F**k I'm a Freelancer Again

A while ago I wrote this blog about the responsibility of drama colleges to pay freelancers on time

Today a director friend of mine posted a semi-regular tweet that I see from colleagues bemoaning the timeframe that it takes for freelancers to get paid. I mean I obviously replied with a link to the previous blog, but then it struck me. . . I am now a freelancer again after 12 years of receiving a monthly salary, and in truth, I felt a bit nauseous just thinking about it.

The last time I was freelance I had no dependents, it was just my wife and I, nicely set up in our flat. Now though we have 2 young children and a mortgage to service so the pressure is really on to budget under our new circumstances. Due to the way The MTA closed I don't have the luxury of a large redundancy payout to relieve that stress for a few months, and given that our life savings frustratingly disappeared with the college too we also don't have the luxury of savings to cushion the blow.

Now I should quickly add that we're really lucky as my wife works so we don't live with the imminent threat of losing our home or anything like that (I mean know your privilege right?), but as anybody with children will know, they seem to haemorrhage money at a great speed of knots, so I need to get myself out working sooner rather than later, and the only trade I know is that of a theatre musician/composer. . .an entirely freelance profession.

Now personally I love the hustle of trying to find a new contract every few months, and indeed it's one of the things I missed whilst running the college, but I've always resented and loathed having to chase up invoices. Now after 14 years of being responsible for paying hundreds of people I think that I'm going to struggle with it even more because I know that it's entirely avoidable.

Here's the thing . . . our entire industry is built on the foundation of freelancers, so why the hell hasn't our industry worked out how to treat them properly? Step forward all the people shouting that it was easy for me, I ran a teeny tiny college - of course, I could pay people quickly, and to a degree that's right, but it's also because from the outset I understood our industry and put people first.

Drama colleges have it easy - the money all comes in at the beginning of the academic year or term, and then they're simply sitting on the money. They're not like producers waiting for people to buy tickets and relying on those ticket sales to pay people their salaries. Their income is set and solid. So why can't they distribute it quicker? It's really quite simple. . . that's not how they've ever done it. Payroll gets done at X time of the month, every month, so that's when everybody will get paid and god forbid they deviate from what used to be done. However, we're missing a vital development, aren't we? The rise and speed of internet banking. It really doesn't take long to set up payments, and those cumbersome institutions claiming that I don't understand the numbers that they're dealing with I would say one thing. . . I was doing it all on my own, you have a person or a department purely dealing with finance, and if you still think that it's impossible knock yourselves out and hire an extra pair of hands. 

You can't claim to be worried about your employees' mental health when your employees don't know when they're going to get paid. It is terrifying knowing that you have outgoing commitments that you can't meet, all because you gave in your paperwork one day past the self-imposed deadline that triggers the "payroll"  Understand your workforce and you'll have a workforce that will go above and beyond for you every time. What you'll receive back will more than compensates for the 5 mins it will take you to sort out that freelancer's pay. 

Why do we have to live in a "'puter says no" world? If you're hiring freelancers understand their world. Understand that they'll send you an invoice with a set date on which you need to pay. They've set that date because they probably need the money by then. Not everybody lives in a world with money to spare, and not everybody has the bank of mum and dad to fall back on (and why the hell should they draw from that anyway if they've done the job?) and not everyone has a partner who can fund the gap between invoice and payment.

As an industry, we scream about inclusivity, and we love paying lip service to socio-economic diversity, yet god forbid we use the advancement of internet banking to overhaul our systems and our thinking when it comes to payment. 

I suspect that these systems were originally devised by people that have never known financial hardship - sounds a bit like the recent fiscal event, doesn't it? Well, take it from somebody that's from a council estate in Swansea. . .paying people just a day late can cause horrific stress, it's like the pebble in the water analogy - the ripples spread far and wide, but the difference here is that nobody is forcing you to throw the pebble, you've just decided that you can't change the status quo. . . but somebody in your organisation could. 

So if you're hiring freelancers - pop the pebble back in your pocket, pick up your computer mouse or your phone. . . and click. I absolutely promise you that you'll have people queuing up to work for you,  it's called mutual respect. Try it.

Trying to remain Meta

I have a real love/hate relationship with social media, I both love and despise the power that it harnesses. I watch the harrowing footage of those brave women over in Iran as they undertake their #unveiledwalking protest, trying to ensure that Mahsa Amini's death was not in vain, whilst for every moment they're protesting they themselves risk coming to the same fate at the hands of the so-called morality police. In those moments I'm in awe of their bravery and also in awe of the power of social media

Then I read up on things like the TikTok Blackout Challenge and note the damage that social media can inflict. On the 1st Sept this year, it was reported that 8 children had already died trying the infamous challenge that had so publicly ended the life of 12-year-old Archie Battersbee. I mean 1 child's life is too many right. . . but 8! 

Years speaking to students who felt that they had found their "tribe" online makes me grateful for such a connected global network, then a quick conversation with somebody that learned the majority of their eating disorder "hacks" by equally "finding their tribe". . . and once again I'm scared about what our children are now exposed to.

I'm adamant that the rise of referrals for a neurodiversity assessment is in part fuelled by the rise of symptom information now readily available on sites such as Twitter and TikTok. Knowing how liberating that diagnosis can be for people that have struggled in their attempts to fit into a neurotypical world with no understanding that their brain was just wired differently, I'm again celebrating the spread of important information in a viewer-friendly format.

For sure the pandemic lockdown life expedited the Truman show life that so many people now live. Suddenly we can all be the stars of our own digital TV series. The rise of influencers and indeed digital celebrities has been fascinating to watch. We can all acknowledge an "Instagram" life as opposed to "real life" and yet so many of us opt into this parallel online world so willingly. 

I'm old enough to remember a world without the internet and maintain that this globally connected world is so much easier but we need to understand it better. As I mused here the rise in popularity of some influencers is hugely concerning and massively divisive to our society. How ironic that with all the facts finally at our fingertips so many people are content to stay in their own echo chambers, accusing those that disagree with them of not doing their research. 

For a world that is attempting to break the shackles of binary thinking (no doubt again accelerated by people finding their tribe) social media debates lack any nuance - you either agree or get cancelled? Where's the spectrum of opinion that used to make all of us question our beliefs? I used to love going to the pub when I was younger listening to friends that might have very different opinions to me and allowing myself to be challenged. It's how I evolved, and indeed how I'm still evolving. 

So this is me a 50-something adult trying to grapple with the pros and cons of online life, so how the hell do we keep our children safe online? Between social media and streamed media, they are potentially getting bombarded with a lot of grown-up information that they might not need to know yet.

Until us adults can fully grasp what this interconnected world really means we don't stand a chance of keeping our children safe. Online bullying turns playground bullying into the Hunger Games and yet still parents think that social media is harmless.  Parents bitching in Whatsapp groups' fail to see that like their children they've moved toxic conversations online, resulting in what once would have been a conversation at the school gate suddenly turn into a rallying cry of defiance about whatever it is the school has done this time.  Teachers are fighting the online battle from all sides, whilst trying to navigate an online presence themselves.

The bottom line is of course that social media is still relatively young, and when it was still maturing the pandemic forced it to grow up a little bit too quickly, and now we're all trying to play catch up with this truculent adolescent.

It's worth noting that according to the age limit set by all social media companies primary schools shouldn't have to deal with this issue at all, giving teachers and parents time to educate the children about online safety and online etiquette. However, speak to any primary school teacher at the moment and you'll start to see why the problem starts so young.  Speak to a secondary school teacher and find out how the parents' Truman show is now negatively impacting their children as those once cute baby photos turn into playground ammunition.

Until us adults learn to multi-task responsibly in the virtual world as well as the real world, social media will I'm afraid create far more problems than solutions over the next few years. Throw in a crazed leader that was clever enough to use this virtual world as a home-made weapon available in the palm of your hand for good measure, and whilst we can't put the genie back in the bottle, we might start thinking as a society how we teach it to behave.

The Accidental Disruptor

 For regular readers of this blog - please get yourselves over to www.theaccidentaldisruptor.com where all new blogs will now reside. The intention being to blog a lot more regularly (now that I have time)

Many thanks for reading my ramblings

ALT/TAD

Silence can be deafening

It's fair to say that the last couple of months have been quite hard going. Finding out as late as we did that a benefactor had on reflection decided not to give the college the money that we had been banking on was quite a moment, swiftly followed by "that" report. . . you know. . . the one that we continue to contest as it's so obviously cobbled together.

In many ways, it's been like the most awful nightmare that a part of me still hopes that I'll wake up from. You know when I tell my wife "you'll never guess what I dreamt last night. . . I mean. . . as if both things would go tits up so late".  Of course, I'm very well aware that I am extremely wide awake and The MTA closed a few weeks ago.

A few things have struck me during this time though. . .

1) As the head of an organisation I was haunted by the words that somebody once told me that it was my job to hold it all together for everybody else. Throughout my 14 years as "the boss" those words have loomed heavily in my subconscious, as every time an event happened, every time people around me were struggling, I held it together. Not because I'm afraid to show weakness. . . as close friends know I have zero issue at being perceived as "weak" and even more than that I see displaying vulnerability as a huge strength, but rather because I felt that it was an important part of my role to appear strong, to be the life raft if you like that everybody else could cling to. 

Of course the more people you're trying to keep afloat the more you start to sink yourself, but history has taught me that I'm hugely resilient in moments of high stress, and somehow I'd always keep just above the water.

2) I've been very lucky to have received a huge amount of support from people around me.  I have a handful of lifelong friends that haven't surprised me at all, and I mean that in the nicest possible way.  As somebody that really can't handle compliments, it's been a little overwhelming at times to take in the enormity of some of the things that have been shared with me. Here's the thing though. . .isn't it strange how you really clock the people that say nothing? Like, why is that even a thing? When discussing this with friends we all acknowledged that this is human nature, but isn't it a weird one? 

So why do we concern ourselves about the radio silence? I guess that it's that old imposter syndrome, you make up reasons as to why people haven't commented, or question friendships because somebody hasn't checked in. Of course in reality those people might not even know that your disaster has happened. Just because your world is consumed with it, judging by the number of emails I've had over the past week asking about available places or hustling for jobs, the majority of the world doesn't even know that we closed. Or maybe they have other things going on that are consuming their every thought and they don't have the capacity to check in on somebody else. After all. . . nobody died right? Or maybe as a few people have told me this week, they didn't contact me sooner as they just didn't know what to say?

In other words, there are a million reasons why people don't check in with you, and the likelihood is, none of those reasons is about you. 

3) As I've been very vocal about holding a certain organisation to account over what I consider to be malpractice, it's been really interesting watching the people that will publicly speak out about it. As I've previously noted my concern is not for The MTA but for the vocational training industry as a whole. IF my whistleblowers are correct there is much to be concerned about both over how we were treated, but also about the future of an organisation that literally holds the key to the gate of government funding. 

The number of messages I've received after reading the whistleblowers' accounts exclaiming horror and incredulity of what they've read has been reassuring insomuch as I've not been making a mountain out of a molehill, yet what also comes back to me is the fear of people speaking out, either because they work for establishments that don't want to rock the boat, or indeed they're worried about their establishment being penalised for voicing a concern.

Which brings me back to a question that I asked on Twitter quite a while ago - why is it that some people will always speak out? Why do some people always see the bigger picture and feel compelled to fight for justice, or fight against injustice, whereas others shout very loudly in private, yet publicly toe the line and simply hope that change will miraculously happen? Maybe some people feel like their purpose in life is to cheerlead the people that do speak out, I really don't know, but it's interesting, right? 

In many ways I desperately wish that I could just leave things be, but no matter how hard I try to tell myself to just keep my head down and let somebody else fight that battle. . . I can't. So however hard it is being the person that will always pop their head over the parapet (Mental Health crisis flagged back in 2014 anyone?), like a compulsion I will always do it. 

So here's to all the people that speak out. . .know that you're seen, and to all the people that say nothing, know that your silence is deafening

We Created A Community

 When I opened The MTA back in 2009 I always knew that I wanted to create a #college4life. I used to joke with the students that it was so much more than a hashtag, but in truth, I don't think that I realised the enormity of what we co-created until it all ended.

I commented last year when we announced that we were closing for the first time that I was amazed that the college and indeed the theatrical community rallied to save us.  I was surprised that people cared and I was amazed given the anti-drama college narrative that had evolved since 2020. Whilst of course it's true to note that we were saved by a couple of rather big donations (I know....I know...I see the irony too), it's also fair to say that the crowdfunded appeal helped enormously. Let's not forget that the students raised £16,858 in just 14 days. Donations came from known supporters, friends of students that had been part of The MTA life over the past decade or so, but also from suppliers that we worked with and staff who all valued what we were trying to do.

I have to say that I had spent the last year buoyed up by that appeal. It felt like we had received some industry endorsement to carry on after years of feeling on the outside of the establishment. Then when Trinity changed their validation criteria so that we could finally work towards a government funding stream for the students it felt like the fight was well and truly won. We'd got through the worse.

Of course, I'm writing this on my 2nd week of funemployment, so it's fair to say that I had been lulled into a false sense of security. However, in that gifted year, we saw our community slowly emerging from the hibernation of covid. We had started to see our ambassadors (graduates) returning to college for free classes or just for a catch-up. Things were getting back to normal.

We have a private Facebook group for those graduates that want to participate in the old #college4life. It's a safe online space where graduates can voice opinions, ask questions, hell, maybe even rant and we all sort of listen without judgement (well. . . there probably is judgement off-line but that's just life right?)

You see The MTA was designed to stay small, thereby ensuring that all of our graduates had a shared experience. All the headshots on the wall were part of our everyday lives - so when a student eventually graduated and hit that first audition, they just might see a familiar face ready to reassure them. Due to our stupidly low staff turnover, there was a common ground that they all inhabited, from the stories of being called into my office to the various quirks of all the regular staff. It was reassuring. 

When the Trinity pre-validation assessment required me to hand over student destinations for the last 3 years, I pointed out that I felt that that was unfair, as theatres had been dark for a large percentage of that time. So I volunteered us to send in student destinations since our first graduates left in 2011. Of the 192 graduates that we had a stonking 180 of them filled out quite an involved Google form within 2 weeks. In fact, when we were on our 3rd month of waiting for the much talked about report <ahem>, Trinity told us that our percentage breakdown of destinations needed to be expanded on. Now in truth. . . I honestly believe that this was yet another delaying tactic in the "who's going to write our report" saga, however, if it was, it must have backfired on them massively when I was able to present 180 graduate CV breakdowns by return email.

My point of course is that the majority of our graduates kept investing in us, and that is incredible and really humbling.

So why a community then and not the drama college favorite of "we're like a family". Well for lots of people the concept of family is hugely problematic, so why try to recreate it? Better a community which could support one another, provide a safe space when needed, and of course most importantly of all laugh together. 

When we announced that we were closing the faculty and  I remained committed to the #college4life idea of community. The MTA email addresses were changed to private email addresses, the emergency phone numbers were swapped to personal phone numbers, the Facebook group remained, and a WhatsApp group was formed. You see if we've learned anything since the pandemic it's that communities are essential lifelines to so many people, and if lockdown taught us anything it's that an online community if managed responsibly, can still provide the safety net that can keep us connected.

Finding your tribe is an important rite of passage, holding onto them is your greatest gift in life.

The Rise of the NDA

 I mean it sounds like a Stephen King novel doesn't it? Like some odious triffid-like creature that threatens the mere existence of us mere mortals. Before you correct me I'm aware that it was John Wyndham that created the triffids, but I obviously went for the writer more easily associated with horror stories. Anyway. . . back to the point of the blog.

NDAs or Non-Disclosure Agreements to give them their full legal title have been around around for decades, they came into their own in the 1970s, however, it wasn't until the 80s that they started being de rigueur in legal settlement agreements. When they originated (and indeed even today really) they made sense. Companies dealing with valuable intellectual property wanted to protect their knowledge and innovation, and so wanted to ensure that employee X couldn't just nick their ideas or indeed sell their ideas to other companies.

Interestingly enough most of us became really aware of NDAs through court orders designed to protect abusers. An affair here, an out-of-wedlock baby there, maybe even some criminal activity, all shrouded in secrecy by the perpetrators being financially able to pay their way out of a scandal, with a cheeky NDA thrown into the deal to guarantee that the story didn't come out, thereby ensuring that their "perfect public image" remained intact.

More recently our industry has seen an explosion of NDAs being used, predominantly for castings eg it's not unusual now if a performer is auditioning for a major production they are first required to sign an NDA. In a way, like the origins of the NDAs, this makes sense - there can't be that many creatives around who haven't seen one of their informally discussed creative brainwaves be turned into a show by a bigger, more resourceful company before they could ask for loose change for a reading. I completely get wanting to protect your idea.

However, there is a huge concern that the use of NDAs is being exploited by companies with the resources to gag and isolate performers. In fact, so much concern that Equity have now issued guidance on it. Then there's the thing that completely floored me when I first heard about it - drama colleges getting people to sign NDAs, indeed not only drama colleges, universities too. This is seemingly so much of a big deal that even the government have stepped in to stop it happening. When all the various horror stories were coming out about the systemic abuse and racism in certain colleges, it was striking that people were too afraid to speak out because of this NDA culture.

When discussing NDAs with some friends quite recently I discovered that it's now considered normal to add some sort of NDA into a termination of a contract package. . . not, I should quickly add for the protection of the person leaving the job, solely to protect the reputation of the organisation that they're leaving.

Which leads me to this conclusion - why has it become the norm to silence people that might have something incredibly important to say? When did this sub-culture start to emerge in the UK which basically says that those with money have the right to silence those that need it? We're not talking about intellectual property, we're not talking about trade secrets, we're talking about a culture of silence designed to protect those people and organisations that know they've done wrong. It's like legal blackmail - if you want the financial settlement either at the end of a contract or as compensation for some wrongdoing, you have to sign away your right to speak out. They are legally preventing people from implementing change, meaning that those toxic environments & indeed toxic people can simply move on to their next fodder.

Seemingly I'm not the only one to think that this is corrupt and indeed immoral, back in 2020 Forbes published this take on the situation, and there is currently a lot of talk within the UK of NDAs not being enforceable when they have been used as part of a golden handshake (surely that should be handcuffs), or when the power imbalance is such that the person felt compelled to sign the order.

Money should not buy silence when there has been wrongdoing - and do you know what would work better? A radical idea I know but I'm going to run with it. Treat people properly then you don't have to buy their silence.

People Watching - Social Media style

Since the first lockdown, I've been fascinated by the work of the conspiracy theorists that have worked solidly for nearly two years now to portray themselves as enlightened, whilst nicknaming all the rest of us mere mortals as sheep. As a Welshie I've got no issue with being linked to the Bovidae family - it comes with the territory.

I wrote about my experience at the time here. I enjoyed the sport of chatting and challenging these people. To be clear I don't condone trolling, so my interactions were always respectful as in truth I felt concerned for a lot of the people holding onto the drivel that some of these conspiracists came up with. Then after reading a bit more I became interested in how these people were monetising their hate. A Just Giving account here, a Patreon account there, the monetization of successful youtube channels - it quickly adds up to a healthy income.

What I quickly discovered is that there were known "leaders of thought", people that portrayed themselves as helpful but in reality, were feeding the anxieties of their followers with their various "concerns". As the pandemic continued you could see that some of these people were loving their newfound celebrity status, whilst also professing to have been forced into the limelight as "somebody had to stand up for all the injustice" These people were operating outside the realm of the known right wing media like Toby Young, Allison Pearson, Peter Hitchens et all, but were building followers of thousands.

After the college FB account got attacked by some anti-maskers over our panto "Covidella and the Masked Ball" I took even more interest in these groups. I couldn't understand how a simple stupid online panto was suddenly being accused of being a propaganda tool for the government.  I mean I know that it was a pandemic but we were talking about covid here, not some mind-altering virus, as if I'd be hired as a propanda tool for the Tories. Hell at one point somebody had a go because even the mice in the cartoon postcard were masked! On a FB ad we were getting trolled left, right and centre, with the most used words and phrases being that we "should be ashamed of ourselves", we were part of the government's "propaganda" machine, and the most popular word. . .paedophiles. Literally we were accused of being padophiles for "abusing children". To clarify. . . all because we said 'masked ball' and the cartoon characters on the promo were masked. 

It was then that I discovered that right wing groups consciously looking to divide and rule were deliberately infiltrating alternative medicine groups, spiritualist groups and groups focused on holistic wellbeing. So they were targeting people who already had an issue with "big pharma". Most of the ground work was already done for them. Of course fast forward a couple of years and there is the much held belief that the origin of all this nonsense was just part of the new online war with Russia. Divide and rule. . . whichever way you have to do it. What was also really evident from the people that fell for this nonsense was that these dangerous messages were really hitting their target with people that had known mental health susceptibilities. It was fascinating to watch friends and acquaintances falling down the rabbit hole.

When challenged they would all helpfully tell me that I was being manipulated by MSM (Mainstream Media). They would link me to "facts" that were always so easy to disprove. I learned more about covid and the ONS in a 3 month period than I would have thought possible. Through the joy of social media algorithms I quickly found a group of people like myself that would call out this nonsense. It was a lovely feeling of community at a grim time. 

When the answer to every probing question is "you're being manipulated" it becomes a dangerous narrative. Their followers really were like sheep (ironically), all stating the same "message" like loyal followers. At the time my nephew was working on the NHS front line up in Liverpool. Pre and post pandemic he's a geriatric consultant, but like many in 2020 he suddenly became a 'covid doctor', and like many on the front line would tweet about his experiences. As I read his tweets with pride, I was bemused by how many people would call him a fraud, claim that he wasn't a doctor, accuse him of being "in" on the conspiracy. It's when you see the truth being distorted like that you understand the magnitude of the problem.

One of the people that really fascinated me was the journalist Anna Brees. A few of my friends had sent me clips of hers in a bid to convince me that covid was not real. However that's all I saw was the smoke and mirrors of somebody that had found her niche. I would regularly challenge her narrative, always politely - then one day she sent me a DM stating that "(your) comments on some of my posts recently are very negative" Her message went on to tell me that if I "constantly questioned (her) journalistic abilities" then she'd block me. I wrote back informing her that it was social media ie we could all interact, I mentioned that I was curious as to why she was trying to silence me. She declared me to be toxic and blocked me, not before taking a screenshot of the blocking and posting it to her thousands of followers claiming me to be "dangerous". Cue a social media pile on of her followers, like the gangs from your playground memories, they'd blindly play "follow my leader". Increasingly I noticed that the people shouting the loudest about protecting our "freedom of speech" were only looking to protect their own freedom.

I've continued to follow this group of people as I've been interested to see what they go for next now that the "loss of liberties" created by the pandemic has subsided. One of Anna's mates was the recently convicted stalker Alex Belfield.  They would appear on each other's feed tantalising their followers with the prospect of a joint channel (though I think to be fair that was just Anna angling for that - Belfield was far more successful than her, so she was hoping to nab a few more followers). 

Belfield's persona was clearly to play up to his right wing audience. Like all the rest he claimed that he was simply executing his "freedom of speech", but unlike Anna his venom was very much on display for all to see. How anybody could watch one of his phone ins and not just feel utter contempt at his style is beyond me. 

So this is when my "hobby" of SM people watching finally collided head first with our industry - as Belfield loved a "showbiz story", and he also loved going after people in our industry. For somebody looking for notoriety in a Trump like fashion he's just found the ultimate accolade - the first person in the UK to be sent to prison for online stalking.

It is well known that Belfield went after countless people in our industry, and many of them have spoken out recently. However I was struck yesterday by Ben Hewis' post about the impact Belfield's campaign had had on him and his family. I remember when Belfield turned on Ben, and watched the escalation online. Reading Ben's account though this was clearly just the tip of the iceberg. 

Knowing the connection I nipped across to see what Anna had to say about her "mate's conviction".  True to form she's currently framing it as the "establishment" out to get Belfield. Her follower's are back to talking about paedophiles, but this time in a bizarre whataboutism as they try to compare the perceived severity of Belfield's sentence with the perceived leniency of a paedophile. 

Those seeds planted in 2020 have been watered, nurtured and propagated like a good 'un. Empathy of anything outside of "the fight" doesn't exist. Today I was reading how Right Said Fred like Brees and the rest loving a bit of misinformation, accused Ben of being upset by some "hurty words", implying that somebody should just accept being stalked by somebody who is clearly unwell. Zero empathy.

This court case might make others think twice about selling hate - then maybe we'll all find out if these people are deluded, ill, or merely opportunists looking for their next Patreon subscriber.

Changed For Good

 When covid hit and we were faced with the bizarre reality of being confined to our homes none of us could have guessed quite how long those "strange times" would last. When the theatres went dark in March 2020 it's hard to recall now that there was a belief that they'd be closed for a couple weeks, whereas of course in reality those weeks quickly turned to months. I remember the excitement of taking my children to watch a drive-in Dinosaur show after months of nothing. As my children looked on in amazement and wonderment I distinctly remember sitting in the driving seat shedding a 'happy tear' just to watch a company of actors being able to work again.

Even though this is very much our recent history it already feels like a lifetime ago that I was in my kitchen doing the homeschooling with my eldest prior to rushing online to check in with the college. I remember telling one of my students who was struggling with the lockdown that once it was all over, it would be like returning home from touring - it would be like we'd never been away. Normal life would just trundle on as it always does we'd just be a bit more knowledgeable about ourselves, as anything away from the ordinary is bound to influence our future self.

As I've said before I'm writing a book about The MTA at the moment, and it's fascinating sketching out the pandemic chapter - how quickly we all adapted and changed in a bid to ensure that no time was lost.

Of course, the reality is that covid is still very present, whether it's a random positive test, a reminder to wear your mask in certain settings, or for so many people the debilitating legacy of long covid symptoms lingering on like a bad memory unable to be 'filed' away as finished. Recently I was chatting to someone that was telling me quite how many friends they've lost recently, friends that prior to covid were young and healthy. For many the explosion of sudden deaths fits nicely into the anti-vax rhetoric, it feeds the paranoia that the pandemic left the world with. Of course in reality (and according to multiple peer-reviewed papers now), the reasons for the excess deaths are somewhat complex. A mixture of a global population that was exposed to a deadly virus (it was never a bad cold), leaving more people than we realise with ticking time bombs as the virus goes for one more mutation, plus a global population that stopped routine appointments, meaning that early warning symptoms have been missed.

2 years on our industry is struggling to find its way forward as I wrote about a few months back. Pre-covid the thought of a show being cancelled was just unthinkable. The adage "the show must go on" was our lived reality, post covid though there are no such guarantees. Even at the college level of producing shows it was terrifying how quickly things could change.  All of The MTA's shows since March 2020 were hit in one way or another by a covid outbreak and each time it gave me sleepless nights trying to work out the logistics. . . and that's without the pressure of needing to break even, so hats off to all producers muddling through this strange time.

As the UK lurks from one crisis to another though there's one thing that's struck me recently - how so many people and indeed so many organisations didn't actually "evolve" during the past 2 years, and how right up to the government there appears to have been a naive belief that we would all simply recalibrate back to a pre-pandemic time.  I'm bemused how so many people have missed the evolution and therefore have failed to plan for it.

Take our industry - the constant cancelling of shows has a profound knock-on effect on our audiences. Even as somebody in the industry I hesitate now to book a ticket too far in advance, I'd rather wait and take my chance on the day that I want to go, yet in making this choice I'm also mindful that there are producers needing to see an advance ticket sale. I'm assuming that time and time alone will restore a much needed equilibrium to this, but I also wonder whether from hereonin the show won't go on? 

Whilst our perceived reality pre-2020 was that things were somewhat fixed eg you'd book a holiday and assume that your flight would happen, we now find ourselves in a world full of uncertainty, and I'm curious how that permeates throughout society. 

Speaking recently to some business owners I was struck by their optimism that things would "soon get back to normal" but they seemed to have missed the point entirely that normal in 2022 has a different complexion from normal 2019. It should be noted that not all the changes are bad, take zoom life for example, the fact that the pandemic normalised video conference calls as opposed to traipsing here, there and everywhere for meetings that often took a fifth of the time to travel to places is revolutionary for personal time management. As a parent of young children the normalisation of hybrid working is a game changer, but I can also recognise that this change has the potential to change the city landscape for good.

We lived online for over a year - that is bound to change us all. I've definitely noticed that my concentration span is much shorter these days. I sense myself metaphorically scrolling through information said in person to me with a sense of undue urgency. With online life comes the pros and cons of social media, the artificial divide that's created when we all unwittingly believe a truth just because somebody wrote it down and posted it.

What will it mean for the training industry this fast-scroll life that now exists as a shop window to dance and drama training. Well I think that we've already seen a shift. It's no coincidence that some of the newer colleges that hit the ground running with their brilliant social media campaigns of commercial videos have done considerably better than the "old guard" colleges over recent years. The rapid growth of quite a few of them has been fascinating to watch. As with all these things only time will tell if they're actually any good. It'll be interesting to see their stats over the next few years to find out the quality of that growth. Alternatively of course there's my other theory that elite training is on its way out, and bulk "life training" is on its way in. When training hundreds at a time there will always be enough clickbait to mute the fact that the majority of students don't do that well. 

As for waiting for things to settle down and go back to "normal" though. . .we all have to accept that "normal" has always been a moveable point.

We all live in glasshouses

It's been a wee while since we've caught up with the Trinity "case". In the past couple of weeks we received the result of the external arbiter's investigation, plus a defiant letter from the Chair of the Board, which once again threatens me with legal action if I discuss my experience with Trinity, and indeed my concerns about the entire process. However last time I checked we still lived in a free country (I mean, thanks to the Tories, only just) and I am completely entitled to publicly discuss my concerns, just as I am entitled to state that I've received additional information, so these constant threats of legal action are clearly designed to shut down a dialogue that I'm completely entitled to have. It should be noted the level of detail that I consciously go into in these blogs - I do this to justify clearly and rationally why things just don't add up, and why maybe another narrative that has been disclosed to me. . . does. Anyway. . .to continue

So the story so far from Trinity's perspective can be traced here, here, here,  and here. I feel that it's vitally important for you to read things from their perspective, after all opinions and thoughts are formed when we have all the information.

You might have read in The Stage that the arbiter did uphold our complaint with regard to the process taking so long, however, they didn't uphold our other concerns, concluding that Trinity "operated with appropriate due diligence as a validating body". As you might imagine I don't necessarily agree with that conclusion. If we hadn't pushed our initial complaint Trinity considered our case closed after complaint No 1. However we did escalate it, and our complaint was upheld, therefore is that due diligence? Of course, the counter-argument is that the organisation had a safety net in place which allowed us to proceed with our complaint, however, I would still argue that the complaint should have been taken seriously from the beginning. We had 6 pages of corrections on a 9 page report - is that due diligence? It should also be noted that the majority of these corrections were upheld. We have evidenced some serious concerns which have not been fully investigated - is that due diligence?  

The new narrative from the organisation appears to now be around a complete U-turn on original thoughts after an assessor watched one of our shows. A show incidentally that they had made positive verbal feedback about on the day. According to their records this assessor had clearly gone away and rethought their original praise which of course they are completely entitled to do, and on reflection felt that the show didn't meet the correct standard, these revised views were, we were told shared by our main assessor, however, they've never explained how he actually came to share these views, as he didn't come to see the show? So when did he watch it?  Given that this one show is pivotal to one of our "issues" surely this is a critical point? It would be great to have a straightforward answer to this given that so many things seemingly changed on these observations. 

Such was the level of their concern the narrative now is that they "diligently" watched additional material online to get greater clarity, oops sorry, that's now turned into sampled additional material online. The wording changed after we called them out on their original claim that they had watched our productions. Was there an expectation that they would have watched all the shows that they had asked us to send to them - of course not? Life is far too short. Do I think that you can judge the dance standard of a college by watching 6 mins of a show, 2 mins of which is a couple of title screens, 3 mins of which is a whole college dance piece expertly choreographed by Jreena Green as a piece designed to show the true origins of jazz dance, deliberately using set moves to trace that history? As an aside, this piece was part of our commitment after BLM to operate with an anti-racist policy. So the moves that they deemed to be "too simplistic" were an accurate, authentic re-enactment of the origins of jazz dance from the black history perspective! So do I think that they can form an opinion of a standard based on those 3 mins? I think that you can guess the answer. Then let's not forget at this point that in the classroom observations there were no concerns about the standard.  Is it any wonder that we still have questions?

Anyway. . .back to the concerns, it was noted in the arbiter's report that on 15th March there appears to have been a handover document between our assessor and the person that would eventually deliver the report to us. Just as an aside it should also be noted that this was the exact day that the original assessor wrote to me apologising for the delay in getting our report to us, stating that the other person (that'll be the other person that was involved in the handover) had been off work ill with covid for 3 weeks, and they were hoping to return soon. So was it usual practice for handovers to happen when people were off sick? I'm aware that the assessor was waiting to discuss some things with the other person. . .though interestingly nobody has flagged up those specific questions anywhere? Even more interesting to me as they were issues that I had flagged up given that we were the first accelerated programme to undergo a validation process. Anyway, back to the "handover document" it was in this document that the concerns around the standard of dance were documented, having "diligently" sampled more of our online work, but here's the thing. . . the online stuff wasn't "sampled" until 8th June. Our main assessor was on "sick leave" from at least 25th March. On 9th June they came to assess a show and assessed that all students had reached the standard required in all 3 disciplines? The dates just don't add up for the level of concern that was seemingly raised.

They've used this perceived "concern" over dance to explain away the absence of any observations from the singing and acting classes on the day of the pre-validation assessment. Of course, this is quite key to our belief that the notes from the main assessor were not handed over in their entirety. The suggestion now is that the report "helpfully" focuses on the area of concern. They weren't concerned about our singing and acting so they didn't bother including any classroom observations. So why pop in an observation report about the voice class - that wasn't an area of concern? Or could it be as we've always suggested that two assessors watched that class? The only observations missing are the classes observed solely by the main assessor.

Trinity have created a strong narrative around us needing to put in a structure for formal assessments, and how this would have been a cultural shift for us, but erm. . .via our shows of work and via our productions, we had shifted to an assessment structure back in 2020, the main assessor was aware of that, he had seen the schemes that we were using. The arbiter quite rightly noted the adjustments that we would have had to have made if we were a college that didn't already have these systems in place eg they asked where these assessment points could come in our calendar, who marked them, what would be the marking guidelines, what grading systems would we be using, how could the feedback be given and in what timeframe. . .all extremely valid points, except that if they'd checked the student handbook all that information existed. Literally, the only thing that was recommended for us to change around assessments was the marking criteria. In fact, what they had asked us to do was far easier than what we had done previously. From 9 subsections of marking looking at personal development as well as industry-readiness their recommendations allowed us to just give 3 marks. We couldn't believe our luck.  The recommendations made had already simplified our infrastructure. As for when these assessments happened. . . that information was in the handbook too. Our students got marked twice a term - once for technical studies and once for performance. Who marked them (according to the criteria that was clearly set out), the heads of department for the technical studies, and our guest creatives for the shows. When was the feedback given. . .every last Friday of technical studies via four 1:1 tutorials, covering all core disciplines. Zero restructuring needed, and no big cultural change required.

As I've kept stating that zoom conversation was predominantly taken up with a conversation around Guided Learning Hours and moderation. The moderation of the course took up the bulk of the meeting, not the change of assessment criteria.  We chatted around various options as in fact, this stuff did have the potential to force us to change the course, and the discussion was around the fact that I wouldn't risk the integrity of the course for a simple box-ticking exercise.  To both of the assessor's credit, they agreed with me, and we worked hard to find a solution that we could agree upon. A system that was so simple to implement that we were already running it 4 weeks later. A system that I was informed in the July zoom meeting that they had failed to understand as the other assessor ended up being confused by it? So where were the notes from the main assessor??

I can 100% see how this can be viewed through the lens of the "distraught" Principal, unable to understand how their course could have any faults, maybe acting out of character due to the upset of them losing their college and of course their income as a direct result of this report (whilst also noting that there was another contributing factor). After all, as the arbiter noted, back in Feb & March we did feel that we were home and dry on this one. For the first time ever we could see a clear, attainable route to secure government funding streams for our students. A game changer. However, as a large number of my friends & colleagues have noted often with a wry smile - this is not out of character for me.  Name me the college principal that has shouted louder or more frequently about the need for greater regulation in our industry. . . I'll wait. I mean here's the piece that I wrote for The Stage just last year on this very subject, or scroll through the blog to note the recurring theme.

Am I upset that the college has closed? Of course, I am - it would be bizarre if I wasn't. Am I distraught by it - no. Life moves on and I'm excited to see what the next chapter holds for me. Am I hugely concerned to discover that this entire process is not regulated by anyone? Yes. I'm curious as to why in all their statements Trinity state that they're regulated and bound by the rules of OfQual, but omits to say that the process to get validated is not regulated by anyone. So what "if" my whistleblowers are correct, what "if" we somehow fell through the cracks of some systemic issues at the only organisation that can open up government funding streams at Level 6? "If" I'm right - how can we as an industry guarantee that this won't happen to another college?

Shouldn't the response to this quite simply be - look things went wrong, there are major loopholes here, let's investigate properly (and by that I mean an external investigation which looks at the process as a whole, with the key people involved in our case all being at least approached to be interviewed etc) silence these rumblings, and then put things in place to ensure that these questions need ever be asked again. Two charities looking to protect their reputations. . .working with total transparency to get to the truth. If that had happened back in July I would not still be blogging about it. Why do simple, reasonable questions get met with threats of legal action? Why have I acquired a Trinity troll on twitter? An account clearly attempting to discredit the college and indeed me? Why would somebody respond to reasonable questions by creating an anonymous profile? 

Transparency was one of the central tenants of The MTA. I guess that these blogs and again the level of detail that I go into in them is indicative of how much importance I put on that value.  Of course, it makes me hugely vulnerable - but by posing questions publicly I'm also allowing myself to be challenged.  For quite some time we've been very clear that whistleblowers had come forward to us, Trinity has made it very clear now in both letters to us and indeed to their staff that this sort of dialogue is not welcomed. I find that interesting, as for every single "event" in this day and age of social media forensics, there are people eager to find out the truth. We had it ourselves years ago when that vexatious grievance was made about the college and a certain blogger was publicly asking to speak to students to "find out the truth". Whilst of course I had feelings about it, I wasn't anxious as I had nothing to hide, and more importantly, if there was something going on then we needed to address it.  As brilliantly described in a podcast that I listened to the other day, organisations have to understand that they no longer operate within a "black box", thanks to social media we are all living in glasshouses.

It can't be wrong to ask these questions. The concerns noted above are valid concerns which have still not been adequately answered or investigated. I believe that the external arbiter did a great job with the information made available to them but I'm still curious why the remit of that investigation did not extend to interviewing the only person that could really answer our accusations - the main assessor. 

Given what was lost as a result of the pre-validation assessment. . . wouldn't you want to know the full story? Similarly, students, colleagues, and staff - all of whom have seen every bit of documentation that's been passed between the two organisations are equally entitled to ask questions. That's not a campaign - as one student wrote in a thread the other day - they are questioning things of their "own volition", because it wasn't "my" college, it was "our" college. Over 300 people were directly impacted by the closure of The MTA, it's just that only one of us blogs ;-)