This figure is significant as far as politics is concerned, but is unlikely to affect the lives of those struggling to find work or battling to keep businesses afloat.
Gordon Brown will, of course, be keen to tell the tale about the way he steered Britain through its darkest hour. He will also avoid discussing his role in turning out the lights in the first place. Similarly, Alistair Darling will claim a victory for his financial acumen, as he correctly predicted the quarter in which we would emerge from the recession that went on far too long.
But before anyone pulls the string on their party popper, it's important to remember that the British economy barely has its nostrils above the water; a small ripple will result in more coughing and spluttering. Sterling has dropped against the US dollar and the Euro, the housing market is still poor and unemployment is causing grief for as many families as ever.
Meanwhile, the opposite parties will be planning on inflating these issues until they burst. Come the election, the subject of the economy will be such a jumble of exaggeration and understatements in the House of Commons that the normal people trying to look after their families will struggle to keep track of what's really going on.
I hope the public manage to continue along the course of action that's always been the wisest- take the words of the politicians with a fistful of salt and think for themselves.
But these prisoners aren't difficult in the way that one might expect. The problem they're causing isn't due to attempted escapes or hunger strikes. What makes them difficult is this: Officials don't know what to do with them.
According to ABC News, "They are reportedly too dangerous to be released, but cannot be tried either because the evidence against them is too flimsy or was extracted by coercion." What this means for these prisoners is they will continue to be held without trial. And "coercion" can probably be read as "torture".
Terrorism is a serious crime. But regarding any other offence, in this end of the world, people have a right to a fair trial. Even if the police or government are certain that someone is guilty of something terrible, multiple rapes and murders for example, they are not charged until enough evidence is gathered for a conviction. If it can't be proven that this person is guilty, they remain free.
Apparently, suspecting that somebody might be considering performing an act of terrorist one day is enough to put them away for the rest of their lives without trial.
The point is this: Imagine indefinite imprisonment as being the result of any other suspicion. Suppose, perhaps, the police knocked your door down one morning and put you in the back of a van. Later, you're thrown in a cell and told you're there because you were suspected of planning to poison a local water supply. You're questioned, perhaps waterboarded now and then, but no charges are brought against you.
Eight years later, you're still in prison. You begin to hear rumours that the facility which has held you for so long may be about to close. The new boss of the country has promised that people will no longer be treated in the way that you have endured. One by one, inmates are released. Hope grows until the day you're called into an office. The conversation goes like this:
"We still think you were planning on poisoning a water supply."
"I wasn't, though."
"We don't believe you. But we don't have any evidence."
"So you're going to release me?"
"Then what's going to happen?"
"You're going to be here until we have enough evidence to keep you here for the rest of your life."
"What if you never find any evidence?"
"Then we're going to keep you here for the rest of your life."
This is worse than McCarthyism. This is a witch-hunt: If they don't drown, they're burned.
If this doesn't come as a surprise, it's probably because you haven't heard much about GSK. To be fair, all drugs manufacturers are in a difficult position: We want them around because their products can save lives, but they have to turn a profit to keep shareholders happy, which means they have to build a business model around making money from people in poor health. Not the easiest conundrum to get around, but perhaps this is the reason why businesses like GSK seem to have totally demagnetised their moral compasses. You can click here and read a bit about them, but here is a handful of highlights from their history:
Hiding test results showing that anti-depressant Seroxat was causing teenagers to commit suicide or self-harm.
Putting Avandia, a diabetes treatment which also seems to raise risk of strokes and heart disease, on the market.
Releasing trichloroethylene, a carcinogenic cleaning solvent, into a local water supply.
A drugs test on 13,000 Argentinean children involving reports of poor standards of care, parents being coerced or threatened into signing consent forms and parents being unaware of their children's participation.
Testing drugs on poor and illiterate people in India in order to cut costs, despite reports that most of the Indian population will never see any resulting drugs as they will be too expensive.
Spending millions of dollars on lobbying campaigns in order to influence laws passed or denied in US Congress.
Paid $400 million to settle an investigation into their sales and marketing methods.
So, call me cynical, but as I was reading about their gesture of goodwill in The Guardian, I couldn't help thinking: "How unexpected; GSK are one of the most morally repugnant companies in the universe. This must have something to do with money."
So I continue reading Glaxo UK boss Andrew Witty's fluffy corporate babble about earning "the trust of society" and so on, looking for clues which might lead to the real reason for releasing all of that potential profit.
"It's trying to create a permissiveness around scientific research in an area where we know the marketplace isn't going to stimulate massive research".
There it is. That sentence translates precisely to: "There's not enough money in a cure for malaria".
From one point of view, as I said, GSK is a business with shareholders to please, so losing money isn't going to be an attractive idea for the bosses. On the other hand, malaria kills around three million people every year.
I'm not surprised that our friends at GlaxoSmithKline aren't exactly doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. What they've done is decided that, if they're not going to profit from curing malaria, they'll use their abandonment of the project to improve their company image (very cheaply) by offering up what they deem to be worthless assets and issuing a press release. If malaria is cured as a result, then that can only be a good thing. But when GSK pop their heads up and tell everyone it was based on their generously donated compound, I hope enough people remind them exactly why they didn't finish the job themselves.
GlaxoSmithKline have been urged to take the same steps with their AIDS research, but that information remains secret. There's still money in AIDS.
The reporting pattern for natural disasters seems to be as follows:
1: Report nature and location of disaster.
2: Report death toll as it develops.
3: Report shambolic aid efforts.
The coverage of the earthquake in Haiti seems to be following this pattern. Sadly, the aid efforts are more disorganised than ever. According to The Times, the UN are trying to pass on as much responsibility for the mess to the shattered Haitian government as they can get away with. As they pass the buck back and forth, not much is getting done.
Barack Obama is pledging a great deal of time and money to the cause. Call me a cynic, but I can't help wondering if so much effort would be afforded if Haiti wasn't so close to the US, or if The States didn't have such a large Haitian population. Would such a disaster achieve so much attention were it to occur in East Asia, for example? Still, regardless of motive, I'm glad significant effort is being made.
Which is more than can be said for our government. £6 million? Consider that compared to the £4.5 billion spent on war in Iraq and Afghanistan by February 2009.
But then, if were are to look at aid pledges versus killing expenditure, the US doesn't look so hot either. $100 million promised in aid for Haiti, almost a trillion spent in the Middle East. I suppose the lesson to be learned here is that governments will spend a lot more money on ending lives than they will on saving them.
The Times has reported looting and lynching of looters in Haiti today. When faced with this kind of thing I can't help thinking about our discussions on a State of Nature. When law is removed, how do people respond?
You can't always blame the looters; they're sometimes only trying to provide for their families in a crisis, often risking their lives to do so. This kind of activity wouldn't surprise Hobbes, nor would the fact that military personnel need to be present when handing out bottles water to desperate people who naturally don't want to wait in a queue to receive their fair share. As for the people who lynch or behead the looters; Locke would most likely agree with their actions. Rousseau would be pleased to see that most people are helping each other in any way they can.
I suppose for us to really see who is right, this time of desperation and lawlessness would need to go on for a lot longer: Let's hope the powers that be can get their act together quickly so that none of the philosophers are proven right.
Click here to read The Times Online report
Apologies for the lack of a recent post. It does make me realise how quickly things can slip if I leave them or allow myself to become distracted by things such as Christmas and New Year.
It strikes me how easy it is to use the end of the year as an excuse not to do anything. It's a deadly combination; the temptation to say "I won't think about that now, it's Christmas", followed by "I'll start doing that properly next year." Before you know it, you've not exercised, stuck to your diet, checked your oil or posted on your blog for several weeks. It's important to realise that even if you stop moving at year-end, time doesn't.
- afghanistan (1)
- aids (1)
- alcohol (1)
- anna funder (1)
- avandia (1)
- barack (2)
- Berlin Wall (1)
- circulation (1)
- confidentiality (1)
- copyright (2)
- covert (1)
- d-notice (1)
- da-notice (1)
- defamation (2)
- disaster (1)
- dodo (1)
- drugs (2)
- earthquake (1)
- economy (1)
- election (1)
- enron (1)
- fake sheikh (1)
- feature (1)
- fly (1)
- foia (1)
- freedom of information act (1)
- Gibbs (1)
- glaxosmithkline (1)
- gsk (1)
- guantanamo (1)
- guerin (1)
- gunmen (1)
- haiti (1)
- history (1)
- internet (1)
- investigative (2)
- journalism (8)
- kyoto (1)
- law (3)
- leaks (1)
- libel (1)
- luxury (1)
- malaria (1)
- McCarthyism (1)
- media (2)
- media law (2)
- Mexico (1)
- MI5 (1)
- murder (1)
- nobel (1)
- northcliffe (1)
- Notes (1)
- obama (3)
- official secrets act (1)
- Palin (1)
- press (2)
- privacy (1)
- prize (1)
- public interest (1)
- qualified privilege (1)
- Recession (1)
- reporting (1)
- ripa (1)
- rothermere (1)
- scandal (1)
- secrets (1)
- seroxat (1)
- shooting (1)
- stasi (1)
- stasiland (1)
- ten point test (1)
- torture (1)
- trafigura (1)
- university (1)
- watergate (1)
- White House (1)
- wikileaks (1)
- winchester (2)
- witch hunt (1)
- ▼ 2010 (10)
- ▼ 2010 (10)