Friday, 19 February 2010
Thursday, 18 February 2010
Hi guys, here's the second show of the semester, we had some great articles as ever. If anyone fancies writing for the News Team get in touch at nsr.news@ncl.ac.uk, or if you'd like to comment on any of the articles below.
The 12th of April saw Gordon Brown and key political members of Northern Ireland make a deal to devolve Irish policing and justice powers from Westminster to the Irish assembly within a matter of weeks. The agreement, described as a final piece in the jigsaw of the two decade long search for peace in Northern Ireland, will also result in several reforms, most importantly the stance taken on overseeing political parades.
Notably, the deal has sought to address the issues of the major political powers of Northern Ireland, meeting key demands of the Sinn Féin and preventing the Republican Party from leaving the power sharing agreement. The deal will also see the abolition of the Parades Commission, an organisation many view as being biased towards Nationalist concerns.
Speaking on the deal reached, Brian Cowen, Gordon Brown’s Irish counterpart, highlighted how the devolvement was an ‘essential step for peace, stability and security in Northern Ireland’. Anxiety of a governmental collapse had surrounded the fortnight long negotiations but this seems to have subsided with the Democratic Unionist Party’s leader Peter Robinson, also First Minister of Northern Ireland, assuring that the frustration felt during the talks was worth it to ensure the deal made would not fall through. Gerry Adams, president of Sinn Féin, further emphasised the need to forget the past and move forward, supported by Martin McGuinness, the deputy First Minister, stressing the need to show that Northern Ireland can work together.
This was however undermined by the significant absence of Ulster Unionists from the final round table session involving Cowen and Brown. The group’s official backing is still needed before the assembly can begin to put new legislation in place. Many remain sceptical that peace can be reached with the agreement and in particular members of the Traditional Unionist Voice party criticised how the DUP had until recently opposed a negotiation of this kind, seeing the deal as simply a weak surrender.
by Vicky Lumb
Universities minister David Lammy has revealed that the universities most at risk of falling victim to extremism are to have counter-terrorism police stationed on campus.
This follows speculation that Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, the man charged with attempting to detonate a substance on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day last year, became radicalised at University College London.
Lammy did not name the universities in question, but said that the institutions where the risk is greater were working closely with the police and Special Branch.
Former Nottingham University PhD student Rizwaan Sabir has raised concerns about the role of universities in the terrorism debate. Sabir was arrested in May 2008 under the Terrorism Act for possession of the Al-Qaeda Training Manual, after being reported to the police by Nottingham University after accessing the materials. Sabir believes that anti-terrorism laws are preventing the academic study of terrorism and counter-terrorism in British universities.
Whilst seemingly protected by the ‘Promoting Good Campus Relations’ guidelines set out by the government in 2008, which concedes that staff and students may require access to terrorist publications as part of their research, there appears to be a disparity between this and the Terrorism Act of 2006, which seeks to prevent “the dissemination of terrorist materials” and block access to documents which “glorify and/or encourage acts of terrorism.”
Sabir’s concerns carry a certain resonance after it was revealed that terrorism expert, Rod Thornton, has ceased to teach on terrorism at Nottingham University. This case highlights the conflict between universities’ tradition of academic freedom, and the fear of becoming subject to investigation should they wish to contribute to the much-debated topic of terrorism through academic research.
Without a change in governmental and institutional policy, cases such as that of Rod Thornton may become commonplace.
by James Willows-Chamberlin
Two furry goodwill ambassadors are making their way from the US to China as relations between the Superpowers take a turn for the worse.
US born pandas Tai Shan and Mei Lan are heading to China to become part of the giant panda breeding programme, and serve as a reminder of one of the more friendly agreements between the two countries.
A Chinese spokesman told the BBC that the pandas were a symbol of friendship between the Chinese and American people.
However, this nicety is rare in an escalating war of words between the two countries, that seems to have been triggered in Copenhagen in December and appears set to worsen after the Whitehouse’s recent announcement that the Dalai Lama will visit President Obama.
On Thursday the 4th of February, the Whitehouse confirmed the Dalai Lama’s visit. Beijing has warned that any such visit would seriously damage relations between China and the US. Because of the Dalai Lama’s stance on Tibetan independence, China sees him as a trouble maker and his visit to the US could be interpreted as US support of his views.
The Dalai Lama has visited many US presidents before, but Beijing had hope that Obama would act differently after his enthusiasm when visiting Beijing last year and his positive attitude towards China.
The Dalai Lama’s visit comes after a delay as Obama did not want it to affect his visits to Beijing in 2009.
This latest diplomatic issue between the two countries comes during a stage of increasing tension for the nations.
Problems arose in December at the Copenhagen environmental conference. Prime Minister Gordon Brown told the BBC that the talks were “at best flawed and at worst chaotic”. Much of this chaos has been blamed on China and the US.
Some blame Obama for not turning the situation around, while others think that China’s tough position torpedoed the talks.
The environment is not the only point over which these Superpowers have locked horns. Beijing’s alleged interference with Google has also been a trigger for tension.
Beijing is accused of enforcing limits on searching through Google, blocking articles and sometimes certain sites altogether, through what is known as the “Great Firewall of China”.
The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, followed this revelation with a tough speech in which she said that any country or individual that threaten internet freedom should face condemnation and consequences.
China warned that the Obama administration’s support for Google was endangering relations.
Fallout from the Bush administration has also had its effects.
The third instalment of arms to be sold to Taiwan as part of an agreement between Taiwan and the US under George W Bush has added to the troubles.
The plans to sell defensive arms, worth over $6billion, to Taiwan have angered China. China sees Taiwan as its own and has threatened to retaliate against individual firms selling the arms.
Another element brewing slowly under the surface are accusations that the Chinese currency is being deliberately undervalued to increase the country’s trade surplus.
All in all, these troubles seem to indicate a trend for worsening relations between two of the world’s most powerful countries. It remains to be seen how these problems will affect the rest of the world, but they are likely to at some point. When they do, we should all hope that the US has a large stock of pandas to keep China happy!
by Eleanor Wilson
Freedom of speech is seen as a human right in the UK but how would you feel if an organisation tried to stop this liberty within certain areas of the media?
In a comment from The Guardian Online Channel 4’s News Presenter, Jon Snow, highlights the fact that Ofcom, the British broadcasting regulator, used its power of censoring to block reports from Sri Lanka entering the British media.
Sri Lanka has one of the worst records for human rights in the world and when a story about nine men being bound and stripped naked by soldiers dressed in Sri Lankan uniform came to Channel 4, Ofcom banned the report from being made as the video could not be authenticated and the Sri Lankan government opposed the showing of the film as it viewed them in a bad light.
After investigation the UN confirmed that the video was authentic and Sri Lanka dropped its complaints against the nature of the content however the battle had become about Ofcom inhibiting ‘investigative reporting’ and helping a country ‘hide from public scrutiny’ as Snow states.
The question is whether Ofcom have a right to stop our freedom of reporting and speech. An organisation that’s key role is a regulation clearly has no place in protecting corrupt governments and preventing the exposure of human suffering and this is a view that Jon Snow made it clear that he shares.
by Annie Meek
Hopes that Sir Thomas Legg’s report on MPs expenses would mark a final, albeit hastily drawn line under the matter, were dashed last week when it was revealed that three labour MPs and a Tory Peer face criminal prosecution. In addition, the quality of Legg’s report itself has been highly criticised and in places turned over. There is even more cause for public anger now that it has been revealed that the lawyers of those accused hope to use an ambiguity of a section of the 17th century bill of rights to save their clients on an apparent technicality.
Legg’s report, covering five years of expenses claims, ordered that £1.3 million be repaid. However more than half of the appeals made by MPs against the report, which itself cost £1.16 million, were successful. An accompanying report from another judge Sir Paul Kennedy, in fact demanded that £180,000 be returned to the MPs, giving a revised bill of £1.2 million to be repaid by the 392 current and former MPs, whose claims though within the law were deemed unjustified. In his report Kennedy deemed the tainting of those MPs without evidence as damaging and unfair. Similar responses have come from within government: LibDem Norman Baker, highly critical of the biggest claims made by his fellow MPs, calling the report ‘sloppy’.
But the news of the charging of the three labour MPs and Tory peer under the Theft act have denied Legg’s report from being climactic in the whole expenses affair, now perhaps too long winded to justify a furore. ‘Outrageous’, ‘disrespectful’ and ‘criminal’ were words constantly used in the reporting of MPs expenses last year and now there seems to be support in the literal use of the third, if only with reference to a few cases. Elliot Morley, Jim Devine and David Chaytor are the three Labour MPs facing charges with Lord Hanningfield, or Paul White, the Tory peer set to join them at Westminster magistrates on 11th March. All deny the allegations. The three MPs, whose charges relate to a combined sum of around £58,000 claimed dishonestly, had already been banned from standing at the next election and have now been suspended until the legal proceedings have been finalised. This is an act which leader of the opposition, David Cameron, has labelled a Labour ‘headlong retreat’, it being thought the Tories wanted the three to have their whip withdrawn, meaning expulsion from the party. It was this that was taken from Lord Hanningfield, the now resigned leader of Essex county council, whose six charges under the theft act relate to him knowingly claiming for overnight expenses when in fact he was driving home from London, reportedly amounting to £100,000.
There has been further outcry with the confirmation by Keir Starmer QC, director of public prosecutions, that the question of parliamentary privilege will be tested in court. The right, enshrined in the 1689 Bill of Rights is intended to prevent politicians from being sued for anything they say in parliament, though its exact wording is not so conclusive. It states that ‘proceedings in parliament’ as well as ‘freedom of speech’ should not be questioned outside of parliament, with no further clarification of the former. The major political parties appear united on the correct interpretation of what is said in the bill with home secretary Alan Johnson saying the public would be aghast if the accused were to jump on the ‘get out of jail card’. But Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats is the only leader of the major political parties that has called for the legislation to be changed immediately in order to avoid such a possible escape route.
The mass public outcry at the revelations of MPs expenses last year was not economically motivated in essence. The government has been accused of much more costly wasting of tax payers money in the last few years; be it Trident, identity cards or the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But it was the Daily Telegraph’s leak of details of MPs expenses claims last year, surrounded by constant recession-driven news of job losses and budget cuts, that caused the most wide-scaled political disenfranchisement. It supported at the worst possible time, the public’s age-old belief of a gulf between politicians and real people. So though it seems unlikely that the ambiguous parliamentary privilege will save them from a possible seven-year prison sentence, even the three MPs and life peer’s taking the issue to court would surely be disastrous; surely not even David Cameron’s heartfelt back-to-basics billboard campaign could pull off the slogan ‘law-makers above the law’.
by Alex Bishop
The 12th of April saw Gordon Brown and key political members of Northern Ireland make a deal to devolve Irish policing and justice powers from Westminster to the Irish assembly within a matter of weeks. The agreement, described as a final piece in the jigsaw of the two decade long search for peace in Northern Ireland, will also result in several reforms, most importantly the stance taken on overseeing political parades.
Notably, the deal has sought to address the issues of the major political powers of Northern Ireland, meeting key demands of the Sinn Féin and preventing the Republican Party from leaving the power sharing agreement. The deal will also see the abolition of the Parades Commission, an organisation many view as being biased towards Nationalist concerns.
Speaking on the deal reached, Brian Cowen, Gordon Brown’s Irish counterpart, highlighted how the devolvement was an ‘essential step for peace, stability and security in Northern Ireland’. Anxiety of a governmental collapse had surrounded the fortnight long negotiations but this seems to have subsided with the Democratic Unionist Party’s leader Peter Robinson, also First Minister of Northern Ireland, assuring that the frustration felt during the talks was worth it to ensure the deal made would not fall through. Gerry Adams, president of Sinn Féin, further emphasised the need to forget the past and move forward, supported by Martin McGuinness, the deputy First Minister, stressing the need to show that Northern Ireland can work together.
This was however undermined by the significant absence of Ulster Unionists from the final round table session involving Cowen and Brown. The group’s official backing is still needed before the assembly can begin to put new legislation in place. Many remain sceptical that peace can be reached with the agreement and in particular members of the Traditional Unionist Voice party criticised how the DUP had until recently opposed a negotiation of this kind, seeing the deal as simply a weak surrender.
by Vicky Lumb
Universities minister David Lammy has revealed that the universities most at risk of falling victim to extremism are to have counter-terrorism police stationed on campus.
This follows speculation that Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, the man charged with attempting to detonate a substance on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day last year, became radicalised at University College London.
Lammy did not name the universities in question, but said that the institutions where the risk is greater were working closely with the police and Special Branch.
Former Nottingham University PhD student Rizwaan Sabir has raised concerns about the role of universities in the terrorism debate. Sabir was arrested in May 2008 under the Terrorism Act for possession of the Al-Qaeda Training Manual, after being reported to the police by Nottingham University after accessing the materials. Sabir believes that anti-terrorism laws are preventing the academic study of terrorism and counter-terrorism in British universities.
Whilst seemingly protected by the ‘Promoting Good Campus Relations’ guidelines set out by the government in 2008, which concedes that staff and students may require access to terrorist publications as part of their research, there appears to be a disparity between this and the Terrorism Act of 2006, which seeks to prevent “the dissemination of terrorist materials” and block access to documents which “glorify and/or encourage acts of terrorism.”
Sabir’s concerns carry a certain resonance after it was revealed that terrorism expert, Rod Thornton, has ceased to teach on terrorism at Nottingham University. This case highlights the conflict between universities’ tradition of academic freedom, and the fear of becoming subject to investigation should they wish to contribute to the much-debated topic of terrorism through academic research.
Without a change in governmental and institutional policy, cases such as that of Rod Thornton may become commonplace.
by James Willows-Chamberlin
Two furry goodwill ambassadors are making their way from the US to China as relations between the Superpowers take a turn for the worse.
US born pandas Tai Shan and Mei Lan are heading to China to become part of the giant panda breeding programme, and serve as a reminder of one of the more friendly agreements between the two countries.
A Chinese spokesman told the BBC that the pandas were a symbol of friendship between the Chinese and American people.
However, this nicety is rare in an escalating war of words between the two countries, that seems to have been triggered in Copenhagen in December and appears set to worsen after the Whitehouse’s recent announcement that the Dalai Lama will visit President Obama.
On Thursday the 4th of February, the Whitehouse confirmed the Dalai Lama’s visit. Beijing has warned that any such visit would seriously damage relations between China and the US. Because of the Dalai Lama’s stance on Tibetan independence, China sees him as a trouble maker and his visit to the US could be interpreted as US support of his views.
The Dalai Lama has visited many US presidents before, but Beijing had hope that Obama would act differently after his enthusiasm when visiting Beijing last year and his positive attitude towards China.
The Dalai Lama’s visit comes after a delay as Obama did not want it to affect his visits to Beijing in 2009.
This latest diplomatic issue between the two countries comes during a stage of increasing tension for the nations.
Problems arose in December at the Copenhagen environmental conference. Prime Minister Gordon Brown told the BBC that the talks were “at best flawed and at worst chaotic”. Much of this chaos has been blamed on China and the US.
Some blame Obama for not turning the situation around, while others think that China’s tough position torpedoed the talks.
The environment is not the only point over which these Superpowers have locked horns. Beijing’s alleged interference with Google has also been a trigger for tension.
Beijing is accused of enforcing limits on searching through Google, blocking articles and sometimes certain sites altogether, through what is known as the “Great Firewall of China”.
The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, followed this revelation with a tough speech in which she said that any country or individual that threaten internet freedom should face condemnation and consequences.
China warned that the Obama administration’s support for Google was endangering relations.
Fallout from the Bush administration has also had its effects.
The third instalment of arms to be sold to Taiwan as part of an agreement between Taiwan and the US under George W Bush has added to the troubles.
The plans to sell defensive arms, worth over $6billion, to Taiwan have angered China. China sees Taiwan as its own and has threatened to retaliate against individual firms selling the arms.
Another element brewing slowly under the surface are accusations that the Chinese currency is being deliberately undervalued to increase the country’s trade surplus.
All in all, these troubles seem to indicate a trend for worsening relations between two of the world’s most powerful countries. It remains to be seen how these problems will affect the rest of the world, but they are likely to at some point. When they do, we should all hope that the US has a large stock of pandas to keep China happy!
by Eleanor Wilson
Freedom of speech is seen as a human right in the UK but how would you feel if an organisation tried to stop this liberty within certain areas of the media?
In a comment from The Guardian Online Channel 4’s News Presenter, Jon Snow, highlights the fact that Ofcom, the British broadcasting regulator, used its power of censoring to block reports from Sri Lanka entering the British media.
Sri Lanka has one of the worst records for human rights in the world and when a story about nine men being bound and stripped naked by soldiers dressed in Sri Lankan uniform came to Channel 4, Ofcom banned the report from being made as the video could not be authenticated and the Sri Lankan government opposed the showing of the film as it viewed them in a bad light.
After investigation the UN confirmed that the video was authentic and Sri Lanka dropped its complaints against the nature of the content however the battle had become about Ofcom inhibiting ‘investigative reporting’ and helping a country ‘hide from public scrutiny’ as Snow states.
The question is whether Ofcom have a right to stop our freedom of reporting and speech. An organisation that’s key role is a regulation clearly has no place in protecting corrupt governments and preventing the exposure of human suffering and this is a view that Jon Snow made it clear that he shares.
by Annie Meek
Hopes that Sir Thomas Legg’s report on MPs expenses would mark a final, albeit hastily drawn line under the matter, were dashed last week when it was revealed that three labour MPs and a Tory Peer face criminal prosecution. In addition, the quality of Legg’s report itself has been highly criticised and in places turned over. There is even more cause for public anger now that it has been revealed that the lawyers of those accused hope to use an ambiguity of a section of the 17th century bill of rights to save their clients on an apparent technicality.
Legg’s report, covering five years of expenses claims, ordered that £1.3 million be repaid. However more than half of the appeals made by MPs against the report, which itself cost £1.16 million, were successful. An accompanying report from another judge Sir Paul Kennedy, in fact demanded that £180,000 be returned to the MPs, giving a revised bill of £1.2 million to be repaid by the 392 current and former MPs, whose claims though within the law were deemed unjustified. In his report Kennedy deemed the tainting of those MPs without evidence as damaging and unfair. Similar responses have come from within government: LibDem Norman Baker, highly critical of the biggest claims made by his fellow MPs, calling the report ‘sloppy’.
But the news of the charging of the three labour MPs and Tory peer under the Theft act have denied Legg’s report from being climactic in the whole expenses affair, now perhaps too long winded to justify a furore. ‘Outrageous’, ‘disrespectful’ and ‘criminal’ were words constantly used in the reporting of MPs expenses last year and now there seems to be support in the literal use of the third, if only with reference to a few cases. Elliot Morley, Jim Devine and David Chaytor are the three Labour MPs facing charges with Lord Hanningfield, or Paul White, the Tory peer set to join them at Westminster magistrates on 11th March. All deny the allegations. The three MPs, whose charges relate to a combined sum of around £58,000 claimed dishonestly, had already been banned from standing at the next election and have now been suspended until the legal proceedings have been finalised. This is an act which leader of the opposition, David Cameron, has labelled a Labour ‘headlong retreat’, it being thought the Tories wanted the three to have their whip withdrawn, meaning expulsion from the party. It was this that was taken from Lord Hanningfield, the now resigned leader of Essex county council, whose six charges under the theft act relate to him knowingly claiming for overnight expenses when in fact he was driving home from London, reportedly amounting to £100,000.
There has been further outcry with the confirmation by Keir Starmer QC, director of public prosecutions, that the question of parliamentary privilege will be tested in court. The right, enshrined in the 1689 Bill of Rights is intended to prevent politicians from being sued for anything they say in parliament, though its exact wording is not so conclusive. It states that ‘proceedings in parliament’ as well as ‘freedom of speech’ should not be questioned outside of parliament, with no further clarification of the former. The major political parties appear united on the correct interpretation of what is said in the bill with home secretary Alan Johnson saying the public would be aghast if the accused were to jump on the ‘get out of jail card’. But Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats is the only leader of the major political parties that has called for the legislation to be changed immediately in order to avoid such a possible escape route.
The mass public outcry at the revelations of MPs expenses last year was not economically motivated in essence. The government has been accused of much more costly wasting of tax payers money in the last few years; be it Trident, identity cards or the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But it was the Daily Telegraph’s leak of details of MPs expenses claims last year, surrounded by constant recession-driven news of job losses and budget cuts, that caused the most wide-scaled political disenfranchisement. It supported at the worst possible time, the public’s age-old belief of a gulf between politicians and real people. So though it seems unlikely that the ambiguous parliamentary privilege will save them from a possible seven-year prison sentence, even the three MPs and life peer’s taking the issue to court would surely be disastrous; surely not even David Cameron’s heartfelt back-to-basics billboard campaign could pull off the slogan ‘law-makers above the law’.
by Alex Bishop
Tuesday, 16 February 2010
Hello all, here are the articles from the first show of this semester, which aired on the 3rd February...
The US arms manufacturer Trijicon has said it has plans to remove Christian messages stamped onto gun sights which are used by troops in Afghanistan. An article published in the Guardian last week revealed that the company promises to remove the references to New Testament passages following objections from military chiefs in New Zealand.
The markings blend into the serial number and product information on the weapon referencing passages from John 8:12, reading "Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."
The use of explicit Christian messages on guns used by Britain, the US and New Zealand troops in a Muslim country has sparked fears that some may perceive that western countries are engaging in a religious crusade in Afghanistan.
Major Kristian Dunne has released a statement admitting the uncomfortable nature of the situation and that he sees ‘how they would cause offence’. The UK Ministry of Defense claims it was previously unaware of the messages and the sights were purchased because they were the best available.
Trijicon, founded by a devoutly Christian South African has said it would provide free kits to remove the markings.
by Rachel Maltas
Details of peace talks instigated by senior members of the Taliban with representatives of the UN in Dubai this month emerged following a conference in London last week. The talks were held to discuss the transition of Afghan security from NATO military control to the responsibility of the Afghan forces, which would allow for the withdrawal of foreign troops within five years.
The revealed talks, heralded as the first time Taliban leaders have willingly approached an international organisation to help bring an end to the nine year Afghan war, signify a potential revival of the peace negotiations which broke down last year.
Although details of the talks concerning the extent of Taliban involvement and the commitment they have promised remain unconfirmed, there is a strong suggestion that divisions within the Taliban are beginning to form. Those assumed to be involved include mid-level commanders who have realised the futility of the fighting as well as younger commanders wanting to take a less extremist stance than their predecessors.
In light of the conference and these Taliban involved talks, a grand peace council is due to be convened within the month, inviting all elders of the Afghan region to participate including those with Taliban connections. Speaking on the possibility of Taliban support for a settlement, President Karzai of Afghanistan stressed the need to encourage all ‘disenchanted brothers’ to unite in the cause of peace. Moreover, the support for a non-violent resolution has been met with a positive response from forces outside the country, with Hilary Clinton confirming US support for further peace talks with Taliban members and NATO General McChrystal adamant that there has been enough conflict and loss.
Due to the many obstacles that negotiations will undoubtedly face this optimism has to be met with an element of caution. Notably, there are still many “red lines” of non-negotiable areas for the Taliban, including their highly controversial reluctance to sever ties with al-Qaida. The way forward must be to further decrease the strength of the already weakening group, offering security and benefits to those Taliban commanders willing to contribute to a peaceful settlement.
by Vicky Lumb
Last week saw debut films from two British satirists screen at the Sundance Film Festival in Utah. In ‘Four Lions’ Chris Morris, creator of ‘Brass Eye’ finds farce in wannabe suicide bombers whilst graffiti artist Banksy’s film ‘Exit Through the Gift Shop’ is said to blend reality and ‘self induced fiction’, calling itself ‘the world’s first street art disaster movie’.
With shows such as ‘The Day Today’ and ‘Brass Eye’, Chris Morris targeted tabloid sensationalism surrounding issues such as drugs, sex and paedophilia. The last of which was the subject of the ‘Brass Eye’ special ‘Paedogedden!’, in which the programme makers managed to dupe celebrities into reading ridiculous facts about paedophiles, for instance DJ Dr Neil Fox claimed they had more genes in common with crabs. It is with the same spirit that Morris has turned on today’s most sensitive issue, terrorism. The story follows a group of British Muslims from Sheffield, lead by a white convert, who intend to blow themselves up at the London Marathon. The BBC deemed the plot too controversial; with Film4 eventually agreeing to fund the film. The one available online clip seems instep with Morris’ claim that the film will do for Jihadists what ‘Dad’s Army’ did for Nazis, showing their stupidity as well as horror. The clip shows one of the young men attempting to explain how when buying bleach with which to make explosives, he disguised himself with an ‘IRA voice’, despite the terrorist implications and as a woman, despite his beard. Despite no general release date yet, the film is already attracting similar controversy to Morris’ earlier projects, namely many saying that terrorism is no laughing matter. One of the film’s actors Arsher Ali, when speaking to the Today programme, spoke of the need for films like this to act as a counterpoint to the daily news coverage terrorism receives, saying within those stories are ones which are ‘Inherently comic and inherently human’. It is this ‘humanistic’ strand that the film is said to focus on, alongside the group’s comic ineptitude, urging the viewer to sympathise with the character’s humanity as a means of understanding Islamic fundamentalists. It is the comic context and apparent subsequent lack of depth however that critics are suggesting is the stumbling block in showing how the characters became so mixed up in the warped ideologies.
‘Exit Through the Gift Shop’ was, perhaps unsurprisingly, a surprise addition to the Sundance line up but by the time of its screening had stoked up heavy anticipation due in no small part to Banksy’s own guerrilla marketing across the walls of the festival’s home, Park City. The plot follows a naive French film maker Thierry Guetta, who the still unmasked graffiti artist begins to mentor, though only letting him film him from behind. Guetta starts to create his own street art, and in a role reversal Banksy begins to record him and his morphing of desire for expression into wild and vacuous self expression. Though Banksy remains anonymous, his tepid commentary accompanying his documentation of ‘Mr Brainwash’s’ decline is said to bring us closer than ever to him. The film was well received at its premiere, at which Banksy was said not to be in attendance, but his presence was felt in a filom that claimed from the outset ‘Everything is true. Especially the bits where we all lie.’
by Alex Bishop
Last Friday former Prime Minister Tony Blair faced the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War. Blair was summoned in order to answer questions about the decisions he made in the run up to the Iraq invasion in 2003. He was asked to clarify precisely what he knew about the potential presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and what promises he had made to the US prior to Britain’s commitment.
Blair was interrogated for 6 hours, during which he insisted that he had ‘no regrets’ over toppling Saddam Hussein. However he gave no explanation as to why he sent 40,000 troops to disarm a country of non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction. He told the inquiry: "This isn't about a lie or a conspiracy or a deceit or a deception. It's a decision. And the decision I had to take was could we take the risk of this man reconstituting his weapons programmes or is that a risk that it would be irresponsible to take?" Surely however the most risk adverse decision would have been to allow the UN time to investigate the claims of the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, rather than go in guns blazing ‘just in case’.
Subsequently Clare Short, former International Development Secretary, has appeared before the Chilcot Inquiry and has made some flammatory accusations regarding the evidence Blair gave. Short has accused Blair of mis-leading Parliament in the run up to the Iraq invasion and of lying to herself. She claims that in a conversation had with Blair in 2002 he told her that he was not planning for war against Iraq, however evidence has revealed that he was not telling the truth.
She claimed that Cabinet Meetings at the time did not fulfil the role they are intended to, "It was not a decision-making body. I don't think there was ever a substantive discussion about anything in cabinet. If you ever raised an issue with Tony Blair he would cut it off. He did that in July 2002 when I said I wanted to talk about Iraq. He said he did not want it leaking into the press."
She has also claimed that Gordon Brown was becoming increasingly uneasy at this time and uncomfortable with the plans regarding Iraq. She said Brown was feeling, “unhappy and marginalised” in the run up to war, and that he worried Blair was, “obsessed with his legacy”. Clare Short stood down from Cabinet 8 weeks after the invasion.
It was confirmed this weekend that Blair will be called back to the Chilcot Inquiry to give evidence once again, both in public and private due to conflicting evidence to that which he gave.
Blair’s evidence contradicts that given by Lord Goldsmith on the issue of the legality of the invasion. Lord Goldsmith was the Attorney General at the time, and the account each has given as to the number of discussions they had on legality in the days before the invasion do not correlate.
It has also emerged that Blair told Lord Boyce, Chief of the Defence Staff, that it was his “unequivocal” view that any invasion was entirely lawful. However on the question of legality, Blair informed the Inquiry that any decision was “always a very, very difficult balanced judgement”. These two comments do not quite match up, and Blair’s recent comment suggests a far greater degree of uncertainty than he admitted at the time of the invasion.
There has been a great deal of criticism of Blair’s appearance before the inquiry, directed at both the panel asking questions and at Blair’s response to them. In an editorial on Sunday, the Guardian described Blair’s appearance as, “pure theatre”, with the questioning, “neither forensic nor consistent enough to disturb Mr Blair's composure, let alone force him into embarrassing disclosure”.
An interesting campaign has since been launched by George Monboit, encouraging members of the public to apprehend Tony Blair with a citizen’s arrest, claiming this is the only way justice will be achieved. A fund has been set up that has received several thousand pounds of donations which will be used to financially reward anyone who attempts to arrest Blair. Already one woman, Grace McCann, has attempted to apprehend Mr Blair when he left the Chilcot Inquiry before she was restrained by Police. Monboit claims that, “While Blair can brush off the Chilcot panel, this bounty fund ensures that he will never rid himself of accountability for his actions. It shows governments that they may no longer destroy ¬people's lives and expect us to forget”.
by Beatrice Pickup - Editor
The US arms manufacturer Trijicon has said it has plans to remove Christian messages stamped onto gun sights which are used by troops in Afghanistan. An article published in the Guardian last week revealed that the company promises to remove the references to New Testament passages following objections from military chiefs in New Zealand.
The markings blend into the serial number and product information on the weapon referencing passages from John 8:12, reading "Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."
The use of explicit Christian messages on guns used by Britain, the US and New Zealand troops in a Muslim country has sparked fears that some may perceive that western countries are engaging in a religious crusade in Afghanistan.
Major Kristian Dunne has released a statement admitting the uncomfortable nature of the situation and that he sees ‘how they would cause offence’. The UK Ministry of Defense claims it was previously unaware of the messages and the sights were purchased because they were the best available.
Trijicon, founded by a devoutly Christian South African has said it would provide free kits to remove the markings.
by Rachel Maltas
Details of peace talks instigated by senior members of the Taliban with representatives of the UN in Dubai this month emerged following a conference in London last week. The talks were held to discuss the transition of Afghan security from NATO military control to the responsibility of the Afghan forces, which would allow for the withdrawal of foreign troops within five years.
The revealed talks, heralded as the first time Taliban leaders have willingly approached an international organisation to help bring an end to the nine year Afghan war, signify a potential revival of the peace negotiations which broke down last year.
Although details of the talks concerning the extent of Taliban involvement and the commitment they have promised remain unconfirmed, there is a strong suggestion that divisions within the Taliban are beginning to form. Those assumed to be involved include mid-level commanders who have realised the futility of the fighting as well as younger commanders wanting to take a less extremist stance than their predecessors.
In light of the conference and these Taliban involved talks, a grand peace council is due to be convened within the month, inviting all elders of the Afghan region to participate including those with Taliban connections. Speaking on the possibility of Taliban support for a settlement, President Karzai of Afghanistan stressed the need to encourage all ‘disenchanted brothers’ to unite in the cause of peace. Moreover, the support for a non-violent resolution has been met with a positive response from forces outside the country, with Hilary Clinton confirming US support for further peace talks with Taliban members and NATO General McChrystal adamant that there has been enough conflict and loss.
Due to the many obstacles that negotiations will undoubtedly face this optimism has to be met with an element of caution. Notably, there are still many “red lines” of non-negotiable areas for the Taliban, including their highly controversial reluctance to sever ties with al-Qaida. The way forward must be to further decrease the strength of the already weakening group, offering security and benefits to those Taliban commanders willing to contribute to a peaceful settlement.
by Vicky Lumb
Last week saw debut films from two British satirists screen at the Sundance Film Festival in Utah. In ‘Four Lions’ Chris Morris, creator of ‘Brass Eye’ finds farce in wannabe suicide bombers whilst graffiti artist Banksy’s film ‘Exit Through the Gift Shop’ is said to blend reality and ‘self induced fiction’, calling itself ‘the world’s first street art disaster movie’.
With shows such as ‘The Day Today’ and ‘Brass Eye’, Chris Morris targeted tabloid sensationalism surrounding issues such as drugs, sex and paedophilia. The last of which was the subject of the ‘Brass Eye’ special ‘Paedogedden!’, in which the programme makers managed to dupe celebrities into reading ridiculous facts about paedophiles, for instance DJ Dr Neil Fox claimed they had more genes in common with crabs. It is with the same spirit that Morris has turned on today’s most sensitive issue, terrorism. The story follows a group of British Muslims from Sheffield, lead by a white convert, who intend to blow themselves up at the London Marathon. The BBC deemed the plot too controversial; with Film4 eventually agreeing to fund the film. The one available online clip seems instep with Morris’ claim that the film will do for Jihadists what ‘Dad’s Army’ did for Nazis, showing their stupidity as well as horror. The clip shows one of the young men attempting to explain how when buying bleach with which to make explosives, he disguised himself with an ‘IRA voice’, despite the terrorist implications and as a woman, despite his beard. Despite no general release date yet, the film is already attracting similar controversy to Morris’ earlier projects, namely many saying that terrorism is no laughing matter. One of the film’s actors Arsher Ali, when speaking to the Today programme, spoke of the need for films like this to act as a counterpoint to the daily news coverage terrorism receives, saying within those stories are ones which are ‘Inherently comic and inherently human’. It is this ‘humanistic’ strand that the film is said to focus on, alongside the group’s comic ineptitude, urging the viewer to sympathise with the character’s humanity as a means of understanding Islamic fundamentalists. It is the comic context and apparent subsequent lack of depth however that critics are suggesting is the stumbling block in showing how the characters became so mixed up in the warped ideologies.
‘Exit Through the Gift Shop’ was, perhaps unsurprisingly, a surprise addition to the Sundance line up but by the time of its screening had stoked up heavy anticipation due in no small part to Banksy’s own guerrilla marketing across the walls of the festival’s home, Park City. The plot follows a naive French film maker Thierry Guetta, who the still unmasked graffiti artist begins to mentor, though only letting him film him from behind. Guetta starts to create his own street art, and in a role reversal Banksy begins to record him and his morphing of desire for expression into wild and vacuous self expression. Though Banksy remains anonymous, his tepid commentary accompanying his documentation of ‘Mr Brainwash’s’ decline is said to bring us closer than ever to him. The film was well received at its premiere, at which Banksy was said not to be in attendance, but his presence was felt in a filom that claimed from the outset ‘Everything is true. Especially the bits where we all lie.’
by Alex Bishop
Last Friday former Prime Minister Tony Blair faced the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War. Blair was summoned in order to answer questions about the decisions he made in the run up to the Iraq invasion in 2003. He was asked to clarify precisely what he knew about the potential presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and what promises he had made to the US prior to Britain’s commitment.
Blair was interrogated for 6 hours, during which he insisted that he had ‘no regrets’ over toppling Saddam Hussein. However he gave no explanation as to why he sent 40,000 troops to disarm a country of non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction. He told the inquiry: "This isn't about a lie or a conspiracy or a deceit or a deception. It's a decision. And the decision I had to take was could we take the risk of this man reconstituting his weapons programmes or is that a risk that it would be irresponsible to take?" Surely however the most risk adverse decision would have been to allow the UN time to investigate the claims of the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, rather than go in guns blazing ‘just in case’.
Subsequently Clare Short, former International Development Secretary, has appeared before the Chilcot Inquiry and has made some flammatory accusations regarding the evidence Blair gave. Short has accused Blair of mis-leading Parliament in the run up to the Iraq invasion and of lying to herself. She claims that in a conversation had with Blair in 2002 he told her that he was not planning for war against Iraq, however evidence has revealed that he was not telling the truth.
She claimed that Cabinet Meetings at the time did not fulfil the role they are intended to, "It was not a decision-making body. I don't think there was ever a substantive discussion about anything in cabinet. If you ever raised an issue with Tony Blair he would cut it off. He did that in July 2002 when I said I wanted to talk about Iraq. He said he did not want it leaking into the press."
She has also claimed that Gordon Brown was becoming increasingly uneasy at this time and uncomfortable with the plans regarding Iraq. She said Brown was feeling, “unhappy and marginalised” in the run up to war, and that he worried Blair was, “obsessed with his legacy”. Clare Short stood down from Cabinet 8 weeks after the invasion.
It was confirmed this weekend that Blair will be called back to the Chilcot Inquiry to give evidence once again, both in public and private due to conflicting evidence to that which he gave.
Blair’s evidence contradicts that given by Lord Goldsmith on the issue of the legality of the invasion. Lord Goldsmith was the Attorney General at the time, and the account each has given as to the number of discussions they had on legality in the days before the invasion do not correlate.
It has also emerged that Blair told Lord Boyce, Chief of the Defence Staff, that it was his “unequivocal” view that any invasion was entirely lawful. However on the question of legality, Blair informed the Inquiry that any decision was “always a very, very difficult balanced judgement”. These two comments do not quite match up, and Blair’s recent comment suggests a far greater degree of uncertainty than he admitted at the time of the invasion.
There has been a great deal of criticism of Blair’s appearance before the inquiry, directed at both the panel asking questions and at Blair’s response to them. In an editorial on Sunday, the Guardian described Blair’s appearance as, “pure theatre”, with the questioning, “neither forensic nor consistent enough to disturb Mr Blair's composure, let alone force him into embarrassing disclosure”.
An interesting campaign has since been launched by George Monboit, encouraging members of the public to apprehend Tony Blair with a citizen’s arrest, claiming this is the only way justice will be achieved. A fund has been set up that has received several thousand pounds of donations which will be used to financially reward anyone who attempts to arrest Blair. Already one woman, Grace McCann, has attempted to apprehend Mr Blair when he left the Chilcot Inquiry before she was restrained by Police. Monboit claims that, “While Blair can brush off the Chilcot panel, this bounty fund ensures that he will never rid himself of accountability for his actions. It shows governments that they may no longer destroy ¬people's lives and expect us to forget”.
by Beatrice Pickup - Editor
Friday, 4 December 2009
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.
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.
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)
