About me? Mad, disabled, in debt, feminist, radical, angry, pacifist, warrior, radio 4 listener, geek, flower-power chick...
About Hippie blog? Ramblings, photos, fury, giggles and musings about love, peace, friendship, madness, happiness, the state of the world, my life, cool pics, my health and general ranting...
Earlier today, a BBC news producer tweeted a story that provoked an instant twitter storm.
It read, "Tory MP Philip Davies says disabled people should offer to work below minimum wage so they get a job when competing with able-bodied people.". Paul Twinn followed up with information that this had been said in the House of Commons, that his statement applied to people with mental illnesses as well, and that he will provide a link to the statement on Hansard when it is available later.
Suggesting that disabled people should offer to work for less than the minimum wage is an outrageous proposition on many levels.
1) Firstly, disability is expensive. The cost of living is much higher for disabled people, and disabled people are more likely to live in poverty. Non-disabled people struggle to survive on the minimum wage, so disabled people living on less than that is a prescription for extreme poverty.
2) It creates a two-tier system in which disabled people are viewed as second-class citizens who are not worth paying the legal minimum wage to. We couldn't possibly have a lot to offer to an employer, we are automatically only worth employing if we can undercut the non-disabled competition.
3) Access to Work and various benefits which support disabled people to work, are all being cut by this government. This makes working for less money even less realistic.
4) Suggesting that people seeking employment undercut the minimum wage essentially makes the minimum wage meaningless. We fought hard for a national minimum wage. Before it was introduced I had a friend working in a sports shop for £1.50 an hour, and this was completely legal. His wages were pretty much tripled when the law was introduced. If employers can pay less than the minimum wage on the suggestion of the employee, then it makes a mockery of the whole thing.
5) Disabled people need MORE support to work, not less. To quote @HelenWayte"I just don't understand how someone can look at vulnerable/marginalized people and think 'lets make things harder for them'".
This isn't the best blog post I have ever written, but I am so full of rage that this is how little one of our parliamentarians values disabled people. I am too ill to be doing this right now, which of course is the point. It makes me a very easy target.
I didn't watch the Budget live this afternoon, and when I was back online I was expecting a flurry of tweets about how it would affect disabled people. There was nothing. The BBC summary of Key Points, and the Independent's summary do not mention disabled people at all, and the BBC Budget Calculator, to work out how much better or worse off will you be in the coming year following the Budget is only for people in paid employment, with no mention of benefits as income other than non-state pensions.
The one piece of possibly good news is that the government are going to 'revisit the issue' of whether the Mobility Component of DLA should be removed for those in residential care.
I was reminded of that speech Neil Kinnock made back in 1983, warning of the dangers of a Tory government: "I warn you not to be ordinary," he said, "I warn you not to fall ill, I warn you not to get old."
His warnings seem appropriate today: this budget was all about help for business, but with little regard for those not lucky enough to be able to fund a start-up. What about the old? What about the disabled?
and she summarises that, "There was no mitigation of the £18bn cuts in welfare announced in the spending review last autumn".
It is hard to understand why corporations will be paying less, and disabled people barely merit a mention. If the mobility component of DLA for people in residential care is kept, that is a good thing, but all the rest of the disability benefit cuts look like they are still going ahead.
Like I said, I did not watch the Budget myself, and am relying on others' reports about it, but from what I can see, we are again invisible.
[Edited to add: We have had confirmation from Anne Begg MP about what is happening with the Mobility Component of DLA for people in residential care. She says, "They have just delayed it by 2 years. Savings shown in Red Book from 2013 instead of 2011 which was original plan".]
Sheffield City Hall. In preparation for the Liberal Democrat conference this weekend, fences have been erected, roads will be closed, buses changing routes, shops closed, for fear of the Rage against the Lib Dems and other inevitable protests.
In a bid to keep party delegates safe at the three-day spring summit, mobile fencing has been erected around the venue in Barker’s Pool to keep protesters out.
It is thought thousands of demonstrators could come to Sheffield to protest at Liberal Democrat policies and coalition with the Conservatives.
Compare and contrast with this image. That is a group of people at the same place - Sheffield City Hall. The banners are being aimed at - the Liberal Democrats.
Right to Work criticise the cost of the police operation, saying
“The police operation is costing at least £2 million and the people of South Yorkshire will have to pay to protect the very people making the cuts and destroying their lives.”
Details of Saturday's protest are available here. There are so many issues to protest about. Just take your pick.
I am touched and moved that so many people have contacted me, and commented, in such a supportive way. It was a very scary thing to do, but it also felt very important. Thank you everyone.
The last few days I've watched the videos from BendyGirl at Benefit Scrounging Scum, and I loved them, I thought they were brilliant. But I never thought it was something I could do, until in her second video she pointed out how important it is for everyone to speak out.
Like many, many people I am frightened by the proposed changes, the cuts, to disability benefits, and what's going to happen to services and the third sector.
The thought of withdrawing mobility rate... the thought of withdrawing the mobility section of DLA for people in care homes is disgusting. The thought that just because somebody was living in a care home, they no longer need to go anywhere, they no longer need mobility equipment, is just obscene.
The changes in housing benefit rules so that people under 35 in private rented accommodation can't get full housing benefit if they live on their own is disgusting.
And limiting ESA to one year, when so many people were fighting against the very principle of ESA at all, and now to have to change that fight to at least, it was perhaps better than nothing, and if people are going to be put on it because they are considered fit to work, even though we know that many, many people who are not fit for work are being put on ESA, the fact that that's now limited to one year, and nobody seems to know what would happen after that.
When we are in a recession, and people – everybody who isn't working is finding it difficult to find jobs, and the strange assumption that the few jobs that there are will go to disabled people, is just not unfortunately how this society works. Disablism means that disabled people are discriminated against every day, and that includes the disabled person who is well enough to work can find it more difficult to find that job because employers are frightened, or don't want to make changes, or don't know what it means.
I'm frightened. And I'm also, like many other people, very confused. I watched the budget on Wednesday, and I was thankfully using twitter at the same time because there were many aspects that I didn't understand, or that I thought I must have misheard. And that there was a group of us all watching and using twitter at the same time made it more accessible to me, I guess.
But there are many unanswered questions. I've heard of people ringing the DWP to say, 'What's this about ESA being stopped after a year?' and the DWP not being able to answer, because they don't know.
The Housing Benefit cuts, I've heard so many different stories about who it's being cut for. So it's not just that the changes are frightening, it's that they're very unclear, and people don't know where they stand.
When I first became ill and went on benefits, I just got Income Support, and it was a horrible time. With paying part of my rent out of that, and with making debt repayments out of that, I had £15 a week for food, and electricity, and transport. For months I lived on... I used to buy these tins of Irish Stew from Kwik Save, and they were disgusting, but they were really cheap, and I figured it was as close to a balanced diet as I could get because it had meat and potatoes in it. And for months, every day, I had one meal a day, and that consisted of Kwik Save Irish Stew and as much bread as I could eat. Every day. For months. I couldn't afford sanitary towels, I couldn't afford shampoo.
I didn't know about other benefits. And someone told me about DLA and I applied for it, and I eventually got it, and it was one of the key... it was key for me, it was vital. Because my health was bad enough anyway, it was vital for me because I could afford to eat more than Irish Stew. I could afford to go to places on the bus. And I'm talking medical appointments. Before that I was missing medical appointments because I couldn't afford to get there. I could get taxis. I could get ready meals when I wasn't well enough to cook.
Getting DLA literally changed everything for me. And makes, still makes, such a difference. It means that I can afford the extra things I need because I'm disabled. Like taxis. Like ready meals when I can't cook. Like mobility aids, and other aids I use. DLA, along with everything, is being threatened. With ATOS taking over the medicals. And after what they've done with the ESA medicals that's frightening, and many people who need DLA are going to lose it.
Everything that is happening since the new government came in is frightening to disabled people. And I'm not a Labour supporter. I know that various important Labour politicians have come out and said that they would be doing what the Conservatives are doing with regard to disability benefits. So I'm not falling into the trap of saying, 'the coalition government is awful, Labour is the answer', because they are... although they are fighting some aspects of the budget, they are supporting the disability benefit cuts.
I feel like I'm being punished for being disabled. The press and the government are doing a really good job at the moment of whipping up hatred, whipping up this image of disabled people being scroungers, of disabled people not really being disabled, and being workshy and lazy. The government and certain parts of the press are promoting this strongly and I can feel, in the atmosphere, that this is affecting people's views. And with the further cuts, this gets worse and worse.
What depresses me is not my illness. What depresses me is not my impairment. What depresses me is how I am treated because of it. That's what makes everything so much harder. We do need to speak out. Because disabled people are being scapegoated and it's horrible. And for non-disabled people, you don't know what's round the corner. I became disabled. Many people become disabled. It could be you in a few years, with no care packages, with no benefits, with no support. With people thinking... with people thinking you're lazy or can't be bothered, or exaggerating. Nobody's immune from disability. And there are some people in the government, the Prime Minister included, who really should know that through their own lives. I am so... I'm frightened, and I want to give a message of hope, but at the moment it's hard to find one.
So I'll agree with BendyGirl that the hope... maybe we have to get hope from each other... from knowing it's not just us, it's not just me that's frightened, it's not just me that's confused, who doesn't know what's happening and what's going to happen.
I'm not recruiting for votes. I haven't even conclusively decided who I'm voting for. So I thought I'd share some of the tools and sites I've been looking at to help me to decide who will get a cross on my ballot paper, and who will definitely not!
There are quizzes like Who Should You Vote For? online, where you tell them your attitudes to policies, and they tell you at the end which parties your views seem to coincide with the most.
Abortion Rights are doing an election campaign. You can download a factsheet, and lobby your candidates via the site. You just type in your postcode and it lets you email all your local candidates. It then requests that you let them know your candidates' responses to their questions on abortion rights, so that others who enter their postcode can see where everyone stands.
I have only had a response from one candidate (Green, and she answered the way I hoped she would), but hopefully the others will be forthcoming too.
Similarly, the UK Disabled People's Council have put together a list of questions which you may want to question your prospective MPs about.
MyGayVote.co.uk has pie charts showing how the different parties have fared in terms of their past votes on LGBT issues.
Planet Mouret Films is "a blog designed for learning disabled adults and those who are involved in the LD community", with lots of straight forward information about the general election, links to easy-read information about voting, easy-read manifestos and the rights of learning disabled adults to vote.
And Scope are urging "local authorities to act immediately to make sure polling stations are more accessible. They have warned that some people may find it difficult to vote in next month’s elections but said it was not too late for councils to make a difference."
As the disability defiant Churchill would agree, an army must carry its wounded
Please don't take this the wrong way, by reading into it any witless cockney rhyming slang intent that isn't there, but the man behind this new assault on our benefit-dependent poor would appear to be a total investment banker.
Perhaps I do David Freud, architect of the White Paper on welfare reform, a disservice. Maybe, during all his years raising £50bn for the likes of Railtrack and EuroDisney, Mr Freud sat up night after night with the ProPlus, studying the issue until dawn broke over a lavish home far removed, we may guess, from the sink estates he claims he wants to salvage from workless despair.
And yet, by his own words, it seems not. "I didn't know anything about welfare when I started," he told The Daily Telegraph in February, "but that may have been an advantage... In a funny way, the solution was obvious." The special hilarity here, apart from the notion of any obvious answer to so ferociously complex a social conundrum, is how long he took to travel from absolute ignorance to omniscience.
Hired by the Works and Pensions Secretary James Purnell to address this small matter, it took him – wait for it now; just wait for it – three weeks to research and write his initial report. Admittedly by New Labour policy-creation standards, this is hardly a rush job. But by any more conventional measure, 21 days is on the brisk side for so monumental an intellectual challenge.
Still, let's not fall into that very trap by rushing to judge Mr Freud as a man prone to the lure of the simplistic. Indeed, writing in yesterday's Times, he touched impressively on the thinking behind the wizard wheeze of forcing long-term incapacity benefit claimants back to work. "Some of our greatest national heroes suffered from disabilities," he explained, "from Nelson with his lost eye to Churchill with his 'Black Dog' depression, to the physicist Stephen Hawking..."
So there it is. Should you happen to be one of history's greatest maritime warriors, or suited to safeguarding the country from Nazi tyranny while moonlighting as a Nobel literature Laureate, or the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics with rare insight into cosmology and quantum gravity, you really have no excuse for allowing a disability to keep you marooned on the sofa watching Jeremy Kyle.
It's the rest I worry about. For every Churchill manqué, Nelson wannabe and putative Prof Hawking, there may possibly (I haven't spent three weeks on this, so excuse the caution) be others who aren't up to much on the work front. They might suffer from crippling back pain, arthritis, or agoraphobia. Plagued by chronic depression, but denied the spur of having Hitler's army poised across the Channel, they might lack the motivation to clean offices or ask "fries with that?" in return for the minimum wage.
Or they might simply be too battered and bruised by the confidence-sapping, skills-denying residue of a shameful apology for an education to care less. Inevitably a portion of the millions subsisting on a benefit designed to make the unemployment figures more palatable are, to borrow from Mr Purnell, playing the system. And while we might argue whether their reluctance to work makes them lazy or inadequate, we surely agree that they are the walking (or slouching) wounded too; and that, as that champion of disability-defiance Winston Churchill would agree, an army must always carry its wounded.
This, it seems to me, is the crux of the debate. To Mr Freud it may be about gaining the entrée into the peerage or quangocracy men with untold bonus millions tucked away often crave. For Mr Purnell, who mollifies on the record while briefing the papers off it that he's one tough muthah with one gigantic cudgel, it's presumably about ingratiating himself with the Sun and Daily Mail with his summer 2011 leadership campaign in mind. For some of us, however, it's about clinging to what vestiges of a civilised society remain to us.
The fact that nothing significant will change – that this Bill will have its teeth filed down to the stumps by that gallant cabal of backbenchers who remember why they joined the Labour party in the first place – is not the point. Nothing important will change because in this area nothing ever does. Soon after taking power, in the week he chartered a 747 to Seattle for £700,000, Mr Tony Blair floated the intention to trim "workshy" single mothers' benefits by £11 per week. He earned a few nice headlines, and the reflex disgust from the centre-left that was also mother's milk to him, but the political price of such malevolence was too high, and the proposal was quietly buried.
This latest sub-Thatcherite, far right-wing political posturing may come loosely disguised in the raggedy cloak of stick-and-carrot philanthropy, but it would come at a higher price still. The wilful stupidity of the timing, with at least a million poorly paid jobs about to vanish, needn't detain us. The concept of punishing the poor for receiving the assistance that is their right, by making them dig the gardens of the better off, feels like a pastiche of the vindictive nihilism of the rock-breaking Alabama chain gang.
What stinks worse than the idea is the tone. From the pious, cruel-to-be-kind brayings of the Freud-Purnell pantomime donkey, every word emanating from the rear end, they seem confused into thinking that the jobless have a lesser stake in this society than the employed, and believe in the deserving and undeserving poor. To watch a minister with a plumply padded pension and a free widescreen telly and, of all creatures, an investment banker threaten those on £69 per week is to observe the unspeakable in pursuit of the unemployable.
The only way to address the syndrome of long-term dependency is through education. It requires massive, sustained public investment in buildings, equipment and, above all, teachers, and knowing that's not going to happen either the grown-up government accepts, as an unavoidable fee for a moderately civilised democracy, that some people will take liberties to secure as much each week as Mr Freud might spend on a bottle of claret, if he was pulling his horns in.
In the absence of schooling worthy of a developed nation, you turn a blind eye to the alleged scroungers not only because the risk of denying the more deserving their dignity is truly unthinkable, but because the lazy and above all the children of the lazy deserve some dignity too. What you don't do is further stigmatise the poor, the sick, the illiterate, the weak, the befuddled and the inadequate for the delight of tabloid editors.
"Love and work, work and love... that is all there is," said Sigmund Freud, and in a utopian world all of us would have oodles of both. Back in the world as it is, meanwhile, another of his quotes comes to mind. "If you can't do it, give it up!" he said. It's advice James Purnell would have done well to consider before unleashing Siggy's great grandson on his three-week crash course in welfare reform.
This is one of the only articles I have found which is positive about Jacqui Smith's proposals to criminalise men who buy sex from women who are controlled by a pimp. She has had to field some real hostility to the proposals and, from what I have seen, has stuck to her arguments and reasoning and is refusing to compromise. Good on her, we need more of that.
These proposals becoming law could make a huge difference to women trafficked, forced and manipulated into prostitution, and would be a great start to creating justice for women in this country.
The home secretary has caused a storm with plans to change prostitution laws. She tells Julie Bindel why she is following the global trend to target men who buy sex
When I meet the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, on Wednesday afternoon, she is at the centre of frenzied press attention. She has just announced planned legislation to target those who buy sex from trafficked women, and though she has been talking about the subject all day, she shows no signs of flagging. She tells me she is "very proud" to have taken this step. I ask what motivated it. "I thought it was important to continue to look at the way in which we tackle prostitution," she says, "and we had not, until this point, looked at the impact demand has made on the sex industry." She explains that demand is one of the main reasons so many women are involved in the sex industry, including those who have been trafficked here to service the market. "We need to send out a message to men and to society in general, that most women do not choose to be in prostitution, whereas the buyers have free choice."
The proposals follow a six-month governmental review of the demand side of the sex trade. It should soon be a criminal offence to pay for sex with someone who is controlled for another person's gain - and it will be no defence for buyers to claim that they were unaware that a person was trafficked, pimped, or debt-bonded to their drug dealer or landlord. Kerb crawlers will also be penalised more than they have been: police currently have few powers to deal with a kerb crawler on a first offence, but the expected new law will remove the need to prove repeat violations. Police will also be given powers to close premises associated with sexual exploitation.
An estimated 80,000 women are involved in street, escort and brothel prostitution in the UK. According to government statistics, 4,000 women and children have been trafficked into prostitution in the UK at any one time, but the police suggest the real figure is far higher - studies have found that at least 70% of women working in UK brothels are trafficked from places such as Africa, Asia and eastern Europe. The fact is that a thriving sex industry, left to operate largely without government or police interference, is naturally a green light for traffickers keen to make easy profits in a welcoming environment.
The proposed new legislation has attracted both approving and angry attention from commentators, but one of the interesting aspects of this move is that it reflects an international trend. Lithuania and Finland both have laws similar to Britain's new approach, making it illegal to pay for sex with a trafficked woman. In Norway - where procuring, pimping and human trafficking are already illegal - the government is in the process of introducing legislation that will outlaw the buying of sex, but not the sale. This follows the lead set by Sweden, which criminalised all buying of sex almost 10 years ago, after a feminist campaign prompted by the suspected murder of a street prostitute called Catrine da Costa. The law prohibiting the purchase of sexual services in Sweden came into force in 1999 as part of the larger Violence Against Women Act, with the parliament defining prostitution as a serious form of male violence against women and children - harmful not only to the individuals involved, but also to society at large.
When this law was introduced, there were an estimated 2,500 women in prostitution in Sweden. Today there are around 500. And what is particularly impressive is that the number of women trafficked into Sweden is now between 200 and 500 a year - the lowest tally in Europe. Some anti-prostitution activists in the UK are disappointed that Smith has not followed Sweden and criminalised paying for sex in all circumstances. I ask why she has taken what might look like a half measure, and she cites a recent Mori poll which found that the majority of people do not support a blanket ban - but well over half agreed that paying for sex with a trafficked woman should be criminalised. "It is best to go with the grain of public opinion," she says, "rather than try to do something which may be met with resistance at this moment."
Another country that has targeted punters is South Korea. Here, the move towards criminalisation began in 2002 after brothel fires in which 14 women died - it transpired that the brothel doors had been locked from the outside by pimps and were only ever opened to allow buyers entry. In 2004 the South Korean government criminalised the demand side of the sex trade, with punters facing a year in jail or a fine if caught paying for sex. This has massively reduced the sex trade in a country where prostitution once brought in an estimated $21bn a year - 4% of the gross domestic product. Now the red light areas are largely deserted, and bed spaces in the many government-funded refuges for former prostitutes are usually full. (The South Korean government has dedicated substantial resources to helping women leave the industry, something Britain has yet to do.)
Even the Dutch - long notorious for their legalised brothels - are moving towards increased regulation of prostitution. For years, the story given by the Dutch was that legalising brothels had been a solution to the myriad problems associated with the sex industry. Then last year, Amsterdam mayor Job Cohen admitted that legalisation had been a failure. "We want in part to reverse it," he said, "especially with regard to the exploitation of women in the sex industry. Lately we've received more and more signals that abuse still continues." Members of the UK government visited Amsterdam in 2007 as part of the demand review, and did not like what they found. "Ministers came back clear that the problems of illegality and abuse are not solved by legalisation," says Smith. "On the contrary, there were still problems with organised crime and trafficking." Many of the Amsterdam brothels where women pose in windows are now being closed by police, as are the street tolerance zones where men could once buy sex without threat of arrest.
As the Netherlands has found, legalisation doesn't seem to be the answer, and the reason for this international push towards criminalisation seems to stem, at least in part, from the experiences of other countries where the sex trade has been liberalised. In 1984, for instance, Victoria was the first Australian state to legalise prostitution, and the main arguments put forward for the move (including by pimps and brothel owners) were that this would sever prostitution from organised crime and make the trade much safer for the women involved.
The reality does not match that early promise, as underlined by the occupational health and safety advice that is handed out to women by states that have legalised the trade. Women are advised to pretend they have a stomach upset if a buyer "insists on anal sex without a condom"; they are told to be careful when injecting local anaesthetic into their vagina, as it can mask more "serious injuries". (The idea that anyone would inject anaesthetic into their vagina is a stark reminder of the trade's brutality.) Then there is the advice that women should "learn basic self-defence", "be aware some clients can be rough" and that, when visiting a buyer's home, they should check for signs of a planned gang-rape, including loud music and too many cars in the drive.
This suggests that legalisation has been far from successful in protecting women's health and safety, and there is also good evidence that it has failed to stop the illegal sex trade. There are about 400 legal brothels in Victoria, and far more illegal ones. This reflects the situation in Nevada, the only US state to legalise brothels, where the illegal prostitution industry is currently nine times larger than the legal one. The fact is that anywhere that liberalises prostitution quickly becomes a prime destination for punters - many more pimps will set up business there than are legally approved.
In the UK, Smith is bracing herself for more criticism from those who consider the new laws part of a "nanny state" approach to government. One man wrote on this newspaper's website that he was so appalled at the legislation that he would never again "vote for a female in ANY election, local or general". Smith laughs at this, and tells me that she believes she is doing the right thing.
"We are trying to get the vast majority of the law-abiding public to help protect vulnerable women," she says. "I am willing to accept that there are women out there who say they have chosen to sell sex, but they are in the minority, and laws are there to protect the majority. In this case, the majority of women in prostitution want to get out, and suffer violence and exploitation. If there are women who have made a free choice, there are more who have had no choice".
The Tibetan government-in-exile criticized Britain's move to more explicitly recognize China's sovereignty over Tibet, a dispute that could complicate talks between Beijing and representatives of Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama.
The U.K. has long acknowledged Chinese control over Tibet, but its policy for nearly a century has stopped short of formally recognizing Tibet as part of Chinese territory -- a stance that bothers China's government. In a statement on Wednesday, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband called that past British policy an "anachronism" and effectively abandoned it, saying that the U.K. does recognize Tibet as "part of the People's Republic of China."
The shift is largely symbolic, but some analysts say it could further weaken the position of the Tibetan exiles in ongoing talks with China. Britain's stance was unusual among foreign governments, and its rejection of that position could undercut Tibet's argument that it wasn't seen as part of China before Chinese troops occupied the territory in 1951.
A British official at the foreign office in London said on Friday that Mr. Miliband's statement represented only a clarification, and that the U.K.'s actual position hasn't changed. On Friday, Thubten Samphel, spokesman for the Tibetan government-in-exile based in Dharmsala, India, said: "Before 1950, we had many treaties with British India government in which Britain recognized Tibet as an independent country." For the U.K. to say now that it always saw Tibet as a part of China is "testifying to [a] falsehood," he said.
The Tibetan statement came as two high-level Tibetan emissaries arrived in China for five days of talks, starting the eighth round of negotiations since 2002 over the future of Tibet. The last round ended with an impasse in July, during heightened international pressure on China before the Beijing Olympics in August.
British officials said Mr. Miliband's statement was aimed at helping the negotiations.
The Dalai Lama has said repeatedly that he seeks not independence, but autonomy and the ability for Tibetans to worship freely and maintain their culture. China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs declined to comment on the British statement.
A senior Chinese official has welcomed the UK's decision to recognise Beijing's direct rule over Tibet.
Zhu Weiqun, who is leading talks with Tibetan exiles, told the BBC the move had brought the UK "in line with the universal position in today's world".
But Mr Zhu would not say whether it might be linked with Prime Minister Gordon Brown's efforts to bring China into a new world economic order.
Beijing says Tibet has been part of the Chinese nation since the 13th Century.
Many Tibetans disagree, pointing out that the Himalayan region was an independent kingdom for many centuries, and that Chinese rule over Tibet has not been constant.
After a brief military conflict between China and Tibet in the early part of the 20th Century, Tibet declared itself an independent republic in 1912.
China sent troops to Tibet in 1950 and summoned a Tibetan delegation the following year to sign a treaty ceding sovereignty.
Since then there have been periods of unrest and sporadic uprisings as resentment to Beijing's rule has persisted, most recently in March, when there were riots and demonstrations both in Tibet and surrounding provinces.
Q&A: China and Tibet
The Chinese government says rioters killed at least 19 people, but Tibetan exiles say security forces killed dozens of protesters and were guilty of repression.
"I simply don't agree about repression," Mr Zhu told the BBC. "Tibetans are our brothers and sisters."
"Innocent civilians were hacked or burnt to death last March. In one shop, five girls, one of them an ethnic Tibetan, were set on fire and killed. Criminal acts like these have been dealt with according to law. Do you call this repression?"
On Monday, talks between Chinese officials and Tibetan exiles on the future of the Himalayan region ended after they failed to make any progress.
Mr Zhu is a vice-minister of the United Front Work Department, which conducts negotiations with Tibetan representatives.
He blamed this week's deadlock on the Tibetans, whom Mr Zhu believes still want independence.
The Tibetans have yet to comment officially, but the Dalai Lama, the head of exiled Central Tibetan Administration, has previously said he does not want independence for his homeland, only meaningful autonomy.
'Anachronism'
Despite the stalled discussions, Mr Zhu made it clear that China wanted them to continue.
"China has done everything it can to talk to the Dalai Lama," he said. "The door is still open."
The exiled spiritual leader of Tibet, the Dalai Lama, leaves hospital in Delhi on 16 October The Dalai Lama's "middle way" seeks autonomy but not full independence
In a little publicised parliamentary statement on 29 October, UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband gave his strong backing to the talks and also backed the Dalai Lama's call for autonomy as a basis for agreement.
Mr Miliband also referred to a historic agreement dating back to the early 20th Century, which acknowledged China's "special position" in Tibet, but asserted that Tibet had never been fully part of the country.
Describing the policy as an "anachronism", he asserted: "Like every other EU member state, and the United States, we regard Tibet as part of the People's Republic of China."
Mr Zhu said his government appreciated the British statement.
"I think this is a recognition of an already existing objective fact," he said. "It has also brought the UK in line with the universal position in today's world."
BBC World Affairs editor John Simpson says Mr Zhu diplomatically sidestepped the question whether the British decision might be linked with Mr Brown's efforts to bring China into a new world economic order; though that is certainly what many observers think.
They also think the Dalai Lama's position has been weakened by the UK's decision, our correspondent says.
"Breaking news, Tony Blair is not going to be charged with..."
and I was devastated. How could they have ruled out war crimes charges so early on? When there is clearly so much we will not know for a long time. You can't rule it out already.
"...any offences over the Cash for Peerages row"
and I was actually relieved! Not that he's got away with anything over Cash for Peerages, but that maybe, just maybe, one day he and Dubya will share a grotty cell for many, many years.
Name of accused: BLAIR, ANTHONY CHARLES LYNTON D.O.B: 06/05/1953 Address: 10 Downing St, London N.F.A Occupation: Professional Liar Religion: Church Of England Catholic Ethnic Grouping: X1 Lizard
The above named person is hereby charged with the following offence/s:
DATE OF OFFENCE/S: From 2nd May 1997 to 26th June 2007
MURDER: On MARCH 21st 2003 You did conspire with others to murder civilians of Iraq contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
KIDNAPPING: From September 11th 2001 you participated in a scheme of abduction and torture known as 'extraordinary rendition' contrary to Common Law.
TERRORISM: (i) It is charged that you were an active member of proscribed terrorist group, namely THE COALITION (ii) that you created fear or 'terror' for ideological goals, attempting to force political change with violence, or the threat of violence, and deliberately targetting non-combatants, contrary to the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2000.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT: You knowingly oversaw the construction of 30,000 new prison places and six new detention facilities for refugees, contravening Section 5 of the The Human Rights Act 1998.
CHILD ABUSE: You are charged with incarcerating 3000 children in prison contrary to Section 5 (iv) of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971.
FRAUD: You are charged that you willfully and knowingly led the country to war on false representation with malice of forethought contrary to Section 2(ii) of the Fraud Act 2006.
THEFT/ATTEMPTED THEFT: Namely that you introduced laws which robbed U.K citizens of basic civil liberties. Furthermore you conspired to introduce a National Identity Register with the intent to permanently deprive all U.K residents of the last shreds of their privacy contrary to Section 2(iii) of the Theft Act 1968.
DAYLIGHT ROBBERY: Namely that you orchestrated the sale of the last remaining public industries contrary to Section 1(i) of the Theft Act 1968.
CONSPIRING TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE: Namely that you intervened in the investigation of the British Aerospace-Saudi Arabia arms deal to enable the destruction of evidence.
CRIMINAL DAMAGE: You authorised the use of incendiary devices (i.e. white phosphorus), in Fallujah, Iraq, contrary to the Criminal Damage Act 1971.
ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR: In July 1997 you killed Brit-Pop by schmoozing with Noel Gallagher at Downing Street, contrary to Section 4 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003.
BAIL CONDITIONS The defendant is required to immediately surrender himself to the custody of the SchNEWS Kangaroo Court.
............................ Signature of Proscecuting Custody Officer Jo Makepeace
Posts
