The Media and Terrorism

Posted by George Brown on 03/06/2013
Posted in: Crime, Legal, Media, News. Tagged: , , . Leave a comment

Terrorists, by definition, want recognition; they crave it. Without recognition there is no terror. They commit violent acts to cause fear, terror, and disrupt normal life, all in the hope of gaining attention for their cause. Without the media they fail to achieve this goal.

Columbia’s President Juan Manuel Santos delivered a speech were he cautioned news media, particularly television reporters, against being used and manipulated by terrorists.

“I’m not saying, and be careful not to misinterpret me, that terrorism is the media’s fault,” Santos said. “No. But terrorism thrives on generating terror.” To achieve this terrorism requires the “assistance” of the media.

It’s a message that reporters everywhere should reflect upon. The news media can help terrorists just by reporting their frightful acts to a mass audience. In the most dramatic act of terrorism on US soil, tough, sometimes agonizing editorial decisions were made by American journalists in its aftermath.

Santos has long experience fighting terrorism in its many forms.  Before he was elected president, Santos served as defence minister under his predecessor, Alvaro Uribe. He and Uribe turned the tide in a complicated and costly conflict, at 47 years the longest in the Western Hemisphere, that had very nearly turned Colombia into a failed state. The players were a left-wing revolutionary movement and army known as FARC, a countering force of right-wing militia and death squads, big-time cocaine cartels and the government’s armed forces. All sides used dramatic acts of violence and brutality to try to break the back of the enemy.

Today, the conflict has been reduced to a simmer. With massive financial and other help from the United States, Uribe and Santos set out to drastically diminish the war by targeting top FARC leaders. Their efforts are not yet complete. But they have succeeded greatly, pushing FARC deeper into the mountains.

Now, after decades of living in one of the most dangerous places on Earth, millions of Colombians enjoy normal lives, a growing economy and political stability. Santos told me that FARC is down to just a few thousand diehards. But desperate to show they haven’t been cowed, these rebels have continued to bring bloodshed to villages, blow up oil pipelines and even stage the occasional attack on the capital, Bogota.

In his speech, Santos accused the media of supporting these desperate rebels, and in doing so, inflating their hold over society.  This intelligent and respected leader is not suggesting that we all turn our backs the next time a car bomb detonates, a suicide bomber explodes or a gunman opens fire in a crowded theater or house of worship.

Moreover, Santos was cautioning his local media to report these acts responsibly and with context.

Each article journalists write and each television segment produced is the result of dozens of editorial decisions. Which images should appear in print? Which shouldn’t? What information is relevant to the story? What should be left out? What does this event mean and why should you, the viewer or reader, care?

In all reporting, context is key. The best injournalists don’t just gather and regurgitate raw information. They pass it through a number of critical questions, inject historical perspective, analysis and rigorous fact-checking. Ideally,  a polished, informative and contextual report is the result.

Unfortunately, not all reporters rise to this level. In the recent attack at Woowich in the UK, the event was played and replayed on television, splashed on the front pages of newspapers, analysed, theorised, speculated and commented upon by all manner of “experts”.  The perpetrators have achieved what they set out to do.  Then of course there is the “citizen journalist” recording the event on a mobile phone and promptly uploading the vision to YouTube and the like.  But that’s another story.

In Mexico, a cascade of newspapers were showing decapitated torsos and hanging bodies on the front pages, the gruesome handiwork of drug gangs. Anyone walking by or picking up one of these papers is left with a feeling of terror which is the exact message these gangs want to deliver.

In many cases, newspapers are the first to hear when a body is left by a trafficker. They get a courtesy call and dutifully splash the carnage on their front page, sell their papers and also sell the traffickers’ message: Get in our way and die a painful and ugly death.

In Colombia Santos stated, “Many times, the journalists have been told ahead of time,” Santos said. “Logically, the journalist goes because that is his function, his duty. I’m not criticising the journalists. In a certain way, they are using and manipulating the journalist, that’s true. But they have become very able in this sense, which magnifies their acts.”

True or not, newsrooms covering terrorism everywhere should do what they can to ensure their reports serve the public and not those committing violent acts.

Source: Dan Rather, CNN (as edited)

Mass Hysteria Aids Terrorism?

Posted by George Brown on 26/05/2013
Posted in: Crime, Legal, Media, News, Politics. Tagged: , , , . Leave a comment

We will not buckle to terrorism said David Cameron after the Woolwich murder on Wednesday. He then buckled. Everyone buckled. The Home secretary buckled, the Defence secretary buckled, the Communities secretary buckled, the mayor of London buckled, the chief of police buckled, the press buckled, the BBC summoned its senior editors and they buckled. Everyone buckled.

The first question in any war – terrorism is allegedly a war – is to ask what the enemy most wants you to do. The Woolwich killers wanted publicity for their crime, available nowadays at the click of a mobile phone. They got it in buckets. Any incident is now transmitted instantly round the globe by the nearest “citizen journalist”. The deranged of all causes and continents can step on stage and enjoy the freedom of cyberspace. Kill someone in the street and an obliging passerby will transmit the “message” to millions. The police, who have all but deserted the rougher parts of London, will grant you a full quarter hour for your press conference.

There is little a modern government can do to stem the initial publicity that terrorism craves. But it has considerable control over the subsequent response. When the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, pleaded for calm and for London to continue as normal, he was spitting into a hurricane. Terror could not have begged for more sensational attention than was granted it by Britain’s political community and media.

The killers commanded the news agenda. Front pages became their platform, authenticating their manifesto with blaring headlines. The prime minister obediently raced home from important business in Paris. He slavishly “cleared his diary”, plunged into his favourite Cobra bunker and summoned the mightiest in the land to “co-ordinate a response.” Had the youths merely shot a soldier, I doubt if Cameron would have snapped so quickly into line. It was the medieval crudity of the weaponry, the brazen hacking and stabbing and blood splashed over the internet that had every politician homing in on Cobra, press officers in tow. Tabloid terror invited tabloid government.

Intoning a response to horror is one of the rituals of modern politics. The adjective mountain grows ever higher, depraved, sickening, horrific, barbaric, unspeakable. Damnation is sanctified by platitude. Unctuous “thoughts for the day” are uttered by religious leaders. If it bleeds it not only leads, it pleads for cliched analysis.

“Terrorism experts” rushed to radio studios demanding we all “be on our guard”. Securocrats gleefully leapt forward to demand another snooper’s charter, another twist in their ratchet of control. While imitators were encouraged to imitate, racist extremists were invited on to the streets in retaliation. All sense of proportion departed. We were soon at terrorism’s apotheosis, violence dignified on the altar of fame.

We have a choice. Such acts nowadays mostly emanate from the fanatical corners of some sections of the community. We can treat them simply as crimes. While the professed cause may be different from that of gang feuds, robberies, domestic violence or mental illness, the outcome is the same – a violent death in the community. The police and security services are best placed to prevent it, not politicians. Violent people often claim “political status” for abhorrent deeds, but will only be encouraged to do so when politicians appear to agree with them. Two years ago the London rioters were invited by many on the left to supply political justification for their actions. Equally extremist politics will be attracted to use violence, as do certain strands of Islamist jihadism. There has always been an unholy alliance between criminality and authority. As Joseph Conrad noted of the terrorist and the policeman, “both come from the same basket”.

Thus it was inane yesterday for security pundits to seek to elevate a vaguely motivated religious killing by linking it to a “possible overseas al-Qaida network”. It recalled the 1950s Kefauver mafia committee in Washington, desperate to justify its existence by pleading with a series of small-time hoods to claim membership of some high-powered international network. The hoods blinked in amazement.

This week’s killers certainly claimed a political message, attributing their deed to Britain’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They said that murdering a soldier in London was tit-for-tat for British soldiers killing Muslims in Asia. This does not require them to be part of some international network, merely to have read online propaganda. Nor does it require them to receive the accolade of a Cobra-style pandemonium. By doing so we risk accepting their terms of engagement in this grim debate.

British and American operators indeed use drone missiles to kill Muslim soldiers, and inevitably civilians, on the streets of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen. They deploy horrific airborne violence against communities, including in non-combatant countries. Retaliation for these killings may not be “justifiable” in our terms. But jihadists have no access to drones and must rely on car bombs, nail bombs, machetes and cleavers.

The result may appal Londoners, but there are no citizen journalists to witness the appalling impact of a drone attack on a Pashtun village. Can we be surprised when the other side (or its distant sympathisers) retaliates on London, where it gets so much more publicity than in Baghdad or Kabul? Of course, people should be able to walk peacefully down the street in London. They should also be able to walk peacefully in Kandahar, Yemen or Baluchistan.

In taking mundane acts of violence and setting them on a global stage, we not only politicise them, we risk validating the furies that drive them. Closing down the internet to starve terrorist acts of publicity is not feasible, and stifles the debate that should be taking place peacefully. But we do have the option to exercise self-restraint in the aftermath, to control the impulse to hyperbole. We can deny the terrorist the megaphone of exaggeration and hysteria. When Cameron yesterday said we should defy terror by going about our normal business, he was right. Why did he not do so?

It is this echo chamber of horror, set up by the media, public figures and government, that does much of terrorism’s job for it. It converts mere crimes into significant acts. It turns criminals into heroes in the eyes of their admirers. It takes violence and graces it with the terms of a political debate. The danger is that this debate is one the terrorist might sometimes win.

Perhaps a lesson can be learned from the Swedish media who steadfastly refuse to participate in the media circus which inevitably follows events such as this, both at home and abroad.

Source: The Guardian

Refusing treatment and the elderly

Posted by George Brown on 17/05/2013
Posted in: Health, Legal. Tagged: , , . Leave a comment

Michael Eburn (http://emergencylaw.wordpress.com) considers the ethical dillema of the elderley refusing treatment:

Another paramedic, this time from New South Wales, has written regarding withholding and refusing treatment. He writes:

I am a paramedic from NSW. I had a case about a year ago – we were called to a 97 yo male, with “psychiatric problems”.

The patient refused to eat and stated he “wanted to die as had enough time on earth”. The pt had no mental health history and only had other minor health ailments. The doctor (from the aged care team?) had called us to transport him to hospital. According to the wife, the doctor queried an organic source to him wanting to take his own life.

We did a very thorough history of the patient on scene, called the team who assessed him, but could not get a hold of the person who wanted us to transport him. All of the patient’s vitals were in normal limits and he had no pain. Patient displayed capacity and competency, also scored well on the abbreviated mental test – to which there was no reason to transport him if he did not want too. The only complaint we saw was – he refused to eat and stated he wanted to die – meaning the patient had suicidal intentions. Therefore, we should have used section 20 [of the Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW)] and transported. After lengthy discussions we left him at home, though still nervous of our decision.

Members from the team came back a few hours later. They stayed on scene and made another one of my colleagues transport.

The pt ended up dying a few days later in hospital as he refused to eat or have IV fluids.

I have had this on my mind for the past year. Were the team wrong to force the pt to go to hospital considering his age or were we wrong to disagree with the doctor and leave him at home? Is there an age to when a patient finally has enough of old age and be of sound mind to make that decision?

To start with some legal propositions. Section 20 of the Mental Health Act says:

An ambulance officer who provides ambulance services in relation to a person may take the person to a declared mental health facility if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person appears to be mentally ill or mentally disturbed and that it would be beneficial to the person’s welfare to be dealt with in accordance with this Act.

The critical issue is that the person must appear to be mentally ill and/or mentally disturbed. These terms are defined in the Act.

“”mental illness” means a condition that seriously impairs, either temporarily or permanently, the mental functioning of a person and is characterised by the presence in the person of any one or more of the following symptoms: (a) delusions, (b) hallucinations, (c) serious disorder of thought form, (d) a severe disturbance of mood, (e) sustained or repeated irrational behaviour indicating the presence of any one or more of the symptoms referred to in paragraphs (a)-(d)” (s 4).

A person is mentally ill if they are suffering from a mental illness and “owing to that illness, there are reasonable grounds for believing that care, treatment or control of the person is necessary: (a) for the person’s own protection from serious harm…” (s 14). A person is mentally disordered if their “behaviour for the time being is so irrational as to justify a conclusion on reasonable grounds that temporary care, treatment or control of the person is necessary: (a) for the person’s own protection from serious physical harm…” (s 15).

Merely to plan or contemplate your own death does not mean you are mentally ill, and note that suicidal thoughts are not mentioned in the definition of mental illness though I understand they are a symptom that is listed in the DSM-IV (the manual on mental health diagnosis). In Stuart v Kirkland-Veenstra [2009] HCA 15 members of Victoria Police did not detain a man who had been contemplating suicide because they did not believe he was mentally ill. The relevant power (if there was a power) was found in the Mental Health Act 1986 (Vic) s 10. That Act says:

(1) A member of the police force … may apprehend a person who appears to be mentally ill if the member or officer has reasonable grounds for believing that- (a) the person has recently attempted suicide or attempted to cause serious bodily harm to herself or himself or to some other person; or b) the person is likely by act or neglect to attempt suicide or to cause serious bodily harm to herself or himself or to some other person.

Section 8(1A) of that Act says “a person is mentally ill if he or she has a mental illness, being a medical condition that is characterised by a significant disturbance of thought, mood, perception or memory.”

The police were sued for failing to take action under s 10 when, later, Mr Veenstra took his own life. The case went to the High Court of Australia and the claim by the plaintiff, Mr Veenstra’s widow, was lost. The police had spoken to Mr Veenstra who was able to rationally engage with them. In the High Court Chief Justice French said (at [58])

[The police officers] did not think Mr Veenstra was mentally ill. That was an opinion they were entitled to form. The fact that a person has decided to commit suicide may indicate deep unhappiness or despair. It does not mean that the person is mentally ill within the meaning of s 8(1A). Mr Veenstra’s rational and cooperative responses observed by the officers supported their opinion…

To return to the case at hand, the paramedics, my correspondent, assessed the patient;

“All of the patient’s vitals were in normal limits and he had no pain. Patient displayed capacity and competency, also scored well on the abbreviated mental test – to which there was no reason to transport him if he did not want too. The only complaint we saw was – he refused to eat and stated he wanted to die – meaning the patient had suicidal intentions.”

Wanting to die does not equate to being mentally ill. Even if it did then to engage s 20 the patient had to be suffering from delusions, hallucinations, serious disorder of thought form, a severe disturbance of mood and/or sustained or repeated irrational behaviour. We are told that is not the case in which case there was no power under s 20 to transport him to hospital against his wishes.

The fundamental principle at law is that from the time one express capacity to make one’s own decisions, then one is allowed to do that, whether you are 9 or 97. At 97 and without any evidence of mental illness it was not only right (ethically) but obligatory (under law) to respect his wishes. I can’t see, on the facts given, why an ambulance was required. He was not ill or in pain and he didn’t want assistance. A person does not lose capacity because of age alone, one would hope we would in fact recognise that an older person, who has capacity and competence, also has experience and should be allowed to make their own decisions.

The problem is we have no adequate definition of what suicide is. We want to be able to stop apparently healthy young people taking their lives when they appear to have so much to live for, but at the same time the law recognises that personal choice on how we live, and what medical treatment we receive, is paramount. Part of the balance is struck by the current law allowing a person to refuse treatment even if that is necessary to keep them alive, but prohibiting doctors and others taking active steps to end a life. Even so as a community we are prepared to accept that a person who is nearing the end of their life due to a terminal illness is allowed to refuse treatment but we are unwilling to accept that in people who, when it comes down to it, we just don’t think is making the ‘right’ decision.

In a lecture I delivered to Ruth Townsend’s health law and ethics course last year I asked ”Can you find a case where a young, pregnant woman’s decision to refuse treatment was upheld?” (See also 2009 Irish Law Reform Commission Report on Children And The Law: Medical Treatment). Despite the claim by Courts in Australia, the UK, the USA and I’m sure elsewhere, that everyone has a right to choose, and that pregnancy doesn’t diminish those rights, in fact the courts always find a way to say that a pregnant woman isn’t really competent, or informed, or otherwise able to make a decision in the case then before the court. They can’t say ‘pregnant women lose the right to choose’ but practically they do.

Why that is relevant here is because the patient “only had other minor health ailments” so clearly the family, or the doctor, weren’t happy with a decision that at 97 he’d had enough; but why aren’t we allowed to make that decision? In part we don’t want to allow that for a 97 year old because we might then have to allow a 21 year old to make that decision; in part we don’t want to allow it because the family may feel it reflects badly on them (“Why does he want to die? Why wasn’t being with us enough? Why didn’t we make him feel better? He must be mentally ill”). Equally we might understand that wanting to die may in fact be a product of depression and mental illness and we would rather treat the illness than face was it the tragedy of suicide.

Philosophers, medical ethicists and the community have not been able to balance the various competing interests here so it is not surprising that the law also struggles but some principles are clear; in this context they are – competent people, even at 97 can refuse treatment and wanting to die does not equal a mental illness.

Let me then turn to the questions asked:
Were the team wrong to force the pt to go to hospital considering his age?
Remembering I have only the facts given above and I’m not a clinician, and assuming that there were no symptoms of mental illness as set out in s 4 of the NSW Act then yes, I think they were wrong to force him to go to hospital. His age is irrelevant. A patient who is competent and has capacity has the right to refuse treatment even life saving treatment. If one can only refuse treatment of limited value any claim to respect patient or personal autonomy becomes meaningless. It is when people are refusing life saving treatment that we can really demonstrate our commitment to allow people to choose for themselves what is the right decision for the.

Or were we wrong to disagree with the doctor and leave him at home?
No, you were not wrong. You had no power to transport without consent. On the facts presented s 20 had no application. To physically restrain and remove someone just because they are 97 not 47 would be an assault. A person does not lose their right to make a choice and their right to be treated with respect and dignity just because they are over 90. You made the right call on the facts as you’ve presented them.

Is there an age to when a patient finally has enough of old age and be of sound mind to make that decision?
Yes, that age is whenever they have the capacity to make a decision. At the moment a child under the age of 18 could be subject to an overriding decision maker, in particular a court; once they are 18 and absent any mental illness, then at least in theory they have the right to chose. No court case has doubted that but each, usually finds a way to say that the decision maker is not competent. Despite the warning in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] 2 WLR 316 that the law and the courts, and the medical profession, should not make decisions based on a third party’s assessment of the person’s ‘quality of life’ in fact they do that all the time. The law, and society, has a long way to go to resolve those complex issues hence the statement from Airedale NHS Trust v Bland that the law (and community attitudes to end of life decision making) are “both morally and intellectually misshapen”;[1993] 2 WLR 316, 34 (Lord Mustill).

Source:Michael Eburn 13 May 2013 http://emergencylaw.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/refusing-treatment-and-the-elderly/

Ambulance Service of NSW introduces new rural rosters

Posted by George Brown on 15/05/2013
Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a comment

I thank Michael Eburn for this article but add the following comment. As a professional emergency services officer – I understand the intent of this article.

Under WH&S law, the worker has the right to cease work if a risk (in this case, fatigue) exists, and rightly so.

Unfortunately, the demand for service doesn’t cease, and response times are extended by responding resources from neighbouring areas or towns, and thus increasing the workload and fatigue levels of those officers. It’s a no win situation.

M. Eburn's avatarAustralian Emergency Law

The Ambulance Service of NSW and the Health Services Union (HSU) have been in ongoing dispute over the introduction of new rosters for rural ambulance stations.  I understand that the current roster has paramedics working for 12 hours on, then 12 hours off but during the ‘off’ period they are ‘on call’ and liable to be called back to work during which time they are paid ‘overtime’.  The ambulance service proposes to introduce 8 hour day and afternoon shifts so officers work shorter hours, but the effect is that their period ‘on call’ will be longer and they will get less consecutive days off to reflect the fact that they are working shorter hours.   Before the NSW Industrial Relations Commission the HSU argued ‘At the present time, ambulance officers enjoy 4 x 4 shifts (4 days work, 4 days off work). This will change to a roster pattern of…

View original post 1,168 more words

Puffing on Polonium-210

Posted by George Brown on 14/05/2013
Posted in: Crime, Health, Safety, Uncategorized, Views. Tagged: , , , , . Leave a comment

I was researching the alledged murder of Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, from the effects of the ingestion of Polonium-210, when I came across this interesting article on the presence of Polonium in tobacco:

When the former K.G.B. agent Alexander V. Litvinenko was found to have been poisoned by radioactive polonium 210 last week, there was one group that must have been particularly horrified: the tobacco industry.

The industry has been aware at least since the 1960s that cigarettes contain significant levels of polonium. Exactly how it gets into tobacco is not entirely understood, but uranium “daughter products” naturally present in soils seem to be selectively absorbed by the tobacco plant, where they decay into radioactive polonium. High-phosphate fertilizers may worsen the problem, since uranium tends to associate with phosphates. In 1975, Philip Morris scientists wondered whether the secret to tobacco growers’ longevity in the Caucasus might be that farmers there avoided phosphate fertilizers.
How much polonium is in tobacco? In 1968, the American Tobacco Company began a secret research effort to find out. Using precision analytic techniques, the researchers found that smokers inhale an average of about .04 picocuries of polonium 210 per cigarette. The company also found, no doubt to its dismay, that the filters being considered to help trap the isotope were not terribly effective. (Disclosure: I’ve served as a witness in litigation against the tobacco industry.)

A fraction of a trillionth of a curie (a unit of radiation named for polonium’s discoverers, Marie and Pierre Curie) may not sound like much, but remember that we’re talking about a powerful radionuclide disgorging alpha particles — the most dangerous kind when it comes to lung cancer — at a much higher rate even than the plutonium used in the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. Polonium 210 has a half life of about 138 days, making it thousands of times more radioactive than the nuclear fuels used in early atomic bombs.

We should also recall that people smoke a lot of cigarettes — about 5.7 trillion worldwide every year, enough to make a continuous chain from the earth to the sun and back, with enough left over for a few side-trips to Mars. If .04 picocuries of polonium are inhaled with every cigarette, about a quarter of a curie of one of the world’s most radioactive poisons is inhaled along with the tar, nicotine and cyanide of all the world’s cigarettes smoked each year. Pack-and-a-half smokers are dosed to the tune of about 300 chest X-rays.

Is it therefore really correct to say, as Britain’s Health Protection Agency did this week, that the risk of having been exposed to this substance remains low? That statement might be true for whatever particular supplies were used to poison Mr. Litvinenko, but consider also this: London’s smokers (and those Londoners exposed to secondhand smoke), taken as a group, probably inhale more polonium 210 on any given day than the former spy ingested with his sushi.

No one knows how many people may be dying from the polonium part of tobacco. There are hundreds of toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke, and it’s hard to sort out how much one contributes compared to another — and interactive effects can be diabolical.

In a sense, it doesn’t really matter. Taking one toxin out usually means increasing another — one reason “lights” don’t appear to be much safer. What few experts will dispute is the magnitude of the hazard: the World Health Organization estimates that 10 million people will be dying annually from cigarettes by the year 2020 — a third of these in China. Cigarettes, which claimed about 100 million lives in the 20th century, could claim close to a billion in the present century.

The tobacco industry of course doesn’t like to have attention drawn to the more exotic poisons in tobacco smoke. Arsenic, cyanide and nicotine, bad enough. But radiation? As more people learn more about the secrets hidden in the golden leaf, it may become harder for the industry to align itself with candy and coffee — and harder to maintain, as we often hear in litigation, that the dangers of tobacco have long been “common knowledge.” I suspect that even some of our more enlightened smokers will be surprised to learn that cigarette smoke is radioactive, and that these odd fears spilling from a poisoned K.G.B. man may be molehills compared with our really big cancer mountains.

Source: Robert N. Proctor is a professor of the history of science at Stanford University.

Titanic lessons in the age of swagger

Posted by George Brown on 30/04/2013
Posted in: Crime, History, Media, Politics. Tagged: , , , , , . Leave a comment
 

Another interesting piece from Eureka Street:

TitanicThe sinking of the Titanic is an event that punches even beyond its considerable weight. The loss of any ship on her major voyage with the death of over 1500 people deserves to be remembered. But the sinking of the Titanic continues to fascinate more than does any other shipwreck.

The Titanic was a symbol of swagger: the insouciance that flows from self-absorption and an insuperable conviction of invulnerability. It was the biggest passenger ship in the world, setting world records in every statistic. It was proclaimed to be indestructible, armoured against any demons of the sea. It was to take risk out of ship travel. On its maiden voyage it gathered the great and the good of the age who partied on even as the ship was holed.

In retrospect the Titanic has become the larger symbol of the end of a swaggering era that was marked by great self-confidence and belief in inevitable progress. Its sinking was the drum roll that welcomed the trenches of Belgium, the beer halls of Munich and the sealed train entering Russia. The dead multiplied exponentially.

Other historical events have been freighted with the same symbolic loading as the loss of the Titanic. The invasion of Rome by the Visigoths in 408 AD was the climactic event of late antiquity.

The Roman Empire made swagger an industry. The choreography of imperial travel, of punishment, of rhetorical celebration, of battle and of history making proclaimed Rome immortal and invincible. The sack of Rome was inconceivable. But the fact that it happened pointed to a long-standing reality that the Empire relied on Barbarian armies for its own defence. When they were double-crossed Rome’s vulnerability became manifest.

The stock market plunge on 29 October 1929 is also a symbol for the end of a swaggering age. The self-confidence and the conviction that a speculative bubble could never end were accompanied by a titanic flaunting of wealth and febrile relationships. Although the Great Depression had many subsequent spikes and falls, the plunging of the Dow Jones Index and of speculators from windows are the abiding images of its ending.

It brought misery to millions although, unlike the Titanic’s Edward Smith, the captains of industry generally found well-appointed life boats.

Then there are minor Titanics: the times when a swaggering organisation suddenly hits a reef. The discovery last year that a Murdoch newspaper had hacked the phone of murdered English schoolgirl Milly Dowland may yet be seen as a Titanic moment for the News print media. Certainly the company has never lacked swagger, displaying an unrivalled self-confidence, an assurance of trustworthiness and the capacity to intimidate critics and politicians.

That aura has now dissipated under the constant disclosures of doubtful practices. But the fact that the company’s shares continue to rise suggest that the implosion requisite for a comparison with the Titanic may never eventuate.

The lesson of the Titanic is that swagger has its costs. Installing lifeboats for only half of those who travelled on the ship was a gesture of supreme self-confidence but also of supine regulatory failure. It led to an avoidably high loss of life. When we remember the tragedy, those who died should matter more than the ship and its pretensions.

Similarly assurance in the making of money that is not guided by an ethical compass is exciting to watch. But in commemorating financial disasters we should focus on the price paid by the poor and unemployed in nations that were despoiled by the profit takers.

The story of the Titanic also suggests that when swagger begins to walk the streets it is time to head for the lifeboats. Fascination with the Titanic may imply that we always need to relearn this lesson, and that we find it hard to apply it to the circumstances of our own times. In the world of finance, the churches and the press, mirages of oases surrounded by palm trees always look solid, especially to those who speculate on them. 

Andrew Hamilton April 12, 2012

Gillard’s Game of Thrones…..

Posted by George Brown on 30/04/2013
Posted in: Humour, Politics, Uncategorized, Views. Tagged: , , . Leave a comment

I found this piece rather amusing, and somewhat prophetic. I trust you will too.Cartoon depiction of Julia Gillard in medieval armour standing over conquered Kevin Rudd

The place: Parliament House, Canberra

The Time: The Present

The Inhabitants: Soon to be History

Queen Julia struts into her office, blood dripping from her battle axe. Within, she is met by her aide-de-camp, diminutive Lord Tyrian Lannister.

Julia: Moving forward …

Tyrian: Tell me you did not dispatch all of the rebels.

Julia: Would you have your queen consort with liars?

Tyrian: I wasn’t aware there were other choices. And among these were some of your best and brightest. Lord Albo alone —

Julia: Oh of course I’ve kept Lord Albo. He emits the best of zingers.

Tyrian: And Lord Carr?

Lord Carr steps from behind the Queen’s throne.

Lord Carr: I was grossly misrepresented.

Tyrian: And the Lad Butler?

Sitting beside Queen Julia the lad Butler shakes his head, quivering.

The Lad Butler: I love my queen with all of my heart. I cannot wait to see her win reelection.

Out of sight of the Queen, the Lad Butler mouths PLEASE. KILL ME.

Julia: See? All one happy family.

Tyrian: Milady, your people loathe you, and the court still comes for your head.

Julia: Who? Who dares come for my head?

The clang of steel on stone as a dagger slips from Lord Carr’s pocket.

Lord Carr: So that’s where that got to! Sorry, go on.

Julia: In point of fact I have put down two rebellions already.

Tyrian: Milady, what transpired last week was less a rebellion than a mass-immolation.

Julia: Did I not stand against enemy forces? Did I not prevail, unopposed?

Tyrian: Yes, because the Lord Rudd did not run against you. But even now, he stands alive outside your gates, doing an interview for the ABC.

Lord Carr: Indeed, milady, he has given me this note for you: ‘Sorry about the trouble last week. No rebellions to come, promise. I’m sure the polls are wrong, I can’t imagine you not winning the next election. KRudd 2016.’

Julia: See?

Tyrian: The point is not that Lord Rudd might come for you. The point is, you’ve won nothing. The people despise you.

Julia: The same people who condemned Lord Rudd for backing down on the ETS, and then opposed my carbon pricing? The ones who call me fiscally irresponsible, but are more than happy to take the money I’ve offered for education, mental health, disability and our endless natural disasters? Or the ones who claim my government is an embarrassment, and ignore the jobs and benefits they’ve kept throughout the GFC? Are those the people whose opinions you would have me trust?

Enter the Ranger Windsor, bruised and battered, his black jacket torn.

Julia: My Lord Windsor, what news?

Windsor: I come from the Wall, milady. Whilst you fight amongst yourselves, forces gather in the North, mighty forces, led by the White Walker.

Julia: The White Walker?

Windsor: Aye, a pale, stiff-walking fellow with his eyes ever on your throne. He surrounds himself with the fiercest of warriors — Maester Pyne, whose very presence overwhelms his enemies with annoyance; Lord Robb, Master of Comments No One Can Understand; and Lady Bishop, the Woman of Strange Gazes.

Julia: How could the Australian people ever elect the likes of them?

Tyrian: Trust me, they’re looking better and better.

The ring of steel on stone again. All turn to see Lord Carr, directly behind the Queen, hands coming around her neck, his dagger having slipped out again. He picks it up.

Lord Carr: My kingdom for breeches with proper pockets!

Julia: Lord Windsor, we have no time for fear. We are getting on with the business of government.

Windsor: Rushing a new communications plan through the Parliament without allowing time for debate or compromise — is that the business of which you speak? Or creating a mining tax that yields no revenue? Or blowing a dog whistle against foreign workers when much of our population comes from abroad?

Julia: Mind your tongue, Windsor, lest you find yourself without protection!

Windsor: Milady, at this rate it is from your protection that I shall need protection.

Windsor leaves.

Julia: Clear thinking, nothing to tie them down — independents are such bastards.

Tyrian: Indeed.

Julia: Now, enough with dire warnings.

And enough of this insistence that my policy decisions should make sense to the rabble, Lord Tyrian. Were you not there when I appointed Lord Slippery to the most honourable office in the land? Were you not present when I announced an election eight months from now and believed no one would see that we were going to spend the whole time campaigning? Were you not there when I traveled to Western Sydney to be with my people and then did only carefully controlled media events? I do not need to make sense. I am Queen! Now, send me my Guild of Faceless Men.

Tyrian: Milady, they appear to have vanished.

Metal on steel. All look to Lord Carr, whose knife has somehow gotten stuck in the throne, just missing the Queen. He smiles and shakes his head, embarrassed.

Lord Carr: So clumsy today!

Tyrian: Egads, what does it take to stage a proper coup around here? Someone, get me back to Westeros!

The Lad Butler: [whispers] Take us all with you. PLEASE. 

Source: Jim McDermott March 27, 2013

Senior Constable Tony Tamplin – RIP

Posted by George Brown on 30/04/2013
Posted in: News, Uncategorized. Tagged: , , , , . Leave a comment

Veteran Newcastle police officer Tony Tamplin has died after suffering a suspected heart attack at work.

NSW Police say Senior Constable Tony Tamplin, 54, had only just arrived for work this morning at Waratah Police Station when he took a turn.

Colleagues performed CPR until an ambulance arrived, but he died shortly after arriving at the Mater Hospital at about 7.30am (AEST).

Senior Constable Tamplin had celebrated 35 years in the police force earlier this month, 29 of those as a media officer.

Former colleague and friend Detective Chief Inspector Peter Fox went through the police academy with Senior Constable Tamplin.

He says he was a dedicated officer and community member.

“Sad as I am with his passing, I don’t think Tony would’ve wanted it any other way, to have passed away at work doing something that he was passionate about and something that he loved,” he said.

“I think that whenever anyone thinks of policing in the Hunter they think of Tony Tamplin, he has been the voice of policing up here for over a quarter of a century.

“He obviously made a career in a media liaison role and it was something that he loved with an enormous passion.”

Newcastle Local Area Commander, Superintendent John Gralton says the Hunter has lost a piece of its heart.

“Tony was larger than life, he was a big character, a character within the community but also a character within New South Wales Police Force,” he said.

“He’s wife Sonia said to me today that he would want people to celebrate his life and even 20 years ago he said when I do go make sure people celebrate and have a good time.”

Superintendent Gralton says Senior Constable Tamplin will receive a full police funeral.

“He is a significant loss to this community,” he said.

“Tony was larger than life, he was a massive community figure around Newcastle and the Hunter region.

“He did much for local charities, he did a hell of a lot of work for the New South Wales Police Force, recently celebrating 35 years in the cops.”

New South Wales Police Minister Michael Gallacher says it is a sad day for both the police force and the community.

“There’s no doubt that we’re all hurting,” he said.

“He was a big personality and he had a big role not just here in our region but indeed in terms of building those relationships between the police and the wider community and he will be sorely missed.

“It’s important for his family, friends and colleagues to know just how valued he was to all of us.”

Wallsend MP Sonia Hornery says he worked tirelessly for the community, particularly children.

“He’s a great family man, I’ve talked to him about family issues and issues for children with disadvantages,” she said.

“He’s been a role model for both the police force and good behaviour.

“I just want to speak on behalf of the Wallsend electorate and the Hunter community and say how sad I am about this news and we will sorely miss Tony.”

Senior Constable Tamplin will also be remembered for his work with children’s charities, particularly the Variety Club.

I have had the pleasure of knowing Tony in both a professional and personal capacity. He was a big man, with a big heart and a wicked sense of humour.  He will be sadly missed by all.

Source: ABC News

ANZAC Day 2013

Posted by George Brown on 27/04/2013
Posted in: History, Uncategorized, Views. Tagged: . Leave a comment

ANZAC

They went with songs to the battle, they were young.
Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow.
They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted,
They fell with their faces to the foe.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun, and in the morning,
We will remember them.

Lest We Forget.

ANZAC Day 2013

From the Ode of Remembrance by Laurence Binyon

Justice? Not Yet I Think

Posted by George Brown on 21/04/2013
Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a comment

It is unfortunate that (yet again) one of the “suspects” in this case has been shot dead.
Dead men have no need for justice! Dead men can’t protest their innocence! Dead men can’t prove their accusers wrong! NO justice for him!

But isn’t this a feature of American law enforcement over the years? It’s happened frequently throughout their history:

  1. Lee Harvey Oswald – accused of the assassination of J. F. Kennedy – shot dead whilst in custody of the FBI – before standing trial.
  2. Osama Bin Ladin – shot dead in Pakistan by US Navy SEALs and his body disposed of without trial and or legal transparency.
  3. John Wilkes Booth – accused of the assisination of Abraham Lincoln, shot dead in a barn in Maryland without standing trial.

Of course then there is the “dubious” convictions of those who have maintained that they were innocent and set up by US law enforcement agenicies:

  1. Jack Ruby – the killer of Lee Harvey Oswald – always maintained his innocence of conspiracy charges surrounding the death of JFK.
  2. James Earl Ray – the alleged killer of Martin Luther King – always maintained his innocence of the crime. He did however “confess” to the crime, but later unsuccessfully tried to recant the confession – on the grounds that he was coerced into confession to avoid the dealth penalty.
  3. Sirhan Sirhan – the alleged killer of Robert Kennedy – was also coerced to confess by the FBI. Despite Sirhan’s admission of guilt, recorded in a confession made while in custody, the judge refused accept his confession and denied his request to withdraw his not guilty plea. Sirhan recanted the confession, claiming he did not ever remember making it.

This comment is no way intended to support those above, or to make any statement as to their guilt or innocence, but rather to demonstrate that US justice is often carried out by the gun, or the person made to fit the crime rather than the crime fit the person.