Is artificial intelligence a good or bad thing?

There has been much discussion recently of the possible impacts of Artificial Intelligence ( AI) on society. There will certainly be huge change, as a result of this latest move to further automation. It seems likely to result in many job losses, though could also mean different types of jobs. It could also improve life, bringing more free time for people and enable earlier retirement. The problem has always been that when technical change comes along, there are promises of improved life conditions but these rarely materialise. Back, in the 1930s, economist John Maynard Keynes said that prosperity would be such in the next century that people would only need to work 15-hour weeks. In the 70s, it was predicted that automation would see far more leisure time for people and earlier retirement ages. What actually resulted was longer hours for less pay and a constant extension of the retirement age So how about this time? The new chat bot ChatGPT certainly is a powerful thing. It has massive capacity. For example, given a minimum of information, it can write the first chapter of a book in the style of Charles Dickens or Raymond Chandler. Ask a question and very comprehensive answers come forward. There are already concerns regarding students sitting exams. Also, newspapers are asking whether past articles have been written using AI. The concern who is in control and how far it could go. These are early days in the AI revolution. But things need to be got right in terms of regulation and control. None other than Twitter owner Elon Musk is among those calling for a suspension of at least six month in training of AI systems - a time to take stock of the situation. AI can bring great benefits but they must be for the common good of all, not just a few tech companies that manage to corner the market in this ground breaking technology.

Troubles Bill will endanger future peace, if it becomes law

President Joe Biden, recently marking the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, spoke of how every person killed in the Troubles left "an empty chair at the dining room table and a hole in the heart that was never filled for the ones they loved." The impact of the 30 years of the conflict certainly left a gaping hole of grief in Irish society. There were 3,600 lives lost over the decades of the conflict. Some 26% of the population were identified as victims due to harm directly experienced or bereavement, according to the Northern Ireland Victims and Survivors Commission. The population need truth and justice if this open wound is to ever close. This need became apparent to me back in the mid-1990s, as the armed conflict could be said to be drawing to a close. Travelling for the Guardian newspaper across Ireland for the 25th anniversary of the conflict I met many who had suffered. Sitting in John Kelly's front room in Derry with the picture of Michael on the wall, it was clear life had stopped for the family on Bloody Sunday in 1972. Michael was one of the 14 killed that day. Only justice would in any way help them find peace and move on. The same feeling was evident with the families of those killed at the Dublin & Monaghan bombings in 1973. The need for truth, justice and reconciliation kept recurring. Unfortunately, this key issue always seemed to get kicked into the long grass with the peace process. There was a fear that any process would upset some section of the community, which seems to have become a mantra for doing very little. The Historical Inquiries Team was set up to investigate unsolved murders. It did some good work between 2005 and 2014 but was then shut down. The Stormont House Agreement of 2014 saw the establishment of the Historical Investigations Unit, Oral History Archive, Independent Commission on Information Retrieved and the Implementation and Reconciliation Group. There was ofcourse the Saville Inquiry into Bloody Sunday, which provided a comprehensive report into what happened on that day. It drew a full some apology from then Prime Minister David Cameron in 2010. However, the efforts of John Kelly and other relatives to secure convictions against the soldiers on that day have failed. Soldier F was brought to court but the case collapsed. Major issues such as collusion between state and paramilitaries has surfaced but never been addressed in full. So, there has been a piecemeal attempt via a number of avenues, to address the legacy of suffering from the past Now though, the British Government seems to have decided to draw a line under the whole subject. The Troubles Bill would stop future prosecutions of perpetrators of murder, torture and other serious crimes committed during the period of the conflict. Amnesty International, victims groups, the Northern Ireland political parties, UN Special Rapporteurs and the UN Commissioner on Human Rights are among those opposing the Bill. The Irish Government is considering taking the British Government to the European Court of Human Rights, if the Bill becomes law. The Troubles Bill would also create a dangerous international precedent concerning conduct in future conflicts. The drivers of this legislation come from the right of the British political spectrum. Tory backbenchers, ex-military and police supported and amplified by the rabid right wing media. The sight of ex-soldiers and police officers having to stand up in court to answer for what they have done angers these people. Time to draw a line and push on with the project of organised forgetting. This cannot be allowed to happen. The attainment of truth and justice for the past is key to sustaining peace into the future. Failure to accept and reconcile to what happened in the past will mean that the problems could recur in the future. Retaining and pursuing the rule of law is key to a peaceful future. Not only will a comprehensive process to address the wrongs of the past help those directly effected to move on with their lives, it will also create a more accurate picture of what went on over those decades of the Troubles. Simply sweeping the whole period under the carpet, as this legislation seeks to do, will deny justice to many, whilst also aiding the creation of a wider historical amnesia. In the long term it will serve no one on these islands well.

BBC under fire

The BBC has been under fire over recent months, seemingly caught between a rock and the Tory Government. The question of impartiality surfaced over the tweet by presenter Gary Lineker condemning the government's immigration legislation. The row escalated, as the highly paid sports presenter refused to back down. Lineker was then taken off Match of the Day, with his colleagues then acting in solidarity, refusing to appear either. The boycott included commentators, as well as pundits, resulting in a much shortened program of just goal highlights going out. The row has since been settled, with Lineker back on Match of the Day. The whole spat though was a real own goal by the BBC, bringing fierce criticism of chairman Richard Sharp, who had donated to the Conservative Party and facilitated an £800,000 loan for former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. The impartiality of Director General Tim Davie was also questioned, given his previous record as a Conservative Party member and candidate for office. Then, there is non-executive BBC board member, Robbie Gibb, the former director of communications for former Prime Minister Theresa May and brother of Tory MP Nick Gibb. The question then seemed to be were the BBC cowering before a Tory Government or had the Corporation been colonised by the Tories, given the make up of senior management. The free market Tories do have idealogical objections to the BBC, seeing it as one of the last remaining big nationalised industries. The approach to attacking the BBC has been one of a thousand cuts. So the licence fee was frozen and is now being phased out altogether. The cost of providing free licences for over 75s shifted from the government to the Corporation. More cuts are being demanded. But the big area of contention is not dramas like EastEnders and Happy Valley or nature programs like Springwatch and David Attenborough's documentaries but news. The BBCs journalism and news coverage has always been contentious, with politicians. Most will remember the big battles with the Blair Labour Government over the Iraq war- the dodgy dossier and the death of scientist David Kelly. That saw, director general, Greg Dyke, and chair of the BBC, Gavyn Davies, both having to resign, following the Hutton inquiry. The relationship with government has always been a tense one, never more so than on the subject of Ireland. The BBC played a major role over the years of the Troubles in upholding and reinforcing the British Government's propaganda model of the warring tribes, with the British army in the middle trying to keep the peace. The idea that the army was also a combatant in the conflict rarely came into the lexicon. That is not to say that the BBC has not had some outstanding individual journalists, who have done fine work. Peter Taylor is one such individual. He recently made the documentary: MI5 and the IRA - Operation Chiffon about the role of an MI5 operative in ensuring there was a peace process. There are those in the BBC who measure impartiality in news coverage, according to the amount of offense that can be caused to all sides. So if Republicans, Loyalists and the Security Forces are all angered by something in the Northern Ireland conflict context, then the coverage must be about right. A similar approach applies to politicians, so if Tories, Labour and the rest are unhappy about the news , they must be getting it about right. In their book:The War Against the BBC, Patrick Barwise and Peter York found that BBC usually bends toward the government of the day, more so when it is a Tory Government. Indeed, the Tories objection, beyond the idealogical question, mentioned earlier, is difficult to fathom. After all they have been in power for the best part of the past 100 years that the BBC has been around. They can hardly be said to have suffered due to biased coverage. Despite all the slings and arrows, the BBC remains the most trusted source of news for the public. Some 44% of the public look to the BBC for impartial news, next is ITN with 10%. The best of the papers is the Guardian, with 3% The Corporation's role during the COVID pandemic underlined the importance of this role. The Corporation has huge global reach and has a not insignificant role in projecting British values ( or should that be propaganda) worldwide. Neither, though, should anyone underestimate the powerful lobby that opposes the BBC. Led by the Murdoch press plus the Mail and Telegraph titles, there is constant onslaught against the BBC. There is practically an industry, including many right wing think tanks, whose sole purpose is to attack the BBC. The Corporation is at a difficult time in its long history. Under attack from many sides, it often seems to lack a backbone when it comes to putting up resistance. The recent Lineker episode was a case in point, with many of the I'll judged decisions coming at the behest of right wing newspapers, who over a short period could not get the story off their front pages. Lineker had plenty of support himself. So the spineless approach of senior BBC management probably alienated all sides. Moving forward, the BBC cannot afford many more such debacles. The sharks are circling. What the BBC needs to do is draw on the massive support it has among the public. Maybe more actively mobilise that support sometimes. Remember all those popular programs across genres that attract millions every day. It also needs to be aware of its inherent tendency in news to lean toward the right, in the name of impartiality. Recognise that right wing Tory governments have been no friends of the Corporation over the years. Maybe, also recognise a number of Tory cuckoo's in the BBCs senior management nest. When all is said and done the BBC does contribute much to the life and culture of this country. It would be a poorer place without it - balanced or not. . Published - Irish Post - 22/4/2023

West Ham battle for point against league leaders Arsenal

Honours finished even at the end of this pulsating game between West Ham and Arsenal at the London Stadium. The visitors took an early lead, when Ben White got to the dead ball line to pull the ball back for Gabriel Jesus to sweep home. Three minutes later, Gabriel Martinelli crossed from the left to find Martin Odegaard coming in round the back to finish. At this stage, the league leaders were coasting, with a number of home fans contemplating a cricket score. But then the irrepressible Declan Rice dispossessed Thomas Party to put Luis Paqueta away in the area. Gabriel duly brought the industrious Brazilian down. Said Benrahma stepped up to convert the resulting penalty. The crucial passage in the game came at the start of the second half, when first referee David Coote awarded a penalty against Mikhail Antonio, who charged down a shot from Martinelli with his arm. Bukayo Saka then fired the penalty well wide. Three minutes later the home side were level, when a long ball from Thilo Kehrer saw Jarrod Bowen come in behind the Arsenal defence to volley home. Bowen then came close to doubling his tally, when put away by Benrahma, he saw his goal bound shot blocked by Kieran Tierney. The final chance of the game fell to Antonio, who saw his header from a Benrahma cross hit the top of the post. West Ham manager, David Moyes, praised the character of his players. "We put Arsenal under pressure, got them on the back foot and moved the ball around the pitch quicker," said Moyes, who welcomed the bit of good fortune that saw Arsenal miss the penalty. Arsenal head coach, Mikel Arteta felt his team started dominating the play and the pitch. They then stopped playing with the same purpose. "We didn,'t defend the box the way we should," said Arteta, who criticised his side's failure to kill games. "We have to kill the game."

Crazy football management merry-go-round

The world of football gets ever more crazy with each passing day. Two Premiership managers were recently sacked for failing to deliver. Brendan Rodgers at Leicester City, Graham Potter at Chelsea. Potter had been in position a matter of months. Other people seemed to making decisions on who was bought or sold. The decision was made. Potter gone. Potter was then in line to get the other job at Leicester City. He declined. Shock, queue headline: "Incredible". And so the merry go round goes on. Amazingly, Frank Lampard, who was sacked by Chelsea two years ago, has now come back as caretaker manager. Covering football for a newspaper gives a pitch side seat as to how these things work. There seems to be a sort of feeding frenzy goes on, as the pack move from one managerial target to another. It is incredible to note at press conferences how little time is spent on the actual football and how much on the job prospects or otherwise of the managers. The way football runs is crazy - no successful business runs in this way. The expectations are unrealistic, the time given for almost any manager to meet those ambitions impossible. The huge money involved in the Premier League drives the frenzy. Take David Moyes at West Ham. He was called in to save the club from relegation in 2018. Having done that, he was replaced as manager by Manuel Pellegrino. 18 months later, Moyes was called in again to save the club. He does that again, then takes the team to 6th and 7th in successive seasons. West Ham compete in Europe, reaching the semi-finals of the Europa League. This season, they are on the verge of similar success. Things have gone less well in the Premier League, with the club in the relegation zone. Some £150 million was spent on new players last summer, some of which have succeeded, others less so. So, given Moyes record it is difficult to see how he merits the calls for the sack. West Ham fans do have over inflated ideas of the club's status, going back to the days of when the club had three players in the World Cup winning team in 1966. The heightened expectations of all football fans in the Premier League age means patience with Moyes is somewhat lacking. The owners of West Ham, to their credit, have, so far, stuck by their man. To that extent they are unusual. It is all about results these days, lose a few games and the door beckons. Past achievement, no matter how great, seems to count for little. Football cannot go on in this way, if it is going to sustain. At present, the demands are unrealistic and often unattainable. Time for a reality check in football.

Irish experience illustrates power of the police to avoid real change and accountability

The Metropolitan Police is under fire from all sides for the conduct of its officers. The latest damning indictment, comes from the report of Irish descended Lady Louise Casey, which found it to be institutionally racist, homophobic, corrupt and sexist. The Met Commissioner Sir Paul Rowley already seems to be digging himself a bigger hole by refusing to admit these problems are institutionalised. The big question going forward is how to attain change The police are very good at damage limitation, managing situations to safeguard the institution, whilst ensuring that very little changes. Some 20 years have passed, since the MacPherson Inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence found the Met to be institutionally racist. MacPherson made 75 recommendations, yet from Lady Casey's findings little seems to have changed. A good example of the resilience of the police to change comes from a look back at the aftermath of the Irish miscarriage of justice cases. In 1991, the Birmingham Six walked free through the front doors if the Court of Appeal. Previously, the Guildford Four, Maguire Seven had been similarly exonerated. Judy Ward was later cleared (1992) relating to the M62 coach bombing. More were to follow. The establishment was in crisis. There was a lack of confidence in the police. Increasingly, juries were not believing what they were being told by police officers. Ring any bells? Few though believed that when a Royal Commission into the Criminal Justice system was set up following the exoneration of the Birmingham Six that this was the start of the fight back process. There were some whispering campaigns against those cleared of the bombings. The term miscarriage of justice was refocused to mean the guilty walking free (though this had always been the case, whilst the innocent were in prison). The threat of crime was ramped up in the media. The final result was the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994, which gave more power to the very people supposedly in the dock at the outset, namely the police. So, the right to silence was removed, stop and search powers were extended and rights like assembly restricted. A few middle ranking police officers were brought to trial in relation to the miscarriage of justice cases but all collapsed. No senior officers came close to being made accountable. There was no meaningful investigation into who really did do the the Birmingham and Guildford pub bombings or the M62 coach attack. So the whole thing came full circle. Whilst the Royal Commission was thorough and did lead to the setting up of the Criminal Cases Review Commission to look at questionable cases, from the legal establishment angle it bought time. The agenda moved on, to such a degree that the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act could effectively reward the original wrong doers. This all under the Tory Home Secretary of the time, Michael Howard, who was most remembered for his mantra that prison works. So what is to stop a similar process occurring regarding the Casey report? What does seem to be different is how far things have now gone. Back in the days of the miscarriages of justice, the rogue officers were viewed as a few bad apples in the barrel. Noble cause corruption was a popular term, where the end justified the means. Today, the view is more that the whole barrel is rotten. There does need to be strong political leadership shown. Thus far London Mayor Sadiq Khan deserves credit for driving the process. He took the controversial action to replace Cressida Dick as Commissioner. The Home Secretary though also has a crucial role to play, especially given that the problems found by Lady Casey are unlikely to be exclusive to the Met. Sir Mark Rowley needs to put root and branch reform in place to get the change in culture required. He would do well to note the words of a former reforming Met Commissioner Sir Robert Mark, who said: A good police force is one that catches more crooks than it employs. There must be questions though as to whether the Met can be reformed from within. Sir Mark has already questioned whether the problems are institutional. They obviously are, as Lady Casey found out. Questions need to be asked, like whether the ethos of the police now is so bad that it attracts the wrong type of people, who are then moulded to become misogynistic, racist and homophobic. Or are those tendencies hidden prerequisites for the job? There have been calls for the break up of the Met - it is too big and unreformable. That maybe the case, what is for sure is that there needs to be drastic action. The Met are rapidly losing the consent of the people they seek to police. Confidence is at an all time low Consent and trust needs to be won back. This can only be done with radical reform. Hopefully, this will be forthcoming but always beware the police's power to turn the tables, time and reputation manage their way out of trouble. The confidence and so permission of the public to be policed needs to be won back. Failure to act decisively now will see little change, with more victims and injustice perpetrated down the road.