Business/ Art Podcast EP.4 with Jamie Hale
Where to find Jamie:
Website: https://jamiehale.co.uk/
X: @JamieRHale
Instagram: @jamierhale
Where to find CRIPtic:
Website: https://cripticarts.org/
Bluesky: @cripticarts.bsky.social
Instagram: @cripticarts
Transcript:
Tom Ryalls: Welcome to the Business Art podcast, a new podcast created by BAP to try and open up the conversation about how money and art are interacting. My name is Tom, and on every episode I'll be having a chat with someone from the arts world about the work they are doing and what their experience of money and art is. Today we have Jamie Hale with us. My favourite description of Jame is on their website, and I quote “a queer / crip artist, curator, poet, writer, screenwriter, playwright, actor, facilitator, trainer and director, policy analyst and CEO. This is otherwise known as ‘busy’, ‘interdisciplinary’, or ‘indecisive’.” Now as indecisive as it may be, one of the great decisions that they have made is to found an organisation called CRIPtic Arts and that is a lot of what we are going to be chatting about today.
*Whoosh sound effect*
Welcome to the business art podcast Jamie; my cat is making himself known as well as he just jumped past me with his little bell. I wanted to start by just saying you have an impressive and such a wide ranging CV and I always love talking to people of sort of both an artistic and a managerial or sort of administrative practice like you do running organisations and practicing as an artist. And before we get into the meat of it and the money of it all, I'm really interested to find out a little bit about how you got into poetry and what sort of always attracted you to the poetry that you've created.
Jamie Hale: I think I have always written poetry for myself, often terrible poetry to be quite frank. And I was encouraged and supported to start reading my poetry at a showcase event at the Barbican. And that started to really make me consider it more as an art form and a narrative and something that could go beyond a sort of self centric attempt to understand and communicate my life and world and into something that I wanted to value more artistically. This was really supported by a Barbican Open Lab residency that turned my poetry into a solo show.
And I think my creative practice grew from that. It was never that I was set on becoming a poet or a writer or a playwright so much as having the opportunities to develop it as a creative art form and to start to set expectations of myself that I do something that went beyond that kind of personal diarizing that it started as was what made it grow into what became my kind of style and practice initially. I've also just been someone who doesn't say no to creative opportunities. So if someone says, as they did, do you want to write a short play that will then be staged in a day at Theatre Royal, then I said yes, despite never having written a multi- character play. Similarly, joining the writing room for a Netflix series, yes, why not? Pitching a series to Channel 4. Yes, why not? Because my creative practice is, I think, at its heart, one of just seizing any opportunity that comes my way. And it was poetry that opened the door for that.
T: Yeah, I mean my creative practice I guess is similar a little bit kind of will have a go at most things. I've never gotten into poetry myself. I think it's because I had a bad experience of GCSE poetry when I was in school and I was kind of like I can't read, you know, war poetry anymore and the Charge of the Light Brigade and things like that. So I think it kind of put me off. But I love that poetry was a starting point for you and that's grown into kind of live performance and theatre as well kind of off the page. However now I guess the focus of what I'm going to talk about is the fact that you founded and you now run an organisation called CRIPtic. And for people that might not know I wonder if you just give us a little bit of information about what CRIPtic is and how it works.
J: Of course. So, CRIPtic is a community interest company that I set up in 2021, and it emerged from a show I curated with the same name at the Barbican in 2019. And in many ways, that show was the first thing I'd done an open lab residency there and worked on my solo show. And at the end of it, I said, “What if I curated a show of deaf and disabled performers? I had no connections in disability arts. I'd never organized anything. I've never curated anything. I've never really done anything." And the Barbican said, "Yes, but make your solo show half of it." And I did that. And after that, suddenly venues were taking me. They wanted my work because it had been on at the Barbican.
And what created a huge change in the opportunities that were open for me as a creative. And at the same time, I was discovering that nowhere was able to meet my access needs and that, that closed doors. And I realized that I wasn't the only person in that position. And what I wanted to do was give disabled people the chance to put work on well-known stages so that they had that track record that got them other work, but also give them the support and development that I so badly wanted in ways that were accessible for them because nowhere was doing it in ways that were accessible for me. In many ways, CRIPtic was initially set up as what I wish I'd had.
So we began with it really being about a show and then it became about some development for artists and a show, and we added in more strands. So now we have a strand that is just community creative workshops, but giving emerging facilitators the chance to build their skills. We have a strand that is about playwrights writing their first piece and offers really kind of focused support with that. We have I suppose our main strand which is about developing people's shows and staging them. So, we've done our show of the year at the Barbican a few weeks ago. A strand for disabled artists at the top of their field, at the top of their career who are struggling to break into the mainstream that focuses on commissioning something tiny with enough money to do it really well. And then a separate strand which is about building disabled organisations in the arts and I call that “the mistakes I made so that you don't have to” when I talk to people about it. And we're trying to have a really open model. Everything is open recruitment for deaf and disabled people. We try and not employ or pay anyone who isn't deaf or disabled, unless it's absolutely impossible to find someone deaf or disabled who can do the work. We want to be that intervention at the right moment.
It's not necessarily about somebody going through all of our programmes so much as it's about entering their journey at the moment that they most need us, and giving them what they need and then seeing where they go from there and trying to be that door opener, that springboard, but also recognizing that we want to focus on people whose needs aren't going to be met in other programs, whose access requirements are seen too inconvenient or too complicated because we know from my experience that that's the group that is being particularly underserved. And we also know from my experience again that we have more expertise with some particular sets of access needs. But then it's also a balance because we're open and all of our programs are open to all disabled people. So, it's kind of balancing a mixture of complete openness and making sure that we're particularly reaching certain people.
It's exciting. I enjoy running it. We run year round as an organisation with staff and strategic plan and business plan and budgets and all of these things. And that really excites me particularly because in many ways it was my first job and everything we've done I've had to learn on the go and that's been a challenge but it's also been really interesting.
T: And I guess CRIPtic is a real adult organisation now with budgets and strategies and all those kind of things. I feel like you've had a very quick grow or glow up in the last few years since founding to get to this point where I think a lot of people in the arts really know the CRIPtic brand now and exactly what you stand for and what you do, which I think is really great. One of the things you mentioned there, was the fact that you'd formed the organisation as a CIC. And CIC stands for community interest company. It's a type of legal structure, which is not a charity. And I've talked quite a bit with other people in this podcast and elsewhere about the way charitable legal entities are becoming really unhelpful to a lot of arts organisations. They cost a lot to run. You've got to file your accounts twice. They're very cumbersome. At CRIPtic, you set yourselves up not as a charity as a lot of arts organisations do, but as a CIC. Why did you make the choice to set yourself up as a CIC? And I guess do you think there's something about being a disabled organisation that makes a CIC really useful?
J: I do to some extent. So we set up as a CIC after discussions with lots of other organisations and particularly with Jess Thom at Tourettes Hero. And what it came down to for me fundamentally was that a charity relies on unpaid trustees to have the final say in decision making and a paid leader who is ultimately accountable to what the trustees and members want rather than having the authority to set the direction entirely themselves.
On the other hand, a fully standard limited company, the person who runs it has all of the control they want, but because you can make a profit, nowhere wants to give you a grant because you'll use that grant to make a profit. And a CIC felt like sometimes the best and occasionally the worst of both worlds. I wanted to be in charge. I wanted to make the decisions. And that means also wanting the buck to stop with me. If we mess up, ultimately I'm the one responsible. And that's how I want it to be. So I didn't want a charitable model that had trustees who were making decisions nor did I want to be making decisions and not working for the organisation.
I think one of the big challenges for disabled organisations and one of the reasons that the charitable model really doesn't work is because it relies on a huge amount of unpaid labor and if you want to be a disabled organisation and you want your trustees to be disabled which is necessary if you are applying for funding that's restricted to disabled organisations that they will often expect 75% of your trustee board to be disabled. Then it relies on a huge amount of unpaid labor from other disabled people to keep your organisation going and I didn't feel comfortable asking that of other people. So there was that side of it and then there was the side of it that was, this is mine, this is my vision, this is my concept, this is my baby and I want it to be me that's delivering it. And so those two things together made a CIC a good decision. It does limit funding opportunities particularly because I'm the sole director. I've spent the last 12 months or so, possibly more, trying to change my articles with Companies House so that we can have multiple directors but in a structure where I still retain a slightly different position in terms of organisational control.
That's been a nightmare because once you're working with big institutions, they will just reject your forms, not tell you why, and then you have to restart the whole thing, print them all out again, sign them again, post them again. And this has been a real mission, but a lot of funders won't fund a CIC with the sole director. They want there to be a board of directors. And so that's now what I'm kind of working towards. But there is always that tension between “this organisation is mine and I want to be making the final decision” and “I need a board of other people in order to access funding”. So I think a CIC gives you far more control and access to funding than any other model, but it's still not perfect for that because nothing is.
T: Yeah, I always find it really interesting that charity trustees are not resourced really to do good decision- making a lot of the time, but they are effectively the line manager of the person or people who are running the organisation and therefore actually are they being properly endorsed to do the accountability function they're supposed to do and the risk management function they're supposed to do and all those kind of things. And I do think it's especially true for disabled people where, when capacity works differently or when speed of work is different and those kind of things, creating a scenario where there's an expectation that disabled people work for free is really challenging.
I've kind of often advocated for, I know that there's less funds that a CIC is eligible for than a charity, but if you are doing a specific disabled or DDPO funding strand, I think there should be a clause which says that if you are a disabled CIC, you can apply on the same grounds as a charity because of the kind of nuances around unpaid labor for disabled people. There's probably a wider conversation beyond that about should there be any kind of unpaid labor as well, but I do think we are seeing an increasing number of disabled organisations form CIC's instead of charities a lot of the time and I wonder just to sort of come to another question and prod that a little bit outside of the practicalities and problems with the charity commission such as you know we see a lot of ableism in the charity commission's processes and it's just in the practicality of how to set up a charity. How helpful or unhelpful do you think charitable models are for disabled people or disabled artists within the context of sort of the charitable model of disability becoming increasingly unpopular and questioned now?
J: I think those models are still necessary and useful and I think we should be entering them taking what we want from them and leaving. So, for example, the Shaw Trust Disability Power 100 comes to mind, which I know that we're both involved in, and I know a lot of disabled people who would be far more likely to be on it than myself and who aren't because they've chosen not to because they don't like the charitable model.
Whereas for me because it awards who it considers to be the most influential disabled people in various fields, having that accolade isn't something I use against other disabled people. It's something I use against funding opportunities. It's something I can use to say to other non-disabled people. Look, this charity thinks my track record is great. It doesn't mean I think I'm one of the 10 most influential disabled people in entertainment in the UK, but it's helpful for funding. And I think at the same time, it's competitive. There are a lot of problems with lists and rankings and intersectionality and they're very harmful.
But I think there is so little out there for disabled artists that a lot of the time it is, how can we take what we can from what's available? What are we willing to compromise on? What aren't we? A friend and I have a bit of a joke that, “yes we will be your token, but our token rates are a lot higher than our normal rates”. And it's true. There is an amount of money for which I will be your smiling disabled token because I can then use that money to make work that I think challenges and breaks down the charity model. I think it exists and we need to be willing to use and exploit the benefits of it. But we need to do that consciously and without being captured by it into believing that it's the right answer.
T: Yeah, I think one of the things that I've often thought about this and actually, when I made a show with CRIPtic a few years ago, it was sort of one of the core ideas which is that, in any kind of organising movement group of people who are organising, different people have to play different roles. And I don't think we can advocate to say, that every disabled person must exist on a site of compromise in order to participate in institutions and try and change things. But I do think it's interesting to recognize that some disabled people and disabled artists, disabled leaders have chosen to do the compromise almost so that we can hold space so other people don't have to, and I think that is part of that change cycle that we're seeing in disability arts right now.
Similarly, I don't like being the token disabled person in any project, but I can be for the right amount of money and if there's the chance of creating some kind of change with that participation or holding space for other people or using those funds in BAP’s model, the company that I run, we do free workshops for artists or free consultancy for disabled artists and things like that so we can pay it back this way. But I do hear what you're saying as well about the people that choose to do that compromise are often the people that are held up as the kind of acceptable disabled leaders and things like that to go look these people have done the compromise. And part of what we have to do is we resist kind of playing into that narrative a lot of the time I think.
On that topic about who becomes a disabled leader and I've used this statistic quite a lot recently in the podcast or talking about in other things but less than 2% of all national portfolio funding from the Arts Council which is a regular funding stream, goes to disabled led organisations, which we define as over 50% of leadership being disabled in Arts Council metrics, this is within the context of over 20% of the country is disabled and I think CRIPtic is a rarity in that you are, as CRIPtic successfully existing outside of the national portfolio as a disabled organisation doing some really great stuff and we know there structural ableism in all of this but also I don't really see a lot of disabled people doing what you're doing which is founding a disabled organisation and growing it to a relatively robust scale and size outside of the national portfolio. Why do you think we often see less disabled people becoming founders in the way that you have?
J: I think founding an organisation takes an awful lot of nerve because you're going to companies and funders and theatres and you're saying, "I don't even have a track record and I want you to invest in me." And that's something that disabled people aren't taught and socialized and given the opportunity to do and the skills to develop. And almost for me, the reason I could do it wasn't because I'd had those opportunities, but because I had and was having an incredibly close brush with surviving or not.
And that coming out of that, I realized, I guess, how much everyone is a potato. It's not just me that feels like I've done nothing and achieved nothing. Everyone feels that way. And every organisation that was set up by a person, that person had to learn to do it. And if they could learn to do it, then I could learn to do it. I think we think about crip time as slowness a lot, but I also think about it as speed for me and as the sense of rushing to do the things I'm doing while I'm able to do them. And so that really drove me forwards.
I was also, a lot of things came together around coming off benefits and going into paid work as a researcher on a Netflix series which then meant that both I had an income and I didn't have the immediate stability of benefits so I needed to find more ways of making an income. So doing this seemed like a way of making an income. And those things combined, I guess, with the story I told earlier about why CRIPtic in terms of people having the things that I wished I'd had and it all kind of came together. I didn't ever particularly intend to start an organisation. It just seemed like a very natural growth. And because I didn't come up through disability arts and wasn't particularly connected within it, it meant that I didn't know that what I was doing was different. I was just doing it and I didn't know that wasn't how you're meant to do it, in the sense that I just kind of kept going. And I think there are so many barriers. Partly barriers around the benefit system, partly barriers around ableism.
One of the huge reasons that CRIPtic could get off the ground so quickly for me was covid. That everyone was working from home. So wheelchair access was no longer a bar. The fact that it would take four or five hours between me waking up and me being able to leave the house because of the amount of medical stuff that had to happen first was no longer a bar because that made it almost impossible to go for an informational coffee with someone that would literally be an 8 or 9h hour endeavor to meet someone 10 minutes from my house, and I wasn't having to do that, so I was really able to take advantage of everything being wheelchair accessible because it was all online.
I think also there just aren't the structures to support disabled people in becoming founders. That's why I run the incubate program which is every year, four new disabled organisations or people converting their solo practice into an organisational, one in the sector trying to grow. And we've had some really great organisations involved. So, we do everything on things like finance, funding, organisational structures, project management, team leadership, branding and marketing, all of the mistakes I made basically and how not to make them.
And we worked with say FlawBored who are now a very successful theatre company. We worked with NEUK, a neurodivergent Scottish arts organisation that's just won a community organisation of the year award. And that's very much about recognising that it requires so much knowledge to successfully run an organisation and that disabled people are less likely to have access to that knowledge and doing that.
But my master's thesis was on why disabled people are ideal leaders and actually why existing as a disabled person and the structures of disabled… disablism creates good leaders. And that was around things like I'm used to managing a team for my care package anyway, so managing an organisation isn't that different. It's just another team of people. The ways that we have to advocate for ourselves to move through the world and the skills that maps over to as an organisational leader. And yet disabled people aren't told that actually the skills that you need to operate as a disabled person in a non-disabled world could also make you a great disabled leader.
You mentioned CRIPtic as an organisation that is relatively robust and outside the national portfolio and it's really interesting because obviously that is the image of the organisation that you want people to have, but the reality of being an organisation outside of the national portfolio is that we are constantly dependent on year to year funding grants and that if those grants are rejected then we very quickly have very little.
We've got a few different funders in the mix which makes it easier, but all of our development funding is dependent on the Arts Council wanting to keep funding it year by year. And there is no security in that. It looks robust, but it's an eggshell. And that's a terrifying position to be in also because we have employees, we have participants, we have a community and I have a huge sense of duty and obligation to everyone to do right by them. And I know that that can only happen if an organisation funds my project again this year etc.
I think one of the risks here is that CRIPtic could look like a very resilient model that other people could easily emulate in existing on clearly running all of these big programs without being an NPO. But it is not a secure, safe or realistic model to operate on over any period because there is no guarantee of anything. And that the reason that we didn't go in for NPO in the last round was because we wanted to make sure that when we applied for NPO, we were handling enough Arts Council funding each year that we didn't go in at a very low funded level and then struggle to grow. And I may yet live to regret that decision if we can't get our programmes funded. And I think it's really important to acknowledge that in terms of the robustness.
T: Yeah, I totally hear that. I think one of the things you said just then as well about other people emulating what CRIPtic has done. I think that what we often see as disabled organisations is that they're often required to be the exception. They are the one organisation in a small funders portfolio. They are the one disabled organisation that has received a significant grant and those kind of things. Actually people hold up certain disabled led organisation go look these people as this, therefore there isn't a problem and actually for a lot you've just talked about with CRIPtic or for Unlimited where I'm a trustee, it was a very unique scenario of becoming a commissioning program after the culture olympiad and kind of growing from there and then joining the national portfolio a relatively large amount that's not a replicable scenario in a kind of structured strategic way, a lot of the time most disabled organisations are exceptions to the rule. And I think it's important to recognize that, just the existence of disabled culture doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist for the kind of growth pipeline, a lot of the time.
J: Yeah, I completely agree and I think one of the challenges is that we are seeing with funders that there is a sense that they're sort of like we've got our disabled organisation so we're not going to fund you rather than looking at the different value different organisations add to an ecosystem or the massive under representation of disabled organisations in the arts overall and the idea therefore that a funder over representing us in numbers might actually be contributing to a balancing rather than being excessive.
T: Yeah, I guess one of the things I'm hearing in a few of the things you said is that often we see institutions or people that define the sector or define culture, have this thing where they go it's accessible or they go there's a small part of the grant you can use on access features, and this kind of reduction of disability to conversations about like access features. What it does is it doesn't recognise things like the cultural impacts on disabled people and disability culture and recognise the kind of sociocultural elements of being a disabled person and who you're connected with and potentially what your beliefs or politicisation might be like and those kinds of things.
And so actually a lot of the time institutions aren't really equipped to create those pipelines of development even go from individual to artist to arts leader form an organisation and those kinds of things. I guess CRIPtic is partly kind of building that pipeline right now in the absence of institutions and a lot of funders doing that kind of work.
Just I'm conscious of time and I want to get on to our last question. At some point I feel like we should talk more about your master's thesis as well. I feel like I now want to read it and I haven't done just hear more about it. But there is a general push at the moment in disability to create more roles for disabled people in the arts or generally increase representation of disabled people. So for example that statistic I just said where 2% of funding goes to disabled organisations whereas 20% of the country is disabled - there's a general consensus that is not good and that we should be encouraging more disabled people into the arts or to take leadership positions. When we were emailing about what we might talk about today, you'd mentioned that you've been having some conversations about the kind of politics or ethics of advising disabled people to go into the arts. And I wonder if you just talk me through some of the thinking you've been doing around this, should we be advising more disabled people to try and work in the arts?
J: I think it's a really important conversation because it's incredibly difficult to make a living in the arts and especially so as a freelancer. And disabled people may well have a far higher need for a reliable stable income that meets their needs. Universal credit and freelance work are not a good mixture. And I feel increasingly queasy saying to someone, yes pursue your dreams in an industry that I know is very unlikely to let them do that, however talented they are.
And I know that a lot of what I've had has come from being in the right place at the right time. Being able to read my work at a showcase at the Barbican because a friend and I founded that showcase 10 years ago, even though I'd never really been involved since, mean’t I got invited back mean’t I did a residency, mean’t I put my show on there with no experience. And CRIPtic is about trying to create that bolt of lightning luck for as many people as possible.
But also, I've only in September left my other payroll job. I was working a 12-hour a week job running another charity as well because you ultimately have to have an income from somewhere. And again, it looks from the outside, I'm running CRIPtic. It looks like I've done that. I’ve made it. I've got that stable job in the arts. Yeah, I do for 20 hours a week. I run CRIPtic on 20 hours a week. And the rest of my time, I'm now the swan with its legs frantically paddling underwater trying to get enough freelance work to keep doing that. And the better paid freelance work I have is actually often around either academic research particularly in health and social care fields or management and consultancy often outside the arts. And then I do the access consultancy, the training, the coaching, the mentoring, the directing, the commissions, the writing, the performing all of those bits within the arts, but I wouldn't be able to sustain myself without income that comes from outside the arts world. And when I talk to people, that's what I say that you need to have another job as well. You need to have something else going on as well because otherwise it's going to be incredibly difficult to make a living just doing the art that you want to be doing. And it's not always fun to be doing that. It can be from the outside when your early career, it looks like the dream to be working constantly on creative projects, but often actually you're burnt out, exhausted, underpaid, trying to do something you don't understand while everyone's annoyed with you for not doing it the way they wanted you to do it, but everyone wanted it done differently. That it's a job and that means that there are bits of it that you love and there are probably bits of it that you hate. It's not just a dream.
And I think we need to be really frank about that, that it often doesn't pay enough for you to survive in it. Certainly not at the very start of your career. That you need some kind of a stable income. Whether that's because you've got well-off parents, you're living at home so you're not paying rent, but you need that stability. And getting that in the arts is really difficult.
T: Yeah, I was at a kind of mini conference a few months ago where somebody described the freelance arts economy not as a freelance economy but almost like a gig economy which is the level of hyper instability that you have there and everything will collapse at any one second when you're a freelancer in the arts and I think one of the big things about that is the inconsistency of income the lack of stability is also especially in the arts really incompatible with any support structures that exist. For example, access to work and those kinds of things. If you have super inconsistent income because you've done one big project here and then your money's come through another strand here and those kinds of things, there's not a lot of sectors where that exists, very commonly at low income brackets. And so I think we're seeing increasingly access to work review or reject applications in the arts because I think part of it is that the actual economics of work in the arts looks very different from a lot of other sectors and so it's becoming increasingly difficult to say to people yeah, work in the arts you'll get your access needs met this way, because actually those kind of statutory projects and services etc. don't function very well right now and have become increasingly dysfunctional as time progressed and so it is becoming more challenging.
Did you want to add anything?
J: I was just thinking that I both agree but I also find that difficult in the sense that, I agree that support structures like access to work are becoming increasingly more challenging. They're reviewing things. They're changing things. They don't … either they don't understand or they don't want to understand the kind of gig economy that freelance work in the arts is. Equally as somebody who accesses or has accessed support through a variety of state angles; so my care package used to be funded by my local council through adult social care and is now funded by the NHS through continuing healthcare, Access to work is the most, generous, flexible, streamlined support funding on the statutory or governmental basis I have ever come anywhere near, and everything else has been tens or hundreds of times more difficult. With access to work, I'm arguing maybe about how much a job is worth, how many hours I need to achieve XYZ. With the NHS, I'm arguing about why you should keep letting me live in my own home when it will be cheaper to put me in a care home.
And I think I always want to keep that present in conversations about access to work, that it is in many ways a terrible system. And I think recently it's gotten more challenging rather than less. But compared to the other support systems I've engaged with, it's still light years ahead in terms of how good it is.
T: Yeah, I think that's definitely true when you contextualize it like that. I guess when maybe someone who has a recent understanding of the way in which they're disabled or are kind of newer to disability culture. It's interesting that access to work it tends to be or a lot of the times the kind of state support system that you interact with first a lot of the time as kind of an introduction to kind of other things or at least that's something that I think I see quite a lot with people and I think in that scenario it does feel like a very difficult system.
I think the core idea of access to work is absolutely brilliant and as a dream or as an idea it's sort of brilliant as well but I do think we have to consider the context things are in and the increasing challenge still puts it as one of the most kind of effective systems we've got right now. I would hate to diss it and then, everybody stop believing in it cuz I do think it's a really great system. And a big cornerstone of how we create disabled leadership in the art sector as well.
J: And I agree with you on all of that. And I also do think that the idea at the heart of it is incredibly revolutionary and is similar to the idea of idea at the heart of direct payments for adult social care which have slowly become more and more and more distorted and controlled and further and further away from the initial idea that you give the money to the disabled person to access the support that they know they need in the way they need it.
I think it's just something I'm conscious of when talking to people who don't also have to interact with a lot of the other care and support systems is that while access to work can feel and is terrible, there's also a lot that is a lot worse and that I don't want that to be lost.
T: Yeah, absolutely. On that note, I just want to say thank you so much for your time today. It's been lovely to have a chat with you a little bit about CRIPtic, and the CIC's in disabled arts and culture and those kind of things. And I look forward to finding the time to learn more about your master's thesis at some point.
J: Yes thank you so much for having me. It was an interesting set of questions and an interesting conversation. And I can very much dig out the thesis if you wish to have a look!