The news that there are more ex-service personnel occupying UK prisons than there are troops fighting in Afghanistan should be a cause for real concern. Research conducted by the National Association of Probation Officers (NAPO) found that there are 20,000 veterans in the criminal justice system, 8,500 behind bars and 12,500 on probation or parole. The survey of 90 probation case histories of convicted veterans shows a majority with chronic alcohol or drug problems, and nearly half suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder or depression as a result of their wartime experiences on active service. Those involved had served in the North of Ireland, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan. They are most likely to have been convicted of a violent offence, particularly domestic violence.
The figures lift the lid on a ticking time bomb that has steadily been primed to explode in the home population for years. The conflict in the North of Ireland has no doubt provided many of those 20,000 veterans. For most of that conflict there was little recognition of the effects of combat stress on the individuals concerned.One early victim in the North was former squaddie Jimmy Johnson, who suffered from undiagnosed post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). He had flashbacks to incidents that had happened to him in Belfast. On one occasion after he left the service he was out with mates one Saturday night in the north east. Johnson finished up hospitalising a number of people in a fight but the next day could recall little. Later another flashback resulted in his beating another individual to death. He finished up in jail. After serving his sentence Johnson came out still undiagnosed. As a result some months later he had another flashback and killed another individual. Again he was sent to prison. It was only due to meeting a struck off doctor in prison who recognised the PTSD symptoms that he learnt of the condition. At that time in the mid 1990s the prison service could not provide figures regarding the number of ex-service personnel in the prison system. A psychiatrist at the time suggested there could at least be a prison full of just ex-service personnel. He was obviously right and the number has obviously grown incredibly over the past 15 years, as British forces have become engaged in more conflicts across the globe. Recognition of the personal cost and fall out of conflict has grown but resourcing of the support needed to help the victims has not.The North or Ireland situation alone has created many new inmates in the prison system. 30 years of conflict that saw thousands of soldiers taking on series of active service duties. Certainly for much of this period the Ministry of Defence were unwilling to admit PTSD was a real problem. A similar attitude was adopted to the condition known as Gulf Ward Syndrome. There were no doubt concerns about the possible compensation claims that could result but all the same this was a clear breach of the duty of care owed to service personnel. Now at least the MOD has admitted that PTSD and other conditions can result from active service involvement. There is clearly a duty of care owed to the soldiers who put their lives on the line to serve. However, the latest revelations must surely make the case for a proper investigation to be conducted into the true cost and effects of combat on the individual concerned and the society as a whole. It is a failure of the system that sees 20,000 ex-service personnel finishing up in the prisons. The cost at £35,000 per year per prisoners should be prohibitive in itself. Prison is also clearly the wrong place for people with such mental health problems to be housed. Beyond the prisons, many service personnel finish up as alcoholics and living homeless on the streets. The MOD estimate that 6 in 10 people returning from the front line could finish up with alcohol problems. These are incredible costs for individuals to be paying and society as a whole. They are certainly not the images brought forward in the shiny ads for a life of adventure in the armed forces.It is high time that a proper study was conducted of the true costs of war in all its ugly forms, and then just maybe those who send other people’s sons and daughters to fight on behalf of the country might just think twice about what they are doing. These latest revelations showing a prison population dominated by ex-squaddies, who have in many cases taken out their own mental health issues on partners and totally innocent members of the public, makes the case for withdrawal from the war in Afghanistan even stronger. The amount of crime being committed by ex-service personnel certainly bears out the view that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So for every Irish, Afghani or Iraqi person abused or killed by a British squaddie there could ultimately be a reaction on people living and working in the UK. These are sobering thoughts that underline the need to take these latest revelations from the probation service seriously and act accordingly. Failure to do so will simply result in the time bomb continuing to grow, claiming ever more victims along the way.
Wednesday, 7 October 2009
Tuesday, 6 October 2009
Why are the poorest being asked to pay for the bankes folly
Why do politicians from both political parties seem to think the way to address the deficit is to hit the poorest people hardest? Both Conservatives and Labour seem obsessed with cutting benefits and hitting the lowest paid. Meanwhile, the real public welfare recipients, the banks, escape untouched.
Instead of attempting to make the banks pay back some of the money they have absorbed, the concern the worry seems to be that a few of them might leave the country if unduly penalised. The hedge funds are relocating to Switzerland - who really cares? Is there really any truth in the line that these people are such great wealth creators that we cannot let them go. Most of the highest paid employ accountants to keep their tax payments down to the absolute minimum anyway.
In the longer term governement should be looking to move the countries economy away from reliance on this volatile sector. In the short term, why not impose a flat rate tax on the profits of all banks. This would hit those hardest who caused the problems in the first place and encourage self regulation of the whole sector. Implementation of the Compass recommendation for a High Pay Commission would be another welcome move.
Instead of attempting to make the banks pay back some of the money they have absorbed, the concern the worry seems to be that a few of them might leave the country if unduly penalised. The hedge funds are relocating to Switzerland - who really cares? Is there really any truth in the line that these people are such great wealth creators that we cannot let them go. Most of the highest paid employ accountants to keep their tax payments down to the absolute minimum anyway.
In the longer term governement should be looking to move the countries economy away from reliance on this volatile sector. In the short term, why not impose a flat rate tax on the profits of all banks. This would hit those hardest who caused the problems in the first place and encourage self regulation of the whole sector. Implementation of the Compass recommendation for a High Pay Commission would be another welcome move.
Friday, 2 October 2009
Labour must continue journey back to its roots
So the recession is over we are told. Whatever happened to all those stories about it was going to be worse than the 1930s and last forever. Much it now seems was spin, no doubt created to fill 24-hour news schedules. All of course is not now right with the world. Unemployment continues to increase, the economy has retracted and there is now a huge debt to service. It has been this debt servicing that has dominated the agendas during the party conference season. The debate has moved strangely from the recklessness of bankers and the dangers of unregulated market capitalism to how to make everyone – including the poorest – pay for the mess.The Conservative Party have been most gung ho about the cuts they are going to make to public services. They have also made a few They have also made a few disapproving comments about banker’s bonuses. The Liberal Democrats also have been keen to cut, though less happy to see the burden dumped on the poorest. The Labour Government continues to lose the ongoing media battle with the other two parties. It suits the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to keep the public debate on the subject of cuts for as long as possible. For the government the cuts debate is bad news.
Gordon Brown ought to be taking some plaudits. The government has dealt well with the financial crisis. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Chancellor Alistair Darling and the Treasury took the right steps at the right time. The original projections of when the country would pull out of the recession have also proved correct. There is ofcourse the small matter of Brown having created the conditions for the crisis in the first place - with the cutting of regulation and general lording of business - but that aside he has done well.The big pity is that it has taken the financial crisis to get the government enacting real labour policies. So for example, some £1.5 billion has been pumped into housing. Powers to build new council housing have been devolved to councils and a new programme is getting underway. There are plans for programmes to expand transport systems. Small businesses have received help to get them going. There seems a genuine commitment at the heart of government to tackle climate change. It is difficult not to think that if many of these policies had come into play ten years ago and the country had not gone wading into Afghanistan and Iraq then Labour would be looking at a landslide victory, not almost certain electoral defeat.There are other dividends coming from the slump. The shortage of funds looks likely to claim unpopular initiatives like ID cards, Trident nuclear submarines renewal and it must be hoped the ongoing involvement in Afghanistan.Despite the aforesaid developments, many people in the Labour Party seem to be preparing for life in opposition. One of the problems no doubt has been that Labour has had the look of a defeated party for so long. There is a weariness born of 12 years in government. Some it would seem are looking forward to a spell on the opposition benches.Gordon Brown has failed to renew the party, instead his tenure in office has tended to open up divisions and breed that feeling of defeatism. This has helped land the Labour Party with more blame for the expenses scandal than it probably deserves.Another problem is as the right wing political commentator Peter Hitchens has pointed out an obsession in Fleet Street with getting David Cameron into 10 Downing Street. This seems to be allowing the Conservatives to practically dictate the political agenda on for example the need for cuts. The Labour Government has a perfectly robust response, which is that too much cutting will throw the country back into recession. The economy needs to grow to get people back into work and paying taxes. Increasing the tax take will cut the deficit and provide funds for public services. The big poll leads for the Tories are all the more amazing given that they have outlined very few real policies. Their main appeal is that they are not Labour.So all of these things make it very difficult to see what the Labour Government could do to pull things round before the next election. Labour would though have a better chance if it got back onto the agenda of dealing with the bankers. There is a correct perception that having got the country into this mess the bankers are now getting away with it. Interest rate cuts have only been passed onto savers not morgage holders. Everyone else has to pay for the banker's errors while they apparently live in a bubble where pretty much everything continues as before, including bonuses. Labour also needs to get across what it is doing right. Its competence in dealing with the economy, policies like council house building, investment in green technologies and transport expansion. A timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan and restoration of recently denied liberties would also no doubt help. A recommitment to policies like keeping the postal service public and returning the railways totally to public ownership could also prove popular. The success of Labour over the last year has been in managing the crisis and getting back to some of its old roots. To have any chance at the next election it needs to stop the Conservatives dictating the terms of debate and reconnect with more of those roots – then just maybe Labour could be in with a chance at the next general election.
Gordon Brown ought to be taking some plaudits. The government has dealt well with the financial crisis. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Chancellor Alistair Darling and the Treasury took the right steps at the right time. The original projections of when the country would pull out of the recession have also proved correct. There is ofcourse the small matter of Brown having created the conditions for the crisis in the first place - with the cutting of regulation and general lording of business - but that aside he has done well.The big pity is that it has taken the financial crisis to get the government enacting real labour policies. So for example, some £1.5 billion has been pumped into housing. Powers to build new council housing have been devolved to councils and a new programme is getting underway. There are plans for programmes to expand transport systems. Small businesses have received help to get them going. There seems a genuine commitment at the heart of government to tackle climate change. It is difficult not to think that if many of these policies had come into play ten years ago and the country had not gone wading into Afghanistan and Iraq then Labour would be looking at a landslide victory, not almost certain electoral defeat.There are other dividends coming from the slump. The shortage of funds looks likely to claim unpopular initiatives like ID cards, Trident nuclear submarines renewal and it must be hoped the ongoing involvement in Afghanistan.Despite the aforesaid developments, many people in the Labour Party seem to be preparing for life in opposition. One of the problems no doubt has been that Labour has had the look of a defeated party for so long. There is a weariness born of 12 years in government. Some it would seem are looking forward to a spell on the opposition benches.Gordon Brown has failed to renew the party, instead his tenure in office has tended to open up divisions and breed that feeling of defeatism. This has helped land the Labour Party with more blame for the expenses scandal than it probably deserves.Another problem is as the right wing political commentator Peter Hitchens has pointed out an obsession in Fleet Street with getting David Cameron into 10 Downing Street. This seems to be allowing the Conservatives to practically dictate the political agenda on for example the need for cuts. The Labour Government has a perfectly robust response, which is that too much cutting will throw the country back into recession. The economy needs to grow to get people back into work and paying taxes. Increasing the tax take will cut the deficit and provide funds for public services. The big poll leads for the Tories are all the more amazing given that they have outlined very few real policies. Their main appeal is that they are not Labour.So all of these things make it very difficult to see what the Labour Government could do to pull things round before the next election. Labour would though have a better chance if it got back onto the agenda of dealing with the bankers. There is a correct perception that having got the country into this mess the bankers are now getting away with it. Interest rate cuts have only been passed onto savers not morgage holders. Everyone else has to pay for the banker's errors while they apparently live in a bubble where pretty much everything continues as before, including bonuses. Labour also needs to get across what it is doing right. Its competence in dealing with the economy, policies like council house building, investment in green technologies and transport expansion. A timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan and restoration of recently denied liberties would also no doubt help. A recommitment to policies like keeping the postal service public and returning the railways totally to public ownership could also prove popular. The success of Labour over the last year has been in managing the crisis and getting back to some of its old roots. To have any chance at the next election it needs to stop the Conservatives dictating the terms of debate and reconnect with more of those roots – then just maybe Labour could be in with a chance at the next general election.
Monday, 28 September 2009
Siege mentality underlying the peace in Northern Ireland
Sectarian attacks continue to rumble on in the north of Ireland, despite or maybe because of the peace process.
There have been 1500 attacks in each of the past two years, an average of four a day. Last year, some 560 of the incidents were in Belfast.
In May, a Catholic Kevin McDaid was killed by Loyalists. In July, there were attacks on five Catholic Churches in Balymena.
While there have been some attacks by Catholics, the vast majority have been by Loyalists on Catholics. Not something immediately apparent from reporting in British media which continues to portray the north as a place of feuding religious tribes with any resultant violence being committed on a tit for tat basis by one community against the other.
In June, there were also attacks by Loyalists on Roma in Belfast. These were so ferocious that they forced the Roma to leave the country.
At face value, it seems that the society is becoming ever more divided in the wake of the peace process.
A physical sign of this growing division is the fourfold increase over the past decade in the number of peace walls in the north.
A recent photographic exhibition mounted at the Irish Cultural Centre in Hammersmith showed just how divisive the walls have become.
There were around 27 peace walls at the time that the Good Friday Agreement was signed in 1998. This number has now risen to over 80.
When the Troubles first began back in 1969, the Catholics started putting up barriers to stop the assaults of Loyalist mobs. The walls grew as dividers of the society, many in the early days were made up of barbed wire. Today the structures are far more permanent in construction. The recently completed wall at Somersdale Gardens, dividing Glencairn and Ardoyne, is a massive structure made of brick. Others are more like fences. Most are built high to stop those from the other communities throwing things over. “Some of the walls are up to a mile in length, some are up to 30 feet in height – the one unmistakable thing is that they mark the separation of communities,” said Louise Jefferson, the photojournalist who with writer Stephen Martin put together the exhibition at the Irish Cultural Centre.
Jim O’Hara, a Belfast born lecturer in Irish history, believes the walls reflect an insecurity among the people, a concern that they would be attacked by the other community. “People feel safe behind the walls. Most people want the walls down but don’t feel safe without them being there,” said Mr O’Hara.
The worry must be that the proliferation of sectarian attacks and growth in walls underline the insecurities in the community and just how potentially brittle the peace process is.
On the face of it there seems to be a growing dislocation between the political class running the country and what is going on at street level. While the political parties appear to be reconciling and learning to slowly work together, on the streets the divisions are growing more stark as people pull back into their own communities adopting a siege mentality.
The pressure points become obvious as walls go up and sectarian violence breaks out where tensions are highest.
It can be argued that these developments were inevitable. By its very nature the GFA tended to inbed the divisions between the communities in the north, rather than offer a blueprint for unity. There are ofcourse many other elements to the GFA like the cross border bodies but the divisions in the north remain institutionalised.
There is also the fact that many of those causing the trouble are on the extremes of both communities. The Loyalist groups don’t feel represented in the political discourse while the dissident republicans, represented by the likes of the Real and Continuity IRAs, have totally rejected the peace process and vowed to continue on with the war. These are the people who feel most alienated from the political process and so have least to lose.
It is in bridging the gaps and bringing the communities together that the next challenge for the peace process lies. The politicians need to be bold and not simply collude in the proliferation of peace walls and structures of division as a way to make quick political capital. There no doubt needs to be funding provided to pay for integration between the communities. Active steps need to be taken.
It would certainly be wrong to sit back and think that the violence and walls are a passing phase, a residual of the Troubles, something that will burn itself out with time. Adopting such an attitude would only invite disaster with the divisions in the community, if left alone, likely to grow deeper and wider. In the end it could well result in the Troubles re-igniting in more virulent form. Now is the time for active intervention to heal the breaches and build a real and lasting peace.
There have been 1500 attacks in each of the past two years, an average of four a day. Last year, some 560 of the incidents were in Belfast.
In May, a Catholic Kevin McDaid was killed by Loyalists. In July, there were attacks on five Catholic Churches in Balymena.
While there have been some attacks by Catholics, the vast majority have been by Loyalists on Catholics. Not something immediately apparent from reporting in British media which continues to portray the north as a place of feuding religious tribes with any resultant violence being committed on a tit for tat basis by one community against the other.
In June, there were also attacks by Loyalists on Roma in Belfast. These were so ferocious that they forced the Roma to leave the country.
At face value, it seems that the society is becoming ever more divided in the wake of the peace process.
A physical sign of this growing division is the fourfold increase over the past decade in the number of peace walls in the north.
A recent photographic exhibition mounted at the Irish Cultural Centre in Hammersmith showed just how divisive the walls have become.
There were around 27 peace walls at the time that the Good Friday Agreement was signed in 1998. This number has now risen to over 80.
When the Troubles first began back in 1969, the Catholics started putting up barriers to stop the assaults of Loyalist mobs. The walls grew as dividers of the society, many in the early days were made up of barbed wire. Today the structures are far more permanent in construction. The recently completed wall at Somersdale Gardens, dividing Glencairn and Ardoyne, is a massive structure made of brick. Others are more like fences. Most are built high to stop those from the other communities throwing things over. “Some of the walls are up to a mile in length, some are up to 30 feet in height – the one unmistakable thing is that they mark the separation of communities,” said Louise Jefferson, the photojournalist who with writer Stephen Martin put together the exhibition at the Irish Cultural Centre.
Jim O’Hara, a Belfast born lecturer in Irish history, believes the walls reflect an insecurity among the people, a concern that they would be attacked by the other community. “People feel safe behind the walls. Most people want the walls down but don’t feel safe without them being there,” said Mr O’Hara.
The worry must be that the proliferation of sectarian attacks and growth in walls underline the insecurities in the community and just how potentially brittle the peace process is.
On the face of it there seems to be a growing dislocation between the political class running the country and what is going on at street level. While the political parties appear to be reconciling and learning to slowly work together, on the streets the divisions are growing more stark as people pull back into their own communities adopting a siege mentality.
The pressure points become obvious as walls go up and sectarian violence breaks out where tensions are highest.
It can be argued that these developments were inevitable. By its very nature the GFA tended to inbed the divisions between the communities in the north, rather than offer a blueprint for unity. There are ofcourse many other elements to the GFA like the cross border bodies but the divisions in the north remain institutionalised.
There is also the fact that many of those causing the trouble are on the extremes of both communities. The Loyalist groups don’t feel represented in the political discourse while the dissident republicans, represented by the likes of the Real and Continuity IRAs, have totally rejected the peace process and vowed to continue on with the war. These are the people who feel most alienated from the political process and so have least to lose.
It is in bridging the gaps and bringing the communities together that the next challenge for the peace process lies. The politicians need to be bold and not simply collude in the proliferation of peace walls and structures of division as a way to make quick political capital. There no doubt needs to be funding provided to pay for integration between the communities. Active steps need to be taken.
It would certainly be wrong to sit back and think that the violence and walls are a passing phase, a residual of the Troubles, something that will burn itself out with time. Adopting such an attitude would only invite disaster with the divisions in the community, if left alone, likely to grow deeper and wider. In the end it could well result in the Troubles re-igniting in more virulent form. Now is the time for active intervention to heal the breaches and build a real and lasting peace.
Tuesday, 22 September 2009
Hands up who has heard enough from Tony Blair on faith
There must be plenty of people out there who are getting tired of hearing the views of former Prime Minister Tony Blair on faith. Not least those in his newly adopted spirtual home the Catholic Church. Hardly a week seems to go by without the former premiers views being quoted on faith and particularly inter-faith issues.
Recent offerings have included a talk in London on the importance of faith communities working together to help make a difference in the world. This followed on a lecture in Rome on the central role of religion in society.
Irony is certainly not one of the former PM’s stronger suites. Only those suffering total historical amnesia could not be struck when told that Mr Blair had said that political leaders should listen more to the Pope and that dialogue between religions was important.
Let’s not forget, this is the man who led the country into an illegal war in Iraq, expressly against the advice of Pope John Paul II. And the same man who did so much to damage interfaith relations both internationally and at home.
The Blair Foundation devoted as it is to promoting interfaith dialogue is staffed by people who seem to suffer from the same historical amnesia as their leader. The former head of a leading humanitarian NGO has told how faith communities provide a vital avenue to advance development. He is right, interfaith co-operation could bring rich dividends in the area of development. However, coming from the Blair Foundation it lacks a certain credibility.
This is not a rant against Tony Blair. His governments did many good things to advance the cause of social justice in the UK. Peace in Northern Ireland, devolution, the minimum wage, trade union legislation, support for parents, the Human Rights Act, the Lawrence Inquiry, investment in health and education. However, these achievements are not alone enough to qualify the former PM for sainthood.
On the downside there were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the destruction of civil rights at home, collusion with the US in rendition and practice of torture across the world and the worship of big business and the rich - laying the way for the present financial crash.
Mr Blair is a great communicator and a successful politician. Since stepping down he has no doubt been looking for a new role on the world stage. He has emulated former US President Bill Clinton by setting up his foundation. He remains as Middle East peace envoy. He clearly covets the job of president of the EU with no doubt many of his present globe trotting speeches forming a crucial part of his campaign to win that role.
The worry is that the response of the Catholic Church to Mr Blair could be seen as indicating something of its own love affair with power. There were criticisms of the Blair government over the Iraq war and other un-Catholic actions committed by his administration but it is as though as soon as he became a Catholic an historical amnesia descended upon the hierarchy and it was as though none of it mattered anymore. The former Prime Minister was now one of us so never mind what he may have done in the past. He is an influential man of the type that can be useful.
This attitude is not healthy and can allow politicians to make hay at the expense of the Church. Mr Blair can contribute to the work of the Church in many areas. He can promote peace, interfaith relations and social justice but prior to taking on such a role he needs to make an act of contrition regarding his past actions. He needs to admit that invading Iraq was wrong. He should apologise to people in those countries bombed and obliterated by western forces. He must admit his role in destroying civil rights and victimising so many Muslim people in this country. Then he maybe able to go on and be taken seriously as a man of peace and social justice.
But he has not made any such act of contrition because he probably does not think he has done anything wrong. In his world, the war on terror was probably about defeating evil, promoting peace and advancing interfaith dialogue. He now continues to pursue that aim via other means. The Church should not stand for this. The Church must be about making an option for the poor and speaking truth to power. Time surely for a little contrition from Mr Blair and a bit more opprobrium from the Catholic Church.
Recent offerings have included a talk in London on the importance of faith communities working together to help make a difference in the world. This followed on a lecture in Rome on the central role of religion in society.
Irony is certainly not one of the former PM’s stronger suites. Only those suffering total historical amnesia could not be struck when told that Mr Blair had said that political leaders should listen more to the Pope and that dialogue between religions was important.
Let’s not forget, this is the man who led the country into an illegal war in Iraq, expressly against the advice of Pope John Paul II. And the same man who did so much to damage interfaith relations both internationally and at home.
The Blair Foundation devoted as it is to promoting interfaith dialogue is staffed by people who seem to suffer from the same historical amnesia as their leader. The former head of a leading humanitarian NGO has told how faith communities provide a vital avenue to advance development. He is right, interfaith co-operation could bring rich dividends in the area of development. However, coming from the Blair Foundation it lacks a certain credibility.
This is not a rant against Tony Blair. His governments did many good things to advance the cause of social justice in the UK. Peace in Northern Ireland, devolution, the minimum wage, trade union legislation, support for parents, the Human Rights Act, the Lawrence Inquiry, investment in health and education. However, these achievements are not alone enough to qualify the former PM for sainthood.
On the downside there were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the destruction of civil rights at home, collusion with the US in rendition and practice of torture across the world and the worship of big business and the rich - laying the way for the present financial crash.
Mr Blair is a great communicator and a successful politician. Since stepping down he has no doubt been looking for a new role on the world stage. He has emulated former US President Bill Clinton by setting up his foundation. He remains as Middle East peace envoy. He clearly covets the job of president of the EU with no doubt many of his present globe trotting speeches forming a crucial part of his campaign to win that role.
The worry is that the response of the Catholic Church to Mr Blair could be seen as indicating something of its own love affair with power. There were criticisms of the Blair government over the Iraq war and other un-Catholic actions committed by his administration but it is as though as soon as he became a Catholic an historical amnesia descended upon the hierarchy and it was as though none of it mattered anymore. The former Prime Minister was now one of us so never mind what he may have done in the past. He is an influential man of the type that can be useful.
This attitude is not healthy and can allow politicians to make hay at the expense of the Church. Mr Blair can contribute to the work of the Church in many areas. He can promote peace, interfaith relations and social justice but prior to taking on such a role he needs to make an act of contrition regarding his past actions. He needs to admit that invading Iraq was wrong. He should apologise to people in those countries bombed and obliterated by western forces. He must admit his role in destroying civil rights and victimising so many Muslim people in this country. Then he maybe able to go on and be taken seriously as a man of peace and social justice.
But he has not made any such act of contrition because he probably does not think he has done anything wrong. In his world, the war on terror was probably about defeating evil, promoting peace and advancing interfaith dialogue. He now continues to pursue that aim via other means. The Church should not stand for this. The Church must be about making an option for the poor and speaking truth to power. Time surely for a little contrition from Mr Blair and a bit more opprobrium from the Catholic Church.
Tuesday, 8 September 2009
Alzheimers must be given same priority as cancer
The news that four genes have now been identified that could lead to a treatment being found for Alzheimers will offer hope to thousands of people.
It is hoped that early identification of these genes could lead to a diagnosis being found to address the condition.
Dementia is a growing problem in the UK with 700,000 diagnosed with some form, the most prominent of which is Alzheimers. This figure is predicted to rise to 940,000 by 2015 and 1.7 million by 2051.
There has been a growing debate over the subject of dementia with the increasing numbers of sufferers. In our celebrity led world ofcourse, this has meant the likes of TV presenter Fiona Phillips and Cliff Richard revealing how they have been effected.
Ms Phillips did make a moving documentary about the deterioration of her father and the problems this brought for the family. It also brought out some of the inconsistencies over treatment. One doctor notably pointed out how if someone comes in with cancer they are not told to go away and come back when it gets worse. This is the approach of many to Alzheimers.
My own Dad suffered with Alzheimer’s for the last few years of his life. This was painful for the whole family to endure, seeing a man who had always been full of zest for life gradually deteriorate.
In the early stages it could all be taken as a joke as we set off after one Christmas from London heading for the south coast – a journey he had done hundreds of times before, only to finish up in Maidstone. It should have been clear then something was seriously wrong. Later, the positive drives to achieve things in life could also become negatives resulting in an aggression that was difficult for my mother to cope with.
The question why certain people get Alzheimer’s can become an all encompassing one for the family of sufferers. In my own and brothers’ case the worry is that it may be hereditary. Dad’s mother had Alzheimer’s before him and his sister developed early Alzheimer’s just before she died three weeks after him last year.
The thought though does regularly occur as to whether you will get Alzheimer’s. Forgetting things takes on a more sinister meaning for those with the condition in the family. When that forgetfulness can be traced back to something similar that a relative with Alzheimer’s used to do then it takes on an even greater resonance. In my case for example forgetting whether I have locked the house up and turned all the appliances off. This was a regular lapse in the early days with Dad.
This all no doubt is reading far too much into what are probably in the main purely the signs of ageing and general tiredness.
As a potential dementia sufferer there are the preventative measures that can be adopted. These though seem to vary. Stay mentally active, stimulate the brain. Other suggestions are that it is those who live an overly stressed life who are most at risk, so relax. Don’t smoke, eat vegetables and get exercise – the standard recipe for long and healthy lives - are suggested as ways to avoid Alzheimer’s.
The area is something of a maze of confusion. The other approach is the fatalistic one, if it’s going to happen, it’s going to happen. A few moves to try and make sure it doesn’t though always seem like a good idea. A bit of an insurance policy.
Mentioning insurance brings the argument back to the latest genetic breakthrough. Some commentators have pointed out that being able to identify potential Alzheimer sufferers in advance could be used by insurance companies to refuse future cover. This is no doubt a potential downside of such developments. However, it must be hoped that this will not prove to be the case. The hope must be that the latest breakthrough will lead to further developments in how the condition can be treated. Better care options and drug treatments. The key though to such developments will be funding of further research into Alzheimer’s. This disease has moved up in the public consciousness due to media coverage and the growing number of people affected, however the pressure needs to be kept up. Only when dementia is given the same sort of priority in medical terms as cancer can the condition really be said to be being taken seriously. If this condition does gain that sort of priority then a solution can be found to so much suffering.
It is hoped that early identification of these genes could lead to a diagnosis being found to address the condition.
Dementia is a growing problem in the UK with 700,000 diagnosed with some form, the most prominent of which is Alzheimers. This figure is predicted to rise to 940,000 by 2015 and 1.7 million by 2051.
There has been a growing debate over the subject of dementia with the increasing numbers of sufferers. In our celebrity led world ofcourse, this has meant the likes of TV presenter Fiona Phillips and Cliff Richard revealing how they have been effected.
Ms Phillips did make a moving documentary about the deterioration of her father and the problems this brought for the family. It also brought out some of the inconsistencies over treatment. One doctor notably pointed out how if someone comes in with cancer they are not told to go away and come back when it gets worse. This is the approach of many to Alzheimers.
My own Dad suffered with Alzheimer’s for the last few years of his life. This was painful for the whole family to endure, seeing a man who had always been full of zest for life gradually deteriorate.
In the early stages it could all be taken as a joke as we set off after one Christmas from London heading for the south coast – a journey he had done hundreds of times before, only to finish up in Maidstone. It should have been clear then something was seriously wrong. Later, the positive drives to achieve things in life could also become negatives resulting in an aggression that was difficult for my mother to cope with.
The question why certain people get Alzheimer’s can become an all encompassing one for the family of sufferers. In my own and brothers’ case the worry is that it may be hereditary. Dad’s mother had Alzheimer’s before him and his sister developed early Alzheimer’s just before she died three weeks after him last year.
The thought though does regularly occur as to whether you will get Alzheimer’s. Forgetting things takes on a more sinister meaning for those with the condition in the family. When that forgetfulness can be traced back to something similar that a relative with Alzheimer’s used to do then it takes on an even greater resonance. In my case for example forgetting whether I have locked the house up and turned all the appliances off. This was a regular lapse in the early days with Dad.
This all no doubt is reading far too much into what are probably in the main purely the signs of ageing and general tiredness.
As a potential dementia sufferer there are the preventative measures that can be adopted. These though seem to vary. Stay mentally active, stimulate the brain. Other suggestions are that it is those who live an overly stressed life who are most at risk, so relax. Don’t smoke, eat vegetables and get exercise – the standard recipe for long and healthy lives - are suggested as ways to avoid Alzheimer’s.
The area is something of a maze of confusion. The other approach is the fatalistic one, if it’s going to happen, it’s going to happen. A few moves to try and make sure it doesn’t though always seem like a good idea. A bit of an insurance policy.
Mentioning insurance brings the argument back to the latest genetic breakthrough. Some commentators have pointed out that being able to identify potential Alzheimer sufferers in advance could be used by insurance companies to refuse future cover. This is no doubt a potential downside of such developments. However, it must be hoped that this will not prove to be the case. The hope must be that the latest breakthrough will lead to further developments in how the condition can be treated. Better care options and drug treatments. The key though to such developments will be funding of further research into Alzheimer’s. This disease has moved up in the public consciousness due to media coverage and the growing number of people affected, however the pressure needs to be kept up. Only when dementia is given the same sort of priority in medical terms as cancer can the condition really be said to be being taken seriously. If this condition does gain that sort of priority then a solution can be found to so much suffering.
Thursday, 3 September 2009
Al Megrahi case shows falseness of special relationship with America
The release of the Libyan Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, who was convicted of the Lockerbie bombing in 1988, brought a heap of criticism down on the Scottish National Party government. Most of the criticism emanated from America, which does not seem to be able to resist the urge to interfere in the affairs of other people’s countries.
Considerations like the fact that the punishment of Al-Megrahi did not include as part of its construct the need to satisfy the vengeance of the relatives of the 270 killed on Pan Am Flight 103 were laid aside. The release was on compassionate grounds, just as the release by Justice Secretary Jack Straw a week earlier of great train robber Ronald Biggs was agreed because he also only has a few months to live.Other factors like the probability of Al-Megrahi’s innocence of the crime in question were also conveniently forgotten on the other side of the Atlantic. Amongst Scottish relatives like Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died on the flight, this question was a major cause of concern as it should be for all the relatives. Afterall, if the wrong man has been convicted a guilty individual is still at liberty walking free.What was most revealing about the whole episode was the light it threw on the one sided nature of the so-called special relationship between the UK and the US. This relationship has been useful to the US particularly over recent years, as the UK has backed it up in a variety of illegal operations, like the Iraq war. On the British side the advantages are less clear. From going to war to refusing the pay the congestion charge in London, the Americans seem to have very little respect for the junior partner in this “special relationship.” Take the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The UK has backed America in both foolhardy ventures with British troops paying the price on the battlefield. The UK has paid the price at home with such actions making it more of a target for terrorism. The UK would be a whole lot freer more peaceful place had the country not followed America into these two wars. Maybe when Americans threaten to boycott coming to Scotland, in response Britons should boycott going to Afghanistan.Then there has been the complicity of the UK in rendition and torture being pursued by the US in the name of fighting the war on terror. The case of Binyam Mohamed again underlines the one sided nature of the special relationship. It was revealed in court that America would withdraw co-operation on intelligence matters if a document were made public revealing its complicity in torture relating to Mr Mohamed. The Foreign Office has been fighting in the courts to keep these documents secret in order not to upset the Americans. It remains unclear just how many CIA personnel are deployed on active service in the UK.At a more petty level there is the refusal of the US embassy to pay the congestion charge in London. The bills have now orbited over £3 million. Whether the president is Obama or Bush this policy seems unlikely to change. Examination of what the special relationship really involves reveals a one sided deal with all the benefits with America. At some levels it looks as though the UK has almost become a colony of the US – the 51st state. There are US forces stationed across the UK from the base at Menwith Hill in Yorkshire to the airforce base at Mildenhall in Suffolk. How much this could be described, as an army of occupation is a matter for conjecture. It is a sobering thought to remember that the US bombing of Libya in 1986 was staged from a by the US airforce operating out of a number of UK bases. Never has there been a better example of violence begetting violence.The use of the term relationship is misleading. A relationship suggests some sort of deal, a bit of give and take on both sides, something for everyone. The value of the British relationship with America appears to be all on the one side. The relationship if any appears at times to be more akin to that of master and servant. The sooner that Britain comes out of its historical malaise and recognises the true nature of the “special relationship” the sooner it will be able to resolve its own international identity crisis. This should in the long term lead to Britain taking up a much fuller role within the context of Europe. If the Al Megrahi case helps speed this process on then so much the better.
Considerations like the fact that the punishment of Al-Megrahi did not include as part of its construct the need to satisfy the vengeance of the relatives of the 270 killed on Pan Am Flight 103 were laid aside. The release was on compassionate grounds, just as the release by Justice Secretary Jack Straw a week earlier of great train robber Ronald Biggs was agreed because he also only has a few months to live.Other factors like the probability of Al-Megrahi’s innocence of the crime in question were also conveniently forgotten on the other side of the Atlantic. Amongst Scottish relatives like Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died on the flight, this question was a major cause of concern as it should be for all the relatives. Afterall, if the wrong man has been convicted a guilty individual is still at liberty walking free.What was most revealing about the whole episode was the light it threw on the one sided nature of the so-called special relationship between the UK and the US. This relationship has been useful to the US particularly over recent years, as the UK has backed it up in a variety of illegal operations, like the Iraq war. On the British side the advantages are less clear. From going to war to refusing the pay the congestion charge in London, the Americans seem to have very little respect for the junior partner in this “special relationship.” Take the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The UK has backed America in both foolhardy ventures with British troops paying the price on the battlefield. The UK has paid the price at home with such actions making it more of a target for terrorism. The UK would be a whole lot freer more peaceful place had the country not followed America into these two wars. Maybe when Americans threaten to boycott coming to Scotland, in response Britons should boycott going to Afghanistan.Then there has been the complicity of the UK in rendition and torture being pursued by the US in the name of fighting the war on terror. The case of Binyam Mohamed again underlines the one sided nature of the special relationship. It was revealed in court that America would withdraw co-operation on intelligence matters if a document were made public revealing its complicity in torture relating to Mr Mohamed. The Foreign Office has been fighting in the courts to keep these documents secret in order not to upset the Americans. It remains unclear just how many CIA personnel are deployed on active service in the UK.At a more petty level there is the refusal of the US embassy to pay the congestion charge in London. The bills have now orbited over £3 million. Whether the president is Obama or Bush this policy seems unlikely to change. Examination of what the special relationship really involves reveals a one sided deal with all the benefits with America. At some levels it looks as though the UK has almost become a colony of the US – the 51st state. There are US forces stationed across the UK from the base at Menwith Hill in Yorkshire to the airforce base at Mildenhall in Suffolk. How much this could be described, as an army of occupation is a matter for conjecture. It is a sobering thought to remember that the US bombing of Libya in 1986 was staged from a by the US airforce operating out of a number of UK bases. Never has there been a better example of violence begetting violence.The use of the term relationship is misleading. A relationship suggests some sort of deal, a bit of give and take on both sides, something for everyone. The value of the British relationship with America appears to be all on the one side. The relationship if any appears at times to be more akin to that of master and servant. The sooner that Britain comes out of its historical malaise and recognises the true nature of the “special relationship” the sooner it will be able to resolve its own international identity crisis. This should in the long term lead to Britain taking up a much fuller role within the context of Europe. If the Al Megrahi case helps speed this process on then so much the better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
