Screenshot 2015-07-03 23.56.48

Week 15: The Tale of Laughing Boy #107days

So we’re here again, the end of #107days for the second time. It is hard to believe it’s now two years since LB died. There really aren’t any words. Today we’re pleased to be able to share The Tale of Laughing Boy with you.

Produced by the brilliant My Life My Choice and Oxford Digital Media, with funding from Oxford City Council, grab a cuppa and sit back to watch.

Thanks to each and every one of you who have supported #JusticeforLB these past two years and both #107days campaigns. As Sara says of the campaign in the film:

‘These people haven’t met Connor, they don’t know Connor and yet they recognise the injustice of what’s happened, they recognise what a quirky and colourful individual he was and they’re acting, and they’re prepared to say this is wrong and join in. I think that’s absolutely amazing, it’s been so heart warming and so reassuring that so many people have stepped up and done all these different things and got in touch, and are really moved by it all. They just get it, I think that’s great, that has meant the world to us’.

Screenshot 2015-07-03 23.56.48

As for Sara’s hopes for the future:

‘My beyond wildest dreams would be that… we didn’t even have to talk about learning disabled people, because there wouldn’t need to be that division, because everybody would have a right to live where they choose, everybody has an imagined future, and the distinction between being learning disabled and being non-learning disabled would become sort of irrelevant, because it isn’t an issue’.

Final word goes to Rich:

‘In many respects the world would be a lot better place if we all behaved more like Connor and less like not-Connors; his sort of approach to life was so straight forward and simple… uncomplicated… you just sort of think I wish I could be more like that, I wish we could all be more like that… we should all be more like Connor and people like Connor and the world would be a much better place, and it would be a much more inclusive place, and actually we might all enjoy it a bit more.

Imagine, just imagine for a moment…. and ACT!

Glasto14

Week 14: The return of the #JusticeforLB flag #Glasto2015 #107days

Week 14 is the week of Glastonbury and the return of the #JusticeforLB flag. Today’s post is written by the Lawthom-Goodleys, Dan, Rebecca, Ruby and Rosa, and we share it as they make their way to Glastonbury. Keep your eyes peeled for them and do share your pics #JusticeforLB #107days.

Glasto14

Going to festivals is one of our family’s true loves. We love the mess, the carnage, and the mass humanity of these places. And the cider is not bad too. Glastonbury is, of course, the mother of all festivals and we have managed, luckily, to get our Northern souls down south for a number of years. For the majority of those trips our main concern, prior to driving the long trip down from Yorkshire to Glasto, has been the weather. You see, we don’t mind the rain. But if it pisses down all the time, everyday, without respite, then it can be very hard work (to say the least). We find rain and latex tend to go badly together. But less about our party outfits. This year, our main concerns are two-fold.

First, we are worried about our flagpole: does it boast the endurance and flexibility to last the hours of use of an extended weekend? The reason for our initial worry? Well, the latest flagpole incarnation (bought from the reasonably priced and well stocked Pontypridd Caravan and Camping – Google it) has the huge responsibility of hosting the JusticeforLB flag. The great dude’s flag and face found fame at last year’s Glasto: meeting many festival revelers and getting posted on the front page of the BBC Glastonbury website. In a tiny way we were able to contribute to the wondrous – though of course totally unacceptable to have to happen in the first place – JusticeforLB campaign. We were able to share LB’s story with total strangers. We found ourselves in some important conversations with Glasto goers. Not one person showed disinterest. Not one person suggested to us that we were ruining their hedonistic time off from work. Each and everyone we spoke to wanted to know about LB’s story. And they were on side. And, when they said their goodbyes, they were happy to shake hands or hug and agree with the social justice that the campaign was (and still is) seeking.

But this leads us to our second concern as we return this year: a quandary over explanation. How do we possibly explain the incredibly insensitive, depoliticized and inhuman lack of institutional response to LB’s death? A year on from the JusticeforLB campaign and now into a new campaign that pushes for the LBBill (amongst other things), how do we explain to our newfound Glastonbury friends (ok, maybe acquaintances and some of them inebriated at that) that we are still now, in June 2015, seeking justice for LB and his family? Moreover, how do we put across to people that LB’s life remains violently under-valued by institutional lack of responsibility and accountability? That replies from MPs to campaigners’ requests to support the bill are carbon copy party written responses?  How do we push the agenda as far as it should go: that people with learning disabilities continue to be considered as less than human in our society?  And, here is the nagging anxiety, how easy will it be to push the message of JusticeforLB that disabling society needs to change NOW: especially when so many of us are still trying to get our heads around the fact that loads of people (ok, mostly in England) voted for a government regime that is putting #austerityasideology before the real needs of all citizens? How do we articulate the key message of the campaign: Justice for all the dudes and dudettes?

We think we can address the first concern. We have bought the flagpole from South Wales so, as Rebecca rightly reminds us, the quality will be second to none. Furthermore, this year we will make sure that we don’t ask a total stranger to hold the flagpole for five minutes while we pop to the washroom (an hilarious euphemism for any loo at Glasto). They might drop it. And then scarper; leaving the pole on the ground by the John Peel stage (just before Clean Bandit) only to be found on our return. Like last year. Tossers. So, for this year, only members of the Jones, Hopkins, Dennis and Lawthom-Goodley families are entrusted with that job and the following clear instruction: hold the bloody flag steady (and do not let it waver) nor give it to someone who pretends to like Clean Bandit (or worse, Paul Weller). Or else, we will steal your dry poncho (or even worse not buy you cheesy chips later).

The second concern is trickier to address. But here is an initial idea. We will start the process of chatting about #JusticeforLB and the #LBBill by the Tony Benn Tower in the old Left Field stage. This is a wonderful space – the truly sacred space of the festival – an ideal location for a discussion. A chat. And a dialogue that seeks not to be throwaway but tricky, shitty, difficult and emotional. But fundamentally a conversation about what it means to be valued as a human being.  Never have we missed Tony more than on the day after the 2015 election result. His clarity of expression about equality and the need to contest oppression has been conspicuous in its absence. We reckon that Mr Benn would have been a huge supporter of LB’s campaign and his legacy. And so we will start our meetings with Glastonbury right there by the Left Field stage that Tony always owned like the rock star that he truly was. In dreamland we would, of course, find ourselves hearing the background noise of The Divine Comedy playing a secret set…  but we are getting ahead of ourselves.

So, please look out for coverage on the BBC: to see LB again flying the flag for social justice. And of course, keep writing to those MPs. And ask for bespoke responses. Surely a little humility from them will not go a miss.

And the good news is this… we have decided that the general forecast for Glasto is going to be absolutely wonderful. We are expecting tropical conditions: all day and everyday of the festival.

We’ll let you know how we get on.

#JusticeforLB

Dan, Rebecca, Ruby and Rosa

xxxx

IMG_3718

Week 13: What I learned from 10 weeks working in a large disability charity head office #LDWeek15 #107days

This post offers personal reflections about an experience just over two years ago. It is my (George Julian’s) opinion, reflections and memory. I offer it as food for thought for #LDWeek15 as JusticeforLB Week 13 continues to explore whether charities are part of the problem.

This post is not an attack on all (or any) charities for an attack’s sake; it is not fiction or exaggerated; it does not question the intention of the many, many excellent people who choose to work for a charity, although it does question the blanket assumption that all who do are quasi saints! I’ll come to that point.

My experience

After eight years working in a (very) small national organisation, trying to make a difference to people’s lives within many constraints, not least working underneath the umbrella of a very confused, multi-purpose charity, it was with joy in my heart and a spring in my step that I pitched up for the first day of a maternity cover post in the (self-named) leading learning disability charity in the UK. I was due to hold the position of Head of Research and Impact, a perfect match for my skillset and professional expertise and qualifications. Having completed a PhD looking at the education of profoundly disabled children over a decade previously, I was delighted to return to the learning disability arena and confident with a focus on research and impact had a contribution to make.

My experience was short lived however and I left after 10 weeks. There were many reasons for this, including large scale restructuring within the organisation and my complete disillusion with what I found, compared to what I’d expected!! The thoughts that follow have percolated over the last two years and I offer them now for debate and discussion.

I have written a series of general statements that emerged from my experience, I’d welcome your contributions and comments and would love to receive examples of where my generalisations are misguided, I genuinely hope a lot of them are.

1) It is incredibly difficult to critique a charity I’m not sure whether this is a uniquely British stiff upper lip, terribly polite, hold our resolve thang, but it seems to be incredibly difficult to in any way to critique the work of a charity. Invariably it is met with at least some suggestion or kick back that you’re somehow a) being unfair b) denigrating the brilliant people who choose to work for charities c) are unaware of their exceptional work and so on, and so on.

2) It is also difficult to be a dissenting voice within a charity I suspect for some similar cultural reasons as are at play in the first point, together with an unhealthy dose of confirmation bias, it is hard to truly challenge within the hallowed walls of head office. A relatively new CEO and a senior management team looking to assert themselves all too readily overlook those within their teams, rushing to squash autonomy in favour of compliant flag wavers for their latest strategic plan.

3) Not everyone who works in a charity does so because they believe in the charitable cause, nor are they necessarily exceptional at their job Pretty much like any organisation, there are good and bad within charities. A quick glance at charity accounts will show that this doesn’t always come without a cost, seemingly huge amounts of charitable funds are spent on redundancy or termination payments.

4) Not everyone in a charity is poorly paid I’m not for a minute suggesting that they should be either, however, if your CEO is taking home over £100k I’d sort of expect them to be bloody good at their jobs, and at the very least for the charity to be effective and innovative.

To give you some perspective on this, I had a quick look at Mencap’s 2014 Annual Accounts and can share that their senior management team salaries minus pension contributions (I assume it is them given they’re all on £60k plus) are as follows:

£60–70k: 8 staff members

£70-80k: 6 staff members

£80-90k: 2 staff members

£90-100k: 3 staff members

£100-110k: 1 staff member

and presumably the CEO, one staff member, takes home £130-140k.

These are not insignificant figures, and this total spend on large salaries, sits alongside 7 staff members who took home over £60k when including their termination payments (1x 60-70k, 3x 70-80k, 2x 90-100k and 1x 110-120k).

5) Excessive staff turnover or excessive staff retention – pick your poison The uninitiated may look at the salaries and termination payments above and consider 2014 an unusual year, a new CEO obviously changed the strategy at Mencap.

However a tiny dig beneath the accounts surface reveals that in addition to the 7 staff members taking home over £60k including payments when their contracts were terminated in 2014, there were 5 in 2013, 13 in 2012 and 11 in 2011.

If we assume a mid range payment in the bands offered that’s £595,000 in 2014, £615,000 in 2013, £960,000 in 2012 and £975,000 in 2011.

How can any organisation defend such waste?

6) Large, national, leading charities are no more organised, slick/devoted/competent than many smaller charities or organisations with tiny staff teams Perhaps the biggest shock for me on arrival in head office was how inefficient, uncoordinated and generally uninspiring life was. I’d fantasised about a large charity being a slick operating unit, about IT services being efficient, strategies and action plans being in place, coherent strategy and measurement processes. Who knows, maybe it is unrecognisable in its progress over the last two years, but my experience was of a chaotic and confused organisation that struggled to understand what its priorities were, never mind any of the rest.

7) Business and turnover are key In one way you could argue this is par for the course, a sign of our times, inevitable – that business should dominate charitable activity. Indeed, given the salaries paid for the management team, you’d almost welcome efficient and competent business drivers underpinning all activity, that could then ultimately improve the lives of the people it is meant to support. The reality in my experience was that money talked, anything could be written into a funding bid to secure funds, that was more important than due diligence of the activity that followed. I suspect my experience was in no way unique but it appeared that on too many levels the money tail was wagging the dog; projects and bids were devised to meet funding calls, strategic plans (where they existed) were adapted and tweaked to meet a newly funded ‘need’.

I’m no business expert, it’s not for me to say whether this is an appropriate course of action or not, I’ll leave you to make your own mind up. That said, if you have no vision, or if your vision is embedded wherever the latest pot of money is, rather than where your end beneficiaries are, you probably shouldn’t call yourself a charity!

8) You can hide anything you like with ‘good’ reporting and messaging Call me naïve but I desperately wanted to believe that the focus would be on the charitable aims I’d researched before deciding whether to take the post; campaigning, improving people’s lives, supporting learning disabled people – what’s not to like?

What I observed was that reputation was key; managing the message was as important (if not more important) then delivering on quality or improvements for learning disabled people.

If any charity believe in what they stand for, then just get on and do what you’re aiming for. For example, if your focus is on supporting learning disabled people to get work, employ them. Not one or two tokenistic people who can be sat on the reception desk and brought out for public events, I mean really employ them. If you can’t manage to walk the walk within your own organisation how the hell do you expect the rest of society to? Which leads me to my penultimate observation…

9) Beware of values that are for wallpaper not for living by! Everywhere I looked during those ten weeks I’d see value statements, they were stuck on the walls, in the lift, on the screensaver that flickered across your laptop; bold, ambitious, optimistic values, but to be honest that’s where they mostly stayed. If you have to plaster your values everywhere then they clearly aren’t embedded within your organisation.

My experience, and I’d go as far as to say those of many other colleagues there at that time, did not reflect the values being espoused. If you can’t treat your staff well, if you can’t treat the beneficiaries of your charity well, if you can’t actually make progress to what you’ve been talking about for years, maybe it’s time to shut up shop, redistribute the wealth and let some others have a go.

10) Stop speaking for – give up the power I’m not sure how anyone can be the ‘voice of’ or how it helps. Maybe it’s time to stop speaking for and just give over the power.

IMG_3718

BillBusPic

Week 10: Why the #LBBill is more than the Care Act #107days

Today’s guest blog post is from Steve Broach, a key protagonist in the #LBBill. Here he reflects on why we need the Bill.

It is such a thrill to see the map of the UK turning green as Justice for LB supporters contact their MPs to ask them to support #LBBill, the proposed new law to reinforce disabled people’s right to live in the community with choices equal to others.

Getting the Bill to this stage has involved the collective wisdom of a huge number of passionate and committed people. We have had input on the content of the Bill from disabled people’s organisations, individual disabled people, families, carers, friends and allies. The text of the second draft of the Bill is much improved from its first draft, with a stronger rights focus including implementation of the right to independent living in Article 19 of the UN Disability Convention.

There are some ideas in the bill that can be traced back to one individual, like Mark Neary’s original idea that all placements made by the state should be subject to approval, which is reflected in Clause 5. Others have emerged from the free-flowing discussion, debate and dialogue that has characterised the process so far.

We had hoped to have more time to debate Draft 2, it’s my fault we don’t, because I’d thought the ballot for private members’ bills was in July, whereas in fact it is on 4 June. This is the kind of mistake that would get a professional campaigner fired, but as we are all volunteers and no-one’s in charge I’ll probably get away with it. Apologies nonetheless.

So the key action now is to get as many MPs as possible informed about and supportive of the Bill, so that when we know the outcome of the ballot we have the best chance of getting a high-ranking MP to sponsor the Bill (see the #LBBill process post for a more detailed explanation of this).

One of the question supporters are likely to be asked by MPs and their staff is what difference would #LBBill make, and in particular, wasn’t this all dealt with last year in the Care Act 2014? The short answer to these questions is, a huge difference, and no. A more compelling answer to the difference question has been given by Sara Ryan in an amazing post as part of this Week 10 of #107days.

So I’ll take the lawyer’s question, which is why the Care Act isn’t enough.

I’ll be the first to agree that the Care Act is a step forward. The well-being duty in Section 1 has the potential to transform the approach to how social care is provided to disabled people. However, the Care Act is an act about social care, it says nothing about the NHS services that many disabled people need. It also falls far short of implementing a right to independent living.

In particular the Care Act doesn’t do any of these things which #LBBill would do:

  1. Require the state to ensure that all disabled people can live in their community, with choices equal to others and the support necessary to ensure their full inclusion and participation in the community (Clause 1)
  2. Expressly reject any idea of capping expenditure on care at home at the level of the cost of residential care (Clause 2). This is likely already to be unlawful but it is known that this practice goes on and it should be outlawed.
  3. Require the state to secure in every area a sufficient supply of community support, and to make sure disabled people are employed to plan and commission these services (Clause 3)
  4. Ensure that the most appropriate living arrangement is made for every disabled person who needs state help, which will generally be the arrangement they choose (Clause 4)
  5. Require appropriate approval of all living arrangements made by the state (Clause 5)
  6. Require reporting on all living arrangements made by the state, to create the disinfecting effect of sunlight which is so badly lacking at present (Clause 6)
  7. Make the Mental Capacity Act 2005 more respectful of the rights of disabled people and their carers, as a prelude to proper systemic reform of the MCA (Clause 7)
  8. Take people with learning disabilities and autism out of the scope of the civil sections of the Mental Health Act 1983 (Clause 8)
  9. Ensure the provision of appropriate community mental health services to people with autism and learning disabilities (Clause 9)
  10. Abolish the use of secret ‘panels’ and require disabled people and those around them to be properly involved in all decisions made about them (Clause 10)

So, none of #LBBill duplicates anything that is in the Care Act, or other existing legislation. It’s all new and it’s all what the community of #JusticeforLB supporters has said is needed if the law is to properly reflect and respect disabled people’s human rights.

With the government expected to announce today its intention to repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights, let’s get our politicians thinking about the rights disabled people and their families have said they want and need to be enshrined in law. Please keep pushing so that every MP knows about #LBBill and knows how much it matters in advance of the ballot.

BillBusPic

With thanks to Caron Stuart-Cole of Graphics on the GO for this brilliant image.

LBBillContacted_25%MPs

Week 10: 1 in 4 MPs contacted re #LBBill, still 75% to go #107days

Wow, what a weekend of #bankholidayactivism. Ever since the #JusticeforLB campaign evolved/emerged/was born (still not sure which of these is most true) we’ve been blown away by the responsiveness of people. This weekend proved no exception and we’re delighted to now share that slightly over 25% of all MPs in Westminster have been contacted about the #LBBill.

Seriously, that’s 1 in 4 who will know about LB, who will hear about his entirely preventable death, and who hopefully will read up on the #LBBill and lend their support to it. The responses from MPs on twitter and email has been overwhelmingly positive, where they’ve had a chance to engage, and let’s be honest MPs are allowed time off too and given it was a bank holiday and the start of half term for most people, we really didn’t expect to have had pretty much any response.

LBBillContacted_25%MPs

We’re not getting complacent though. As wonderful as it is to see that all MPs in Norfolk and Devon have heard about the #LBBill there are still whole swathes of white on our map where people don’t yet know.

So this is a quick thank you, a mini celebration and a call for further action.

If you are reading this, and you care about disabled people, please take action to contact your own MP and let others know about the Bill and what it proposes. You can read Sara’s post from yesterday for more on what difference the LBBill would have made to LB – short answer is he would probably still be alive today, playing with his footy guys and chatting away to Chunky Stan.

Screenshot 2014-04-23 05.56.04

We need to make sure no other family suffer the same loss that LB’s have, that no more disabled people are denied what are essentially very basic human rights. So please take action, we need to give the #LBBill every chance to be heard in Parliament.

Thank you all.

LBChunkyStan

Week 10: LB and the #LBBill #107days

Yesterday’s post has got us off to a fantastic start with telling MPs about the #LBBill, so thanks to all of you for your help with that. Today we’ve a post from Sara reflecting on LB and the #LBBill.

A while back I was asked by a journalist (could have been on BBC Radio but I can’t remember now) if the #LBBill would have made a difference to what happened to LB. I am really not a natural or keen radio or TV interviewee, particularly when it’s to talk about something so horrific, and this question struck me as simply too sad. I fluffed it.

Now it’s time for action with the Bill, it probably is helpful to think through how the proposed changes to the law could have made a difference. [Howl.] First of all, LB should never have been admitted to the unit. If a range of meaningful ‘in-home and community support services’ were available [Clause 1] I don’t think LB would have become so anxious and depressed in the first place. He loved learning to be a mechanic at TRAX. He worked there the day before he died. If there were more opportunities like that and support available to help people access the stuff they want to do (i.e., the stuff that other people just get to do), I’m not sure LB would have got so down. Oxfordshire County Council (OCC) funded support included a 5 day holiday akin to a boot camp with learning outcomes attached to every waking moment that LB hated, and a peer buddy scheme which failed to attract young people and so LB was buddied by someone our age. Simply not good enough.

Once we reached crisis point, Clause 3 would also have prevented LB’s admittance. There was no crisis care. Just a number to call and be told to go to the out of hours GP. The modus operandi, certainly in Oxon but I suspect pretty much everywhere else, is to rely on families to do the graft and when things have escalated way beyond what most people could endure or ever dream of enduring, it’s off to the ATU. Instead of chucking more direct payments (as meaningless as trying to spend drachma in the local pub) and talk of ‘respite at a building with a snooker table’ at families in crisis, the local authority should make sure a suitably trained, experienced, enthusiastic and caring team are on call and available to work with people and their families to try to avoid the need for admittance.

Slightly ironically (and I still don’t really understand this), the commissioners were apparently happy to indefinitely pay £3500 a week for substandard care at STATT. LB had no desire to live anywhere other than home at that point so Clause 2 was less relevant to us.

Clause 4, which is about securing the most appropriate living arrangement, would also have offered LB some protection against what happened. A review of the new ‘living arrangement’ (which we thought was a short term fix) 3 months from the day it commenced would have happened around June 19th. As it was, nothing was done about getting LB out of the unit other than a meeting eventually organised for July 8th (with the pushing of LB’s head teacher despite OCCs grandiose claims to the contrary).

Clause 5 was also less relevant to LB again because he was still at school and should have been living at home. Like most kids do. This clause is very important to those people who are living independently however. Most people have a choice about where they live. It’s astounding really that we’re trying to change the law to protect people from being moved against their wishes.

One of the things #JusticeforLB has achieved is shining a spotlight on the murkiest of practices that continue in health and social care. I was chatting to someone the other day who said they read our posts with a mix of incredulity and horror. That light shining is embedded within the LBBill, particularly in Clause 6 which places a duty on local authorities and the NHS to report annually on all their living arrangement activities (with full disclosure on the when, why and hows involved), and the Secretary of State to summarise these in an annual report. This is bloody brilliant really and I hope, if the Bill becomes law, there is clear and careful scrutiny of this data at both a local and national level. Using lenses with aspiration, imagination and happiness etched in gold around the frames.

Clause 7 involves sensible rewording of the Mental Capacity Act and Clause 8, again sensibly, removes learning disability/autism from the Mental Health Act. Er, because neither are mental health issues. Clause 9 makes sure that despite Clause 8, people can still access mental health services. [I know].

I also love Clause 10 [I love it all really but some bits are stand out stars for me] which is about being open and transparent with the person whose ‘care’ or support this is about. A chewy bit of ‘nothing about us without us’ which is so blinking obvious. Invite people to meetings about them, give them free support to attend, let them respond in whatever form they choose and communicate the decision from the meetings in an accessible form. Bam. As simple as. And shameful it doesn’t already happen often.

LB was only invited to the last 10 minutes of the Care Plan Approach meeting during his 107 days in the unit. He wasn’t told about the weekly meetings or informed of what was said. Despite all the nonsense about making us get his permission to visit him daily, not one member of staff communicated anything meaningful to him about why he was in there. But that was because they didn’t know why he was there and no one bothered to put the support in place to enable him to come home. A situation that would not be possible (or certainly should not be possible) if the law is changed in the way we are proposing.

The Bill finishes with a bit of welly wielding stating how the Bill will be enacted [Clause 11] because there ain’t no point in changing the law if the law ain’t followed. So that’s it. A more coherent answer to the journalist.

And the short version:

“Yes. LB would probably be lying on the floor right now, playing with his footy guys and chattering away to Chunky Stan.”

Please support the #LBBillLBChunkyStan

Day97Cat

Week 9: The CEO – The Mystery Cat #107days

As Week 9, which has focused on Art and Activism draws to a close, we’ve had an excellent piece of poetry, an adaption of T.S.Eliot’s Macavity (you can read the original here) shared with us. The author/adapter wishes to remain anonymous, but we have their agreement to share this wondrous poem with you all. The photo attached to this post is one of Jack’s cats, that were made and sold to raise money for LB’s Fighting Fund by Jack. You can read more about that in this post from Day 97 last year. Now though, we give you 

The CEO: The Mystery Cat

The CEO’s a Mystery Cat: she’s called the Hidden Claw
For she’s the master criminal who can defy the Law.
She’s the bafflement of Monitor, the CQC’s despair:
For when they reach the scene of crime: the CEO’s not there!

The CEO, the CEO, there’s no-one like the CEO,
She’s broken every human law, she breaks the law like billyo.
Her powers of dissimulation would make an MP stare,
And when you reach the scene of crime – the CEO’s not there!
You may seek her in the unit, you may look up in the air-
But I tell you once and once again, the CEO’s not there!

The CEO’s an elusive bod, she’s very tall and thin;
You would know her if you saw her, for her eyes are sunken in.
Her brow is smooth with botox, her hair has shiny sheen:
Her coat is glossy with expense, her grin in public’s seen.
She sways her head from side to side, with movement like a snake;
And when you think she’s fast asleep, she’s always wide awake.

The CEO, the CEO, there’s no-one like the CEO,
For she’s a fiend in suited shape, to duty she says cheerio.
You may read her in a ghostwrit blog, for which she has much flair-
But when a crime’s discovered, then the CEO’s not there!

She’s outwardly respectable (they say she cheats at cards).
And her foot prints are not found in any file of Scotland Yard’s.
And when reserves are looted, and acquired estate is rifled,
Or when the staff are missing, and the truth’s again been stifled,
Or the ligatures are present, and the unit’s past repair
Ay, there’s the wonder of the thing! The CEO’s not there!

And when the investigation finds the records gone astray,
Or commissioners lose all integrity along the way,
There may be some scrap of paper from an FOI request
But it’s useless to investigate, at evasion she’s the best!
And when the crime has been disclosed, the regulators say:
“It must have been the CEO!” – but she’s a mile away.
You’ll be sure to find her ‘leading’, or a-licking of her thumbs,
On engaged in doing complicated renumeration sums.

The CEO, the CEO, defies the laws of gravity,
There never was a cat of such deceitfulness and suavity.
She always has an alibi, and one or two to spare:
At whatever time the deed took place – THE CEO WASN’T THERE!
And they say that all the cats whose wicked deeds are widely known
(I might mention NAME REDACTED, I might mention LAWYER, PHONE!)
Are nothing more than agents for the cat who all the time
Just controls the operations: Viral Leader cat of crime!

Day97Cat