Privatisation of the NHS – the dark side:

Once privatisation of the NHS is complete, how swiftly will the system break down? How long until cracks appear in the level of oversight? Patient deaths won’t make good press, they might suppress profits. Best to only treat the healthy. Fudge the figures. Keep things looking tidy.

With a healthcare system driven by profit instead of need, what will the price tag on human life become? I suppose it depends on what you have to offer.

Organ donation can save lives. Shall we exploit the opportunity for capitalist profit for organ harvesting next? Perhaps the poor unworthy NHS patients can boost the level of their care by organ donation? If they can’t afford to pay for their care, why should they expect equal treatment?

As theatre time increasingly becomes a competition between NHS and private patients, how long until bribery becomes rote just to ensure NHS treatment?

Privatisation of healthcare is deeply flawed in any society. In a society where economic disparity is culturally ingrained, it will only lead to formation of cliques and cabals of those willing to exploit their fellow humans for profit and those unfortunates who will be exploited.

Now that the programme of privatisation of the NHS has been initiated, I only hope there is still opportunity to turn things back; reverse the trend.

But increasingly I envision a dark future for the UK.

Darkest for the poor, needy and unprivileged.

Some concerns about privatisation of the NHS

Probably the most significant & lasting legacy by the Coalition government will be the privatisation of the NHS. The NHS was founded in 1948 in an attempt to establish good healthcare for all. The following link directs to an interactive history of the NHS for those who might be interested:

http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/nhshistory/Pages/NHShistory1948.aspx

By the end of the first term of the coalition, 54 years of history and social progress look to be erased. Privatisation of British railways resulted in the most expensive rail-system in Europe for what is far from the best service. Now, must we suffer privatisation of human life?

The recent action by the Coalition government to privatise Hinchingbrooke Hospital in Cambridgeshire represents the start of the irreversible snowball of destruction for the NHS; and likely the unofficial start of the final decline of the British Empire.  Moreover, it highlights the pervasive greed and inhumanity which now characterises the outdated British class system which will be its ruin. Was this action truly necessary, or is this simply another case where humanity is discarded in pursuit of selfish self-interest? http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/11/10/first-nhs-hospital-gets-privatised-no-mention-of-tory-links/

And now the precedent has been established, how quickly will privatisation of the NHS progress? While this may have been an easy decision for rich MP’s who can afford healthcare, there was no choice for the poor, despite the illusion of democracy Britain displays. And already, scant months following the privatisation of the first NHS hospital, Cameron has used the Christmas break to bury further bad news by passing legislation enabling NHS hospitals to use almost half their hospital beds and theatre time for private patients. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16337904

It seems that while the Middle East progresses with the Arab spring, Cameron is progressing at a cracking pace with irreparable changes to establish Britain as a two-tier state comprised of rich overlords and impoverished masses. Masses which will undoubtedly become increasingly incensed with untenable living conditions; masses which will require a strong hand to ensure order is maintained. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmBLfWA73OM http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8949060/Police-to-test-laser-that-blinds-rioters.html Handily, Cameron is concurrently progressing with measures to allow police to temporarily blind protestors with lasers in case of civil unrest. Uncle Stalin would be so proud!

It is becoming increasingly evident that Cameron has no intent of responding to the critical views of the 99% who oppose his choices for change in 21^st century Britain; he wants to ensure his New British order is established forthwith and without delay.

I didn’t vote for an end to educational opportunity for the masses. I didn’t vote for an end to state healthcare. I didn’t vote for totalitarianism. When the end of the coalition term finally arrives, will there even be a next election? Or will glorious leader save us from this unnecessary triviality?

Whilst it is clear that changes are necessary in light of the current economic climate, it seems that the guise of ‘austerity measures’ is being exploited to enable sweeping and irreparable changes to British society. Even if public opinion and recent protests were to be considered, the rate of change is too swift to allow for opportunity to pause and reflect. And too soon it will be too late.

I fear for Britain, I fear the future, I fear for all of us.

Southeastern rail during 2012 Olympics

Am I the only one who has noticed the small poster warning posted on the near column near the bank machine in Charing Cross warning of severe travel problems on the Bexleyheath route during the 2012 Olympic window? Will Southeastern customers get a discount on their season tickets for this forewarned service chaos, or will it simply be 'out of their control' and therefore exempt from service requirements? I expect Southeastern customers will simply face another year of eye watering price hikes for increasingly poor service. Yet again another example of how privatisation in the UK is without accountability and only benefits the rich. Yet the coalition are keen to privatise the NHS. And when people start dying due to ill-advised cuts in healthcare, what accountability will the coalition government face? At what point does criminal negligence of our leaders equate to crimes against humanity?

Is comrade Cameron the worst British PM ever?

The last election was only 18 months ago. How much damage could be achieved in 18 months? I ignored the initial reports in the press suggesting problems with a coalition government assuming this was typical twaddle and hype of the British press. Sadly, what can be quite a balanced system of government appears to be impossible in class-based Britain.
 
Notably, the first actions by Cameron seemed to be denial; blaming all of the current problems on the previous Labour government. Fair enough, although that was already quite clear and he wasn't elected for his ability to state the obvious, it was to hopefully sort some of the problems out. Yet increasingly it seems as though he had other plans. Then there was the hype over the 'Big society', which was effectively an abdication of responsibility on Cameron's behalf.

In the intervening period, the economy has gone into nosedive, seemingly every decision made by the Coalition government has been recanted, Britain has been subjected to the worst riots in years with further strikes, discontent and protests on the horizon. This is not reflective of a society happy with the direction their government is taking, it is indicative of a disillusioned society in turmoil. Even Bob Diamond, Mr the time for “remorse and apology” by banks regarding their role in the economic collapse is over, has acknowledged a need to demonstrate more responsible behaviour. Of course it remains uncertain whether he will lead by example by reducing his obscene salary, or by perhaps donating a larger portion of it to those less well off. Yet I digress, back to Cameron and the Coalition.

In the 18 months in government, the scandal ridden coalition has proved to be the poster government for incompetence and scandal; most recently highlighted by the behaviour of Theresa May.

Have you ever wondered why Britain is so plagued with bullying? It must be because this behaviour is innate to British society. During the London riots, rioters largely proceeded unhindered. It seems as though those who respond most vociferously and aggressively are treated with kid gloves whilst peaceful protesters are subjected to the strong arm of the law. Which certainly doesn't bode well for a country increasingly at odds with their government. I'm quite certain Cameron will continue to ignore peaceful protest. He certainly seems to maintain hope that the tent protests will simply tire, pack up and go home. Despite the best efforts of students to make their voice heard, Cameron is deaf to peaceful protest and responds to violence with violence. Two wrongs, no rights. When was the last time 'Hug-a-hoodie' Cameron attempted to interact directly with those at the low end of the economic spectrum? This is an honest question. I have no idea.

Britain is a class-based society. Money talks, and the poor are expendable. State school students demonstrate a degree of illiteracy which would be shaming for a third world country, virtually unthinkable in an industrialised country. Yet Cameron proceeds to ensure that educational advantage is restricted to those of wealth and privilege to protect the wealth of the 1% minority at the expense of the 99% and the future of Britain. Where will Cameron be when the outcome of these policies has become apparent? Undoubtedly no longer in government and absolved of any accountability.

It is not as though I hate Mr Cameron, it is simply that I feel he is out of his depth, and completely out of touch with the vast majority of the population. If the economy was healthy, there would be few problems, the status quo would be maintained and his term in government would simply be another bland forgettable period in history. However, in the current economy, his delusional ideology will bring the UK to it's knees. We need a leader who will make hard decisions, by which I mean sharing the burden of economic recovery evenly across the economic spectrum to build a stronger balanced country. Not a sycophantic government pandering to the whims of the greedy minority. Times are tough but they shouldn't only be tough for the poor.

Regarding London riots & rioters: Which lie is true?

Enroute home this evening, I noticed that one of the daily papers citing a 'fact' that London rioters had originated from 44 separate countries. In contrast, the Evening Standard had an article stating that 'half of the juveniles arrested during the summer riots were educational failures who had not mastered the basics by the age of 11'. Of course, it is of my opinion that when children are educational failures, the failing is largely on the part of the educational system rather than the individual. Yet I digress...

Moving on, further into the paper, there is a article regarding an alleged theft by Peaches Geldof from Boots, entitled 'We take because we can'. One wonders whether she will face any privation in punishment for her behaviour; or whether, because she can pay for the items, she will face no punishment at all.

Which leads to the title of my blog - Which lie is true? Despite the innumerable reasons why the rioters might have chosen to pursue the behaviours which we observed on TV, what I find of greatest importance is what is being done to prevent recurrences? And although in some cases, severe punishment is clearly warranted, I wonder whether vengeful justice and extensive imprisonment leans more towards problem than solution. Is this harsh justice simply a 'sweeping under the carpet' knee-jerk reaction? And who will be in power when the offenders are released back into the system?

If the rioters should be punished for their behaviours which have harmed all of society, then should the same not also be true of our leaders? How much wiser would political decisions be if politicians were held accountable for the decisions which they made whilst in power? The capitalist system appears to be founded upon economic separation which might work when transition between social echelons is safely within reach within a given lifespan. When the gap widens to a degree when this is no longer achievable, but it formerly was, society is broken. And increasingly I wonder which is more broken, the criminals whose behaviour reviles us such as during the London riots, or our leaders whose focus appears to be on sweeping the problems under the carpet rather than addressing the core problems and finding solutions?

Brian Coleman, politics, twitter & accountability

I was going to tweet: 'Is Brian Coleman a 20th century Marie Antoinette? Off with his head!', but then I remembered the case against Paul Chambers who received a £1000 fine and a criminal record for a sarcastic tweet and I decided to compose a blog post instead. So just for absolute clarity: this quip was intended solely as a humourous jest reflecting the ignorance and distance which separates the political elite from the 99% of the masses. Based on an alleged historical quote stated by Marie Antoinette dating to the French revolution; the beheading reference reflects the use of the guillotine dating to that historical period and certainly not some malign intent on the authors behalf. I abhor violence and merely wish to express my shock and disbelief at the behaviour of an MP. Although in light of the expenses scandal and the ongoing fallout, perhaps I shouldn't be so surprised.

This BBC links to some details regarding this story should you be intrigued: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11742182

However, although I read the story in the evening news, I find myself feeling increasingly angry about this comment. Briefly, Brian Coleman, a Barnet councillor on a salary of £120,000/yr responded to a query from one of his constituents, with a tirade of blind stupidity which beggars belief. His constituent, a part-time student with a disadvantaged child who had asked for assistance regarding housing when her private landlord increased her rent from £950 to £1100. In response, Mr Coleman made numerous noteworthy quotes:

'I am afraid you have to live in the real world where the country has no money and residents will have to deal with their own issues rather than expecting the system to sort their lives out. This correspondence is now closed.'
After being challenged regarding the lack of empathy in his response, he is also quoted as having said
'Lack of empathy???? Councillors simply cannot conjure housing out of this air and the private sector is your only option. That is a fact.'
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24000058-pound-120000-a-year-tory-tells-desperate-mother-to-live-in-real-world.do


I find these responses the political equivalent of a defence lawyer stating to their client: 'If you can't do the time, don't do the crime', a Dr. saying to a cancer patient 'Perhaps you should have taken more time to consider the consequences of smoking, sucks to be you', or a Priest stating to a parishioner 'AIDS is God's punishment for your homosexuality'. Of course the difference is that I can imagine consequences for all three of these examples, whereas I somehow doubt the repercussions to Brian Coleman will extend much beyond a brief and transient public lambasting in the press.

And I can certainly empathise for Ms Osman. As a private tenant myself, I am constantly awaiting the same axe to fall on myself. As it happens, this was ultimately the initial incentive behind this blog. I already work as many hours as humanly possible and as my career choice will never lead to high earnings, although I maintain that my choice is correct as I believe what I am doing is of lasting benefit to more than just myself. Therefore, I started the blog to condemn social injustices and argue politics, with Adsense adverts dotted around the sides of the blog as a potential source of income. In theory, if people click on the adverts, I will allegedly make some money. Fortunately I wasn't expecting much; this was more of an optimistic daydream much the way you enter contests to win trips or gadgets but of course you never do. Nor does anyone you know. Or at least this is my experience but perhaps there are those who have actually won random contests. Either way, I will continue to be optimistic, or idealistic, I'll leave the decision to you dear reader.

As it happens, most of my early blog posts involved railing against the bankers in light of the economic disaster. Turns out that Google selects words from your blog to define the 'likely' target audience for the adverts it posts, hence many of the adverts relate to banking and finance. Sadly I am still attempting to see the humour in the irony. It's not as though I am affluent. After rent, bills and food, there simply isn't more money to be had, so payday is a rather short trip. And I suspect that my colleagues view me as anti-social as I rarely, if ever, socialise, although I still find this preferable to the loss of pride should they know the truth, which they probably have deduced but are socially capable of not making this an issue. It is clearly fortunate that I do not work with Brian Coleman.

And I am quite certain I represent the norm, not the minority. The '99%' whose voice seems to grow stronger by the day. I can't recall the exact phrase, but hopefully the following roughly paraphrases a line from the Handmaids tale by Margaret Atwood: 'Better never means better for everyone, better only ever means better for some'. Times are getting harder and greed is insatiable and it seems that current political changes offer no benefit for the masses but seem to protect the rich. This does not bode well for the future. Let's hope that Brian Coleman's colleagues choose to send a strong message to him the way they have for Paul Chambers, Edward Woollard and the London rioters. Accountability for actions should be equal across society, not dictated by affluence, as always I remain optimistic for an appropriate result, but will likely have to settle for disappointment.

Has David Cameron lost the plot or was he simply not following the story?

First Cameron attempts to rail at the British public to pay off their outstanding debt. Then he's swiftly advised not to accelerate the economic slowdown by his adviser's so he recants. All the while ignoring that in the interim the banks have been raking in gobs of cash from the public by refusing to pass on the benefits of lowered Bank of England rates.

If parliament could impose this as a requirement by British banks, public spending could be maintained in addition to assisting the general public to reduce their personal debt. Two birds, one stone.

So now Britain is facing even harder times whilst our glorious leader appears to remain utterly baffled by both the current problems and a plausible strategy for the future. Two stones but no birds...

 Please David, try to focus and not be a 21st century Marie Antoinette.

If the entire world all went bankrupt at the same time, would the capitalist model reset?

The recent £1.5 billion pound loss by the UBS trader has got me thinking; what if the entire world all went bankrupt at the same time, would the capitalist model reset?

And how much good could have been achieved with this money? What if this money had been spent on HIV, cancer research or any of the many neglected tropical diseases which kill millions each year? If UBS can handle this loss, then surely they could also elect to share the wealth. How much good could be done for humanity if the global financial institutions collectively acted for the good of humanity rather than just the greed of the few? Yet I digress…

At an individual level, the future certainly appears bleak. The pension pot is dwindling, so regardless of how hard an individual’s circumstance may be during their employable years, the future is likely to be far worse. Inflation, rising food and energy prices, personal debt, rising unemployment, and of course the ever present austerity measures, seemingly designed to impose maximum imposition to the poor to ensure retention of the status quo, are all factors grinding down the lowest echelons of society. Rail fares are rising yet salaries are not. How long until the proletariat can no longer afford to work? From Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and wants, the bottom layer of the pyramid includes food and shelter, yet in British society, increasingly, the poor live in rented accommodation, often supplied by the state, with food costs rising beyond their budgets, a fact reflected by recent reports regarding the increased burden to food banks. So the poor either have limited or no stability in their shelter and limited access to food, certainly limited in quality as choice is limited. Furthermore, the association between nutrition and educational development has been well documented so it is hardly surprising that the economically deprived tend towards limited educational success adding to a downward spiral (if there is any further that they can slide) of limited prospects, limited employability and continued poverty.

And how can the cost of reparation be spread throughout society even entire countries are going bankrupt? Of course, the rich have scrambled to squirrel their money abroad leaving the cost to be spread to those who didn't benefit from the years of plenty. Globally, countries are failing. And if/when Greece fails, it seems likely this will only be the first in the domino run of countries which will subsequently fall in turn should this scenario present itself.

Barings bank failed due to the reckless action by a single trader.  Northern Rock recently nearly failed due to its lending strategies, and we are all bearing the brunt of bailing out the banks due to the arrogance, incompetence and unbridled hubris.

So if countries and banks are failing and going bankrupt, then what hope is there for the masses? Although the Bank of England has maintained the interest rates at minimal levels for the last few years, seemingly none of the benefit of this reduced rate has been projected to the masses. Thus, it would appear that the banks have been raking in the profits exploiting the obscene spread in the market at the expense of the general public; the very people who were responsible for the economic bail out. And so now whilst the bankers continue with their bonus culture, society looks increasingly on the state of collapse.

London’s latest Marie Antionnette moment? What of the recent report by the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14989860) about how the public are too lazy to shop around to exchange energy providers? Yet what percentage of the British public are tenants, not landowners, with little or no choice in the selection process for energy provision. What an arrogant and ignorant comment to have made. This only reflects how clueless society has become. Those in power and even those reporting the news simply have no concept of the plight of the common individual.

And when push comes to shove and if things are only going to get worse, then it would appear that bankruptcies are likely to increase; but how much? Is there a critical mass of bankruptcy where the entire system will go into collapse? What would happen if we all couldn’t pay? Except of course for the 1% of obscenely rich who have all the money, but if the system resets, then presumably that becomes worthless…

Would the system actually reset? If it did, would anyone recognise the need for change? Europe has seen significant levels of rioting in recent years due to growing discontent (France, Greece, Britain). Yet the economic divide continues to grow and our leaders continue to impose further austerity measures in response to the economic collapse due to failings of the financial system, who appear to be the only ones unscathed by the entire affair.

The capitalist model is crumbling around us due to the insatiable greed of a fractional minority. Perhaps egalitarianism would prove a more resilient model?

The argument for the canonisation of Henrietta Lacks:

Going out on a limb, I’m off onto a completely different tangent today. Whilst reading ‘The Immortal life of Henrietta Lacks’ by Rebecca Skloot, it crossed my mind that HeLa cells, derived from a cancer patient named Henrietta Lacks, have had the greatest singular impact on scientific progress and medical advances in human history. Arguably, no other individual has ultimately been responsible for generating so much benefit to so many, with so little recognition for their role.

Yet, these cells were not taken with her permission, and with regard to the patient and her family, certainly not for this purpose. Furthermore, not only did she not derive any benefit from this action herself, nor have her descendants and the toll which these cells have taken upon her family has been immeasurable.  But perhaps there can be a silver lining to the tale of familial tragedy in this history. Why should Henrietta Lacks not be canonised by the Roman Catholic Church as a patron saint of healthcare and medicine for the poor and needy?

Miracles: (Of which there are many, but a few spring to mind)

1.       Tissue culture technique is the main stay of medical research enabling initial research to answer basic questions about biology to better direct further research towards novel therapeutic strategies. HeLa cells were the first human derived cell line to be successfully maintained in culture and the result of which has been innumerable advances in medical science.

2.       Use of HeLa cells were integral in polio research, and were ultimately used as a cellular factory involved in the production process of the vaccine which resulted in the prevention of disease and improved health for millions of people. How can this not be viewed as a miracle?

3.       HeLa cells enabled scientists to answer basic questions about cancer biology such as identification of driver mutations and explaining cellular immortalisation which had previously remained unresolved.

For these reasons alone, I feel that what might represent an appropriate strategy to address the lack of recognition to Henrietta Lacks for her contribution to science and humanity would be to appeal to the Catholic Church for her canonisation and to recognise her as a saint.

Both the Christian church and the medical profession attempt to heal and help the sick. Where medical therapies treat the body, the church acts to treat the spirit; furthermore it has long been observed that humour and optimism enhance healing and recovery. But in more modern times, whilst it is common for hospitals to be named for saints and retain historical association with the church, there is otherwise little common ground associating the two.

 And whilst I believe that both truly intend to assist humanity, over the years neither have been without fault; e.g. the holy inquisition by the Catholic Church and a cavalier disregard for individual awareness regarding use of organs, body and tissue by medical research before review and oversight committees enforced ethical review processes. Finally, there has long been opposition and distrust between the Catholic Church and scientific progress.

So perhaps the canonisation of Henrietta Lacks might offer the potential for the combined acknowledgement of an individual and the benefits of medical research in a collective effort to redress a historical tragedy.

This might also enable the church and medical science to reconcile some of their disparate views. And as a result, perhaps the next ‘miracle’ of HeLa cells might be to enable a marriage of sorts between the Catholic Church and scientific progress. That would be a miracle!

So I argue for the case of canonisation of Henrietta Lacks as a modern patron saint of the sick and needy.

If you agree with my argument, please spread the word and help turn this from speculation into reality!

English revolution?

So now the great crackdown has begun. And those responsible for the recent spate of rioting in the UK, and who the police were able to catch, are now due to face justice. And rightly so as events of recent days are truly shocking. However, those caught will only ever represent a tiny minority of those responsible. The true victims will never receive recompense and no doubt the government will laud praise onto each other for having saved the day. Really?

True, many possibly most of the individuals involved in recent rioting are opportunists. And these individuals are the greatest losers as they have discarded a future of hope for a handful of material goods and I have little sympathy for them. I do believe in accountability for actions where it is appropriate, and privileged opportunists deserve little sympathy. However, I expect that those who initiated the rioting in the first place are not just opportunists. They are the disillusioned, discarded and disenfranchised fraction of society; an ever growing proportion in our increasingly economically-disparate society. And I suspect that the rioting stemmed from pure angst, rage and frustration. Years of oppression have resulted in a smoldering rage which festered like cancer, fed by economic disparity and privation.

Which leads to my greatest fear. That recent events will be viewed solely as 'wanton criminality'. And what exactly does that mean other than our leaders have no clue about the cause(s) or appropriate solutions other than blunt reactive measures which will likely only inflame the situation; hardly a comforting thought! For those most driven by angst and frustration are those at the very bottom of society. Educated by the dregs of a state system disinterested in equality; the limited education on offer a poor strategy designed to delay release into society of these unfortunates prior to working age. Housed in cramped conditions, a melange of angst, distrust and disillusionment. Where poverty is rife and food, shelter, clothes and even shoes remain in limited supply. These unfortunates have little to hope for, and less to care about. So viewed in this light, perhaps the threat of imprisonment isn't such a bad option. Three square meals a day, housing in an environment where minimum space requirements are imposed (a luxury not ensured by private accommodation) and an opportunity for state sponsored education. And to assist in the rehabilitation, localisation close to the family home, and likely in association with other similar unfortunates. Food, shelter, clothes and buddies; quite possibly considerably better than what is on offer in impoverished communities suffering from privation. And in short, a breeding pool for further angst, frustration and disillusionment.

This collective rage should be viewed as angst, but also a cry for help. Although these individuals are responsible for significant destruction, if there is to be any hope for the future, it is imperative that those most responsible for starting the riots play a role in the rebuilding process. Exchange the festering cancer of imprisonment for community service in the rebuilding. If these individuals are allowed to invest in the future they will be given value, and hopefully pride in the society in which they live. Imprisonment simply represents exclusion and isolation merely adding fuel to the fire.

This is Britain's 'French revolution' moment. Egalite, liberte et fraternite. Equality, liberty and fraternity. As difficult as it may be to offer empathy in response to the destruction we have observed, empathy is not wholly altruistic, this is investment in our collective futures. Revenge and retribution will only exacerbate the problem, at best, merely delaying future recurrences. The coalition must decide whether to invest in the future and integrate the disenfranchised back into society, or 'let them eat cake' in prison at our collective peril. I pray they choose wisely but my instinct suggests they really don't understand.

London: summer of discontent

In yet another policy flip, Cameron has now decided to return to Britain to deal with current events. Yet it feels more like Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette are in charge. Bankers ruined the economy, Fred Goodwin got away with just short of murder yet Cameron and the coalition chose to strip the public of effective policing, healthcare, pensions, job security, education for our children and all reasons for hope. This government is clearly out of touch. At least Ed Miliband chose the UK for his holiday. Cameron chose to take his family abroad. Actions speak louder than words. Boost the Italian economy, nothing wrong in Britain.

The current government had their educations for free, will retire with generous pensions and many of whom used public expenses as a spare bank account largely with impunity. These are not individuals who understand what life means for the general public. They are blinded by privilege.

Whilst there can be no excusing the behaviour of recent days in the looting and destruction that we have seen, leaders stating that 'this is criminality pure and simple' terrifies me. Angst and simmering tensions once ignited will be much harder to extinguish.

The sad and terrifying truth, despite the destruction and of recent events, is that we've largely been lucky. The disenfranchised, disillusioned and discarded youth have largely vented their frustration and angst against what they themselves will likely never enjoy. Affluence, stability and success. In light of the ruthless austerity measures and spending cuts by the coalition government, what hope do our youth have for the future? A lifetime of struggle without any real hope for better days ahead. This is not about expecting the world on a plate; only the rich and affluent expect (and experience) that. It's about having hope for better things. Education, job security, a home to call their own, healthcare to maintain them, police to protect them and a pension for their twilight years. They will enjoy none of these things. They will spend their lives struggling to pay for the mistakes of the previous generations. And previous generations (their government) seem more focused on personal gain than communal sacrifice.

What if the angst and rage had been turned against the public? Could hospitals have handled the burden? Our prisons are already full. And actually, does locking criminals up actually rehabilitate them or is it merely a rug temporarily placed over the problem? Yet I digress. Who really believes that all of the wrongdoers will eventually be caught? Who believes justice will be done? If we want to deal with the criminals, perhaps we should start with our leaders who spent years helping themselves to the proverbial cookie jar and taking from the poor whilst protecting the rich.

I wish I could feel hope that Camerons return represents change for better, but in reality I fear the worst. Cameron has returned to face what will likely (& hopefully) be the biggest challenge of his term. But the solution requires understanding. Proactive solutions will prove far more important that mere reactionary measures. Now more than ever, we require substantial social change. I hope for once, our leaders understand.

Tottenham tension & London riots

From the outset, there can be no justification for the violence, looting and destruction of recent days in Tottenham and other London boroughs! Angst with current government policy is readily comprehensible given the UK coalition governments indecision, incompetence, lack of leadership and back-tracking on ill-advised courses of action. However the riots in Tottenham only cause further pain to a community which is already suffering. And those who are hurt are ordinary people who through no fault of their own now find their lives and livelihoods shattered by the collective angst of the ignored and criminal opportunists.


But the coalition must shoulder much of the blame for these events. It is time they stand up, acknowledge their failings and demonstrate leadership moving forwards, not just for Tottenham but for all of the UK. Tottenham MP David Lammy had warned of tensions following the shooting of Mark Duggan and had spoken of building tension in the area. Had his words been heeded and leadership demonstrated, it is likely that this entire bout of unpleasantness could have been avoided. Instead, as usual, the coalition ignored the warnings and proceeded with the usual strategy of reactive responsiveness rather than proactive leadership. Perhaps we should view this as a warning of things to come. If the coalition were unable to proactively resolve building tensions in Tottenham despite the warnings, then what hope is there for the future of the UK under Cameron?


When the coalition were busy imposing funding cuts to students, heavy handed policing measures were rapidly employed to suppress the masses. Austerity measures which impose the burden of recovery onto the poor whilst protecting the rich are similarly building tensions within the UK. And recently, David Cameron and George Osborne have made suggestions of reducing the top tax rate for high earners as early as next year. Is it any wonder that tensions are building to a fever pitch? Britain may not be as reactive as our latin counterparts. We are fortunate not to be subjected to wildcat strikes as are sometimes observed in Italy and France. But this does not mean that the public will withstand oppression indefinitely. And when the British respond, the results are likely to be severe. Such as recent events in Tottenham. But to paraphrase Churchill, 'is this merely the end of the beginning'? Remember the riots in Paris in 2005? Warning signs had been building for years of growing tensions which were ignored culminating in a 4-month state of emergency imposed on Paris. Yet, proactive leadership to deal with developing problems could probably have resolved this disaster.

So too England. Now is the time to recognise the cuts from austerity measures are too sharp, too deep and too fast. Austerity measures may be required, but they must be implemented with equanimity. The rich benefited the most from the years of plenty so it is only right that they now pay their fair share in the economic recovery. But recent cuts threaten our social services, the NHS and the security of the UK. Those paying for the recovery may have no retirement to hope for as the pension pot is whittled away whilst. Our children lose reason for hope of better things from the increasingly vanishing option of affording a university education, which thanks to Cameron & co has become a privilege, not a right. The time to act is now before Britain becomes Greece. If Britain can't handle policing a single London borough, what hope for the UK next year with the Olympics?

If simmering tensions remain ignored, the future looks bleak indeed. The time for a leader is now and Cameron, if you're not up for it, please stand down and offer the position to someone who is. This is not the time for misguided pride, it's time to realise that real people could die very real deaths. Unnecessarily.

This is a democracy; listen to the people, listen to the majority. Act with equanimity and history will remember you kindly. If not, God help us.

Southeastern rail replacement service: Sunday July 24th, 2011

Sidcup to Lewisham, railway  replacement service (yet again due to engineering work, clearly 3 years hasn’t been sufficient…). Southeastern rail have been granted the privilege of imposing inflation-busting rail-fare increases to offset costs for railway improvements and engineering works. Of course, in most other countries, or in typical free-market economies, this would be called routine maintenance and would be part of the cost of business. In Britain, railway privatisation apparently enables market monopolisation, greed-driven impunity with railway maintenance largely subsidised by the taxpayer. Yet I digress. Following on from a bone jarring 45 minute bus journey seemingly planned to target every sleeping policeman between Sidcup and Lewisham, we finally arrived at Lewisham, just in time to watch the connecting service pull away from the station as the already delayed passengers arrived at the platform. Fantastic! Having already been delayed with a 45 minute journey contrasting with the normal 15 minute journey time, I now had the opportunity to enjoy the ambience of the Lewisham station platform for an additional 20 minutes waiting for the next service.

Perhaps I’m being a bit whiny, but really. Would it have killed Southeastern rail to make a smidgen of effort to sync the services given that passengers were already being inconvenienced? Had the train delayed departure for 1 minute, all passengers would have enjoyed a seamless transition in their ongoing journey. As a result, a journey which takes 35 minutes was extended to over 90. Hardly the end of the world, but really! Thanks for nothing Southeastern.

School uniforms and selective denial

When Obama acted to revolutionise the American healthcare system, the British public were quick to recognise the benefits of the NHS; the national healthcare system. In the UK at least, the British public are fortunate to have a nationalised healthcare system that ensures healthcare remains a right rather than a privilege. At least for now although if Cameron gets his way, the NHS will rapidly be privatised making healthcare a privilege not a right, yet I digress. My focus for this post is on school uniforms in British schools. So while the British were quick to acknowledge the benefits of the British healthcare system and the faults with the US system, they remain surprisingly blind to the social apartheid imposed by school uniforms which is equally shaming, shocking and wholly indefensible. Whilst there may be valid arguments to impose uniform policies within academic environments, it would appear that few if any of these factored in the implementation of school uniform policy within the UK. After all, choice of uniform is not uniform across all schools within the country. Some uniforms, notably those which will be worn by students of state-funded schools, or let’s be honest, the poor kids, are often sold by large chain stores. As school uniforms are not the choice of clothing for children during leisure time, in essence, this strategy imposes a clothing tax onto the poor who more likely than not already face financial restriction on free income. In contrast, the selection of school uniforms chosen by other academic institutions may be available in more limited supply, with little market competition. A situation which may be acceptable for rich families, for whom cost of school uniforms is not a factor in where they deem their children will receive their education. And variation in school uniform nicely highlights class variation. Further highlighting class distinction which is merely a form of social oppression. 

However, for some, the cost of school uniforms is a deciding factor in the choice of institution selected for where their children will receive their education and the foundation for the rest of their lives. Clearly Britain has lost the ability to see the forest for the trees! The only crucial factor which should define the selection of institution for a child’s education should be the suitability of the academic on offer, never whether the parents can afford the additional burden of clothing their children in the arbitrary selection of school uniform. 

Either way, I think that school uniform policy in British schools needs a serious rethink. What is the intended effect, and is this being achieved by current policy? Absolutely not. School is for education, not enhancement of class-based subjugation.

Global impact from banking greed?

Whilst the media have been quick to focus on the lives lost in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, surprisingly little has been mentioned about the potential impact that the economic crisis will have on susceptible populations throughout the world; notably, the impact on global starvation. Around the world, many nations have been dependent upon foreign aid due to crop failure and problems with national infrastructure; problems which in many cases still reflect aftershocks from industrial revolution era colonisation. The situation in the horn of Africa is rapidly deteriorating; UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon has just asked donor nations to supply an additional $1.6 billion dollars in aid funding, but from who? So what happens when the givers no longer have money to give? How many westernised nations are now in danger of defaulting on their own debts? If entire countries are struggling to stave off a domino run of national bankruptcies then how can the required levels of international aid be maintained? And what happens if a country was to face a crisis during this time of global economic uncertainty? E.g. Somalia: a failed state according to the UN, which is now facing severe food crisis following years of drought and crop failure? The UN has failed them, the west can’t afford to help them, and millions face death by starvation.

And a large part of why only limited aid will be forthcoming is due to the greed and incompetence of global bankers and a flawed economic system. The entire stock market system is based on speculation, which is in essence, calculated gambling. So those with money play with the lives and livelihoods of those without in a game of calculated greed and wealth generation. Even more shaming is the fact that not only is the incompetence of global bankers and stock markets responsible for the economic meltdown, but now banks and financial institutions appear to have resumed the irresponsible practices and behaviours responsible for precipitating this collapse in the first place seemingly oblivious to the suffering their behaviours will cause. So while banking practices and bankers bonuses remain as inflated as ever, the cost of reparation is borne by the bulk of the population who neither benefitted from the years of plenty nor have the reserves to withstand the increased financial burden they now find themselves faced with. And in the UK at least, the public find themselves led by a weak and cowardly government intent on denial which steadfastly refuses to impose austerity measures with equanimity.

So how long until the global bubble truly collapses? If the rich western European nations are barely staving off economic default, how can unstable failed states weather the tough times, and how many lives will be lost as a result of the incompetent and pure greed based behaviour of global bankers? Far more I predict, than will be lost from global conflict. Crimes against humanity indeed; high time the bankers face accountability for their actions I say!

Windows7 starter

I feel a bit of a whiner griping about this, yet I can't quite let it go...If the French government are concerned insidious advertising by/for Facebook and Twitter, I feel much the same about the insidious Microsoft advertising of the Windows 7 desktop in the starter edition. It would appear that Microsoft has decided to offer a discounted version of Windows to netbook manufacturers. However, one option which is lost in the stripped down functionality is the option to personalise the desktop. But don't fret as they have thoughtfully selected one for you. One which enforces reverence to the Microsoft logo! So although Microsoft are already obscenely rich, they impose reverence to the Microsoft logo for the poor who purchase a basic computer. You can of course upgrade the Windows functionality, but at a price which would likely almost equal the cost of the Netbook! Somewhat suspicious that after having been fined for imposing internet explorer onto the masses, they have now decided to impose the Windows icon by default onto all purchasers of Netbooks. I have to say that it seems like a petulant ploy in response to the fine they received.
Could they not have simply selected a pleasant landscape image instead? I loved the green field of dreams; hate the Windows logo. I know I can't be the only one!

Is the legal system overdue for a check-up?

The current legal system is maintained and regulated by MP's, lawyers and judges; individuals whose power, position, privilege and affluence ensure they remain least likely to suffer from crime. Moreover, it's becoming increasingly clear that the legal system is no longer capable of coping with the current pace of social change. And undoubtedly social disparity feeds into this downward spiral. Those in control of the system, increasingly blind to current realities, are imposing inappropriate solutions to growing problems. Suppression of free speech by super-injunctions to enable behavioral impunity shows how Britain is moving backwards contrasting with the Arab spring demonstrating a giant step forward against oppression.

The legal system is long-overdue for a re-vamp. Those most likely to suffer from crime should be driving change in the legal system, not sidelined and discounted. Although I wholly oppose police brutality, alleged criminals whose rights are infringed during legal processing are victims. Guilt and innocence should not be confused with protocol infringements or technicalities. A rape victim can't play a 'get out of council tax for-free card' by being a victim of rape so why do we offer a get out of criminal accountability to those accused of crime in case of technicalities or police brutality? Why don't victims of crime have a voice in determining sentencing? I'm not suggesting they represent the only voice, but to deny them the opportunity to have their say makes them a victim again, this time by the system which is allegedly designed to protect and assist them.

Sometimes sorry simply isn't good enough. MP's, lawyers and judges all need to be accountable for their actions. Without a statute of limitations on accountability. These are well-paid positions of power and responsibility. If those in these positions are afraid of making decisions due to potential accountability for their actions, perhaps more thought would go into the decision process.

Change the world!

For a day filled with significant numbers of non-violent protests, it is disheartening to see the lack of reporting by the global news media following the Mayday protests. However, this is hardly surprising as news is a commercial industry. Or alternatively it is funded by religion or state, none of which represent non-partisan viewpoints. So we cannot count on any assistance in our demands for change, we must manage this challenge on our own. As I said previously, the sad reality is that if the protests are marred with violence they will be vilified and dismissed; if they are not, they will be ignored. Neither is acceptable. So in light of the lack of reporting on public discontent we cannot afford to rest or pause as public memory is fickle and short. But with a sufficiently unified collective voice, our demands can build in volume and although the protest may be a small snowball today, soon it will become an unstoppable avalanche.

More importantly, our goals can only be achieved by sustained peaceful protest; violence and mayhem only give support to our critics. “Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal.” - Martin Luther King Jr.

But to start by arguing for just one of the many issues at stake, let’s start with cuts in healthcare spending. Increased specificity and accuracy of new diagnostic tests come with increased cost. So do novel therapeutics. In the face of increased costs to maintain current healthcare, this is hardly the time to cut healthcare spending. However it is entirely plausible that there is waste in the system which might be highlighted by those who work in the system. Targeting wastage and streamlining the system seems like a far better targeting strategy to enable more efficient spending of the available funds.

Furthermore, closing hospitals is a strategy of false economy. If/when in future it becomes necessary to re-open or re-build a hospital; the new expenditure will then be in addition to the cost of having closed the previous facility. The ageing and growing population will require more healthcare in the future, not less, so anyone with foresight can clearly see this strategy is doomed for failure at the public expense. And sadly this is a failing of our political system as repercussions are imposed onto subsequent governments, but those responsible for poor choices are never held accountable for their actions. Cuts to public services and healthcare to avoid imposing increased taxation onto bankers and the affluent is insane and an untenable strategy.

The path to resolution remains unclear. Online protest is a vehicle but will not achieve success alone; perhaps a targeted letter campaign strategy for the future? However there is a fine line separating protest from harassment and the machinations of injustice are manifold. So for today, I hope that others will join me in attempting to establish a more collective voice for change. As always, any comments and suggestions would be most appreciated!

#changetheworld

Volume not violence M'aidez-Mayday online protest review

A huge thank-you to everyone who joined the online protest. Let's hope that following our collective protest, common sense prevails and our governments adopt a conciliatory response to counter the current phase of madness. However, if this proves not to be the case, then today will be the first salvo in a sustained campaign for freedom and justice against oppressive class/finance-based apartheid.

Together we stand, divided we fall. There is strength in numbers and we must use our advantage while we can. Demonstrations will be suppressed, free-speech will be silenced, there may be casualties (RIP Ian Tomlinson). I fully believe in giving peace a chance, but I fear our leaders desire to give war it's due is the more probable future. Ignorance and thuggery are the hallmarks of despots blinded by power. However, although the cost of revolution varies, it is better to fight for freedom than live with oppression and in time justice always prevails. There are dark days ahead, but hold strong to your ideals and together we can impart change for better.

There are many ways to achieve collective protest. Today is not the end of the battle, it is the beginning of a new phase of resistance. Watch this space for future phases of the campaign for equality, opportunity and freedom for all.

M’aidez-May-Day protest! Rally against economic disparity & financial oppression.

Join the protest. Share your voice, make history by helping use the internet to impart change. Between 20:00-21:00 GMT, post the following tweet into Twitter and tweet repeatedly! Make it a trending topic, make it a top tweet, and show the world that the time for change is now!

M’aidez-May-Day protest! Rally against economic disparity & financial oppression. http://bit.ly/kxKHFo #changetheworld

Tomorrow, on May first, there will be the annual May-day protests. However the sad reality is that if the protests are marred with violence they will be vilified and dismissed; if they are not, they will be ignored. Neither is acceptable. Furthermore, large-scale social protests are swiftly forgotten and there must be an alternative to the violent unrest currently spreading across the Middle East. It’s time for change; it’s time to use the internet to vote for change. To this I propose volume, not violence. United we stand, divided we fail. So spread the word en masse via Twitter. This is a global problem and one which requires a global solution. So let’s put an end to economic repression. No one needs to get hurt, everyone can have a chance to join the protest and the message won’t rely on the whims of global media for dissemination.

I propose a peaceful global online protest burst against economic disparity. Join the protest: copy and paste the tweet highlighted in bold at the top of the page and tweet freely and repeatedly between 20:00-21:00 GMT (Greenwich Mean Time) tomorrow May 1^st. Retweet my tweets to your followers, or this tweet by any others who may also be tweeting, thereby boosting the chance for the tweets to become top tweets and for the hash-tag notes to become trending topics thereby making the protest global. Share this opinion to the world. Let the world leaders know that the masses are becoming united and desire action to impart change that benefits the majority of the globe, not just the affluent minority. The time window is chosen to enable as much of the globe to take part as possible. This is a global challenge and one which must be voiced as widely as possible. If we all shout in unison, maybe then the governments will hear and recognise that change is imperative.

Reports in the media, tweets, blogs and protests clearly show the global volume of discontent with economic disparity and the impact of the investment banking disaster. Yet now investment bankers and usurers who were primarily responsible for the global economic meltdown appear virtually unscathed and billions will suffer the consequences from the fallout. For most, business is not booming, life has not returned to normal and the future of an entire generation remains at risk. But independent protest will not be sufficient to impart change. We need volume. Make demands for change the trending topics on twitter!

Westminster is populated by a weak inexperienced government. Blinded by privileged upbringings and cowed by threats from the city and the affluent, we cannot count on our leaders for common sense or foresight. Although Britain is currently under threat from social unrest as well as both internal and external terrorism, the Lib-Dem coalition are responding by imposing cuts to the NHS, the police and education. Clearly the coalition would rather risk the safety security and future of Britain on a misguided policy which reeks of class-based oppression to impose the economic burden of recovery onto the masses rather than impose increased economic burden onto those who benefitted most from the years of plenty. The wheels of government are greased by the halls of commerce which in turn feed on the poor and oppressed.

Challenged by the public, bankers remain recalcitrant. To quote Bob Diamond ‘The time for remorse and apology is over’. Bonuses are back in season. When challenged by the government, bankers threatened to leave the UK. In response to shareholders angst at reduced dividends contrasting with current massive bonuses, Bob diamond claimed ‘We have made a good start to 20-11 in a challenging external environment’. Bankers have become the ultimate bullies, using financial oppression to maintain their hold on power and are arguably equally as guilty of causing human suffering as any dictator currently in power. Financial speculation on commodity markets can result in price-spikes resulting in hunger for millions of people. The recent revolt in Tunisia originated by a rise in food prices and led to the downfall of the government. Bankers are clearly out of touch with the importance and impact of their actions and are in complete denial of their role and responsibility in maintaining global peace. Yet economic disparity hurts everyone, although obviously the impact is most keenly felt by those who have the least financial security. Only by showing the combined strength of majority opinion will the threat of accountability be taken seriously.

And change will not come quickly as behaviours have become too deeply entrenched. Moreover, better cannot mean better for everyone, it can only mean better for some. By my argument, it is far better to impose an increased burden onto those who are affluent to spread the wealth to benefit the majority. In ancient times, Roman senators were obliged to fund civic buildings, ceremonies and public entertainments. Sadly, now the rich seem to view affluence with a sense of entitlement to act with impunity and belligerence.

Although the current situation may not feel quite like war, it certainly isn’t peace either. Either way, the time has come to pick sides and take a stand. We live in democracies and our governments are accountable to the majority. Yet, with Cameron stacking the House of Lords, ever increasing strategies for the rich to evade or minimise their personal burdens of taxation, and economic recovery funded by a highly controversial strategy of cuts to social services, democracy has never seemed so fragile. Yet the first step to recovery is to acknowledge that there is a problem. Democracy is broken; currently it is for sale to those with money and power. It is time for the voice of the masses to speak in unison and impose democratic change for the good of the majority, the good of the world.

98% of the world’s wealth is held by a mere 2% minority. Today, bankers, footballers and movie stars earn staggering wages whilst academics and scientists are reduced to practising as professional beggars in an attempt to maintain funding and job security in addition to performing research which benefits humanity. This is insanity!

As a final note; following the recent Facebook purge (http://j.mp/iUDmnI), censorship and political oppression is now clearly being mediated within regions which were formerly democratic. The time to act is now, before Big-Twitter steps in to silence the dissenters further. Tweet freely. Tweet to your friends, tweet to your enemies, tweet to the world while you still can that we, the majority, want change!!!

NHS hospital closures and closure of St Mary's Sidcup

Following on from the global economic downturn resulting from reckless banking strategies and years of poor economic strategies by the Labour government, obviously changes were necessary in public spending to revamp public finances. However, what the Coalition government are implementing is clearly flawed. Cuts to NHS services, policing and education will cost lives and impact on recovery by future generations. The Coalition may not have been responsible for the banking disaster, but this is what they’ve inherited and they need to find ways of financial resolution which imposes the burden onto those who benefited most from the years of plenty to ensure Britain remains a first world economy. With current strategies, the UK will rapidly spiral into chaos and the current state of affairs will look positively utopian in hindsight.

Looking at a recent report, and sadly one which is likely to become only too common; a woman and her unborn child both died due to unacceptable standards of care at a hospital in Romford. Highlighted in the report is the fact that there was only one paediatrician looking after 39 patients at the time. Staff shortages and cuts to healthcare lead to increased mortality. This much is an obvious outcome, a lesson which should never have happened, should never be repeated and I extend my sympathy to the grieving family.

Sadly, it seems that things are going to get dramatically worse for the borough of Bexley. The Conservatives promised to halt the closures before they were elected in May.

[From the Conservative Party election manifesto: ‘We will stop the forced closure of A&E and maternity wards, so people can have better access to local services.] However, shortly following a ‘temporary’ closure of the A&E in November 2010 due to staff shortages, the A&E ward of Queen Mary’s was stripped of its beds and equipment. As a result, Bexley is the only borough in London without an A&E department.

http://www.sidcupcommunitygroup.co.uk/#/queen-marys-hospital/4544201379

The populace of Bexley are now being re-routed to the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Woolwich 8.5 miles away. Despite protests by Bexley residents, this closure has been allowed to proceed by the coalition government. On March 7^th, even the residents of Woolwich staged a protest at the increased burden on their own healthcare system arguing that the Queen Elizabeth hospital will not be able to withstand the increased burden due to the closure of St Mary’s hospital.

The truth which is beginning to emerge from this fiasco is another example of the greed is good culture and a complete disregard for public safety. Plans are being drafted for the sale of the Queen Mary site for housing. Great for business and development, so sorry some people will need to die as a result. Will the hindsight of history show a money trail of corruption between politics and big business to fast-track the closure of St. Mary’s hospital? I would personally bet my life on it. Will anyone ever be held directly accountable as a result? In the UK, are you kidding me? The one guarantee of life in Britain is the complete and absolute lack of accountability of politicians, business people and the upper classes for their actions.

So with an aging population and an increasing maternity rate, Sidcup has become a ticking bomb for healthcare. The government was quick to bail out the banks; argued against increased taxation of bankers bonuses; is slow to impose further economic burden onto the rich and affluent. Yet the majority will face hardship, poverty and social decay to fund the selfish greed of the ruling class. This is an untenable strategy. Britain is on course for disaster. God-speed to those who are able to emigrate and escape the collapse, God bless those who can’t.

Will there ever be common sense in public spending decisions?

Legalisation of drugs – Drug abuse is a health problem, not a crime!

Enough is enough. There has been ample discussion on this topic. It is now time for action. Drugs need to be legalised. Not just decriminalised, not just ‘soft drugs’, but all drugs.

Criminalisation of drugs has been the policy for decades yet current usage shows this is clearly a broken strategy. However Holland and Portugal have clearly demonstrated that not only do alternative strategies exist, but they are also far more effective at tackling this age old challenge.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8106689.stm

And even more controversially, supply of illicit drugs must become the responsibility of society, regulated by the government or the healthcare system, or better yet, both. If the government takes on the role of supplier, it would reduce crime, it could ensure dosage consistency to reduce overdoses thereby reducing mortality and health care costs.

Also, controlling the Market would also free up police to target other serious crime. It would also reduce uptake as the supplier will no longer be encouraging the behaviour. Moreover, education, social and medical help could then be targeted directly to the vulnerable population to ensure current support systems achieve greater success. And perhaps with a stable supply for current addicts, there would be less incentive to identify alternative options for illicit escapism such as experimental use of as yet unclassified drugs, further reducing the impact on public health. And with social control, education can be placed alongside the supply. It could impart change and benefit all of us. How much crime is associated with the criminalisation of drugs? Arguably, we are all losers from the current policy so this proposed dramatic change in policy isn’t entirely altruistic.

Furthermore, criminalisation of drugs is also simply a recipe for social decay. Criminal gangs supply the drugs. At best this is a passive process of immoral capitalism by criminals, at worst, active public denial of the exploitation and expenditure of the portion of society at greatest risk.

If the social shame from last century was how the mentally disadvantaged were treated by society, then arguably for this century it is how we treat those who abuse psychoactive chemicals. Drug abuse needs to be treated for what it is; a health problem, a cry for help. Choosing escape from a current unpleasant reality shows hope for better days (as opposed to simply committing suicide). Society has clearly recognised that denigration of the mentally disadvantaged in unacceptable. Yet the social stigma of drug abuse remains as strong as ever. And as long as it remains both illegal and a behaviour of the rich and successful (e.g. rock stars & bankers) it will be an irresistible temptation for some. However punishing an individual for drug abuse is counter productive. And too often this behaviour is only identified once it has become habitual. Once entrenched, often other behaviours have often also been acquired – theft, violence, prostitution. And all of these individuals have been failed by society. Yet each drug user is someone’s son/daughter/lover/partner/mother/father/brother/sister. We should feel equally ashamed by failing to help them as they likely do from their habit.

Yet another objection to criminalisation of drugs is the casual classism that it represents. If you’re rich, you go to rehab at Harley St, the Betty Ford or the Mayo clinics. If you’re poor, you go to prison on the taxpayer’s dime. It would seem that drug criminalisation also represents just another opportunity for the upper classes to claim moral superiority by bullying those less fortunate. Even in 20^th century Britain, poverty and class remain the final prejudices that retain tacit social approval. "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone". Sadly it would appear that age old biblical quotes remain just as topical today as they did two millennia ago.

Finally, the first response to news of suicide usually involves belated intimations of willingness to support. Well if drug abuse is the cry for help, then we should put our energies into action and offer help where it is needed. It may not be pretty. It may require unknown resources of courage. This is a deep routed social problem and resolution likely requires exposure of ugly demons indeed. But it is high time that society stands up to the challenge of helping the unfortunate, not simply attempting to ignore them.

Rest assured, I abhor the use of drugs. This is not an essay to suggest that drug abuse behaviour is acceptable or ok. It is a self-destructive, immature form of self-harm. No solution will be perfect. Sadly there will always be a minority who are beyond help; those who don’t want to be saved. We can’t save everyone, how many people commit suicide each year? Nothing is perfect, but clearly the current system is broken.

The time for change is now. If we want a better society, we need to make it, it won’t just happen!

Anarchy in the UK?

At the foundation of Maslow's hierarchy of needs are basic physiological needs: food, water and sleep. The next level up focuses on safety: security of body and health. Yet the youth of Britain face dismal prospects for their future; prospects which are only becoming significantly worsened by the current initiatives of the current government. And the reaility that the youth of today will struggle to achieve even the second rung on Maslow's hierarchy is rapidly becoming a likely reality. First time buyers have been priced out of the property market. So instead of having any possibility of establishing a foothold of security, the youth of today will rent for longer. Possibly never own property. Without stability or free cash, save less for retirement and the downward spiral of social decay will continue until the system is fixed. The next generation earn a proportionately lower salary than previous generations. They will work longer before achieving retirement and due to inflation, will struggle to achieve a level of stability that remotely resembles that enjoyed by previous generations. The increasing social inequality of the UK is untenable and this downward spiral will only lead to social instability and political unrest. And this is a brutally truncated version of the reality facing the next generation of Britain. Education prospects are dwindling, unemployment is increasing, whilst policing and healthcare are getting cut. By the time social unrest begins to peak, likely within a matter of years, the police will be insufficient to maintain order. Moreover, they may choose to join rather than oppose those protesting. Which would leave the British government in the position of maintaining order through military force. What we observe as history unfolding in the Middle East seems likely to be the probable future for Britain.

Clearly resolving the British economy is an urgent need and one which will impact significantly across society, but this burden must be imposed in some degree of equal measure. Necessary changes should not merely decrease the quality of life for the poor. The greater burden of repayment must be imposed upon those with money, not those without. This may require changing the rules and goal-posts for the affluent and privileged. But short term pain will bring long term gains. Imposing the burden of repayment onto the poor will only lengthen the time required to resolve current challenges and will destabilise society even further. The rich may hold sway with the power brokers of government, but beware the tides of change, because ill-advised strategies to spare the few today, won't be sufficient to spare them from tomorrow.