David Rathband, with respects.

On Wednesday night, police officers found PC David Rathband dead at his home in Northumberland.

Rathband, aged 44, suffered the loss of his sight following an attack by Raoul Moat in July 2010.

The gunman, who was on the run for shooting his ex-girlfriend and her partner, crept up on the policeman’s parked vehicle before opening fire at close range in an unprovoked attack, whilst the PC was unarmed.

Moat became the centre of a manhunt for an entire week in the summer of 2010, with claims that he could long last the search parties that eventually caught up with him due to army training.

Rathband, who was in the right place at the right time, doing his duty, had the course of his life irrevocably altered by the attack.

Speaking on Thursday, Prime Minister David Cameron described him as an "extraordinarily brave man" who did "an enormous amount for charity", before adding that he felt “desperately sorry for his family”.

Of course, Cameron may feel sorry for Rathband’s family as the officer announced he was separating from his wife last November.

Here, it is the collective failing of support groups to recognise the problems that Rathband was suffering. Despite being fitted with prosthetic eyes and doing a great amount of charitable work in the two years since the attack, Rathband remained, understandably, an angry and upset individual.

Recent remarks on his twitter account had provoked several figures to send their own virtual concerns, advocating that someone get help for the police officer.

However, their action went little further than a few characters on a social media network. Largely isolated then, Rathband is suspected to have taken his own life, with no other people being looked for in the police investigation on Thursday.

Is this surprising if the officer had been left alone by family members and few outside people, despite his large following online earned by his bravery, acted positively toward Rathband.

Former Labour Home secretary David Blunkett, himself blind since birth, said: "I am deeply saddened and I am worried about his wife Kath and his family. There was a man who was struggling inside as well as with the practicalities of coping with blindness. He was actually coping extremely well, but he didn't believe so.”

Who should be held responsible for the fragility of this officer? Moat, long since dead himself, is obviously a key figure in the apportioning of this blame, but he must be described more as a powder-keg in Rathbone’s actions. Instead, a society that held Rathband in such esteem from afar is damnable for not understanding, but instead merely framing and faming, a man undergoing huge changes to his daily life and beliefs.

His wife, undoubtedly in a position of shock, is sure to be feeling somewhat guilty, but this is no more her fault: having to deal with the repercussions of Moat’s attack herself.

Following the sentencing of Karl Ness and Qhuram Awan for assisting Moat last year, Rathband spoke out to describe how “These two individuals, along with the other coward who wasn't man enough to stay here, have taken my job from me.” Perhaps, these three, along with the ignorance of onlookers, have now taken his life too.

Perhaps this is an all the more important time to act, considering other victims of Moat, as his ex-girlfriend admitted she has considered suicide following July 2010's rampage.  

How Should We Remember Our Fallen Stars?

25^th June, 2009. I’m relaxing at home after a stressful couple of weeks of exams. I get a text from my sister and, after opening the message, I don’t believe what I’m reading and instantly flick on a news channel.

Sure enough, Michael Jackson’s dead.

A similarly bewildering moment happened on Sunday morning, when, opening up my computer, social networks were trending Whitney. And another star had passed too soon.

One of the advantages of this modern society is that the integration of technology allows not only this quick relay of information, but in these cases, a sentimental outpouring of emotion when we lose an influential figure.

However, with these new mediums of information, what is appropriate decorum when talking of the deceased? When famous personas have had their lives taken under a microscope as public property, how should that public remember them?

Case in point: sitting with a friend in a café last July, the radio broke the news that Amy Winehouse had passed away. The reporter’s very next words were: “The troubled star, who was known for her drug addictions and love life…” as though her singing career did not merit a mention. Amy has been defined by her misdemeanours.

With the death of Whitney Houston, this act of remembrance is called into question once again. When looking back at such an iconic songstress, should we look to her rise or fall?

Without doubt, the talent of the young Houston cannot be denied. Hailing from musical genes, Whitney was signed at the tender age of 19 after a performance in a Manhattan night club. Her eponymous debut was the biggest selling album by a debut artist when it was released in 1985.

Houston enjoyed seven consecutive number one singles, surpassing the record set by The Beatles, and had notched up over 200million album sales by the late 80s alone. Yet eclipsing even all of these staggering achievements, the resounding number ‘I Will Always Love You’ is the biggest selling single by a female of all time (and is sure to notch up another batch of sales posthumously).

Serene images were shattered with Houston’s decline into abuse of crack cocaine and marijuana. Her tumultuous marriage to Bobby Brown constantly attracted headlines and her once famed voice was broken.

Yet, which era of the star’s life should the public focus on?

Unfortunately, intrigue and bad news are always awarded more coverage: these are the stories with more layers, more depth, high interest and, immorally, make people feel much better about themselves. Even if Whitney had not been signed, there is the possibility that she, or countless others like her, like Amy, would have made headlines for their solvent abuse. They would have been paraded as examples of a breakdown in society, without a saving voice, so to speak.

Of course, perhaps without the fame, these people would not have resorted to drugs, without the attention, they may not have performed crazy stunts, such as hanging children over balconies. But whose fault is this? Are these people victims of self-nurtured decline, or of outer afflictions?

Society is constructed in such a way that we pressure a number of stars into depression, ruts, abuse. From music to film and beyond, pop culture means we are able to highlight the likes of Britney Spears, Macaulay Culkin, Charlie Sheen, Lindsay Lohan as testimony to the breakdown culture that has been nurtured by modern life. Some, like Robert Downey Jr, make it back; other stars, like Kurt Cobain and Winehouse, never defeat their demons.

But do their devils add meaning to their work. In the case of ‘Nevermind’ by Nirvana, material dealt with lost loves, with ‘Back to Black’, the album can be seen as shaped from Winehouse’s indiscretions and media attention.

However, for the stars like Jackson and Houston, whose prime came before a spectacular fall, their records should be remembered and replayed without the clouds of rumour that have come to outshine their talents. For, certainly, these people became famous for their gifts, and should be thought of in this light.

In 2002, Houston told ABC's Diane Sawyer in an interview that: "The biggest devil is me. I'm either my best friend or my worst enemy."

Perceptive as this analysis is, perhaps the biggest devil to Houston, and to her fallen contemporaries, lies in public responsibility.

Just as we facilitate the rise of a star, we are compliant in their demise.

Remembering where I was when I heard of the deaths of these stars proves something: that these people touched our lives with their songs, their albums, or whatever their gifts. We have a public responsibility to keep that spirit of their talents alive.

"I Told You I Was Trouble"

Tragic but predictable, it was the timing rather than the passing of Amy Winehouse that left many shocked and bereft on Saturday 23^rd July. Discovered by her security in her own bed in Camden, it was a somewhat quiet end to a loud and lavish lifestyle that had prevailed over the preceding years of the youngster’s life. Whilst many point to Amy’s troubles with alcohol addiction, drug abuse and tabloid shenanigans as the root causes for the death, these are just the public images of a lost girl, who was described in completely different ways by family and friends.

Scandalous until the end, Winehouse first came to the public eye with release Frank in 2003. This debut was essentially a cigarette stained, alcohol smeared soul and swing record that was reminiscent of 60s finesse. Critically, the album was a smash and gained Winehouse prestigious Ivor Novello awards – a feat that was repeated several times. Widespread success came with second offering Back To Black, where controlled raspy vocals and controversial issues led to both fame and fortune. The album became the biggest selling LP of 2007 in the UK and the seventh biggest selling in the world in 2008. 

Talent then is unquestionable. More often than was fair, smearing images blocked an accurate portrayal of the life of this star and perhaps the most perceptive remark reads:

“I know Amy Winehouse very well. And she is very different to what people portray her as being. Yes, she does get out of her mind on drugs sometimes, but she is also a very clever, intelligent, witty, funny person who can hold it together. You just don't see that side.”

-Lily Allen.

If, as Ms Allen claims, we didn’t see that side of Winehouse in her personal life, it was because the soul and swing music that she clung to was her eden: outside of her musical menagerie, the troubled starlet was all but lost in a media frenzy that sabotaged and plagued a person that had lost their way. When music was no longer effective in providing an outlet for the different traumas of her life, Amy Winehouse was subjugated to addiction for peace.

Lyrically, Amy’s music is self-professed and riveting material that only foreshadows her latter strife. “I cheated myself, like I knew I would” read the words to ‘You know I’m no good’: everything the star warned herself against has come to dominate her life and yet she enjoyed it nonetheless, and she shrives herself by simply saying that “I told you I was trouble”. Elsewhere, songs such as ‘Tears Dry On Their Own’ question attachments with trivial lovers, and ‘Fuck Me Pumps’ is an ode to all those who lose themselves in the good times, just as Amy herself did. Almost too ironically she warns those who fall from grace not too upset if “like the daily news they get pressed”. It’s a rock’n’roll lifestyle that is so glamorised on the outside, yet is too addictive to leave behind. More than any other artist, her short lived career writes her own eulogy in many ways: a life riddled with problems in love, in drugs, and feeling comfortable with self.

Winehouse’s legacy certainly lives on through her music now, as her parents laid her to rest in an emotional and extremely private congregation. Whilst the media continued to heckle the event, the true trouble of the star is truly realised. However brief her active career, her contributions to the musical world cannot and should not be undermined by her inevitably self destructive path. Current giants such as Duffy, Lily Allen and Adele cite her as their influences; the last going so far as to say that Amy was the original star of the 21^st century to get people excited about British music once again. Moreover, soul music has not enjoyed such popularity, diversity and success since the 60s. Often, genius is a case of trouble. Many of the greatest artists of the 20^th century wrote their music or claimed that their music was inspired by happenings whilst locked away and under the influence of some variant illicit substance. Amy’s music is so startlingly brilliant and unique to its market then because not only did she indulge in drugs, but her entire musical life was based around such self-abuse, mingling with vibrant crowds in Camden and struggling to maintain the balanced lifestyle of her family. 

So whilst she may have said no, no, no to rehab, Amy’s genius flourished under such  circumstance and after all, we’re only saying goodbye in words.

The Qualities Of A Flawed Leader

In the wake of the death of Osama bin-Laden, it seems appropriate to take a few minutes to consider that whilst the Western world may celebrate at this man’s passing, there are countless peoples in the Eastern world who may have viewed him differently. Whilst this may be difficult for many to accept and raises huge questions of ethical beliefs, we should consider that the most notorious of all leaders were charismatic to their own people at the time. Surely then, bin-Laden had some qualities.

Let me first state that I am not writing to posthumously exonerate bin-Laden, to justify his actions, or for this to be taken as any kind of support. The countless lives and suffering inflicted both directly and indirectly cannot and should not be denied by anyone. However, without dwelling too long on this image that is so popular, it is worth noting that indeed this is ‘the popular image’. Are we ignorant of any other ideas or (somewhat questionably) ideals?

"I can be eliminated, but not my mission." said bin-Laden in an interview with a Pakistani journalist shortly after the US invasion of Afghanistan. If this is to be taken at face value, it would suggest an aim and motive, a course of action and a reasoning in which all these ideas were founded. For his mission to survive his own lifetime, it would have to be one that was supported by a number of people and connected with their strife. No doubt, bin-laden has already established a legacy for himself: or rather he has established two legacies. In the West, his organisation of attacks spanning several decades is looked upon with disdain. Yet he united a great many people in an apparent struggle to rid the Middle East of the occupying forces that terrorised those lands. 

Osama bin-Laden evidently had leadership qualities then. He was able to control masses and ensnare a certain sense of urgency, of panic, of need to react, to revolt, to protest. Furthermore, he attended Universities, with rumours of various degree paths. In this, his main interest was always religion. Spirituality and an influential family combine to form the image of a man who should be of justified opinion. As startling as it may seem, several have described the man as polite in speech and rather mild mannered. Such attributes are somewhat at odds with what would be expected, but they nonetheless demonstrate reason behind his success. He was a relatable figure across all fronts. He was educated, he could boast richness amongst the upper classes, whilst appear to be pious amongst the lower-classes (reports suggest he lived a moderate lifestyle even before his move to the mountains).

Often overlooked is bin-Laden’s work alongside the United States in the 1970s and 1980s. Many of his projects were funded by the Americans and his early campaigns against Soviet occupation were viewed with praise. Indeed, upon his return to Afghanistan, he became a popular figure and was an in demand speaker for mosques across the country. It becomes apparent that his combined efforts to lead a life devoted to the betterment of his people were at the forefront of his aims. These are celebrated goals worldwide. However as his opinions began to diverge from those of the West, suspicions were soon roused. Consider his argument that "When we buy American goods, we are accomplices in the murder of Palestinians". Obviously, it may be considered extremist, but also fundamentalist. Support of a force that opposed the country’s aims was obviously contrary to the nation’s growth. 

In his own way, Osama bin-Laden outlined his wish for an equality amongst nations. He could not continue to follow allegiances with those countries that prevented the forward movement of his own. We should recognise that this is the fundamental aim of any developing nation: having to compete with more advanced states only leaves room for total attention to further evolving the country. 

Unfortunately, the passions of a man who had been so promising a figure of democracy and understanding soon came to cloud any justification of action. Whilst using a religious guise, the atrocities suffered under this banner of jihad only led to mistrust of these countries, further invasions and stereotyping of Islam. Not only is it disconcerting to twist religious doctrine in this fashion (although we may point to the Crusades as a similar point in case), but any advances made between Eastern and Western domains have been undermined by the reckless search for ‘equality and justice’.

Defining a terrorist still leaves a great deal to be implied and even vaguer attributes are left unaddressed. If we consider bin-Laden a terrorist, it is because he has been at the forefront of campaigns that have seen countless horrors. Then should we not reach an independent view that his success was in part due to forces that appeared to fill the same description of terrorist to some of the citizens in the Middle East. In this sense, neither side aided the other. Therefore with growing confusion, the need for some form of insurgency would have been deemed necessary. Culpability becomes a worldwide factor: in not reaching a unilateral code of conduct and peace laws, antagonism is only met with antagonism.

Whilst Osama bin-Laden may be deemed a man of many faults then, we should acknowledge him as someone who did terrible things, but was a leader through various appealing means. He had served his country, become educated, led a life that many testified was in keeping with tradition for the most part and was tactful in his announcements. In one final depiction of how his skills are best demonstrated, consider his reasoning for attacks upon America and think how closely it appears to parallel all other declarations of a justified war from the West:

"Allah knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers but after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed – when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way (and) to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women."

– Osama bin Laden, 2004