The Myth of the Myth of the Gender Pay Gap

This blog post is written in response to a Milo Yiannopoulos video that was shown to me. I was going to write my response in the comments underneath but it became too long so I decided to write a blog post instead.

I’m in two minds about sharing the video because I don’t want to increase the views of an alt right, sexist, homophobe, however, I think its fair to provide people with a balanced view. So here it is.

This video seems to make out that it is women (and perhaps biology slightly) that bring any sort of pay gap upon themselves through having different priorities or generally not working as hard. This is an extremely lazy point to make. I can see how its very attractive as it puts the onus on women to fix these issues and takes the focus away from government policy and the negative effects of capitalism – therefore women can look at it and believe that they can take it upon themselves to change for the better on an individual basis - problem solved! Government can promote it and get away with implementing oppressive policies towards women and big business can continue their focus on their key priority, which is profit, at the expense of their workers.

I think the use of the word ‘choices’ in this video is quite powerful and has dangerous implications. Much of what holds women back in their careers are not personal choices but decisions made for them, either by society or nature. Our personal aspirations and priorities are defined intensely by our social class, race, sexuality and gender. We can aspire as much as we want but the reality is that our society sets boundaries for what is and isn’t possible for each person. The fact that the majority of high paid jobs are taken up by men is not a coincidence, nor is it that they simply work harder and therefore deserve the role more. There is much more depth to this subject than that.

Reproduction does come into this – weather or not women choose to have babies. According to research, women are still judged largely upon their potential or actual reproductive capacity when applying for jobs/promotions. Notice that this is not a CHOICE of the woman – whether she choses to have a child or not is irrelevant in this instance.

Yes women have children and therefore require different support to men. This comes into what Milo says about women “taking more from the system than paying in”. It is a fact that women claim more in benefits than men, however, this is not to be confused as a luxury. Duty of care – whether it be caring for children or other family members – disproportionally falls upon women, prompting them to have to claim more in child benefit, carer’s allowance etc. Do we honestly believe that women should therefore be labeled as scroungers and lazy? That they bring this pay gap upon themselves? That their lifestyle is a choice solely made upon their own personal preferences?

When it comes to women claiming more benefits than men it is a fact that women make up the majority of public sector jobs and have therefore been hit the hardest by austerity. It has been proven that when recession hits, it impacts women at a much grater rate than men and when recovery sets in, men benefit over women. Did women alone cause the financial crash of 2008? These are all factors that are not decided by the women themselves but by others. 

It is also important to consider the fact that social care is being slashed by our government, not only causing women in this sector to lose their jobs but also causing a reduction in services specifically designed to support vulnerable women. Single mothers on low incomes and women in violent relationships are not receiving the support that they require due to actions largely caused by men; lack of involvement from fathers with their children and abusive partners/relatives. How is a woman in this situation supposed to prosper at the same rate as a man within her career?

As I said, yes women to have children and surprise, surprise, yes this means that they require maternity leave – a fact that is not going to change any time soon. Implying that this is some sort of indulgence that therefore justifies men progressing with their careers over women is absurd. Carrying, birthing and caring for a baby requires far more physical and emotional strain than showing up in an office each day. Women should be accommodated in these situations – not resented, not pushed to the back of the queue. We should be tackling the workplace bullying and resentment towards women who go on maternity leave (and yes, this does happen) by exploring ways to keep options open for them when they decide to return to work. Also remember that reproduction benefits both men and women but that women bare the brunt of it.

There is far more depth to this issue than this 3 minute 20 second video explores. It does seem to be a trend with the alt right to gloss things over as being very black and white and not exploring root causes of issues, to find an easy scapegoat to blame and relentlessly persist that there is nothing more to the issue. Reeling off facts such as “women take longer holidays” is completely useless when you are not looking at the bigger picture. 

Can we also take into account the outrageously sexist tone of the video itself – “feminists don’t like numbers” “economics are too complex for them” – generalisations such as these are what has created and continue to fuel the oppressive culture that we have, the culture that stops women from progressing in the first place and therefore makes it - as Milo would like to put it - “a lot more expensive being a man”.

*credit to Dawn Foster's book - 'Lean out' 

Why the left must not quit and why now is not the time for Jeremy Corbyn to resign.

 

“In order to win an election, you must appeal to centrists and Conservative voters.” – a claim I have heard one to many times and one that inspired this blog post.

 

Following Labour’s defeat last week in the Copeland by-election, it is easy for supporters to feel disillusioned and even feel ready to give up. But for the left of the party, surrender is not an option.

One cannot compromise by moving to the centre when the aim is to achieve a left wing, anti-austerity government, for the simple reason that the centre does not represent these views and therefore, a centralist party will never achieve such aims.

 

When we look back at Ed Miliband’s failed austerity-lite manifesto, it is perfectly clear to see why Labour did not win the last election. It was a pendulum that swung between Tory policy and a failed attempt to mask such right-leaning proposals in an effort to try to keep left voters interested. Miliband suggested that his party would not radically depart from the Tory-led government’s austerity programme and stated that Labour would find a way of “doing more for less”.

In this instance we not only saw views and values of a centralist party – not representative of the left – but also saw an overwhelming election defeat. Those arguing that appointing a centralist leader with such policies will offer a quick fix to Labour’s problems clearly have not thought this all the way through.

When it comes to the idea of replacing Corbyn with a more ‘media friendly’, liberal leader for the sake of possibly winning more votes, it is important to ask ourselves – at what cost?

We are living in a society where, in the first half of last year, more than 500,000 three day emergency food parcels were distributed to people in crisis - over 188,500 of which went to children.

2016 also saw 200,000 more children living in poverty than the previous year, with figures reinforcing projections from experts such as the IFS and the Resolution Foundation that UK child poverty is set to rise by 50% or more by 2020.

 

Not only this, but just over the past week we have seen Conservative ministers introduce emergency legislation which denies 160,000 vulnerable people from receiving benefits that are rightfully theirs – this is following the UN enquiry that took place at the end of last year, which showed that austerity policies introduced into welfare and social care by the UK government amount to “systematic violations” of the rights of people with disabilities.

 

The government continues to cut our services in social care and the strain on the NHS continues to grow, at the same time as we are seeing it being sold off to private companies, piece by piece.

Taking all of these factors and more into consideration it is clear that being anything other than radical with our views and demands is nothing more than being complacent. The truth is that there is no quick fix when it comes to the fight for an equal, socialist society. What we need now more than ever is a mass increase in popular and industrial action – backed by the whole of the Labour party and by our trade unions - to hold our current government to account for their actions.

 

We need to fight to save our NHS from collapse, we need to fight to build more affordable homes and we need to fight for an environmentally conscious future. Now is not the time to back down, it is the time to step up.

 

We cannot allow Theresa May to use Brexit as a free pass to make a TTIP-like agreement, that may have a detrimental effect on our workers rights and public services, with the US or any other country for that matter.

 

We must aim for a future in which a left government possess the ability to nationalise various industries and services, while enforcing fairer pay and putting an end to the racist rhetoric that we have seen increase dramatically under this Conservative government as a result of their neoliberal policies. None of this will ever be achieved by compromising or by moving to a middle ground.

 

Even if one were to suggest that Labour must find a new leader in order to win the next election – who would take Corbyn’s place? Who is the magical, media-friendly candidate that will not only keep the thousands of people who have joined Labour under Corbyn but also win over the centre and take back the discouraged voters that have turned to the far right? All while sticking to the policies set out by Corbyn.

 

If anything, all a change in leadership would do is leave those who have found revival in politics through Corbyn’s policies feeling disillusioned and left behind, therefore causing significant damage to Labour’s growing following.

We saw the failure of Owen Smith and – dare I say it – Angela Eagle last summer when the pair took it upon themselves to challenge his leadership. Resulting in wasted time that could have been spent focusing on the crumbling of the Conservatives after Cameron’s resignation.

 

Whatever steps Corbyn makes, he will be portrayed as a weak leader by the mainstream media and opposing parties - as well as by some within his own  – especially if he were to step down from the party. That in itself would be a defeat of the left and the chances of the PLP replacing him with anyone that mirrors his views are slim-to-none. The only option that we have in this situation is to stand our ground and continue to fight. If we don’t stick to our morals, then what do we have left?

 

And for those that tell us that our views are not viable – that we have seen socialism attempted and in turn, seen it fail - we must ask them how many times we must see austerity fail before we seek another option?

How can we be surprised that May won’t ban Trump’s State visit to the UK when she has been upholding many of his values for years?

Today we have seen public outrage across the UK after Theresa May’s dismissal of a petition urging her to ban Donald Trump’s State visit to the UK until he reverses his mass ban on immigration. But how can we expect our Prime Minister to hold the new President to account for allegations of sexual assault, oppression of minorities and jabs at people with disabilities and mental health needs when her own track record mirrors these exact things.


When Theresa May landed the position of Prime Minister on 11 July 2016 we heard many people celebrating the idea of a woman leading our country. A photo of May and SNP leader, Nicola Sturgen was propelled across the Internet with a caption that stated that no matter what your politics, this picture shows girls that anything is achievable. I felt sick to my stomach upon reading this.


Those who endorse identity politics may have seen May’s move into Number 10 as a victory for women but to look at it in such a narrow minded, black and white manner completely disregards the immense impact that her career has had on women and minorities across the globe.


During her time as Home Secretary, May demanded an inquiry into the treatment of domestic violence victims by the police – very anti-Trump, one may think – however at the same time it came to light that she was allowing the “state-sponsored abuse of women” at the Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre, in which Serco security guards were sexually and verbally abusing detainees. In fact the Home Office literally refused to reveal how many detainees had been sexually assaulted or raped inside the Centre in Bedfordshire to avoid any harm it might cause to the “commercial interests” of the private companies involved in running it. Silencing vulnerable, abused women in exchange for profits is alarmingly similar to the views and values put out by Trump.


We are (quite rightly) seeing mass protests and uproar following Trumps move to ban more than 218 million people from the United States and to deny entry to all refugees. Something most of us feel is so evil it is beyond comprehension. But are we forgetting what May did in 2013 when she sent out a crusade of vans with the slogan ‘Go Home or Face Arrest” plastered across the side? She has also consistently voted for a stricter asylum system, including voting to restrict the support available to failed asylum seekers and illegal migrants in 2015. Following this she voted against giving asylum seekers permission to work if a decision on their application takes over six months. May also voted against banning the immigration detention of those who are pregnant and against guidance to be taken into account on the immigration detention of vulnerable people. The list goes on.


When David Cameron made his pledge that Britain would take 20,000 of the most vulnerable Syrian refugees, May insisted that the UN Refugee Agency should not be involved in nominating which would qualify. Instead Home Office officials have been sent to the camps to select by their own criteria those who should be brought to Britain. Ultimately, those who get the chance of a potentially prosperous life and those who are left without hope and without a place to call home.


Although this is not an outright ban created to target Muslims specifically from entering the country, you can hardly look at May’s voting record and take from it that she is in favour of helping immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers.


While Trump labels the mentally ill as ‘weak’ and ‘murderers’ and mocks people with disabilities, May continues to laugh in the faces of the vulnerable by projecting a persona of someone who cares, while constantly slashing funding to vital services provided by social care, DWP and the NHS, disproportionately hitting people with mental health needs and disabilities the hardest and pushing them further into poverty.


May has not always been a supporter of equality when it comes to gay rights either; judging by her voting record, if it were up to May; the age of consent for homosexual acts would still be 18 with heterosexual acts at 16, gay couples would not be able to adopt and lesbians would not have the right to IVF. May also voted against the repeal of Section 28 – introduced by the Thatcher government in the late 1980’s – prohibiting local authorities from “promoting” homosexuality or gay “pretend family relationships”, as well as preventing councils from spending money on education materials allegedly used to promote an LGBT lifestyle.


Yet in her first speech as Prime Minister, May projected a very different narrative, speaking about the injustices that come with being an ethnic minority or part of a working class family as well as celebrating equal marriage laws. Parts of her speech could have come across as almost similar to that of a Labour Prime Minister, rather than someone who had spent her career campaigning for restrictions on laws aimed to tackle oppression. Again, this was not dissimilar to Trumps Inauguration speech. After years of building his empire and a campaign that condemned the rights of minorities, sections of Trumps speech could have almost been passed off as something Sanders would have said; he spoke about the forgotten men and women of America – mothers and children trapped in poverty, rusted out factories and a failing education system. He spoke about how all of those things were going to be rectified with him as leader.


May continues to pursue a “special relationship” with Trump, despite the waves of fear across the world, despite millions of people petitioning for her to do the opposite and despite every racist, sexist, homophobic and prejudice statement he has made. All in the name of getting the best trade deal possible. Profits before people. But where do we draw the line before it becomes too much to overlook? Do we draw it when Trump begins killing refugees? Apparently not, because that’s already happening under both May and Trumps watchful eyes. Right now, it seems there is no line of morality that could stop May on her economic mission.


So don’t be surprised that our Prime Minister is willing to do business with the devil – they have more in common than you realise.

My call on you to oppose the cuts to ESA

This week will see Chancellor Phillip Hammond’s first Autumn Statement, on behalf of Theresa May’s government. The Chancellor has promised a move away from ‘Osbornomics’ – stating that he will borrow and invest while distancing Tory policy from austerity. Despite this supposed empathic facelift, delivered to the post-Brexit Tory party by its new leader, when the Chancellor sat on the Andrew Marr show on Sunday, he showed no indication of halting his plans to cut Employment and Support Allowance (ESA).

On November 17 Parliament debated a motion to call on the Chancellor to stop the proposed cuts. The cuts would involve a £29 per week reduction in people’s ESA payments who are in the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG) – individuals who are not in employment due to an illness or disability, however they have been judged fit to return to work at some point in the future by the DWP. Although the motion – backed by many Tory MP’s – was passed by 127 votes to 0, it is only advisory; leaving the final decision in the hands of Chancellor.

There are many reasons why this cut would be an atrocious decision, not least because it was only two weeks ago that a UN Human Rights Committee report condemned the UK government for human rights abuses over their treatment of people with disabilities.

It is true that the government’s welfare reforms have disproportionately hit people with disabilities the hardest. Not only this but the report shows that the government had successfully shifted public opinion on people with disabilities – stereotyping them as ‘lazy’ and ‘frauds’ and increasing the hardships already weighing on the shoulders of innocent, vulnerable people. Through the introduction of reforms such as the bedroom tax, we have seen further negative impacts on people with disabilities; people who may need an extra room for a live in carer, medical equipment or many other reasons that come with having a disability or a long-term illness have suffered grately. The idea that someone could get charged extra, when they are already struggling to keep their head above water, for something such as needing a room for dialysis equipment in their home, is an injustice that should be both recognised and challenged. The report concluded that measures introduced by the government were discriminatory and have directly abused over half a million people’s human rights.

Despite these points being listed – literally in black and white - in front of the Chancellor’s nose, he was still unable to confirm that the cuts would be halted when challenged on Sunday. Despite knowing that families are suffering (in fact, those hit hardest by past cuts are actually families that have a child with a disability) he was still unable to reassure us that future innocent and vulnerable people who are out of work through no fault of their own, will be able to receive the full support offered now. Instead we are warned that belts must be tight and we cannot possibly afford to stop people from living in poverty, we cannot possibly afford to help people who may fall ill with cancer or a heart attack, or who may be unable to work due to their disability.

Some Ministers point out that these cuts will not happen to people currently claiming ESA but will only begin after April to new claimants…as if that makes it better. By continuing the rate of pay for current claimants it is clear that this money is needed. It is not an incentive for individuals to stay out of work and scam the system as many would like to have us believe. In fact, if we are going highlight the length of time people are in the WRAG category – instead of blaming this on benefit fraud and people choosing not to find employment, we must instead look at the governments Work Capability Assessments which has seen thousands of people deemed fit for work even after their Doctor has told them that they are not. We must also explore the issue that it has been proven harder for people with a disability to find employment than those without.

We cannot ignore the fact that there are currently 1.3 million people with a disability in the UK who are available for and want to work while only half of the population with a disability are in employment. It is a fact that people with long-term disabilities are consistently less likely to be employed than an ‘able bodied’ person. According to an annual population survey, conducted by poverty.co.uk, one in four adults with a work-limiting disability are not working but want to, this compares with one in 15 of those with no work-limiting disability.

To brand these individuals as ‘lazy’ and ‘frauds’ is beyond comprehension. People who have a disability are often the most enthusiastic individuals when it comes to finding work as they are able to reap such valuable benefits from employment and social inclusion. Employment is key to building confidence and self-worth and it acts as a core element of social inclusion – something that can have a direct impact on a person’s health and wellbeing. The fact is that there are many people with disabilities who are desperate to work but find the process challenging and disheartening.

Theresa May promises a government of unity, one that is there for the masses. In her first speech as Prime Minister, May spoke about the meaning of the word Unionist to her party: “It means we believe in a union not just between the nations of the United Kingdom, but between all of our citizens, every one of us, whoever we are and wherever we are from.” Following on from this, May spoke directly to the working class people of Britain, telling them that the government she will lead “will be driven, not by the interests of the privileged few, but by yours. We will do everything we can to give you more control over your lives.”

Everything they can? Is slashing the incomes of struggling, innocent, ill and disabled people really the best they’ve got? Is that the best the Tory government can deliver on? Pushing sick mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters into poverty? Into debt that will ultimately have a negative impact on their overall recovery?

The word ‘unity’ has been thrown around a lot in politics lately, not just in May’s speech but during the lead up to Brexit we heard Remainers speak about the importance of Unity with our European brothers and sisters and Leavers speak about the importance of Unity as a Nation. It sounds like a lovely concept, doesn’t it? Everyone wants to feel that they are a part of something bigger, that they won’t be left behind, but if the Chancellor forces through these destructive cuts then he will be taking us on a path far from unity, where innocent people will be left behind.

If we are talking ‘unity’ then we must remember that this really does affect every single one of us. Any one of us could fall ill with a work debilitating illness, any one of us could find ourselves with a disability. Many of us could have children that suffer from a condition that prevents them from finding employment, or a family member or friend. I know that if I found myself in that situation I would want there to be the support necessary to help me live a fair and just life, that I wouldn’t be faced with stigma and labelled as lazy and a fraud. This is why it is important to make your voice heard and oppose the cut to ESA, do it for yourself or your family member, friend, colleague or neighbour, do it to show Theresa May and her band of crooks and liars what the real meaning of unity is.

Sign the petition here!

World Suicide Prevention Day: Time to start the Conversation.

Lucius Annaeus Seneca - a Roman Stoic Philosopher of Latin literature - once said: ‘Sometimes even to live is an act of courage.’ Although Seneca died in 65 AD, the sentiment of his statement still remains and is perhaps just as applicable today as ever before.

Tomorrow is World Suicide Prevention Day. A day to raise awareness of an issue so prominent in our society that it has made an impact on most people’s lives. The latest figures show that over 800,000 people die from suicide every day. They show that if you are a male, aged between 20 and 39, you are more likely to die from suicide than you are from cancer. This is not something that we can ignore. This is not something that can be brushed under the rug because it is an uncomfortable subject. This is a major, growing epidemic and we need to start talking about it now.

In order to tackle the issue of rising suicide rates, we cannot look just at its causes in isolation but we must instead create a sea change in the culture of our society. Although not all suicidal people suffer from long-term depression or other mental health needs, it is still vital that mental health is to be considered as important as physical health – suicide is one of the leading causes of death for young people and in order to prevent this, we must treat it as such. The stigma surrounding suicide and depression is at the root of the problem. Before the 1961 Suicide Act, taking your own life was illegal in Britain. Although this has been revoked, the subject still carries with it a feeling of shame and embarrassment and the idea of talking about suicidal urges can be painfully hard – to the point where taking your own life becomes the easier option.

We cannot overlook the fact that that although suicide rates in females are at their highest since 2011, there is a significant issue with men taking their own lives. There is no clear-cut explanation as to why this is. This is not a straightforward, black and white subject. However, it might be safe to assume that this comes from human tradition throughout the whole of history of men having to fill the role of the strong hunters and providers who do not show emotion.

The role of the male has changed dramatically over the past century and social progress in the UK has (thankfully) allowed women to become more financially independent. The modern man is changing and it is not the same as three generations ago, or even two. Middle-aged men, who saw their fathers fulfil the role of the main breadwinners and on top of this, fight in a World War – all whilst projecting a “toughen up, man up” attitude – are now contributing to the huge increases in suicide.

The 2008 recession has a part to play in this as well. 1,000 extra deaths and 30,000 to 40,000 suicide attempts occurred between 2008-2010, following the economic downturn. This dramatically reversed previous trends in Britain that showed suicide rates among men to be falling. Lack of employment and an increase in job losses from a damaged economy can surely be blamed for a portion of this. It is important, though, to consider mental health once again and the damage of our Conservative Government’s vicious cuts.

In early 2016, austerity measures were branded ‘profoundly disturbing’ to the nations mental health in a letter that was signed by hundreds of psychiatrists, psychotherapists and other experts within the field of mental health. Over the past five years we have seen a rise in demand for mental health services – a staggering 20% to be exact. This has happened while mental health services have been slashed by 8% in real terms. It has been shown that sanctions on benefits have also played their part in the increase of mental illnesses that can ultimately lead to suicide. According to the Independent, the restrictions put on claimants with disabilities have correlated with 590 additional suicides, 279,000 cases of mental illness and 725,000 more prescriptions of anti-depressants. Research conducted by ReTHink found that 21% of patents taken from 1,000 GPs had experienced suicidal urges due to Work Capability Assessments. These are not ‘benefit scroungers’; these are some of the most vulnerable in our society, people in positions that any one of us could find ourselves in. Although we hear claims from Prime Minister Teresa May that our Government is spending more on mental health than ever before, it seems that the party has managed to create a crisis so profound that their funding won’t even touch the edges of the void that it has made in our society.

Some of these causes sadly lie in the hands of our Government to fix but by opening up a dialogue about mental health we can begin to tackle the wider problem. If we can step away from the stigma surrounding mental illness and suicide and instead create a culture of care and communication, we can encourage people who are suffering to come forward and seek the help that they deserve. We must break down the barriers of gender inequality that affect men as well as women. In order to ensure that the help is there for us, free at the point of use through our NHS, we must speak up to our Government and make them see the problems that have been created.

Take action – write to your local MP, work with charities and campaigns to push this subject into the centre of Parliament. Even something as small as sharing a petition on social media can make a difference. We cannot let this epidemic spread, we cannot stand by and watch our friends, brothers, fathers, mothers, daughters and sons lose their lives in this horrendous way. Now is the time to start the conversation.

Sign this petition to help stop cuts to local authorities: https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/stop-government-cuts-to-local-authority-budgets 

Mental Health and the Media

One in four people will be affected by mental illness in their lifetime. Yet over 50% of people would not to tell anyone if they were going through this themselves.

These statistics may initially be shocking to some, however, it is not surprising that people have these feelings towards mental illness and the media needs to accept its part in this. Contributing factors to the negative and distorted image of mental illness are shown on our TV screens on a frequent basis. None so much as the one that displayed itself, unashamedly, in such an obvious manner on my own TV a few weeks ago.

Dinner date is one of many reality TV shows that are screened on ITVBe on a regular basis. One episode – first aired in 2010 and replayed a total of 26 times since – showed a blind date between a man named Al and a women named Danielle who claimed to have an alter-ego called 'Bad Dani'. A conversation around Danielle’s alter ego prompted the presenter to make a comment, labelling her as a ‘crazy women’, before questioning if she heard ‘voices in her head’ in a humorous tone. This comment hit me like a tonne of bricks. Was this presenter honestly making a joke out of the symptoms of schizophrenia? It definitely came across that way.

This is a problem. Hearing voices is a very well known symptom of schizophrenia and no matter what caused the presenter to say it – weather it was due to Danielle being drunk and babbling to herself – there is no getting away from its direct reference to mental illness.

There is a real issue with how mental illness is perceived by the general public and people suffering with illnesses such as schizophrenia can find it extremely hard to disclose their situation due to these perceptions. In fact, studies by rethink show that 70% of people affected by mental illness have experienced discrimination because of it.

The media has a responsibility to help break down these barriers – not to build them up. By airing a show that makes flippant remarks about symptoms of a serious mental illness, ITV is actually contributing to a much wider problem that society is facing today. Making a joke about direct symptoms of schizophrenia is completely wrong. Underlining this with the use of the phase ‘crazy women’ just makes it even worse.

I immediately contacted the ITV complaints department and shared my distress with them – asking them to make a public apology. They took the time to review my complaint and located the correct episode. After a few emails back and forth, this was their response:

Dear Becky,

Thank you for your email to ITV dated June 20th. 

We were very sorry to hear that you felt shocked and upset after watching Al's Dinner Date with Danielle on ITVBe recently. This episode was filmed and first broadcast in 2010. It has been transmitted 26 times and we have never previously had a complaint about the programme.

We have referred back to the programme as broadcast and the post-production script after receiving your email. 

We would like to assure you that the narrator does not refer to Danielle as 'a mental person' at any point. There is a line of commentary that refers to Danielle as 'a crazy woman' in a humorous tone of voice. This was intended as a nod to Danielle's unique, funny and 'out there' behaviour towards her date. It was not a reference to mental illness.

Admitting to having an 'alter-ego' is not the same as a diagnosis of schizophrenia or struggling with multiple personalities. The term 'alter-ego' is common parlance and had no medical subtext at all when used in the programme by Danielle. The voiceover did ask at one point if she 'hears voices in her head', but only to highlight the fact that Danielle was rather inebriated and babbling at this stage and should perhaps 'stop talking'.

ITV and Hat Trick both have well-respected and long-established diversity policies which have been in place at every level of their business for many years. 

Thank you again for contacting us here at ITV.

Kind regards,

ITV

To me, this response was unacceptable. There is a clear correlation between a joke about someone hearing voices in their head and schizophrenia. The fact that ITV have aired this show 26 times and I am the first to make a formal complaint does not mean that they should not publically aplogise. It does not mean that this ‘joke’ hasn’t hurt or damaged anyone’s confidence those 26 times. People suffering with ill mental health are usually likely to suffer in silence, they are not likely to write to a TV broadcaster and share their upset.

The fact that they have repeatedly aired this and have had no formal complaints also highlights the issue that we are dealing with here – ITV are setting a precedent that making jokes that poke fun at mental illness is something that is normal and should not be aplogised for, when of course it should be.

Let me put this into context – we wouldn’t stand by and accept a TV show making fun of someone’s race or sex. Nor would we stand by while they made distasteful jokes about physical disabilities. It does not matter that the people on the screen were not suffering with this sort of illness (nor did I ever imply this in my original email – there was obviously huge misunderstanding and I am fully aware of what an alter ego is and the differences between that and multiple personalities). The joke was still made.

This sort of remark, when viewed by an individual suffering from mental illness, can not only do immense damage to their self esteem and their perception of how the general public view them, but it also adds to a much wider issue of how mental health is put forward in the media and gives the impression that it is okay to make little jokes about the symptoms. The fact that these remarks were made in a “humerous tone of voice” - as ITV stated in their email - does not make it okay.

As I said, people battling ill mental health, often suffer in silence. It is up to the rest of us to stand up for them when we see situations like this one.

One in four people will be affected by mental illness in their lifetime. This could be your mother, your father, your best friend. Or it could be you. The only way that we can help to break down the stigma is to call people or media out on their actions that directly contribute to the problem.

There is nothing funny about mental illness.

If you would like to help me encourage ITV to make a public apology for this, please email them at: viewerservices@itv.com and show your solidarity to all those silently fighting their battles with mental illness. 

(Image source: https://cdailytroubles.wordpress.com/2015/08/09/introduction-into-autism-and-autistic-spectrum-disorder-asd/)