is no surprise that Leonard Cheshire, in its ‘Enabled Awards’, gave an award to The Guardian’s leading social affairs writer. One result is that it is now exceptionally unlikely that any major, or minor, stories of interest that undermine the illusions of decency that Leonard Cheshire promotes of itself will get an airing in The Guardian now. In fact, in the reporting of WIPO decision against me, The Guardian reported the same old lies said against me in the Leonard Cheshire press release issued many months before about it being inaccurate and misleading.

To be fair to The Guardian, the same refusal to question the fantasies of charities is true of all the major newspapers and media agencies (including the likes of the BBC and ITN). The key reason being that Leonard Cheshire, and the other big 5 charities, spends millions of pounds a years feeding such news agencies with pre-prepared ‘charity’ stories (already written and ready for publication / images included). It is not in the interests of the news media industry to challenge ‘Charity’ as it major operators (Leonard Cheshire being an expert exponent of the practice) saves it a fortune by doing its work for them.

By having a finely tuned PR machine, Leonard Cheshire undermines any opposition to its views. For example: the smear campaign against myself; the promotion of themselves as an equal opportunities organisation; and the appropriation of the disabled people’s anti-charging campaign. They even had photograph of Jane Campbell on a picket line alongside their parliamentary lobbying material about their anti-charging campaign! Leonard Cheshire will always get to the heart of any news organisation much more effectively than anything any of us can or will; they spend £5 million a year ensuring it. In addition, their stories will always come with the tag that it is coming from the legitimate voice of disabled people: Leonard Cheshire.

As an artist I have the luxury not to have to compromise on behalf of others – to push the agenda further in a more direct way that is not purely about self-interest and not about creating equality for the few at the expense of all others. Disabled artists are at the forefront of this and must not compromise now or in the future. The site, as a work of art, was about revealing how the comprise of the many destroys the lives of the few. But the few are becoming more: Leonard Cheshire now claims to have 15,000 service users.

Information technology offers an enormous potential for activism and disabled people have so far failed to grasp it as they should and can. WIPO – the self-proclaimed arbiters of Internet domain name regulation – will try to stop us in association with the large charities but we must make our presence known. I would recommend that disabled people get out there and cost the charities money. Buy domain names that are exact matches of the charity that exploits you. You will loose but it costs you nothing to loose; it costs them over $3000 per time to win.

To continue the site as a work of interventionist art, it has now become a collaborative artwork. Disabled people across the UK have bought domain names that will continue the ‘intervention’ in to the practices of Leonard Cheshire. Leonard Cheshire went on a domain name-buying spree after the creation of www.leonard-cheshire.com but their incompetence is both staggering and revealing of the fantasy of their claims to www.leonard-cheshire.com. Leonard Cheshire’s actual trade mark name and registration is Leonard Cheshire Foundation and, to continue the art of revelations about them, disabled people across the UK in support of www.leonard-chesire.com have bought the domain names: www.leonardcheshirefoundation.com (£25); www.leonardcheshirefoundation.net (£25); www.leonardcheshirefoundation.co.uk (£15) and www.leonardcheshirefoundation.org.uk (£15). They re-direct the web surfer to an anti-hunting group, a support group for gay and lesbians and a dildo site. It is a continuation of the ‘intervention’; only this time with more wit. Leonard Cheshire has let down its gay and lesbian service users very badly: some consider suicide in the homes through feelings of being a ‘freak amongst freaks’: so much for enabling.

Leonard Cheshire obviously saw no need or desire to actually have the domain names that matched their trade mark name but wished to have my site. Their failure to take all the above new domain name holder to domain name court would clearly indicate that there true interest in taking the name of off me is little more that the infringement of my human right to free speech about the Leonard Cheshire through intimidation and threats. What they wanted was to silence opposition not uphold their copyright. They have succeeded in the short term.

What does the future hold? For www.leonard-cheshire.com it is the promotion of Leonard Cheshire within the United States. For the art I produced, almost nothing. The site’s original content is now on another web site (www.outside-centre.com), unlikely to be seen by those seeking the truth about Leonard Cheshire from Leonard Cheshire. The future is bleak for all disabled people as long as the Leonard Cheshire is around but, as the old Spanish proverb says: the darkest hour is always the hours before dawn. Disabled people’s organisations are somewhat tied by the fact they have, by and large, become charities and are, as such, seemingly constrained in the political activity they can do. They are not, we are scared when we need not be. Disabled people have lost a battle. The war is still to be won. Even dripping water eventually will bore a hole through a rock.

2889 words

2001