Hi guys we had a really good show this week, you can read all the articles that featured below...
China has announced that the Chinese prime minister, Wen Jiabao will be attending the Copenhagen climate talks next month.
The news came a day after the US president, Barack Obama, confirmed he would be attending the early stages of the conference, which aims to set a global strategy for reducing emissions.
China unveiled firm targets of cutting emissions of carbon relative to economic growth by 40 to 45% by the year 2020 compared with 2005 levels. The state council has stated that “this is a voluntary action taken by the Chinese government based on its own national conditions and is a major contribution to the global effort in tackling climate change.” This target commits China to slowing the speed of emissions growth through the adoption of renewable energy, such as by replacing old power stations with more efficient plants.
John Hay, spokesman for the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat called news of Obama’s visit and China’s firm targets as “a huge morale booster”.
But critics have pointed out that the figure is unlikely to be high enough to satisfy European and US negotiators, as anything below 50% would represent a less ambitious target than its current efforts to improve energy efficiency.
Chinese negotiators counter that it is doing far more than wealthy nations, particularly the US and Europe, despite of its expected high economic growth rate as a developing country.
written by Erica Teo
A student caught urinating on a war memorial was spared jail by a judge who attacked organised mass drinking sessions at universities.
19 year old Phillip Laing from Sheffield Hallam University was given 250 hours of community service for outraging public decency. Laing was part of a Carnage pub crawl where he drank vast amounts of alcohol before he was caught on CCTV urinating on a poppy wreath at the city’s main memorial just before Remembrance Sunday.
The court heard that Laing had been extremely remorseful especially since both his grandfathers had fought in the Second World War and he had done work experience with the army. District judge Anthony Browne took this into account and spared Laing the jail sentence.
Browne stated that Laing had to take responsibility for his own actions but recognised that this was set against a backdrop of a binge drinking culture. Browne suggested that the organisers of the event should have been alongside Laing in the dock and that measures are needed to curb such binge drinking culture targeted at young people.
Varsity Leisure Group, which owns Carnage, denied encouraging irresponsible drinking at the events, stating that these events are accompanied by medical staff.
War veterans’ organisations at that time also recognised Laing’s immediate apology and the scale of drinking involved. This incident has sparked a public uproar leading to the creation of a facebook group calling Laing ‘the Scum of the Earth’.
written by Erica Teo
Gary McKinnon, accused of hacking into 97 US government computers, looks set to face trial in the US, after Alan Johnson announced last week he would not block the extradition on medical grounds. The Home Secretary said granting the extradition would not breach McKinnon’s human rights despite expert medical evidence brought forward by his lawyers, stating that their client’s dramatic breakdown in mental health would mean any extradition would be in breach of his right to life.
McKinnon also has Asperger’s Syndrome which coupled with the report saying he is close to suicide, raises the question: what is the fairness in such treatment of someone with a disability and worrying mental health? His lawyer, Karen Todner has likened his current state to death row, saying “We genuinely believe that Gary's life is at stake here” before adding that Johnson’s rejection has brought their battle worrying close to the end of the road.
McKinnon is accused of hacking into 97 NASA and US military computer in 2001 and 2002, reportedly including the immobilisation of sensitive systems following the 9/11 attacks. Though McKinnon has never denied his actions, he has always maintained he was hacking in order to find evidence of UFOs and ‘free-energy’ and never had malicious intent as well as doubting the US government’s estimate of $700,000 worth of damage his actions caused.
Since the US first made an extradition request in 2005, McKinnon has lost various appeals including that at the High Court in 2007. However, it was discovered in only August 2008 that he has Asperger’s Syndrome, a form of autism, sufferers of which are often prone to obsessive behaviour and can be socially naïve to the effects of their actions.
In defence of allowing the extradition of someone despite this disability and current extreme fragility, Alan Johnson refers to the assurances made by the US government in a letter shown in court, that if prosecuted McKinnon will receive ‘appropriate medical care and treatment’ from doctors, counsellors and psychologists.
But in a letter to The Herald earlier this year, former NASA criminal investigator specialising in hacking and now criminal lawyer Joseph Gutheinz, called for an end to the extradition process. Drawing on his own legal experience with a client with Asperger’s Syndrome, Gutheinz said that the American Judicial system ‘turns a blind eye towards the needs of the mentally ill’ and McKinnon requires treatment not extradition and imprisonment.
McKinnon has received widespread support during his campaign, much of which has focussed on the highly questionable extradition treaty between Britain and the United States. LibDem Home Affairs spokesman Chris Huhne called it “deeply unfair” and appalling that it is being held above the rights of a British citizen. One of Britain’s most prominent Human Rights lawyers, Geoffrey Robertson QC has also supported the block of extradition, saying it would be in violation of our 1689 Bill of Rights.
The outcome of former Morgan Crucible executive Ian Norris’ challenge to the Supreme Court this week, in a similar case of US extradition being in possible violation of human rights, provides some think the last glimmer of hope for McKinnon.
Alan Johnson has gone against expert medical advice for the second time in as many months, following the sacking of drugs expert David Nutt at the end of October. On this occasion, the treatment of a man with a proven mental disability and who is very close to suicide has been described by the defendants lawyers as ‘callous’. Should McKinnon be prosecuted, Johnson has made assurances that progress of his application to serve his sentence in the UK will be made ‘at the earliest opportunity’. But given the disregard given to the abundance of support and evidence for McKinnon, in order to comply with a treaty described by the Commons Homes Affairs Committee as having a ‘serious lack of equality’ in the extradition of UK and US citizens, what truth do these promises hold?
McKinnon’s legal team were given seven days to appeal to judicial review, after which they can only appeal to the European Court of Human rights who have already said in the past, would not block extradition.
written by Alex Bishop
Currently under way is the Chilcot inquiry into Britain’s role in the Iraq war, chaired by Sir John Chilcot.
The Inquiry’s remit is to examine ‘involvement in the Iraq war, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish as accurately and reliably as possible what happened, and to identify lessons that can be learned’. This sounds like not only a necessary investigation but also a potentially flammatory one. The inquiry may have been set up by the government, and it’s members chosen by the Prime Minister, but it’s task is to examine the government - specifically Tony Blair’s Labour government - and to criticise it where criticism is proved to be warranted.
For years, ariticles have been written, protests conducted and documents leaked that claim something was amiss in the government’s behaviour in the run up to its commitment to an Iraq invasion. How much is fact, how much is white-wash and how much is conjencture is unknown, but I think we would all acknowledge that the choices made by the government at the time and the reasons offered to the public to defend them were not as clear cut and warranted as they were presented to be. This fact is now reflected by the very existence of this inquiry, the government has had to acknowledge that a proper and thorough investigation will be demanded by the public, and it has no choice but to launch one.
The question on every cynics lips of course is to what extent the Government will be prepared to have wrong-doing, if it occurred, revealed and how much criticism it is willing to accept. The Chilcot inquiry has been provided with very thorough archives, however they have been provided by the government – just how naked will they be prepared to be?
Another question is the extent of the inquiry’s power, Chilcot confirmed in his opening speech that it is not a court of law, its sole task is to form an account of events and submit a report. If the inquiry finds evidence of wrong-doing all it can do is state it. Whether anything is done about it is an entirely different matter.
Chilcot acknowledged that one of the main issues that the inquiry would be considering would be the legality of Britain’s involvement in the invasion, but that it would not be addressed directly until the New Year. Legality is the question that most interests just about every on-looker of this investigation, and calls have been made for the inquiry to make it a priority. However experts have pointed out that this is something the inquiry will be unable to do effectively – the panel does not include a single judge or lawyer.
A senior legal figure told the Guardian that, “The panel clearly lacks the expertise to address the question of legality. The members are not experienced at cross examination – it is simply not their skill set.” They also commented that, “Some of the debates around the legality of war are quite sophisticated – it is not at all clear-cut”.
If this is the case then it would appear the panel are not equipped to investigate legality, and that therefore the inquiry would not only not be able to reach any conclusions, but ultimately that it was never intended to. The Prime Minister selected the Panel. He did not choose a member with legal training, he also chose not to select a member of military personnel. Surely such proffessions would be best equipped to understand and analyse the information they are to be presented with. Instead two historians, a diplomat and a civil servant have been invited to ask the questions the rest of the country has been since 2001 and to find us answers. One has to ask precisely how much the Government does want the panel to understand and just how thorough it hopes the inquiry to be.
A senior judge commented to the Guardian that “Looking into the legality of the war is the last thing the government wants… And actually, it’s the last thing the opposition wants either because they voted for the war. There simply is not the political pressure to explore the question of legality – they have not asked because they do not want the answer”. However the public have asked and the public does want an answer, unfortunately it does appear increasingly likely that the answer we get will be watery, diluted and non-commital.
Yet despite the many criticisms of the Chilcot inquiry’s ability to adequately perform its task, interesting, explosive and highly damning evidence has already been brought to light in the couple of weeks the inquiry has been in operation. Sir Christopher Meyer’s evidence was particularly significant, it suggested that Tony Blair had assured the US of Britain’s co-operation and commitment to regime-change and invasion as early as April 2002, claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction were nothing more than a pretext and the co-operation with the UN nothing more than an attempt to justify the invasion. The UN were not even given time to complete their investigation into the presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction, that is how flimsy the pre-text was.
Such evidence supports claims made by many over the years, including former Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan, that the invasion was illegal, in the absence of a UN resolution authorising invasion. It also confirms that Tony Blair’s government sought to deceive the British public and media, Weapons of Mass Destruction were claimed to be the prime reason that intervention was necessary, not only were there not any weapons, it didn’t even really matter that there weren’t; the government had already made its mind up.
It seems that the Chilcot inquiry could uncover some highly flammable information and that we may all learn much more about what actually happened at that time. In this sense, this inquiry is undoubtedly valuable. The concern however is just how much it can achieve and whether it will be enough. Whether it is equipped to adequately perform the enormous task it faces, whether it will have the guts to condemn where it should, and whether the government and courts of law will actually pay any attention to its findings when it does finally submit them. This may not be yet another white wash, but it does not seem to be a pursuit of accountability and culpability and sadly anyone naïve enough to look for tangible outcomes may be disappointed.
written by Beatrice Pickup
Wednesday 9th December will be our last news show of the semester, and it will be a Big Issue special. We have a fantastic interview with Paul, who runs the Big Issue in the North East and two of his vendors who work on Northumberland Street, Paul and Steve. We chat to them about the ethos behind the Big Issue, how it can help those who are homeless or poorly housed and what makes the magazine something students might want to buy. We also take a look at the Big Issue Christmas special, featuring an exclusive George Michael interview. Tune in on Wednesday or check this blog to find out more.
Friday 4 December 2009
Thursday 19 November 2009
Hi all, we had a great show this week, thank you to my co-presenter Rachel McNally.
Reporter Jen Hudson looked at the divisions in the Obama administration over sending more troops to Afghanistan. Obama must make a decision over the request for the deployment of 40,000 extra US troops, in addition to the 68,000 already committed. Controversially however, a number of diplomatic cables were leaked last week,sent from the US Ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, to President Barack Obama, urging him to send no more troops until President Hamid Karzai cleans up the corruption rife in Afghanistan's government. There is increasinging pressure on Obama to make a decision soon, however now may be an unfortunate time to announce the deployment of new troops as he is due to collect his Nobel Peace Prize on December 10th.
Reporter Rachel Maltas spoke to the Prison Officer's Association about their claims that recent investigations were unfair and pre-determined. They refer to the recent scandal that involved Prison Officers transferring difficult prisoners between prisons before inspections in order to avoid unfavourable reports. An investigation was held which resulted in two officers being given warnings, and two governors being acquitted. The POA have since written to the Head of the Prison Service claiming members were 'irate' as they believe 'it is one rule for governors and and another for our members in uniform'.
Reporter Alex Bishop wrote about the increasing lack of press freedom in Iraq. Recently the Guardian were ordered to pay a fine for libel after an article accusing the Iraqi PrimeMinister of running an increasingly authoritarian governement. There has been a steady rise in court cases against press in Iraq, often against Independent companies that cannot afford to fight them. Bill Keller, of the New York Times commented that "what the [Iraqi] court calls libel is, in most countries, called journalism". The Guardian has said it will appeal the verdict, saying that by bringing the case to court the Iraqi Government has only supported the claims of the article in question.
Below is this week's editorial from myself, commenting on the future role British troops face in Afghanistan and the feasibility of withdrawing them...
"The position of Britain in Afghanistan has received a great deal of comment and debate once again this week, with Prime Minister Gordon Brown announcing that he would like to set a deadline for the withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan, ideally in 2010. As reported in this week’s news program, Barack Obama is under increasing pressure to make a decision on the request for 40,000 more American troops to be deployed in the region. This choice has been made more difficult by the US Ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, advising the President against such a decision due to the current levels of corruption in the country. If Obama does however choose to send the additional troops, his decision will make it considerably more difficult for Britain to defend its retreat.
Yesterday, Foreign Secretary David Milliband announced a potential new foreign policy in Afghanistan, one of integration for the Taliban – for them to be accepted back into the fold. Milliband claimed that the majority of the Taliban were not Islamic extremists pursuing Jihad, rather that they were involved due to tribal and community ties. As such it is thought they should be positively encouraged back into their communities, and that this choice must be presented as one that is feasible, convincing members that to work alongside Allied Forces was a more productive way to defend their communities than to fight alongside the Taliban against the Allies.
Milliband said Britain supported plans for a "National Reintegration Organisation" that would help former combatants return to their homes.
He pointed to the encouraging statistic that, "Less than 5% of Afghans want the Taliban back. This is our greatest strength. But they fear that the international community will tire of the war and the Taliban will return, inflicting brutal retribution on those who 'collaborated' with the government".
As the current situations that Obama and Brown find themselves in attests, the International Community is indeed beginning to tire of the war. This Sunday saw the death of the 96th UK Serviceman this year, and a poll released on the same day suggested that 73% of the British public wanted to see British troops withdrawn within a year, factors that has almost certainly influenced Brown’s recent announcement.
However whilst the West may desire an exit from Afghanistan this may not be feasible in the near future. It is agreed by everyone that the only way Allied Forces could withdraw would be if Afghanistan’s government and security forces were strong enough and well enough trained and equipped to defend itself against the Taliban.
Unfortunately the MoD’s Chief of the General Staff, Sir David Richards, predicted last month that UK forces might be fighting on the frontline until 2014, with a further "five years of declining violence" before UK forces went into a supporting role. Despite positive political; speeches, Afghanistan is increasingly appearing to be a war without an end, despite Milliband’s insistence that, ‘Our goal is not a fight to the death’.
Can the Afghan government ever be strong enough to fight this fight alone? This Thursday will see the inauguration of President Karzai, who has been reselected to rule the country. World Leaders will be attending the ceremony in support of Karzai. However Karzai has not been legally elected. His victory in the first round of elections was proven to be highly fraudulent and therefore illegitimate. The second round of elections wasn’t able to go ahead because Karzai’s only real rival pulled out of the race just days beforehand because he was so convinced that the re-run would be just as unfair and corrupt as the first. The International Community solved this problem by simply automatically electing Karzai as President, he was after all the only feasible candidate. Karzai’s last government was rife with corruption, nepotism and ineptitude and the recent attempts at elections prove this has not changed. How can world leaders realistically expect that Karzai’s next government will be not only better in every possible sense, but sufficiently so for it to be able to hold the fort when the West withdraws. This outlook may be cynical, but it appears to me that such hopes are illusory.
There is a case to be made that British troops should be withdrawn from Afghanistan purely because they are fighting and dying to support and aid a corrupt government and there is certainly a moral case to be made for this argument. However Britain is deeply enmeshed in the Afghanistan situation, rightly or wrongly we have made the decisions we have and we are involved now. It would be irresponsible and unfair to the Afghan people to simply pull out before ensuring that a certain degree of security is established first. The difficulty is that it is difficult to see just how or when such a situation could actually be achieved.
Public opinion may be against greater involvement and perhaps it can no longer be honestly claimed that our troops put their lives at risk for a worthwhile cause.
However Obama is realistically contemplating sending 40,000 more of his own, that doesn’t sound like he sees the US leaving any time soon, and they’re certainly not there for the fun of it. Britain along with the US has sadly made a rod for it’s own back, and as difficult it is, we must now face up to the consequence of our involvement – we pledged to help and must remain until Afghanistan can do the job on it’s own, however long that may take."
Tune in at 12pm next Wednesday to listen to our next News program, or check this blog for a summary.
Beatrice Pickup
Head of News
Reporter Jen Hudson looked at the divisions in the Obama administration over sending more troops to Afghanistan. Obama must make a decision over the request for the deployment of 40,000 extra US troops, in addition to the 68,000 already committed. Controversially however, a number of diplomatic cables were leaked last week,sent from the US Ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, to President Barack Obama, urging him to send no more troops until President Hamid Karzai cleans up the corruption rife in Afghanistan's government. There is increasinging pressure on Obama to make a decision soon, however now may be an unfortunate time to announce the deployment of new troops as he is due to collect his Nobel Peace Prize on December 10th.
Reporter Rachel Maltas spoke to the Prison Officer's Association about their claims that recent investigations were unfair and pre-determined. They refer to the recent scandal that involved Prison Officers transferring difficult prisoners between prisons before inspections in order to avoid unfavourable reports. An investigation was held which resulted in two officers being given warnings, and two governors being acquitted. The POA have since written to the Head of the Prison Service claiming members were 'irate' as they believe 'it is one rule for governors and and another for our members in uniform'.
Reporter Alex Bishop wrote about the increasing lack of press freedom in Iraq. Recently the Guardian were ordered to pay a fine for libel after an article accusing the Iraqi PrimeMinister of running an increasingly authoritarian governement. There has been a steady rise in court cases against press in Iraq, often against Independent companies that cannot afford to fight them. Bill Keller, of the New York Times commented that "what the [Iraqi] court calls libel is, in most countries, called journalism". The Guardian has said it will appeal the verdict, saying that by bringing the case to court the Iraqi Government has only supported the claims of the article in question.
Below is this week's editorial from myself, commenting on the future role British troops face in Afghanistan and the feasibility of withdrawing them...
"The position of Britain in Afghanistan has received a great deal of comment and debate once again this week, with Prime Minister Gordon Brown announcing that he would like to set a deadline for the withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan, ideally in 2010. As reported in this week’s news program, Barack Obama is under increasing pressure to make a decision on the request for 40,000 more American troops to be deployed in the region. This choice has been made more difficult by the US Ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, advising the President against such a decision due to the current levels of corruption in the country. If Obama does however choose to send the additional troops, his decision will make it considerably more difficult for Britain to defend its retreat.
Yesterday, Foreign Secretary David Milliband announced a potential new foreign policy in Afghanistan, one of integration for the Taliban – for them to be accepted back into the fold. Milliband claimed that the majority of the Taliban were not Islamic extremists pursuing Jihad, rather that they were involved due to tribal and community ties. As such it is thought they should be positively encouraged back into their communities, and that this choice must be presented as one that is feasible, convincing members that to work alongside Allied Forces was a more productive way to defend their communities than to fight alongside the Taliban against the Allies.
Milliband said Britain supported plans for a "National Reintegration Organisation" that would help former combatants return to their homes.
He pointed to the encouraging statistic that, "Less than 5% of Afghans want the Taliban back. This is our greatest strength. But they fear that the international community will tire of the war and the Taliban will return, inflicting brutal retribution on those who 'collaborated' with the government".
As the current situations that Obama and Brown find themselves in attests, the International Community is indeed beginning to tire of the war. This Sunday saw the death of the 96th UK Serviceman this year, and a poll released on the same day suggested that 73% of the British public wanted to see British troops withdrawn within a year, factors that has almost certainly influenced Brown’s recent announcement.
However whilst the West may desire an exit from Afghanistan this may not be feasible in the near future. It is agreed by everyone that the only way Allied Forces could withdraw would be if Afghanistan’s government and security forces were strong enough and well enough trained and equipped to defend itself against the Taliban.
Unfortunately the MoD’s Chief of the General Staff, Sir David Richards, predicted last month that UK forces might be fighting on the frontline until 2014, with a further "five years of declining violence" before UK forces went into a supporting role. Despite positive political; speeches, Afghanistan is increasingly appearing to be a war without an end, despite Milliband’s insistence that, ‘Our goal is not a fight to the death’.
Can the Afghan government ever be strong enough to fight this fight alone? This Thursday will see the inauguration of President Karzai, who has been reselected to rule the country. World Leaders will be attending the ceremony in support of Karzai. However Karzai has not been legally elected. His victory in the first round of elections was proven to be highly fraudulent and therefore illegitimate. The second round of elections wasn’t able to go ahead because Karzai’s only real rival pulled out of the race just days beforehand because he was so convinced that the re-run would be just as unfair and corrupt as the first. The International Community solved this problem by simply automatically electing Karzai as President, he was after all the only feasible candidate. Karzai’s last government was rife with corruption, nepotism and ineptitude and the recent attempts at elections prove this has not changed. How can world leaders realistically expect that Karzai’s next government will be not only better in every possible sense, but sufficiently so for it to be able to hold the fort when the West withdraws. This outlook may be cynical, but it appears to me that such hopes are illusory.
There is a case to be made that British troops should be withdrawn from Afghanistan purely because they are fighting and dying to support and aid a corrupt government and there is certainly a moral case to be made for this argument. However Britain is deeply enmeshed in the Afghanistan situation, rightly or wrongly we have made the decisions we have and we are involved now. It would be irresponsible and unfair to the Afghan people to simply pull out before ensuring that a certain degree of security is established first. The difficulty is that it is difficult to see just how or when such a situation could actually be achieved.
Public opinion may be against greater involvement and perhaps it can no longer be honestly claimed that our troops put their lives at risk for a worthwhile cause.
However Obama is realistically contemplating sending 40,000 more of his own, that doesn’t sound like he sees the US leaving any time soon, and they’re certainly not there for the fun of it. Britain along with the US has sadly made a rod for it’s own back, and as difficult it is, we must now face up to the consequence of our involvement – we pledged to help and must remain until Afghanistan can do the job on it’s own, however long that may take."
Tune in at 12pm next Wednesday to listen to our next News program, or check this blog for a summary.
Beatrice Pickup
Head of News
Wednesday 11 November 2009
NSR has a news team! Yes, this year we are up and running... with a weekly half hour show at 12pm every Wednesday and DAILY news bulletins played throughout the day.
The team reports on events within the Student Union, University and around Newcastle, as well as National and International news stories. Each week's show is made up of stories we think will interest Newcastle students, Comment pieces and voxpops offering student opinions and Editorials offering my own as Head of News!
We are closely affiliated with NuTV's News Team and so many of our stories and interviews can also be found as videos on YouTube and NuTV's website. So far this year we've been fortunate enough to film Nobel Prize Winning poet Seamus Heaney reciting his latest poem commissioned by Newcastle University, we interviewed world famous British photographer Martin Parr before his latest exhibition opening at the BALTIC and we reported on the recent student demonstration against the BNP outside of Newcastle's BBC building. All these films can be found at www.NUTV.co.uk.
In this week's show...
Jennifer Hudson reported on the government's recent decision to make sex education compulsory for all school children over the age of 5. Parents are however allowed to withdraw their children from these lessons upto the age of 15. Religious schools must teach pupils about subjects such as homosexuality and contraception, however are permitted to also apply their own values and ethos. Safe-sex campaigners hope that the new laws will result in a reduction in the number of teen pregnancies in the UK.
I reported on France's accusation of the Tories effectively 'castrating' the UK in Europe. This is after David Cameron reiterated his party's stance on Europe, which continues to be highly Euro-sceptic. He spoke of, 'strengthening British sovereignity'. France's Europe Minister Pierre Lellouche described Torie EU plans as pathetic and warned that under a Conservative government, 'Britain's risk is one of marginalisation. Irrelevance.'
Alex Bishop commented on media mogul Rupert Murdoch's plans to introduce charges for the online content of his newspapers, which include The Sun, The Times and The Wall Street Journal. Three months ago Murdoch claimed his websites would be charging by next June, however last week he admitted that meeting this deadline was now unlikely. There are still widespread concerns as to whether this is a feasible move or whether it is likely to result in a fall in readership. Murdoch has also threatened to block Google from his website and have all news content removed from the search enginge. He described Google as a 'parasite' and has accused it of 'kleptomania' in the past.
The NewsTeam also attended a screening of 'The Age of Stupid' in theStudent Union, and below is the review I wrote after seeing the film.
"Last night Newcastle University’s People and Planet Society hosted a screening of the ‘Age Of Stupid’ in the Student Union. The docu-film about climate change was directed by Franny Armstrong, best known for making McLibel, and stars actor Pete Postlethwaite.
The film opens with a scene of London, the Eye partly submerged in a flooded Thames, Sydney Opera House is consumed by bush fires, Las Vegas is crumbling in a windswept desert. The year is 2055, a date I hope we all plan on seeing. Pete Postlethwaite is ‘the archivist’, alone in his tower in a no longer icy Artic, he guards the world’s art relics, books and films, watches archive footage and wonders where it all went wrong. The message is clear – the planet is in tatters, most of us are dead and we brought it on ourselves... we ignored the danger of climate change.
Thus far, it’s what you would expect. Doom and gloom, the end of the world and some computer graphics to depict it that we struggle to take seriously. Animation has never really scared me into mending my ways, and anything set in the future I happily disregard as fantasy.
However the footage the archivist looks back at is genuine documentary footage, some made by the film’s producers, others from genuine news reports and headlines. Being shown news clip after news clip does bring home just how much climate change is discussed in the media, in politics and in science. Culturally, we are in fact fully aware of what could potentially happen to the planet, regardless of whether we choose to believe it or care about it. Not one of us could categorically claim that global warming is not occurring or that carbon emissions are not affecting the planet. Perhaps the situation is not as serious as some would have us believe, perhaps it is. But no one can claim blissful ignorance of the possibilities, particularly not in the media saturated West.
The film splits into various documentaries, different people’s stories from across the world. An environmentally friendly family in Cornwall who recycle, produce half their own food and have their own wind turbine. An Indian tycoon from a very wealthy business family setting up India’s first budget airline. A Nigerian woman who wants to train as a doctor because Shell oil halted the building of a medical centre that they promised to provide when they started drilling for oil. A man who lost everything to hurricane Katrina. An 82 year old mountain guide, in tears because the glacier is melting. They’re interesting stories, they really are, but at times it’s as transparently sentimental as it sounds, we are on heroes and villains turf here.
The most interesting of these stories for me was the Indian business man, Jeh Wadia, as his portrayal by the film’s producers was so ambiguous. The film never explicitly condemned him for setting up his budget airline, in fact it allows him to explain to us that his ambition is to combat the unfair wealth divide in India. We see him volunteering at charities that help the poor, but we see him fly there in a private jet. We see him creating a company from scratch, but his business style appeared to be quietly mocked. Throughout the film, flying was portrayed as the ultimate sin, the most heinous of crimes... flying is even likened to the holocaust... in a, ‘yes everyone’s doing it but we may look back and regret it’ sense.
Short of burning down an entire forest, travelling by plane is the most harmful contribution an individual can make to global warming apparently. Oh dear.
The film was clear in explaining that countries like India had no way near the carbon consumption of those like the US, and that it would be permitted to continue a controlled growth in coming years. However the Indian airline was clearly the villain of the piece and I thought this unfair finger pointing in a country where millions must spend days travelling on run down, slow and unreliable trains.
Ultimately, this is a film with a message, and a relevant and powerful one at that. As a result, it is bound to be somewhat one sided. It describes itself as a ‘cautionary tale’, its job therefore is to present a forceful argument. I may have my criticisms of the way in which the argument was presented, but I was convinced that to stick my head in the sand is not only naive but selfish and foolish. The archivist’s final comment is that we committed suicide as a race, the film certainly convinced me that we are heading for destruction and it is a harrowing thought."
The team reports on events within the Student Union, University and around Newcastle, as well as National and International news stories. Each week's show is made up of stories we think will interest Newcastle students, Comment pieces and voxpops offering student opinions and Editorials offering my own as Head of News!
We are closely affiliated with NuTV's News Team and so many of our stories and interviews can also be found as videos on YouTube and NuTV's website. So far this year we've been fortunate enough to film Nobel Prize Winning poet Seamus Heaney reciting his latest poem commissioned by Newcastle University, we interviewed world famous British photographer Martin Parr before his latest exhibition opening at the BALTIC and we reported on the recent student demonstration against the BNP outside of Newcastle's BBC building. All these films can be found at www.NUTV.co.uk.
In this week's show...
Jennifer Hudson reported on the government's recent decision to make sex education compulsory for all school children over the age of 5. Parents are however allowed to withdraw their children from these lessons upto the age of 15. Religious schools must teach pupils about subjects such as homosexuality and contraception, however are permitted to also apply their own values and ethos. Safe-sex campaigners hope that the new laws will result in a reduction in the number of teen pregnancies in the UK.
I reported on France's accusation of the Tories effectively 'castrating' the UK in Europe. This is after David Cameron reiterated his party's stance on Europe, which continues to be highly Euro-sceptic. He spoke of, 'strengthening British sovereignity'. France's Europe Minister Pierre Lellouche described Torie EU plans as pathetic and warned that under a Conservative government, 'Britain's risk is one of marginalisation. Irrelevance.'
Alex Bishop commented on media mogul Rupert Murdoch's plans to introduce charges for the online content of his newspapers, which include The Sun, The Times and The Wall Street Journal. Three months ago Murdoch claimed his websites would be charging by next June, however last week he admitted that meeting this deadline was now unlikely. There are still widespread concerns as to whether this is a feasible move or whether it is likely to result in a fall in readership. Murdoch has also threatened to block Google from his website and have all news content removed from the search enginge. He described Google as a 'parasite' and has accused it of 'kleptomania' in the past.
The NewsTeam also attended a screening of 'The Age of Stupid' in theStudent Union, and below is the review I wrote after seeing the film.
"Last night Newcastle University’s People and Planet Society hosted a screening of the ‘Age Of Stupid’ in the Student Union. The docu-film about climate change was directed by Franny Armstrong, best known for making McLibel, and stars actor Pete Postlethwaite.
The film opens with a scene of London, the Eye partly submerged in a flooded Thames, Sydney Opera House is consumed by bush fires, Las Vegas is crumbling in a windswept desert. The year is 2055, a date I hope we all plan on seeing. Pete Postlethwaite is ‘the archivist’, alone in his tower in a no longer icy Artic, he guards the world’s art relics, books and films, watches archive footage and wonders where it all went wrong. The message is clear – the planet is in tatters, most of us are dead and we brought it on ourselves... we ignored the danger of climate change.
Thus far, it’s what you would expect. Doom and gloom, the end of the world and some computer graphics to depict it that we struggle to take seriously. Animation has never really scared me into mending my ways, and anything set in the future I happily disregard as fantasy.
However the footage the archivist looks back at is genuine documentary footage, some made by the film’s producers, others from genuine news reports and headlines. Being shown news clip after news clip does bring home just how much climate change is discussed in the media, in politics and in science. Culturally, we are in fact fully aware of what could potentially happen to the planet, regardless of whether we choose to believe it or care about it. Not one of us could categorically claim that global warming is not occurring or that carbon emissions are not affecting the planet. Perhaps the situation is not as serious as some would have us believe, perhaps it is. But no one can claim blissful ignorance of the possibilities, particularly not in the media saturated West.
The film splits into various documentaries, different people’s stories from across the world. An environmentally friendly family in Cornwall who recycle, produce half their own food and have their own wind turbine. An Indian tycoon from a very wealthy business family setting up India’s first budget airline. A Nigerian woman who wants to train as a doctor because Shell oil halted the building of a medical centre that they promised to provide when they started drilling for oil. A man who lost everything to hurricane Katrina. An 82 year old mountain guide, in tears because the glacier is melting. They’re interesting stories, they really are, but at times it’s as transparently sentimental as it sounds, we are on heroes and villains turf here.
The most interesting of these stories for me was the Indian business man, Jeh Wadia, as his portrayal by the film’s producers was so ambiguous. The film never explicitly condemned him for setting up his budget airline, in fact it allows him to explain to us that his ambition is to combat the unfair wealth divide in India. We see him volunteering at charities that help the poor, but we see him fly there in a private jet. We see him creating a company from scratch, but his business style appeared to be quietly mocked. Throughout the film, flying was portrayed as the ultimate sin, the most heinous of crimes... flying is even likened to the holocaust... in a, ‘yes everyone’s doing it but we may look back and regret it’ sense.
Short of burning down an entire forest, travelling by plane is the most harmful contribution an individual can make to global warming apparently. Oh dear.
The film was clear in explaining that countries like India had no way near the carbon consumption of those like the US, and that it would be permitted to continue a controlled growth in coming years. However the Indian airline was clearly the villain of the piece and I thought this unfair finger pointing in a country where millions must spend days travelling on run down, slow and unreliable trains.
Ultimately, this is a film with a message, and a relevant and powerful one at that. As a result, it is bound to be somewhat one sided. It describes itself as a ‘cautionary tale’, its job therefore is to present a forceful argument. I may have my criticisms of the way in which the argument was presented, but I was convinced that to stick my head in the sand is not only naive but selfish and foolish. The archivist’s final comment is that we committed suicide as a race, the film certainly convinced me that we are heading for destruction and it is a harrowing thought."
Tune in at 12pm next Wednesday for our next News program, or check this blog for a quick summary of our stories each week. Remember to keep checking the NUTV site for our News videos as well. If you're interested in writing for the News Team, come along to our meeting at 12pm on Fridays in Committee Room A, first floor of the Student Union. Alternatively email us at nsr.news@ncl.ac.uk if you'd like to get involved or know of any stories or events that you think we should cover.
Beatrice Pickup
Head of News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
