Another Url, Another Planet

As it's almost four years and three months to the very day since the 7/7 London bombings, I thought this was as good a time as any to look back into the internet archive and see what I was thinking and blogging about then.

I guess what's got me thinking about this is the recent events in Pittsburgh with the G20 protests, the ongoing War of Terror (sic) and spending far too much time on YouTube, Twitter and identi.ca while I've been off work this last week. I've quite enjoyed myself, though and thanks to all the people especially on identi.ca who are so friendly, funny, helpful, weird and welcoming to a social networking newbie like me.

I'm not sure I agree with everything I've written, below, but I'm not sure about much that's been written about these events, least of all the official reports. A piss poor conclusion, too. But this was my initial impression in the first days and weeks after the attacks.

Saturday, July 09, 2005

Daily Terror Continues for Poor as World Leaders Fail to Act

Live8 Press Release 1 June 2005 (Word Document):

HERE’S THE POINT… The aim of it all is to make poverty history.
“Today, like every other day, 50,000 people will die unnecessarily,” says Richard Curtis, the writer and co-founder of Comic Relief, which is part of the Make Poverty History Campaign.
“If 50,000 people died in London on Monday, in Rome on Tuesday, Berlin on Wednesday, in New York on Thursday and in Paris on Friday, the G8 leaders in Gleneagles would find the money and the solution to the problem as they walked from the front door to the reception desk.”

Ms Dynamite, backstage at Hyde Park:[yes, I know, it's The Sun!]

People ask me why I wanted to be here and my answer to that question is how could I not be here?
"50,000 people every single day are dying of poverty. I would bet my life that if 50,000 died here in the western world something would be done by this evening to make sure that didn't happen tomorrow. That bothers me.
"At the end of the day, we as a nation have robbed, killed, stolen and tortured the third world for centuries. If there is a debt to be paid, surely we are the ones that owe it."

It's kind of ironic, isn't it? 50,000 people die every day because of extreme poverty. Meanwhile, world leaders are being lobbied to act to put a stop to this incredible daily atrocity as they meet for the G8 summit.

Thursday's bomb attacks in London, unquestionably horrific, were a neat "distraction" - actually the greatest loss of life since WW2 in London as a result of bombing - and one for which emergency services have been practising. Then, while everyone, understandably, is on a media-fuelled (or should that read government propaganda?) paranoia-trip about the "War on Terror", quietly the politicians hope we forget about the economic infanticide they stand by and allow to happen because they are more concerned about power and oil and their own black gold [original article deleted: this one says pretty much the same thing]. So much so, that it looks like they are already planning how to keep developing nations in their place and who will be next on the list to feel the imposition of Western "stabilising" forces....

Anyone remember Jo Moore? Not that I'm in any way attempting an apology for these acts, but you have to view it in some sort of perspective.

Now, what is more important?

laces entire post with heavy dose of cynicism

I posted the above yesterday morning in a forum elsewhere, minus a few edits I made just now. Juli [my wife] was in Russell Square on Tuesday and was supposed to be in Oxford Circus on Thursday morning. I had just a few sickening minutes before I knew she was safe. It's nothing compared to what some are enduring, still. We've had 24/7 coverage of the London Bomb Attacks for two days, now. Around 50 dead, I believe. 100,000 people dead from extreme poverty around the world in that time. What have the G8 done? G8 SUMMIT: Africa Is Offered a Little - At a Price - not much, it seems. The usual round of hollow promises, veiled threats and hypocrisy. They won't make poverty history [original link deleted, but what's changed?]. Chair of the Global Call To Action Against Poverty, Dr Kumi Naidoo, responded [original link broken. Same story here]:

Currently 50,000 people die unnecessarily each day. If the leaders actually implement today’s announcement in an urgent manner, we estimate that by 2010 this will fall to around 37,000.
The promise to deliver by 2010 is like waiting five years before responding to the tsunami.

At least some people are hoping to make a few bucks out of the whole thing. Ever feel like you've been swindled?



It's scary, really. In any other walk of like the G8 would simply not be allowed to exist in its current form. I mean, exactly what equal opportunities policies are they following in their recruitment and selection procedures? Why do we let these people into power? Look around you. Are they representative of the world we live in?

About the environment [original link broken, same story here]:

The G8 leaders recognized that "climate change is a serious and long-term challenge that has the potential to affect every part of the planet."
They pledged to "act with resolve and urgency" to tackle the problem.
But they set no yardsticks or clear goals.

What? We pay them to come up with these insights? We allow them to manage our world and they set themselves no targets? How are we or they supposed to know if they are making any progress? Oh, silly me, then they might be accountable!

Friday, July 15, 2005

The Chains Of Freedom

After Coordinated Bombs, London Is Stunned, Bloodied and Stoic - New York Times (you have to subscibe to read it, but it's worth the time it takes, if you like news and great pictures)

Yes, isn't the British stiff upper lip wonderful? Especially now that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness - two "ex-IRA murderers" - are invited for tea with the Prime Minister. And they accepted the invite on the condition that they are allowed to keep their guns. How thoughtful of us. So, how long before Blair is having tea with our latest friendly neighbourhood terrorists? Oh, wait.... the US has been there and done that [original link deleted] already! [here's a picture, instead:]



Like it or not, though, a political process is likely to be the only non-violent means of progress towards a peaceful resolution.

Some other well-known terrorists were handsomely rewarded for their efforts recently. Tony Blair apparently described it as a "contrast with the politics of terror". Presumably, by that he means that if we don't give them any money then they continue to starve, die of unaffordable-yet-medically-treatable diseases, or they bomb us until we coughsurrendercough to their demands for power sharing.

Meanwhile, our much loved freedom and democracy are to be further enhanced by routine compulsory surveillance of all our private emails if new proposals to "prevent terror" get the go ahead. Now, excuse me for being so bloody cynical about this, but isn't it pretty simple to secure email with encryption?

Suffice it to say, no one should have so much alone time that few of his friends knew what was bothering him. Isolation is a set up for future problems. Source

Interesting point about isolation. Some pretty shocking research statistics from Australia here, too: "Mentally ill endure lives of loneliness and exclusion". I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that there is a similar situation in the US, the UK and other "developed" nations.

One of the scary things I find from working in the community trying to help people recover from schizophrenia and other psychoses is the UK government policy to get everyone living independently, without making any real provision for social and occupational support. There's a lot of talk. But most of the action is from the voluntary and charity sector, large and small.

There's also a UK government policy (copying what I understand - or am led to believe - are successful US "welfare-to-work" or "workfare" policies to get people off benefits and into work, but this is driven by the need to cut welfare costs rather than any consideration of individual needs and preferences. I've been to the "Personalisation" and "Transformation" of social care workshops telling us that "we" need to provide more for less. Some people are going to lose out and it won't be people with a bit of depression, anxiety or stress.

Madeleine Bunting wrote a good article in The Guardian about this. The UK government's policy doesn't seem to me to take into account the completely different pre-existing (or relative lack of) welfare provisions in the US (which therefore act as an incentive for people to take low paid jobs) or the much more advanced mental health "consumer" rights movement.

Most people don't want what they consider (rightly, in my opinion) dead-end jobs on low pay. Most would actually be worse off financially (and, therefore, mentally) even if they did, thanks to the "generous" disability benefits they get in the UK. And in case anyone thinks people on sickness benefits are living lives of luxury, they're not. They often end up in the most deprived areas, with neighbours who are drug users, criminals and psychopathic bullies. Hardly a therapeutic environment likely to foster recovery, let alone "care in the community".

For those of you who don't know the difference, psychosis is losing touch with reality (symptoms can include hallucinations, delusions, feelings of persecution), while psychopathy is a lack of conscience or empathy. In psychosis, behaviours are often confused and confusing. In psychopathy, behaviours are often apparently normal, charming, successful, manipulative, political, self-serving, shallow, murderous.

It's no wonder people get depressed, angry and paranoid. It's no wonder some say they think the medications don't really do anything to help them or complain about side-effects that seem to mimic the symptoms of the original condition. And it's no wonder some people then experiment with reducing and/or stopping taking their meds altogether. They're often reluctant to ask for help from the medical profession for fear that the response will be simply to increase their meds. I recently attended a "care" plan meeting where the patient asked to be rehoused and have her tablets reduced. The psychiatrist responded by suggesting that "it would be easier for him" to give her a an increased depot injection (a jab in the arse). So much for personalisation.

Any attempt to get work is often met with the advice not to, so as not to encounter stress and risk relapse, rather than facilitating appropriate support. It's almost as if people are expected to be content with living isolated, meaningless lives. Organisations like mine which offer support in the community are on the one hand highly valued by the people who use them and their referers/carers, but often the first to get cuts in funding, despite the evidence that it's the quality of relationships that makes a real difference to people's lives.

What people want is somewhere safe to live, where they feel supported. They want something to do during the days, evenings and weekends. They want friends and intimate relationships. They want jobs - paid or unpaid - where they feel valued and not discriminated against or bullied. They want to feel a sense of belonging, community and ownership. Is that too much to ask?

Having said all of the above, I think things are beginning to change slowly for the better. But none of that really helps people who are already living isolated lives with possible underlying and undiagnosed mental health issues, or those who have been trhough the system and discharged without appropriate and ongoing support.