Howard League statement on G4S decision to exit UK child jails market

G4S has announced that it is trying to exit the UK child jails market. This follows the recent Panorama expose of child abuse by staff at one of their facilities – which we commented on here.

This is a statement from the Howard League concerning the decision of global prisons firm G4S to exit from the UK child jail market

Read the statement here.

Ideally the whole notion that providing ‘discipline and punishment’ can be something that can be delivered by the market could be ditched at the same time.

See here for our report on the killing of Gareth Myatt in a GSL run child jail in the UK in 2004. GSL was later acquired by G4S.

Why has G4S taken this decision? Here is one possible answer. To run these child jails – and the childrens’ homes which form part of the same portfolio – it is necessary to hire cheap labour. The usual problem for capitalists: to make a venture profitable they need to get high labour productivity – that means in effect more for less. For G4S this means hiring people with limited experience of working with young people, with low levels of qualifications – and then giving them a limited amount of training. For example; the guard who initiated the restraint after which Gareth Myatt lay dead in 2004 had previously worked as a leisure centre assistant. He had just a few weeks training for his new role – dealing with some of the most disturbed and troubled young people in the country. Not surprisingly perhaps these people sometimes appear to ‘lose it’ when faced with the challenges that troubled young people can pose. The guard who in the recent Panorama programme appears to place his thumb on the windpipe of a challenging young man perhaps has little empathy for troubled young people and a limited repertoire of skilled responses. In effect perhaps he was responding like a thug in the street might to a challenge from a roguish teenager. Hiring skilled and experienced staff who would understand and respond in a balanced way to challenging behaviour might perhaps quadruple the staff bill. Perhaps that is the problem. G4S thought they’d give it a try – Â the usual recipe for profit was applied – drive down your labour costs. But the consequences of that – a series of abuse scandals – are unfortunate and bad PR for their wider business. So they’ve decided to cut their losses. In the background is the horrible decision – taken by a New Labour government – to put some of the country’s most troubled young people into a ‘prison’ type environment – and to offer the contracts at a hard-nose price.

All of which should be a lesson in what happens when market economics are applied to matters of social welfare. But probably won’t be.

The Dame Janet Smith whitewash

After the scandal about Savile ‘burst into the open’ the BBC set up an inquiry into itself. The BBC appointed senior High Court Judge Dame Janet Smith to conduct the inquiry.

Dame Janet Smith is a High Court judge. She has already conducted an other important inquiry (into the mass murderer Harold Shipman). She is a Dame – the female equivalent of a Knighthood.

Her inquiry found that Savile committed abuse and that opportunities were missed to stop him. No. Really? She found that senior management did not know and could not have known about this endless abuse taking place on their premises. This, of course, was the key finding of the inquiry and why it was set up. This means that a charge of corporate negligence against the BBC is now unlikely. The BBC paid for a whitewash while pretending to be soul-searching. How unlike a UK public sector body.

This finding of senior management innocence is wholly implausible.

Recall how the BBC scuppered a NewsNight report into Savile after his death. [1] Recall that after his death senior managers exchanged emails talking about Savile’s “dark side” and “the truth about Saville”. [2] And just think about it – ‘rumours’ were swirling around Savile. Such that after his death one BBC investigative reporter after another had to line up and explain why they hadn’t done anything about it. [3] As one former BBC entertainer commented it is simply inherently unlikely that senior management had not heard these rumours. [4]

But the Dame Janet Smith inquiry whitewashes all this.

These British establishment inquiries operate according to a template. The template is: the inquiry can find that wrongs were committed by officials. It can make even quite scathing criticisms of these officials – though typically no one individual is named. But it has to exonerate the top echelons of the establishment. It can then happily conclude that lessons need to be learned and the people to provide management oversight of creating the new policies and procedures are.. the same top management who were in charge when the wrongdoing took place.

The people at the top of the BBC, for example members of the BBC Trust, who will be relieved (but not surprised) by Dame Janet Smith’s finding that the buck stopped at a middle-management level belong to the club of a few thousand people in the UK who are sometimes known as the ‘great and the good’ – people who run things, chair inquiries, are always ready to help out, and who are in line for medals and honours. The same small network of which Dame Janet Smith herself is a member. The ‘great and the good’, not surprisingly, act like a kind of mafia. No doubt there is their own omerta.

And this is why you know that nothing has really changed.

Now. If the BBC had really wanted the truth about Savile to come out they could have set up an inquiry run by, say, an investigative journalist, a good human rights lawyer and two sharp young barristers. Why didn’t they?

Notes

1. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/feb/22/jeremy-paxman-newsnight-jimmy-savile

2. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/feb/23/bbc-knew-jimmy-savile-tribute, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/chaos-and-confusion-bbc-forced-to-replace-senior-news-executives-following-damning-report-into-its-complete-inability-to-deal-with-jimmy-savile-crisis-8425581.html

3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2210987/Jimmy-Savile-fooled-thinking-saint-says-Esther-Rantzen.html; Also see: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bbc-stars-reveal-what-knew-7438245

4. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/26/bbc-bosses-cover-tracks-savile-2012-andy-kershaw

Mock concern about HIV used to promote US corporate profits

This is a story in the Guardian about the HIV crisis in Russia.

The first half of the article is a factual – and troubling – presentation of the situation in Russia with respect to HIV. But the second half is full-on promotion of the Western solution. Western responses to the HIV virus include: sex education in schools, methadone substitution programmes for heroin users and ‘harm reduction’ advice programmes to at risk groups. The author of this article just promotes these particular approaches without any sense that they may not necessarily be suitable for Russia – or desired by Russians. He mocks a senior Russia official for statements that Russia does not need sex education in schools; because people can learn about life from literature. He blames Putin (gosh, no surprises there) personally for the ‘conservative political climate’ that makes it difficult to implement harm reduction programmes. (Harm-reduction programmes provide state acceptance of illicit behaviours. At risk individuals are to be advised on how they can reduce the harm to themselves whilst carrying on with their illicit and illegal activities. Such programmes are very popular amongst Western liberals. However; even in the West they are challenged by people, often from the point of view of religious or moral values, who argue a) that on principle we should not accept this watering down of values and b) that ‘abstinence’ programmes are as effective at reducing harm as ‘harm reduction’ programmes and c) that ‘harm reduction’ programmes often have the side-effect of encouraging more young people into the illicit behaviour. Methadone substitution programmes are also criticized from a sociological type perspective. Here, the argument is that they are based on imposing a disease model on people; to the benefit of the health industry). The author of the Guardian article reports on the fact that due to funding problems local clinics in Russia often run short of anti-viral drugs used to treat HIV. He does not link this funding shortfall to the wider picture which includes Western sanctions on Russia; sanctions which the US President recently boasted were destroying the Russian economy. [1]

This article appears in the Guardian apparently as reportage. It is not even tagged as opinion. Western liberal ‘journalists’ often simply write on Russia from the point of view of their own ideology and values but even by these standards this piece stands out for its one-sided and propagandist approach. It may take the reader a moment to find the clue. The clue is in a small byline at the top left of the page which admits that the ‘content’ is sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This foundation is used by computer entrepreneur Bill Gates to promote his vision of development around the world. This vision relies heavily on solving problems of development by training people to be skilled consumers of the products of US based global corporations: GM modified seeds and agricultural chemicals, computer software and, now, perhaps methadone and HIV drugs. See here for a piece where we review the report of campaign group Global Justice Now into the Bill Gates Foundation. Global Justice Now’s report on the Bill Gates Foundation shows that in Africa it acts in concert with the interests of multinational argi-business. [2]

Of course; many of the proponents of these kinds of models of development probably genuinely believe in them. It is a nice coincidence that what they believe in is very profitable for themselves. But this doesn’t mean per se that they are being cynical. However; these models can be criticized and questioned. And in practice they are; from multiple viewpoints. When an article in a newspaper simply promotes these unquestionably as the only solution we know we are in the realms of corporate propaganda.

So. A piece ostensibly about concern for people with the HIV virus in Russia turns out to be propaganda for a particular model of development. A model which puts Western global corporations at the heart of any solution. One brand of methadone is Dolophine. This is produced by US Pharmaceutical company Roxanne Laboratories. [3] Another producer of methadone, appears to be UK registered company Rosemont Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [4] It appears that the substance is out of license and there are multiple manufacturers either producing the generic substance or branded variants.

The writer Ivan Illich wrote about ‘right-wing’ (in his words) institutions that seek to make people passive consumers of goods and services provided from above. Right-wing institutions try to create dependency and addiction in their users. The relationship between the institution which provides the service or product and its consumers is hierarchical and manipulative. Methadone treatment would be a case in point. Why let illegal drugs dealers make money out of drug addiction when we can do it ourselves? The reference in the article to a ‘conservative political climate’ is a way of referring to religious values without actually mentioning the word ‘religion’. This ‘climate’ may have been fostered by the present political regime in Russia but this regime is an elected one and these ‘conservative’ policies have widespread popular support. Russians just have more adherence to these kinds of values than the decadent Western liberal class. [5] In this article there is zero respect for these cultural differences. Russian ‘conservative’ values are attributed solely to ‘Putin’. These values are directly blamed for the suffering of people with the HIV virus. As usual with propaganda of this kind the author is careful to find a Russian who does have a leaning towards Western liberal values who can be used as a mouthpiece. The tactics of attributing everything in Russia which doesn’t suit the Western corporate/liberal world to ‘Putin’ and of using Russian liberals to voice the values of the Western liberal elite are designed to avoid the appearance of criticizing the Russian people and of superimposing values. Power works stealthily. As usual with Western liberal propaganda it is just taken as ‘beyond argument’ that the values of the Western liberal class are superior. All this, mock ‘humanitarian’ concern which masks profit seeking and imperialism, is the norm for the US corporate machine. It is slightly alarming though to see this being served up as ‘journalism’ by a newspaper in the UK.

Addendum

It isn’t just methadone. If ‘conservative’ values in Russia can be overthrown and the disease model of behaviour adopted then this will open up scope for other opportunities. For example; currently in Russia it is not legal to ‘treat’ ‘ADHD’ with stimulant drugs. But if the disease model of behaviour can be imposed on Russians then another huge market will open up for these amazingly profitable (and harmful) drugs – all of which are manufactured by US pharmaceutical companies. [6]

Notes

1. http://www.cnbc.com/2015/01/21/obamas-remarks-on-russias-economy-dead-right-experts.html

2. http://www.globaljustice.org.uk/resources/gated-development-gates-foundation-always-force-good

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methadone

4. https://www.rosemontpharma.com/product-listing/m

5. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russians-consider-marrying-giving-birth-and-education-most-important-things/528835.html

6. https://newobs.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/part31.pdf

 

Tell me lies about Libya

The State Department spokesmen said something like this:

“There as been a certain amount of instability in Libya after the departure of Gaddafi”. – This is a slight paraphrase but ‘certain amount of instability’ and ‘departure of Gaddafi’ are exact quotes – see the report on RT.

A ‘certain amount of instability’ is one way of describing the chaos once prosperous Libya has descended into since the 2011 NATO ‘ouster’ of Gaddafi (who was in fact brutally murdered after being captured). There is no functioning central government. The country is riven by rival militias. Torture of prisoners held by various armed groups is rife. ISIS has popped up in one of the major cities – Sirte. This post we did around this time last year provides some links to various sources which give a feel for the chaos.

As for ‘departure of Gaddafi’. This is the same line we had with the overthrow of President Yanokovich in Ukraine. He is supposed to have just ‘departed’ too. – Most people would ‘depart’ when faced with an extremely violent thousands-strong mob screaming blue murder at you and attacking policement with firebombs just yards from your office. The US of course fed that mob. The cookies of US State Department official Victoria Nuland [1] can be understood as a metaphor for the billions spent in subverting the country. [2] Same with Gadaffi. He ‘departed’ after being bombed by NATO and butchered on the battlefield. According to this report (in the Telegraph) US and French forces directly contributed to this murder with the SAS acting in an advisory role. (The Telegraph writer calls Gadaffi a ‘despot’; was he doing that before the revolution when the UK was trying to sell arms to him? But that is another question). So much for ‘departure’. The bombing of Libya was based on a distortion of UN resolution 1970; the resolution permitted military action to protect civilians. But this was twisted with a piece of legal sophistry to say that since Gaddafi was a risk to civilians the resolution permitted an operation to overthrow his regime. (Strange that the UK and the EU were so willing to sell quite so many weapons to someone whom they later described as being such a threat to civilians). [3] At any event where would the US State Department and their lackeys in the British government be without the passive voice? They organise coups and bomb the blazes out of people then say ‘oh, he departed’. It is of course surreal.

Who swallows these lies? One answer is 90% of the Western media 90% of the time. Does the population? It is difficult to know.

Notes

1. http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/february/05/victoria-nuland-the-bride-at-every-wedding.aspx

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2fYcHLouXY, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_Democracy

3. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/01/eu-arms-exports-libya