A Greek Revolution?

Greek President Karolos Papoulias has faced difficult circumstances and situations in his short period in power in Athens.

Yet, it seems that his short spell as President may end sooner than had been hoped by international officials as last-ditch talks with various party members to secure support appear to have been fruitless.

Attempts to form a coalition and avert a further set of elections are Papoulias’ primary concern: even higher than economic issues. Should the Greek populace be put to the vote again, there is sure to be all manner of civil reactions from apathy to unrest.

Certainly, the Greeks will have lost all belief in the abilities of their leaders to govern and manage the state properly and efficiently. At best, politicians can hope for a resolution between party factions, for any further public disgrace could spell the end of Greek’s current political system.

In the event of an election, whilst a few may look with disinterest on a failing succession of Presidents and parties, the recent demonstrations and violence that have spread across the country suggest the possibility of widespread anarchism and potential revolution.

Of course, extremist positions that promote Greek exit from the Eurozone appear all the more enticing whilst faced with current alternatives. Riddled with debt, a persistently shrinking economy and mounting unemployment, Greece is certainly not the hotbed of industry and business that marked the new millennium.

Last week, a majority of Greeks voted for parties that want to rip up the country's bailout agreement with the European Union and International Monetary Fund (IMF) - including neo-Nazis.

The biggest winner was the leftist anti-bailout coalition, Syriza, whose share of the vote more than tripled and who describe the austerity imposed by the bailout as "barbaric".

Yet, the main problem that any incoming government could face is that there is no official guidance on a country exiting the EU. No, the naïve, bright brains behind the introduction of the EU did not foresee any member country wanting to leave the zone and so did not prepare for such an event.

Therefore, Greece could essentially issue a statement to Brussels stating its intent to leave the EU and then default on its debts. Its second default, that is.

The economic repercussions across both the EU and Greece however could be catastrophic as further member states could decide that restrictive measures on their economies are no longer suitable. As such, contributors such as the UK and Germany lose billions of euros in funds that have been pumped into these nations.

Meanwhile, a new Greek government could not guarantee the stability of any currency that it introduces or predict the volatility of markets towards the new position of the country.

Greece would probably have to impose capital controls to prevent all the money leaving, much as Malaysia did in 1998 after the Asian financial crisis.

So in the best-case scenario, Greece would have no buying power, and everything would be expensive: extremely expensive.

However, the play would be based around the hope that with such a weak currency, the economy would grow rapidly.

Whilst this route would be expensive and painful, it might appease those voters who feel manipulated and controlled by central authorities in Brussels who they believe have no appreciation of their situation. If the hypothetical economic reinvigoration were to pay off, to pardon the pun, it could be the lighting spark for further action in the EU zone and render relations difficult across the EU, ushering in a new era of European co-operation, or lack thereof.

Costa Culpability.

As a thirteenth body was found among the wreck of the Costa Concordia this weekend, the latest from the discredited captain is that the salute to the Isle of Giglio, off the Italian coast, was in fact ordered by the managerial company.

The cruise ship’s altered course caused the worst nautical holiday disaster in recent memory on 13^th January 2012.

Rather than taking the approved course, which is sailed over 50 times a year, the Costa Concordia found itself more than some 4 miles off course and dangerously close to the shallow waters of Giglio. Since the incident, which caused mass panic amongst crew and passengers alike, a string of theories have been offered as to the reasons behind the ship’s misfortune.

Map displaying route and times believed to detail the Costa Concordia's fate, 13th Jan 2012.

Initial ideas centred on faulty equipment, rendering the vessel without accurate mapping systems, or suggested that the captain was attempting to show off to other colleagues on the near-by island.

However, Francesco Schettino has reportedly said he was ordered to carry out the manoeuvre by ship owner Costa Crociere, according to transcripts leaked to Italian newspaper La Repubblica.

Statements to a judge appear to be a cross-breed then of the original theories that plagued papers and onlookers in the wake of the ship listing 10 days ago. Breaking his silence, Schettino accuses the executives of the Costa Crociere group as not only having known of the salute, but actively encouraging the manoeuvre. 

He told the judge that the cruise company insisted it was a good way by which to promote its sailings and continued by adding “Costa was aware of the repeated practice of 'saluting' around the world”.

Besides these contextualising factors, Schettino also described that on the night of the collision he discovered some of the equipment which records navigation data was out of order, which could hamper investigators' efforts to reconstruct his route.

The captain, who is under house arrest whilst the investigations continue, is charged with several offences: namely, manslaughter, causing a shipwreck and abandoning ship.

However, with the time that has passed between the event and these initial remarks, it seems all the more plausible that the Schettino has been advised how to approach his trial, instantly discrediting other major figures within the company.

Despite the torrent of abuse that has circulated around the captain however, the various scandalous reports from both passengers and those working aboard the ship have certainly come to cloud the issue of the captain’s sole culpability.

 Those who claim the captain had been drinking at the bar, for example, when the ship started to list on the rocks have had the event placed on a pedestal of bastardisation, instantly citing it as a testimony to the captain’s abuse of duty. Yet, this was a ship with over 1,000 crew members aboard. Certainly, while this figure is not indicative of the percentage that is senior staff, the captain has rights to a break and could have been enjoying such repose.

Additionally, with perhaps up to twenty other senior officials with access and qualifications to man the ship beside Schettino, it is only in the everyday maintaining of such a vessel that a number of tasks are distributed among the crew. Schettino’s team should have been fairly expected to manage the ship without constant supervision. A captain’s duties go beyond the simple steering of the liner itself.

However, should his stories of faulty navigation equipment prove true, there will indeed be question as to the captain’s conduct and decisions to leave the command posts of the ship on that fateful eve.

Yet, the most trivial aspect of the charges facing the captain is that of abandoning ship. Whilst there is no doubt that Schettino’s exit from the sinking craft was far from dignified, the orders to return and the subsequent backlash appear far out of proportion. No longer are we in a society that should condone the idea of a captain ‘going down with his ship’. In fact, should a captain wait till the last, we would still find Schettino sitting some distance of the Giglio coast, awaiting confirmation he could return to land.

Had the vessel sunk completely after the rocks ripped a hole on the underside, society would have effectively condemned an extra person to a watery grave. Not only should this weigh heavy on conscience, but surely it is better to have a captain that can testify as to the events of the evening in question and provide evidence, than one several hundred feet under the surface of the sea?

Lack of calm logic simply baffles.

Due to the unusual nature of the ship’s listing, having rolled onto its side, normal procedures of evacuation were clearly not possible and, although the mob panic that spread so quickly will haunt many who were on board for some time, this was not a scenario that had been offered foresight.

Of course, the new wave of information from the captain comes to dirty the hands of other more prominent figures. The statements from captain and spokespersons do not match up for one. Schettino says he gave an accurate depiction of the scene to Costa Crociere official Roberto Ferrarini, who approved his actions.

Further, Pier Luigi Foschi, the chief executive of Costa Crociere, said last week: “I can't exclude that ships have been sailed closer to land on the initiative of some captains without informing us. But I have never been aware of this taking place in an unsafe manner.”

Some clever wording on the part of Foschi aside, one can’t help but wonder his thought that “I have never been aware of this taking place in an unsafe manner”, suggesting he is aware of the practice itself. Indeed, the subsequent questions follow: why allow it to continue, even if ‘safe’? Are passengers’ lives a risk worth taking in the battle for consumer image in a recession-struck world? If so, how frequently do such liners alter course, unbeknown to many crew and clientele alike? The irresponsibility is tantamount to a pilot flying in another aircraft’s space; a driver using the wrong carriage on the motorway.

The following video shows the January accident not to be the product of a one off event:

As the evidence appears to mount against the troubled captain that has become the scapegoat of this accident, one US law firm has indicated how it is “all too easy to say this captain acted alone.”

Without doubt, more people were involved in this disaster than has been considered at first glance, though Schettino’s claim of faulty equipment, now that his company contest his remarks, appears all too coincidentally fitting...

An Obvious Economic Announcement...

Never one to point out the obvious at rather a late stage in proceedings, Prime Minister David Cameron took to the podium at the CBI conference to announce that the current economic climate and crisis in the Eurozone were having a “chilling effect” on the UK economy.

Now, this fact was probably widely re-acknowledged around about six months ago; the world having watched continued Greek financial woes and the growth of Italian instability. Add to the melting pot the downgrading of American credit and the shrinking of forecasts for growth and most people were under no illusions to the state of the economy.

However, we must certainly thank the Prime Minister for pointing out these obvious facts that are supposed to be being addressed firmly by his government: alas, apparently to no avail.

He blamed the current lack of growth on the continuous string of bad news about economy matters, but did not announce any ground breaking scheme himself. Rather, this task is dutifully left to burden George Osborne’s shoulders next week.

Whilst the PM is under a great deal of pressure to reverse the position of Britain amidst these financial troubles, surely highlighting the problems and not proffering any solution himself is but counter-productive. 

Although some may say truth is the best tactic, these facts were already wide-held public views: their reaffirmation by Cameron only serves to further down-hearten British workers, contractors and entrepreneurs and shake the foundations of faith in both commerce and the government.

Mr Cameron also told the conference: "Everyone agrees now that in the past Britain's economy had become lopsided: too dependent on debt, on consumption, on financial services.” Unfortunately, the continued upholding of a policy of cuts is doing nothing to reverse the trend, but rather stagnate the economy.

This concept that it takes money to make money and debt must preceed profit only just now appears to be clicking as the PM is set to detail housing schemes, but the projects are somewhat received only to mild appreciation: the economy cannot take much benefit from such a slow burning enterprise.

Perhaps, rather than continuing to be a staunch coat and continuing to plug policies that are not working, Cameron and his faithful Clegg should consider redressing their approach and apologising. It could be the making of a great economic boom in the long run. New tactics worked for Roosevelt. Was no one making notes? Did no one pay attention in history class?! Would his approach hurt the support of the Tory party too much and appear like socialism? Probably, and that why politics no longer involves the public right; it’s just a game of opposition policies…

Occupy London, Occupy Economics.

Amidst growing concerns over the economy, the Eurozone crisis, the shortcomings for predicted growth, the downgrading of American financial systems and a lack of united resolve, there has emerged a global undertaking in a bid to coerce governments to introduce a swifter and more effective solution.

‘Occupy Wall Street’ began as a low key protest in its inception; by the time of its enactment, thousands of Manhattan’s residents and other American flocked to the financial district of world-wide repute in order to protest, and stage one of the most daring sit-ins in modern times.

Fervour so pent up is difficult to restrain for too long a period and in quick succession, similar events have sprung up throughout Western democracies.

In The City, ‘Occupy London’ has well and truly taken hold. Saturday morning saw an estimated 2,500 take to the London financial domain in response to ‘Corporate Greed’ that left many families unable to provide for themselves amidst the growing fiscal crises.

Whilst there has been a mixed response to the staged protest, a larger number are coming to acquiesce that promises made by political leaders are slow to be implemented or otherwise do little to combat deficit and budget issues in reality.

The stagnation has come to be referred to as a ‘permafrost’: now so deeply set, it will take a sustained period before any progress can again be made for growth.

One protester, James Sevitt, spoke to the BBC about his feeling on the circumstances in hand: “This is about getting beyond the 'us versus them'. We all live within the same system… We're really focused on building a community which really demonstrates the innovation, solidarity and just the human-to-human contact and community that we want.” The appeal of the protesters is that their numbers are growing in moral support even if not physically every day.

Saturday and Sunday indeed saw huge turnouts, but the working week saw the corporation greed, so inbred, that people returned to their jobs lest they suffer even greater hardships.

It is somewhat paradoxical that the restriction on demonstration for these activists is their return to the employs they hate, that don’t pay sufficient amounts, that threaten cuts.

Organising group Occupy LSX later posted an initial statement on its website in which it said the "current system" was unsustainable.

It called for:

• Structural change towards "authentic global equality"
• An end to the actions of those causing oppression
• An end to global tax injustice
• Regulators who are "genuinely independent" of the industries they regulated.

In addition, the group called for further support for the strike movements planned for the end of November. Such a united stand against both business and government actions sees a revival of national sentiment not produced on such a widespread scale since the notorious cuts of Margaret Thatcher. Determination and repeated efforts are essential for a cause that will have a gradual effect as the tide on the coast.

This notion appears to be hailed as a modern revolution by some leading innovative politicians: Green Party leader and MP Caroline Lucas said: “The camp that has been set up a stone's throw from London Stock Exchange is an opportunity to explore a different kind of future to the one the mainstream political parties have constructed.”

Of course, this is reflective of the widespread belief that politicians in the current cabinet are shying away from public ideas on key issues: from the student tuition fee debate, to the controversial hike in VAT, and the momentous outpouring of anger in riots, public control has never been so outlandish yet so unnoticed by those in power.

Concerning statistics emerged today that the rate of inflation for the country has jumped to a peak only once before witnessed at the height of the original economic crisis: Consumer Price Index currently sits at 5.2%. Such a staggering change is contributing to rising costs of essential gas and electricity, as well as petrol and food. Whilst this figure is expected to subside come the new year, it is worrying that this figure goes against the grain of political policies regarding debt and attempts at cutting the deficit.

Symbolic of the need to persevere, a crowd now remains resolute on the steps of St Paul’s Cathedral in London. Once the bed place of countless beggars and those in poverty, the establishment has almost reclaimed its position as church of the spiritually rich. Whilst businessmen and women hurry on past to the London Stock Exchange, there passes an intelligible and tangible atmosphere that those sat on the steps will prove a powder-keg to ignite national sympathy and rebuke of city greed.

Demonstrations in Greece, in Italy, in Spain all signal that a new price must be paid in this quest for recovery: the bailout of government politics and introduction of dogmatic public involvement.

No economy is to recovery without the active participation of its citizens. Here, the municipal mood is one of strike, not cooperation.

Murder, Mystery; Accused, Acquitted.

Yesterday Amanda Knox walked free of the controversial murder of a British student in Italy.

Four years ago, Leeds University student Meredith Kercher was found dead in her shared student flat in in Perugia, Italy, where she had been undertaking part of her course abroad. In the interim, various people have been brought before legal systems in the European state and each has been appealed amidst a growing media frenzy that now has a question mark poised above the case.

Acquitted after serving a number of years in jail, where it is rumoured that she was badly beaten and abused by both police and fellow inmates, Knox was yesterday delivered exoneration.

Addressing the gathered jurors and officiators before the verdict was heard, Knox pleaded that she was “not who they say I am” and that a combination of corrupt police evidence and media furore had painted an unfair image on her character. Also on trial, ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito added that the ordeal was a “nightmare” from which he had never woken.

Court officials were put beyond reasonable doubt when the case was reviewed this year as the evidence that had been gathered for original sentencing was said to have a number of flaws.

Contamination claims were treated with severity and the courts requested further DNA tests to be undertaken after it was agreed that the original conditions fell short of international standards. Rumours included that the police had not adhered to protocol in reviewing the evidence.

Key in the case, a kitchen knife that had been put forward as having had Knox’s DNA on the handle, Kercher’s on the blade. In addition, the accused’s genes were found on the victim’s bra.

Enormous pressure has of course fallen on both defending and accusing parties over the course of the action. Statements from examining officials claim that a number of Knox’s statements in court go against those she gave in original writing. Meanwhile, the rebuttal argument stands that the police treatment and stress of a friend dying caused any discrepancy to occur.

Indeed, so much has the argument of foul-play been brought into the courtroom that earlier in the year, Knox’s own parents were summoned to an Italian court for vilifying the police.

Now as the pardoning comes as a relief to the “broken” jailed, it advocates a serious need for further regulations and review.

Sex game or murder? The case needs further scrutiny for sure.

Meredith Kercher was found by police with her throat slashed. However, initial investigations also revealed that there was proof of sexual activity before her death. Whilst the nature of the death remains a mystery then, there is an obvious need for prudence.

Should there have been any carnal relations, the very nature of evidence found on items such as the deceased’s bra is instantly rendered rather dubious. Moreover, although the knife in question may indeed have been the murder weapon per se, student is as student does. Ergo, the genetic evidence on the handle could easily be a case of poor, or complete lack thereof, cleaning utensils after usage.

In addition, should the act have been perpetrated in the midst of erotic activity, surely the idea of murder in the first degree pushes lawful boundaries? For instance, there is a lack of mens rea: stating that a vicious crime needs a vicious will. Concordantly, the Italian justice system should have only been in the process of manslaughter charges at the most. Murder undermines both the system and nature of the case.

Although two people walk free today, another, Rudy Guede, is still serving time for the crime. We must question how many were involved in the killing of a self-sufficient and innocent English student. It does not seem logical that so many should want her dead.

Evidence being inconclusive and logic failing the circumstances, there can be no alternative but to grant freedom to Knox under current conditions. In fact, as the judge ruled that there was "no evidence of Knox having ever committed murder", there should be some compensation in the offing to appease what is a life ruined: Knox graduates prison without a degree, without friends, and without imminent prospects.

Grieving relatives may still have to trawl through the agonising details; the broken accused has to rebuild from painstaking experiences.

I (Do Not) Agree With Nick: The Latest Economy Stance.

Amidst continuing financial woes, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg stated earlier today that the government will not change course on spending cuts.

Of course, the long mocked slogan ‘I agree with Nick’ from the previous electoral campaign rings ever more true, as the Lib Dem defence of the cuts outlines how far they have backed from original party politics in order to hang on to the coattails of power.

Despite declaring that his party would stand up for themselves more openly in May, Clegg has reiterated that the cuts will continue as projected, amongst growing concerns of a double dip recession.

Following moves from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) earlier this week, there are rumours that £5bn could be released to deal with boosting economy infrastructure. Within the past few days, the IMF cut its growth forecast for the British economy not only for 2011 but subsequently for 2012 too, despite the prospect of being the Olympic host. In addition, the organisation said the government should delay its deficit reduction programme if growth slowed further, or risk loss of consumer confidence and a deeper recession.

Ministers pushing for such a move believe it would not be seen as a U-turn as the money would be capital spending, on infrastructure projects like roads, rail and broadband, rather than current spending.

However, Nick Clegg insists that the ruling coalition is not about to alter the course of its plans over any of the concerns. It is thought that such a move would again raise eyebrows and threaten already stalling growth figures.

Of course, this is not likely to help Clegg’s tumbling popularity figures, which in turn could lead to a situation by which the nation would want to ratify a different route of recovery.

In the wake of the widespread riots that overran various UK cities last month, there was a perceived understanding that the government would alter several of its policies in response to such an unpredicted outcry of sentiment. Whilst various reasons have been attributed to the sudden unleashing of fervour, one of the most resounding put forward is that many people believe that they have little money and little leisure time and space, whilst a capitalist economy boasts the many luxuries that are outside swaths of Britons’ pockets.

Remembering a time when election politics foretold a riot if Tory cuts were implemented, it seems as if Clegg has not fully appreciated the wisdom of his own words.

Yet in spite of such scenes, Clegg presents the recovery as it stands as “the right thing, not the easy thing”.

It appears that it is a game of nerve and cheek. Reflecting on the economy as ‘a game’ firstly is not going to install any confidence. But it would seem that here lies the government’s wish that the city hold firm in the face of probing questions and concerns over the state of finances in Italy and Greece.

The aim is to continue with the outlined plans so as to “build a new economy. An economy for the whole nation.”

However, Clegg’s bravado does not muster the same feeling of unity that it did in May 2010. Such idealistic views are no longer heeded with the same anticipation and there remains a great unease that this latest government has made little headway into resolving the deficit crisis over its 16 months in Westminster.

Cries of ‘I agree with Nick’ are now few and far between.