In an attempt to take education back to the 19th century enhance discipline in schools, Education Secretary Michael Gove is proposing a variety of new measures and powers for teachers, including the power to confiscate pupils’ mobile phones, search for objectionable content on them and erase it. This is the latest in a series of education policies designed to make today’s children as ill-prepared for the future as possible. Other proposals include the move to “fact-based teaching” and the rewriting of history to fit into a particular, ideologically sound world view.
Read more at ORGZine.
Can I have my “good immigrant” sash now, please?
I woke up this morning to find I had been branded “good immigration” by the government. What a relief.
In his speech to Conservative Party members today, the Prime Minister said he believed politicians’ role should be to “cut through the extremes of [the immigration] debate and approach the subject sensibly and reasonably.” He wanted, he said, “good immigration, not mass immigration”. He even went so far as to acknowledge that immigrants made a huge contribution to Britain. I should be happy, right?
Not so much. Cameron wants us to believe that he has a holistic, joined-up policy on immigration, but his rhetoric on the subject is as disjointed, confused and pandering to the lowest common xenophobic denominator as the next guy’s.
One often-brandished key word in what passes for a debate on immigration is “integration”; and the favourite way of measuring “integration” is whether/how well someone speaks English. In the Prime Minister’s own words,
when there have been significant numbers of new people arriving in neighbourhoods, perhaps not able to speak the same language as those living there, on occasions not really wanting or even willing to integrate, that has created a kind of discomfort and disjointedness in some neighbourhoods.
And yet, this government which claims to be so keen on us immigrants learning English is cutting crucial funding for ESL classes, meaning many immigrants will no longer be able to to afford to learn the language.
This same government, which has a stated ambition of being the most family-friendly government in UK history, is now proposing to clamp down on the family immigration route. If you are under 21, you will not be able to join your spouse in the UK; if your spouse is an undergraduate student, you won’t be able to join them; if your English is judged to not be satisfactory, tough luck – you’re staying at home, and nevermind the fact that you’d learn it so much faster if you were in this country! One can’t help but wonder if that last restriction will apply to the spouses of people coming in on the new entrepreneur visa – essentially a “buy yourself into Britain” scheme. It seems the government gets to pick and choose which families it wants to be friendly to.
The section on permanent settlement is particularly… unsettling. Having harped on about how we should all integrate or else, Cameron suddenly turns around and says that “it cannot be right that people coming to fill short-term skill gaps can stay long-term”. Combined with the stated aim to “select and attract the world’s brightest to our shores”, this should give you a good idea of how the Conservative party regards immigrants: not as human beings with emotions, lives, attachments to people and places, but as spare parts who can be shipped in and out of the country as and when the “market” sees fit. Huge contribution or not, we’ve been put on notice – we can be kicked out any time our skills are no longer deemed sufficiently rare or useful. Does this give immigrants an incentive to integrate; to form relationships and contribute to British society? Hardly, if next time your visa comes up for renewal you may be told to leave all that behind you.
The coup de grâce of the speech, however, is the assertion that
immigration and welfare reform are two sides of the same coin. Put simply, we will never control immigration properly unless we tackle welfare dependency.
And there we have it, the two mortal enemies of the Daily Mail reader – filthy foreigners and benefits scroungers – inextricably linked for all to see. Only a Conservative government can rid us of both.
How is an immigrant – “good” or otherwise – supposed to feel about this speech? Happy that our contribution to British society has been at least acknowledged, however briefly and fleetingly? Motivated to continue contributing, to “integrate”? Perhaps Mr. Cameron secretly hopes that none of us speak English well enough to understand what he said.
If the Conservative Party really finds us so loathsome, I would like their leader to come out and say it. If, however, the contribution immigrants make to this country on a daily basis is truly valued as Mr. Cameron claims, and if “integration” is truly desired, then I have a few suggestions for the government:
- Cut the anti-immigrant rhetoric. You dedicated ten lines out of a seven-page speech to our contribution, and the rest of it to how to keep others like us out and ship some of those of us already here off this island again. Either I am valued or I am not. This tells me I am not.
- Bite the bullet and educate the public. Stop pandering to the lowest common denominator – that is easy. Challenging prejudice, taking the time to explain what immigrants do, how they contribute and why immigration is important to this country is hard. But in the long run it might lead to the kind of social cohesiveness you claim to value.
- It is easy to say immigrants should integrate. Some of us find this easier than others. Reaching out a helping hand, being proactively inclusive, can only make this process of integration easier for everyone involved. That includes funding ESL tuition, but there are also other things you can do. Mr. Cameron is apparently fond of street parties. Maybe we can have some street parties to celebrate immigrants’ contribution to the UK and get to know our immigrant neighbours? Go on, I’ll even make baklava!
- Finally, how about creating a vision of a Britain that immigrants find inspirational and want to contribute to and be integrated in? A Britain that is open, tolerant, and inclusive? Maybe one day, I guess.
Market failure: some practical examples
This is a bit of a drive-by blog post – a collection of short thoughts with a common theme: market failure (and in one case, success). Remember, out of my three-year economics degree, we spent about a week learning how the market worked, and the rest of the time learning about all the entertaining failure modes.
Let’s start with the banks.
The Independent Commission on Banking has made some recommendations in its interim report, including firewalling retail banking from casino banking, and increasing the cash reserves required for the retail side of the operation to 10% of capital. According to Robert Peston on the Today Programme this morning, the banks’ first reaction was to complain that these measures would increase costs. I find bankers’ lack of a grasp of basic economic principles (We’re talking Introductory Microeconomics here!) both amusing and disturbing.
Let me introduce you (probably not for the first time on this blog) to the concept of externalities. Externalities are costs or benefits which for some reason are not reflected in the market. The Introductory Microeconomics textbook example of a negative externality (a cost) is pollution. Say you run a factory which makes some sort of chemical. You pay for your raw materials, for your staff, transport, electricity, water, etc. However, your factory’s waste is leaking into my local river, killing the fish and giving me cancer. I can no longer fish for a living, and I have to pay for cancer treatment, but because this has no direct cost impact on you, you have no incentive to clean up your act. Essentially, I’m picking up a part of your production costs because the market by itself has no way of making you pay up for the damage you’re causing.
Now imagine you’re a banker. You run a bank which includes a retail operation and an investment operation. There’s very little regulation on what you can and can’t do. You can promise all sorts of things without having the cash to back it up, you can take unreasonable risks on your investment side and absorb the impact on the retail side, and if you fail, the tax payer will pick up the bill, because you’re so vital to the economy that you’ve got them by the balls. The true cost of the risks you’re taking is not reflected in your operating costs – it’s picked up by the tax payer when you fall flat on your face, and then the rest of us suffer a spectacular hit to our disposable income while you still wave your £10-notes in our faces. Now, here’s a textbook externality if I ever saw one.
What that new proposed regulation would do is not increase costs. It would simply help you internalise your cost, correcting a market failure, so that you can make informed choices about how you run your business without holding a gun to my head. There’s a minor difference here.
Who do you trust more – Nick Clegg, or the guy who fixes your car?
My car’s at the garage today, having its break fluid changed and its handbrake looked at. The way such adventures invariably go is that halfway through the morning I get a call from the garage, and someone babbles at me in a thick Geordie accent and deliberately throws incomprehensible words at me trying to get me to panic and ask them to do more work than I originally intended. I’m getting better at stopping them, asking some questions and trying to sort out what actually needs doing from what they would simply like to charge me some money for because they’re having a quiet day. But I still suspect they’re getting away with way more than is strictly speaking necessary.
This is a classic example of a different kind of market failure: asymmetric information. See, when Conservatives and Libertarians tell you how great and efficient the market is, what they mean by the word “market” has nothing to do with what exists in the real world. A theoretical, efficient market relies on a whole house of cards of entirely unrealistic assumptions, including the one that states that all parties have perfect information.
As, however, I am not a car mechanic, the actors in this particular market have far from perfect information. I know nothing about fixing cars, while the mechanic knows everything. What’s even worse is that he knows perfectly well that I know nothing, and is willing to exploit this fact. So he gets to tell me all sorts of horror stories and I’m left there trying to work out which of these things will kill me if I don’t pay him to fix it. Today is one of those days when I wish we lived in the Tory Utopia of Market Efficiency. Instead, I find myself in the paradoxical position of trusting Nick Clegg, a man known for breaking promises, more than I trust the guy who’s supposed to make sure my car doesn’t malfunction in an entertainingly fatal sort of way.
And finally, thank you, Rupert Murdoch!
This one’s a story where arguably the market has worked. For those who haven’t noticed, the Times paywall is down today. I don’t know whether this is a glitch – there certainly has been no formal announcement – or if they’ve decided to quietly drop it. The universal reaction I’ve seen on the web, however, has been a resounding “Meh…”
You see, for the last six months or so, Rupert Murdoch and the Times have been persistently training us not to click on any Times links, and not to link to the Times. Any fool who clicked was asked for money, while anyone who linked risked a barrage of abuse from their readers who did not appreciate being directed to the paywall.
Humans, therefore, do appear to respond to incentives. And the incentive in this particular case has been to quietly let the Times online presence fade into digital obscurity. I am amused by how well this has worked.
[Elsewhere] Copyright infringement – just like terrorism
How much do you trust the state? In particular, how much do you trust the state to only use powers it has by law for the purpose they were intended for? One of my favourite science fiction stories is by Charles Stross in an anthology edited by Farah Mendlesohn titled “Glorifying Terrorism”.
Read more at ORGZine.
[Elsewhere] Music industry fails to exhibit learning behaviour
The long legal struggle on the part of the music industry to kill yet another P2P filesharing platform – LimeWire is slowly coming to an end. In May last year, Judge Kimba Wood at the Manhattan Federal District Court ruled that LimeWire and its founder Mark Gorton were liable for copyright infringement and inducement to copyright infringement. In October last year, the court ordered LimeWire to stop distributing its software. Over the next few months, the trial will continue to determine the damages due to the 13 suing record companies.
Read more at ORGZine.
[WHM] Freedom Fighter
On the last day of Women’s History Month, I want to tell a personal story. This is the story of my great-great-grandmother, Gana Naidenova Stoilova.
You’ll need to know a bit of Bulgarian history first. From the late 14th/early 15th century onwards, Bulgaria fell under the rule of the Ottoman empire. Bulgarian institutions, national identity, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church were all practically obliterated and assimilated into the structures of the Sultanate. This had a devastating impact on the Bulgarian population. Historians estimate that at the end of the 14th century there were around 1.3 million Bulgarians – a similar number to the populations of countries like Germany, France, or England at the time. 100 years into Ottoman rule, that number had dwindled to just 260,000. This population impact can be seen right through to today: whereas countries with a comparable 14th-century population now have populations upwards of 50 million, there are barely 10 million Bulgarians.
Bulgarian women were particularly harshly affected by the Ottoman occupation. They were already oppressed: subservient to their husbands, their activity pretty much limited to their own homes, with no social role outside the home. Domestic violence was wide-spread. What Ottoman rule added to this was the constant threat of violence from locally stationed Turkish soldiers or administrators, frequent abductions of Bulgarian women – either to be sold into slavery or forcibly converted to Islam, abductions of their children, especially boys who were converted to Islam and trained to fight in some of the most vicious units of the Empire’s army. Bulgarian folklore is full of tales and songs about young women suffering terrible torture or even choosing to die rather than convert to Islam. One story, which I read when I was ten years old and which still sticks in my mind, is of 100 girls abducted into slavery who instead chose to braid their hair together and jump off the cliffs into the sea.
After 400 years of Ottoman rule, by the start of the 19th century economic and political conditions had changed sufficiently to allow for the beginning of a Bulgarian “National Revival” movement within the weakening Empire. There were two catalysts in particular: the first was a strong push for independence of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church; the second was increased levels of education and especially the teaching of the Bulgarian language in semi-religious and newly-established public schools. Women in particular had a pivotal role to play in the latter as the vast majority of teachers were women.
As the pace of the national revival picked up, with a small Bulgarian middle class beginning to emerge, so did the demands for political autonomy and self-government. Eventually, these demands culminated in the April Uprising, an armed revolt in the Balkan mountains in April 1876. For a number of reasons, the uprising wasn’t as well prepared and didn’t have the reach the organisers were hoping for. It was brutally crushed by the Ottoman army, and an estimated 15,000 Bulgarians – including women and children, sometimes whole towns – were killed in the process. This indirectly led to the establishment of an autonomous Bulgaria two years later.
Back to my great-great-grandmother…
Gana was born in Sopot in 1850. The town had had a reputation for resisting the Ottoman occupation since the very beginning in the 15th century, when it was completely destroyed in revenge for such resistance. As a young woman Gana moved to the town of Klisura where she became a teacher and became involved in the organisation of the April Uprising there.
Gana sewed and embroidered the flag for the uprising in Klisura. With money set aside from her teaching wages over five years, she bought fabric and sewed clothes for the fighters. The uprising found her in Klisura, and when the town was overrun by the Turks, she actually found herself fighting. She was captured, tortured (they cut off one of her breasts – I can’t imagine her not being raped), escaped to Koprivshtitsa, and survived. She had seven or eight children, lived to see her country liberated, lived into the 20th century. A single photo of Gana survives (that my family is aware of). In it, she wears a medal she was awarded for her bravery and contribution to the uprising. Proud as I am to have her as my great-great-grandmother, Gana was not an exception. Bulgarian women contributed time, money, skills, and their lives to the uprising. They played a vital role in the national revival as teachers. They fought bravely, a lot of them died bravely.
Gana is the basis of the female lead character Rada in one of Bulgaria’s greatest works of literature, Ivan Vazov’s “Under the Yoke”. I have a number of issues with the portrayal of Rada as a simpering love interest, as my great-great-grandmother clearly was neither of these things, but I am happy that some of her story is read by every Bulgarian school child to this day.
Gana’s story brings me back to the theme I talked about at the start of Women’s History Month: the way we as a society have historically restricted opportunities for women, and the way we value women’s contributions to our history. I find Gana’s story inspiring because she managed to overcome those obstacles in her own way. Her first contribution to the April Uprising was strictly within the sphere reserved for women: she made clothing and a flag. But when the time came to fight, she did, and did so bravely.
Do I wish she had lived in a time and place where her life was not characterised by violence? Yes. But in her time, in her place, this woman made a significant mark on the world. I don’t generally believe that I can or should be proud of things I have not achieved myself. But I am proud of having Gana Naidenova Stoilova, freedom fighter, for a great-great-grandmother, and I am proud to tell her story.
[WHM Guest Post] A Tale of Two Elizabeths
Kathryn Cann has kindly contributed a Women’s History Month guest post. I was enlightened by this story of two women pioneers in the medical professions, I hope you are too. Enjoy Kathryn’s post below!
This is a tale of two Elizabeths. Not the Queen Elizabeth I or II, worthy though they surely would have been of a Women’s History Month post! No, these Elizabeths (Elizabeth Blackwell & Elizabeth Garrett) were pioneering doctors, and they helped break barriers for women in the medical profession, in many respects they also made a large contribution to winning the argument of that time about women’s access to higher education.
No matter how well-known these two may be to feminists and women’s historians they can never be well known enough to the mainstream, hence the reason for this reminder as Women’s History Month draws to a close. We must make Women’s History mainstream history, somehow.
Elizabeth Blackwell was born in Bristol, England in 1821 to a Quaker Family that believed in the idea of equal rights. The family emigrated to the United States in 1832, and at private school Elizabeth became interested in medicine. At this time, women were not permitted to attend higher education establishments. Elizabeth Blackwell took a keen interest in medicine at school and decided that she wanted to be a doctor. After being rejected from 29 medical schools, the Geneva Medical College, New York, finally accepted her application. It is believed that the student body voted to allow her in, thinking that the application was a hoax. In any event on the 11th January 1849, Elizabeth Blackwell became the first female* to graduate as a medical student. Here is an eyewitness account of the Graduation Ceremony (pdf format). It makes for a very interesting read!
*Of those that admitted their gender that is! We do not know how many women had posed as male to complete their medical studies.
After graduation, Elizabeth Blackwell was banned from being a doctor, and as she wanted to go on to be a surgeon, friends advised her to go to Paris. La Maternité would accept her but the downside was that she had to continue her training as a student midwife, not a physician. In November 1849, her hopes of becoming a surgeon came to an abrupt end when Dr. Blackwell picked up a serious eye infection that led to the loss of her right eye, and a replacement glass eye had to be fitted in its place.
This setback did not deter Elizabeth Blackwell and in 1853, along with her sister Emily and Dr. Marie Zakrzewska, they founded the New York Infirmary for Indigent Women and Children in Manhattan, New York. After the Infirmary was well established, she seems to have spent some of her time back in England, on lecture circuits and attending Bedford College before becoming the first woman to have her name put on the General Medical Council Medical Register in January 1859. Around this time, she met Elizabeth Garrett, inspiring her and countless other women to seek a career in the medical profession. Dr. Blackwell spent some of her time in Great Britain, organising the National Health Society and founding the London School of Medicine for Women. She later returned to the United States to train women to be nurses during the US Civil War and in 1868 established a Women’s Medical College at the Manhattan Infirmary.
Elizabeth Garrett Anderson was the first woman to successfully complete the medical qualifying exams in Great Britain. Born in Whitechapel, London in 1836, Garrett was introduced to the feminist scene in London in 1854, and met Dr. Blackwell, who inspired her to study to be a doctor, in 1859. At first she attended the Middlesex hospital as a nursing student, going to doctors’ lectures normally only attended by male students. After half receiving a medical education but being the subject of too many complaints she was barred! It just wasn’t the done thing to have females studying to do medical exams at the time. So Garrett had to find another way, and that she did. The Society of Apothecaries did not specifically forbid women from taking the examinations and in 1865 she passed, gaining a certificate to become a doctor. This loophole was swiftly closed behind her and no other women were allowed to enter this way. Elizabeth Garrett had become the second woman to have her name placed on the UK Medical Register and the first educated and qualified in Great Britain. She went on to set up her own dispensary and in doing so became the first woman to practice medicine in Britain. The dispensary grew into the New Hospital for Women, where Dr. Garrett worked for more than twenty years.
Elizabeth Garrett Anderson also founded the London School of Medicine for Children, and in 1875, Elizabeth Blackwell was appointed professor of gynaecology. Both women throughout their lives and careers were strong advocates of women’s suffrage and women’s opportunities in higher education, arguing against spurious claims of the times that womens reproductive, general and mental health would suffer if they were allowed to participate in higher education.
Incidentally, Elizabeth Garrett’s younger sister is Millicent Garrett Fawcett, after whom the Fawcett Society is named.
Elizabeth Garrett Anderson became the first woman in England elected as mayor, in the town of Aldeburgh, Suffolk which had been their family’s home-town for some years. A monument to Elizabeth Blackwell can be found at the site of the former Geneva Medical College, (now Hobart) New York. The New Hospital in London was renamed the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital but in 2005 the building was sold to UNISON, and is no more. A wing at the University Hospital London is named after Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, and an art exhibition in her honour was held there in 2009.
Cross Posted at miscellani.org/blog/
[Elsewhere] Giants in the playground
Earlier this month, Jon Bon Jovi accused Steve Jobs of killing the music industry [1]. (I would link to the original source but it’s behind the Times paywall, so I’ll save you the hassle). The same day, I came across this article on PaidContent.org, a website covering “the economics of digital content”.
It looks at the proposed review of copyright law in the UK, and some of the key vested interests involved. Representatives of the music industry in particular, such as Fergal Sharkey, are attacking the government’s fledgling plans for copyright reform – and not because they’re afraid of “piracy” but because they are afraid of Google and the technology industry in general.
Read more at ORGZine.
[WHM] A small piece of the long struggle for bodily autonomy
This is going to be my penultimate Women’s History Month post, and I want to take a moment to raise awareness of an issue that is often shrouded in secrecy and shame, and that is integral to women’s history. Even in Britain where abortion is (more or less)[1] legal the women who dare speak up about having had an abortion are rare and brave.
In Ireland (both North and South), the picture is different entirely. Abortion is illegal in Northern Ireland, and constitutionally outlawed in the Republic of Ireland. So women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant and do not want to continue the pregnancy (they may be too poor, have too many children already, be in an abusive relationship, find themselves pregnant as a result of rape – there are as many reasons as there are women seeking abortion) have only one option – travel to England for a termination.
As abortions are not available on the NHS for either Irish or Northern Irish women, the significant cost of the procedure at a private clinic is added to the travel costs, the potential costs of childcare while away, and in some cases the costs of staying overnight in England.
In the 1980s a number of Irish women living in London got together to form the Irish Women’s Abortion Support Group. The history of the group is documented in Ann Rossiter’s “Ireland’s Hidden Diaspora”. Here are a few highlights.
The group was entirely unfunded/self-funded. Rossiter herself says they did “sponsored swims, sponsored walks, sponsored weight loss, and sponsored anything else we could think of.” The vast majority of the work of the group consisted of providing Irish women with information (not readily available, and at times illegal to obtain), overnight accommodation when they came over for the procedure, financial support, and also escorting them to the clinic.
This kind of “welfare feminism” (as Rossiter calls it) is an example of the way “women’s issues” are left to be dealt with by women – usually at great cost, with no support from the state, and in secret and shame. Like violence against women, unavailability of abortion is one of those areas where the cost is almost exclusively born by women. We raise the money, we support each other, we provide a sympathetic ear to our friends when they break down crying on the anniversary or their abortion, we keep the secrets, we get on with it – quietly, efficiently, out of the way of “mainstream society”.
Towards the end of the 1990s, as the Irish economy boomed and credit and low-cost flights became more readily available, the IWASG was wound down. With the recent economic crisis, however, Irish women are yet again finding it more and more difficult to raise the money to travel to the UK for a termination. Which is why the Abortion Support Network (ASN) started up.
I honestly can’t remember how I first came across ASN, though if I had to guess I would say it was through Twitter. I donated money to one of their appeals, and have been getting their monthly updates in my inbox ever since, a constant reminder of the continued struggle of so many Irish women for bodily autonomy. Reading the stories of women helped by ASN, and some of the stories documented by Ann Rossiter, the one thing that strikes me is how little has changed in 30 years. The guilt, the shame and the social stigma are all still there. But with every grant ASN makes, a woman gets her life back. And that is an amazing achievement for a small, chronically underfunded group of women operating on the fringes of society.
[1] Abortion in the UK is only legal to prevent a negative impact on the woman’s physical or mental health or if there are severe foetal abnormalities. Two doctors have to sign off a woman’s request for an abortion. While the guidelines are interpreted extremely liberally so that de facto abortion is available here on request, the legal situation is somewhat murky. Every few years, there is an attempt to further restrict abortion rights. There is, in fact, one going on right now. All this despite the fact that having an abortion is medically safer than carrying a child to term.
The Census, Part Deux
After pointing out a couple of weeks ago that the census is a political tool, tonight I decided to use it as such. As we know, the census is being administered by a US arms manufacturer who is hoping to make a significant profit off our tax money. After carefully considering the arguments (please read!), I decided that my initial responses to the census had not been quite helpful and informative enough.
Unfortunately, adding the extra information has required me to cross out my original answers and then scribble the new ones all over the page. My handwriting’s not very good I’m afraid, but Lockheed Martin, the British state, and future generations will now know many more exciting facts about me:
- I found, for instance, that the options provided in Household Question 7 (What type of accommodation is this?) did not quite match the type of house I live in. So I explained what a Tyneside flat was.
- While my flat has two bedrooms, I felt the need to explain that one of them is known and used as “the laundry and campaign materials room”.
- I was offended by the phrasing of Personal Question 2 (What is your sex?) and explained that while I was female, I found this question limiting and offensive on behalf of the many transgender and intersex people in the UK.
- I explained that I had come to live in the UK in “the month of September nineteen-ninety-nine, current era”.
- I felt the need to elaborate on the state of my health (Personal Question 13): “Very good. I can kick people in the head from cold.”
- When asked about my ethnic group, I first felt compelled to explain that Gypsy and Irish Traveller were two distinct ethnic groups. I then described myself as “a sort of pinkish colour that people tend to call white”.
- Question 17 has been deliberately answered. It now tells the government that I think they should be asking about sexual orientation too.
- I struggled with Question 19 the first time round, so I gave a much fuller explanation of my language capabilities. I also explained in Question 20 that my English was very good, as I could tell the difference between “affect” and “effect”, which many of my English colleagues couldn’t.
- When talking about my nationality I complained that I was not allowed dual citizenship.
- When asked about my employment, I pointed out that as well as a full-time job I was also volunteering for four separate organisations, and that I thought they should be asking about this, what with the Big Society and all.
- Oh, and then they wanted to know my precise job title and description. I was very precise indeed.
To help with processing, I have carefully coloured in all the barcodes, and I plan to staple the form closed to make sure it is tamper-proof (wouldn’t want unauthorised persons to view my personal data), and put it in the envelope with the “Visitor Questions” section visible through the window as that is surely the most urgent information they will want to know.