Wednesday, 11 October, 2006
- 11 Oct 06, 05:44 PM
On we examine figures published in The Lancet which suggest that more than 600,000 Iraqis have died since the 2003 invasion. Paul Mason reports - and you can read his analysis of the figures here.
And forget shopkeepers, is Britain becoming a nation of shoplifters? Some want non-custodial sentences for a crime which has risen by 70% in the last six years and cost business 拢2.1bn last year. What would stop the theives then?
We find out if it was Groundhog Day at the All Party Talks on Northern Ireland.
Finally, Steve Smith goes in search of Chuck Berry.
As ever, your thoughts are welcome...
Comments Post your comment
shoplifting.
when i go to my usual tesco late at night, drunks can easily get in to the annoyance of some of the staff behind the till. why??
the security guard sitting by the door can take a very relaxed attitude at times;
generally, shops are too often guarded by people who often are not very brigh and are in any case too lazy to catch any thieves.
yours.
Complain about this post
It is truly horrendous to think the people AMERICA that talk of world peace and human rights has killed well over half a million iraqi civilians in a illegal war yet show no remorse whatsoever. i believe it is truly a barbaric to carry on killing these poor civilians in the name of peace. This behaviour and act is as worse as the nazis of germany
Complain about this post
The Lancet getting a bit political on foreign affairs (again) - what's their agenda? - 600,00+
Thought enough issues with British Healthcare before commissioning creative' flawed research - just before the yanks elections - coincidence?
Interesting debate tonight on these stats, (where was Paxman to question them on 'research')
Personally think Iraqbogycount far more realistic 43,000 - 48,000 [1]
Lacent figures as with claims about 1+ million deaths of German PoW after WWII in Allied hands.
Simple question, in both cases where are the families of the alleged victims, on this scale you cannot hide things.
vikingar
SOURCES:
[1]
Complain about this post
Interviewed after Paul Mason's report on the 600,000+ estimate, David Fromme (Bush speechwriter) implied that established statistical methods are sometimes wrong by pointing out that opinion polls for US election 2004 did not match the official result (by a few percent, but a different president). Albeit indirectly, is this the first time the 2004 'stolen election' controversy has been mentioned on British television? Perhaps newsnight journalist Greg Palast should be dusted off and allowed to report on the US 2004 election.
Complain about this post
your interesting programme about Chuck Barry reminded myself of New Orleans when passing a bar hearing a voice exclaiming "come on in" to find a guy named as Rooster entertaining with vibrant music,in the vein of Chuck Berry, an experience to be remembered
John Bullivant
Oxford
Complain about this post
Either I bought too much wine at the supermarket today, or your whole programme for tonight (Wednesday 11 October 2006) has been rescheduled.
I am beginning to wonder who is running The Lancet nowadays (biography of Richard Horton, please). The figure of 655,000 seems to be disputed. And I remember some while back, another rather un-medical report from that magazine. Has it been infiltrated by a group with a decidedly political agenda? I note the well-publicised "Lancet Scandal". I saw this on the net:
"Running scared: With the Lancet responsible for publishing the sham scientific finding, the journal's editor, Dr Richard Horton - a former Royal Free hospital doctor who had worked under Wakefield's mentor, Professor Roy Pounder - now rushed out "regret" for the "fatally flawed" research that he had championed for the previous six years. He even wrote two books justifying this. 主播大秀 Online News"
This was at: It may all be nonsense, but where there's smoke there's fire. Newsnight should double-check its sources.
The other interviewees about the 655,000 were a mixed bag. John McDonnell was careful, Frum was forthright, while Les Roberts was a little over-excited.
Plane crash. Glad again that Justin Rowlatt is being used for more intelligent things than depriving his family of a car.
Chuck Berry. Talking of "chuck" I'm glad your culture department has chucked Stevie Smith, who has now been demoted to Physics. Jolly good. The management has finally taken viewers' hints. Bring back Madeleine Holt!
Complain about this post
Here in Australia - when we get to
the cashiers till .we have to
present any bags we have on us for
inspection by the cashier. O.K. this
is not foolproof, but it probably
makes customers think twice about
trying to shoplift.
This applies to every kind of shop,
not just the Supermarkets.
Complain about this post
In the story about Iraqi mortality rates, Kirsty Wark repeatedly referred to the university where the research had been undertaken as 鈥淛ohn Hopkins鈥 [sic]. This should have been 鈥淛ohns Hopkins鈥 - note the 鈥榮鈥 at the end of 鈥淛ohns鈥. In North America and among intellectuals more broadly, omitting this terminal 鈥榮鈥 is considered a sign of ignorance with which I conclude that Newsnight鈥檚 presenter is Kirst.
Complain about this post
The poor, those from dysfunctional families, mentally ill, un-educated, in care, he socially excluded. Deal with this in a way which is not monumentally patronising and not with a view of turning everyone into middle class boring hooray henry muppets and you deal with he problem and much else besides.
But then thats not to say the middle class's aint got their kleptomanics.
Complain about this post
If Blunkett's comments on Brown agreeing to the war just to save his job is true, this is trully terrifying. Here we have a man who is prepared to send people to their deaths just to keep his job. What will he do if he ever becomes PM? Have we found someone more terrifying than Bush on the world stage? Where is the terror really coming from? There is only one good politician - a retired one!
Complain about this post
Why was no mention made that Les Roberts, one of the Lancet report's authors, was standing as a Democrat in the mid-term elections in the US this November on an antiwar ticket?
Complain about this post
The Lancet has definatetly got far more political - why?
THE LANCET
It does have a history of campaining [1]
But like 'Collected Eric' #6 given previous Lancet estimate of 100,000 dead [2] now raised to between 300,000 to 900,000 [3] you have to wonder who & why is behind the commissiong/publishing of such 'research'
THE EDITOR
Richard Horton, editor of medical journal The Lancet [4]
OUTSIDE INTERESTS
Time For Change Conference - organised by the Stop the War Coalition - Manchest 23rd September 2006 (coninceide with 1st day of Labour Party Conference) [5]
Guest Speaker - Richard Horton
Doing what? - "Richard Horton, editor of medical journal The Lancet, tore into Blair鈥檚 supposed 鈥渉umanitarian鈥 justifications for war" [5]
Listen to Dr Richard Horton rather spirited speech [6]
Other reporting on the event [7]
SUMMARY
Dear Old Dick certaintly has a agenda, which he is using The Lancet to further.
Q. are the owners [8] of The Lancet happy that the credible medical related work & reputation of their noted organ is being highjacked by left wing politics?
vikingar
SOURCES:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
Complain about this post
Nos 8
Well maybe its because its easier to say John Hopkins than Johns Hopkins, just as its easier to say Kirsty than Kirst Work. Its worthy of being pointed out but to lable someone with a "sign of ignorance" because of this says more about your arrogance than your bit of kirst smartness.
Complain about this post
650,000 DEAD IN IRAQ
What can you say about this? It is an indecent number, not far short of the genocide in Ruanda which everyone now agrees was obscene. We can all, with the benefit of hindsight, see that the war there was a horrible mistake; though Blair and Bush don鈥檛 yet quite see it that way. But where can we go from here?
We can鈥檛 pull out yet we can鈥檛 stay!
It looks as if the worst will happen, and Iraq will be partitioned. But the problem is that those in charge, from the (widely perceived) puppet administration in Iraq to the Bush administration fighting terror in the US (by pouring ever more oil on the flames?) to Blair, can see no alternative to military victory 鈥 which everyone else recognizes is no longer possible.
I agree with what some have suggested, that the starting point is a sincere apology; which at least shows that our leaders understand the dimensions of the problem. The one thing Tony Blair is superb at is 鈥榓pology鈥, please let him spin his magic over the war before ten times as many again die.
Complain about this post
People for various reasons/motivations/standards buy into low estimates (43,000) or high estimates (900,000) [1]
Either way can Iraqis/Muslims* ever be trusted not to wipe each other out? **
* esp those who travel there or fund others to do so, in order to kill other Muslims
** sectarian violence - Islamic Fracticide
vikingar
SOURCES:
[1]
Complain about this post
It occurs to me that the method of this research into the dead in Iraq may indeed be totally aboveboard, as claimed by the participants. The choice of the families who were approached for this study seems however skewed.
Simply, I do not believe - given the situation in Iraq we all know about - that the researchers went to little villages in territories outside the protection of the Allied Military Forces.
This would obviously result in a heavily weighted choice of people exposed to violence.
Further, if there is a spread of 50% either way (600.000, but it could be 300.000, or perhaps even 900.000), then the statistics indicate, that either the sample choice cannot have been random, or that the calculations based on the samples is faulty somewhere.
In biological sciences, such a result would have everybody scurrying back to the drawingboard. Opinion pollsters would laugh such a result out of court: 60% would vote for XYZ - well, maybe 30%, could be 90% ...??? Dear oh dear oh dear!
Conclusion: hasty publication for political reasons in the hope of mega-headlines.
And that I find disgusting: to use the tragedy of deaths in families (and it doesn't matter if its 10, 500 or a million) for political reasons is utterly beyond the pale.
V.G.E.
Complain about this post
well what a good idea it was to invade Iraq kill thousands and lose thousands of soldiers as well. The region has become more de-satbilised and Britian has now created a policy for radicals to expliot young muslims.
Could he not have listened to the majority of the electorate at the time and not got involved at all.
The world would have been a safer place. It is not at all now and the Lancet confirm this.
but the forward move now is the acknowledge that its a mistake and create some kind of working state. Democracy maybe a step too far for Iraq.
Complain about this post
What an outstanding post by Vikingar .. why didn't Newsnight provide us with this important context of the Lancet authors?
You were happy after all to disclose that you had a former Bush speechwriter on your interview panel.
Post of the week Mr Vikingar.
Mr Baron a free Newsnight mug for the gentleman please.
Complain about this post
Last, but not least... Richard
Complain about this post
"Could 650,000 Iraqis really have died because of the invasion?" [1]
It goes full circle - March 2007
This is the 3rd Lancet report which has been criticised by its peers [2]
The editor, Richard Horton, has not only questionably politicised The Lancet but undermined its reputation with dodgy research.
This dubious research with dubious motives, is on par with anti-war brigade objections to the Iraq Dossier.
Looking forward to NN re-examining this issue, esp given how such figures have been used by the propaganda machines of both extremists & anti-war brigade.
vikingar
SOURCES:
[1]
[2] #11 /blogs/newsnight/2006/10/lancet_iraq_survey_methodology_under_fire.html
Complain about this post