Coronavirus versus Terrorism

[Image description: two panel cartoon strip; panel1, an elderly chap sitting in front of a television-set watches a scared-looking news-reporter shout, “WHAT CAN WE DO TO LESSEN THE GRIP OF FEAR FROM TERRORISM?”; panel 2, the viewer breaks the fourth wall, looks at us with a sly smile having “CLICK”-ed his remote-controller and turned off the TV. The image is by and © Bruce Beattie and was published in the Daytona Beach News-Journal.]

I shared the above cartoon on my facebook account in 2013. Since then the news media have reported endless stories of terrorism. As a resident all my life of England, I grew up with the constant threat of terrorism from the IRA. There were bomb-threats when I worked in the city of Manchester in the 1980s. I thankfully missed the Manchester bombing back in 1996 due to fortuitous circumstances. I and many others became inured to the threats because we lived with them daily. The peace-process ended with a stand-down of the opposing forces starting in 1998. Not long afterwards so-called “Islamic” terrorism (which has nothing to do with this peaceful religion) became the main focus of news media. Despite much of the hysteria around terrorism, statistically one is more likely to die from an injury in the home or a vehicle crash.

I question whether folk have now become jaded to the almost incessant news of fresh “terrorist“ attacks, and hence the current media compulsion to use scare-tactics regarding a virus? The death-rates as currently published, are lower than for ordinary influenza (‘flu). The media are fanning an hysteria. Why? Scared citizens can be controlled much easier than rational, thinking individuals. It is also a convenient cover for powers-that-be to quietly, or otherwise, remove rights and curtail freedoms.

Perhaps terrorism and coronavirus are intrinsically the same, means by which to cower and control populations who otherwise might become aware of other matters which élites wish to hide.

Panicking is totally unhelpful. Pause to think and ponder. Evaluate risk calmly. Postulate what the powerful are actually up to.

[Image description: graph indicating death rates for age deciles gradually increasing from 10 (0.2%) to 80+ (14.8%)]

The Establishment is Destroying the UK

Looking back on the past year, I am not certain ¨society¨ as such is to blame for the milieu in the UK, but rather the individuals who make up our communities.

Many of my Facebook friends refuse to participate in anything ¨political¨ - even intelligent individuals who must realise that all issues affecting the individual/community/society are political. In some cases it is apathy; for some it is fear of repercussions by the powers-that-be (DWP; intelligence services; etc.); but there are simply far too many folk who just do not care for anyone outside their immediate loved ones. This is why despite all the reasons put forward why BREXIT will harm each and everyone of us, so many folk have NOT changed their minds. They are only looking out for themselves. They do NOT care for others. This is a mass failure of empathy, of mutual responsibility.

Neo-liberal politicians of so-called left/centre/right have undermined the tax and social security systems and the justifications for shared social goods.

They have been aided and abetted by the MSM, which of course only pushes the agendas of their respective billionaire owners. Folk are inculcated into believing that the poor, elderly, disabled, underemployed, single mothers, refugees, migrants, and whoever-else can be picked upon, are all stealing from the hard-workers’ pockets.

Society is NOT the problem.

The Establishment, the powerful élite are the problem. And they are not going to relinquish power, influence nor wealth.

Billions removed from local economies - due to Government folly

The UK ConDem coalition government in its economic stupidity and arrogance is part-way through slashing social security payments to those in need - the vast majority of the British population benefits from such payments, now euphemistically termed 'welfare' by the spinning propagandists amongst the neo-liberal élite.

For those unfamiliar with UK taxation: inter alia, all employees, self-employed and carers pay (or have paid on their behalf in the case of the latter) national insurance contributions. These monies are supposed to be used to fund social security payments: for those who find themselves in straitened circumstances (the unemployed, the underemployed & the working-poor); for those with disabilities (to help towards the extra costs they face residing in a disablist society); for those with illnesses which mean they cannot work; for the terminally ill; for parents to help raise children. It is a type of insurance scheme. As such, not everyone will need to claim; but most do at some point in their lives, even if for example only child benefit.

The ConDems have cut billions of pounds from benefits whilst they have in practice turned a blind-eye to tax avoidance & evasion by international conglomerates and wealthy individuals. In April they gave millionaires a whopping tax-break whilst at the same time cutting benefits to tens of thousands causing misery through penury, hunger (hence the concomitant rise in the use of food-banks) and increased homelessness. The ConDems in their rhetoric call this "fairness" to taxpayers. However, every adult is a taxpayer, paying a least one of the innumerable taxes in the UK: from income tax, duties, television licence fees to VAT and car tax.

[Image description: Cameron transmogrified into a Ferengi]

A week ago I reported that the BBC chose to ignore the Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion's (CESI) report commissioned by the Local Government Association (LGA), which represents all English and Welsh local authorities whatever their respective political colours.

I have taken details from pages twenty and twenty-one of the report and list below the effects in roughly ten percent of these local authorities. The reader will note that local economies are losing millions of pounds. The knock-on effect is that local businesses have less custom and end up closing. This results in even more money lost to local authorities, not taken into account in the figures listed, due to loss of business rates and so forth. Furthermore, the Exchequer loses out on corporation taxes from once profitable companies. And so on. This is economic madness all done in the name of austerity, a policy adopted in the early part of the twentieth century and which led to the length of the Great Depression.

Everybody, including the middle classes, is losing out. Only the ultra-rich continue to prosper. And this is "fairness"…

The Stats

Woking Local Authority’s economy loses c. £14,400,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,735.30 to 8,287 claimant households.

Burnley Local Authority’s economy loses c. £29,300,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,736.49 to 16,874 claimant households.

Waltham Forest Local Authority’s economy loses c. £70,400,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,739.64 to 40,487 claimant households.

West Somerset Local Authority’s economy loses c. £8,000,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,757.22 to 4,526 claimant households.

Hounslow Local Authority’s economy loses c. £57,300,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,758.32 to 32,597 claimant households.

Islington Local Authority’s economy loses c. £55,900,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,761.23 to 31,735 claimant households.

Tower Hamlets Local Authority’s economy loses c. £71,600,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,761.64 to 40,621 claimant households.

Luton Local Authority’s economy loses c. £55,700,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,770.39 to 31,448 claimant households.

Rossendale Local Authority’s economy loses c. £19,300,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,771.81 to 10,892 claimant households.

Blackpool Local Authority’s economy loses c. £57,600,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,778.63 to 32,365 claimant households.

Oldham Local Authority’s economy loses c. £72,700,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,788.95 to 40,652 claimant households.

Croydon Local Authority’s economy loses c. £91,700,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,792.01 to 51,171 claimant households.

Hyndburn Local Authority’s economy loses c. £27,700,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,819.52 to 15,222 claimant households.

Blackburn with Darwen Local Authority’s economy loses c. £53,500,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,826.31 to 29,276 claimant households.

Brighton & Hove Local Authority’s economy loses c. £67,000,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,830.55 to 36,591 claimant households.

Hammersmith & Fulham Local Authority’s economy loses c. £38,800,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,832.17 to 21,204 claimant households.

Pendle Local Authority’s economy loses c. £28,300,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,835.59 to 15,406 claimant households.

Lewisham Local Authority’s economy loses c. £81,700,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,835.65 to 44,511 claimant households.

Newham Local Authority’s economy loses c. £98,500,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,869.03 to 52,682 claimant households.

Slough Unitary Authority’s economy loses c. £37,300,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,873.91 to 19,925 claimant households.

Kingston-upon-Thames Local Authority’s economy loses c. £25,100,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,874.66 to 13,400 claimant households.

Redbridge Local Authority’s economy loses c. £65,300,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £1,881.08 to 34,695 claimant households.

Haringey Local Authority’s economy loses c. £81,700,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £2,019.10 to 40,487 claimant households.

Enfield Local Authority’s economy loses c. £97,600,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £2,019.26 to 48,315 claimant households.

Harrow Local Authority’s economy loses c. £51,800,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £2,046.22 to 25,320 claimant households.

Ealing Local Authority’s economy loses c. £91,700,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £2,076.59 to 44,181 claimant households.

Barnet Local Authority’s economy loses c. £81,400,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £2,105.62 to 38,664 claimant households.

Hackney Local Authority’s economy loses c. £89,300,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £2,132.97 to 41,863 claimant households.

Camden Local Authority’s economy loses c. £58,600,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £2,194.93 to 26,677 claimant households.

Wandsworth Local Authority’s economy loses c. £66,200,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of 2,242.61 to 29,257 claimant households.

Brent Local Authority’s economy loses c. £124,000,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £2,774.80 to 44,688 claimant households.

Kensington & Chelsea Local Authority’s economy loses c. £57,000,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £4,068.80 to 14,048 claimant households.

Westminster Local Authority’s economy loses c. £129,200,000.00 due to an average loss from social security cuts of £5,161.14 to 25,038 claimant households.


WoWpetition

If the reader is a UK resident or a UK passport-holder resident outside the UK, you may wish to support the campaign against the War on Welfare, known as WOW. The link to the official petition and more information can be found at wowpetition.com .