I am currently reading Nick Davies’ ‘Flat Earth News’ and I am only a chapter and a half in and I am already more depressed about the prospects of a career in Journalism that I have been for a long time. I had not realised the decline in proper fact-checked journalism was so widespread and ingrained (especially among locals).

But more than that; the reliance on press releases and other material produced by those with an agenda is staggering – I had a policy of trashing most if not all press releases that arrived in the Redbrick inbox – I was incredulous to the point that persistent PR contact just got spammed. I could not for the life of me understand why we would use this substandard self-serving copy when we had reporters to go out, find stories and then write them up.

I was careful to maintain mutually beneficial relationships and of course sections like Film and Music relied heavily on industry contacts for interviews, CDs and screenings – however there was a direct benefit to the students reading the paper (better content – previews etc..) so I could see the point in growing such relationships.

I do of course realise that Redbrick did not need to turn a profit and that our reporters are all voluntary, so the dynamics of our content production was very different to that off a local or regional, but you do wonder what has happened to the integrity and principles that I am sure most young journos started out with – according to Davies it just gets ground away by news desks and editors.

It makes me feel better that we ignored all the PR that came our way, concentrating on developing our reporters and finding and confirming our own stories. It also makes me wonder about the terrible relationship between most student papers and their local and regional papers. Enthusiastic and hardworking student journos could be helping to contribute real stories and actual reporting to their locals – instead they just tend to be ignored.

I hope I never have to produce ‘churnalism’ – but I am sure I will in due course.

I have been home from university approaching two weeks now, although I do not graduate until the 12th of July. I picked up a 2:1, which when I look at what else I had on my plate in 3rd year is something I am very proud of, but now I have nothing.

Now that is not strictly true, a couple of weeks work experience here and an interview or two there (fingers crossed) but nothing concrete or confirmed. A large part of that is I am not quite sure what I want to do. I know my passion lies in journalism – my undying love for Redbrick and the experiences I had with the paper have taught me that. Yet I am not sure where within journalism, especially in this world of uncertainty within the media industry.

However, I see the intense fluctuations within journalism and the problems born of a collapsing business model coupled with a recession as opportunity. Humans are never more resourceful and inventive than when the chips are down. Creating something clever, special and truly entrepreneurial requires inventiveness – driven by lack of resources and an industry full of naysayers. I want to be a part of this new journalism. We pushed the boundaries of student journalism, community building and engagement and student access to information at Redbrick in this last year, inspired by people like Nick Booth and organisations as varied as Help Me Investigate through to the Guardian.

These ideals and ideas can only be grown and expanded upon.

I have friends taking post grads in journalism, but this is not a path that has attracted me. I think that if I had the money for a postgrad I would look to train myself in the skills I think I need; I have always loved photography – I would take a course to improve my final product. I would learn CSS3 and buy the equipment I need to produce rich and varied multimedia content. I want to be a complete story-teller and each time I want to tell a story in a way it has never been told before and indeed, in a way that I never have told a story before.

Yet the project I want to do most in the world is ambiguous and undefined. I have walked away from Redbrick with friends for life, but even more than that, people I trust to work with. I trust their work ethic, their inventiveness and their intuition. The time is ripe for something new and I am aware of some great projects both in the States and here in the UK, but I still think there is plenty of space for new ideas. We just don’t have one yet.

This doesn’t bother me though, ideas will come and many will fail, but I am confident that what has been christened #projectlondon for lack of a better name has ‘legs’, it just needs a body and some brains. In the meantime I will keep looking to expand on my experience within the industry and engage in the conversations that are taking place.

Having spent the day at Jeecamp, I wanted to share a few of my thoughts on the day. This year the (semi) Unconference feels like it has focused more on the business / innovation side of journalism than ever before. It was a very different experience to the unconference of a year ago, however I do not think the more formal nature of the event is entirely to blame.

When attending last year I had been elected as Redbrick editor only days before and as such I had a platform with which I could experiment. This time around I have nowhere to try-out the ideas and possibilities that have come out of the discussions I had on Friday

The highlights of the day were the opening and closing keynote speakers (Simon Waldman and Stewart Kilpatrick) and the breakout discussion on community management that I took part in.

A variety of problems were put forward in the discussion, everything from a lack of conversation through to fighting and trolls in comment sections. I do not think there is any need to detail the problems, they are after all fairly common place among all sites, however the ‘solutions’ were varied and interesting.

So whats next…?

Jeecamp is about how to move forward and as ever there is no one right answer, lots of people are trying and some are taking baby steps forwards and others are learning hard lessons about trying to be a journalist and a businessman simultaneously.

Simon Waldman talked about ‘Creative Disruption‘ and how businesses either learn to re-imagine themselves in the light of significant change or fail and disappear.

Stewart Kilpatrick talked about his business the Caledonian Mercury – Scotland’s first online only newspaper. He gave us an insight to the structure of the journalism side of the venture as well as some details on the business model – which is based on a revenue sharing concept.

The keynotes are linked to above, so I am keen not to repeat them; but I will write about what I took away from them. There was an overwhelming positivity from the day, that ‘now’ was the time for innovation and taking risks. There also seemed to be a consensus that journalists and journalism would exist in the future, but that ‘newspapers’ would been a completely different manifestation of their current selves.

As someone who is looking for a project (and an adventure) the talks set out some great rules going forward and provided oodles of inspiration.

True innovation is about problem solving, good solutions are elegant, but simple – Simon used the story of Apollo 13 to illustrate this point; talking about how the Houston based support team had to build a Carbon Dioxide filter from what the astronauts had in the ship. It is a fantastic way to conceptualise the basics of problem solving and to me it suggests infinite possibilities for the future – myself and my friends, those of us stupid enough to want to take on a challenge are not quite sure what direction we are moving in yet, but I think we have a better idea of how to start moving in it.

Stewart finished with this:

there’s never been a better time to be a journalist… And there’s never been a worse time to get a job as one.

I think it is time to stop talking about the future of Journalism and to start doing something about it.

So, on the 10th of June I shall put my last issue of Redbrick to bed, it is the last issue of the year and my 59th involved with the paper.

As I have mentioned before I have lost all the posts I wrote about my plans and hopes for Redbrick this year, so all I can do is talk you through what we have achieved and where we think we can go in the future.

I see a lot of potential in the UK’s student media scene, I think it is woefully underdeveloped and many universities and their media groups should have better links with each other and better links with the industry. The student media scene is a great place for experimentation because the business model is different. It is an environment where risk should be encouraged and entrepreneurship supported.

Social media is the buzz topic at the moment, but it is the concepts that surround it that matter; relationships, community engagement and conversations – the interactions that publications have with their audience.

At Redbrick we have introduced a new website and a new approach to student news, we have diversified our multimedia offerings and we have brought student focused investigative journalism back into the core of our output.

This has paid dividends with fantastic traffic on the website allowing us to generate income through advertising and making sure we are speaking up for students when they need it the most.

As a student paper we will always be limited by our resources, our most precious being time (no one at Redbrick is full-time – although some of us like to pretend we are) and to this end certain aspects of our content will suffer. We have been weak on spelling this year, but we have improved the consistency within the paper, little tweaks that we believe improve the readability of the physical version.

However our big experiments this year have been online:

1. We have introduced a live blogging platform using Cover it live – this has allowed us to provide live coverage from a range of events. We have covered the big sporting fixtures, the Guild elections results and of course the final leaders debate that was hosted on campus.
2. We have introduced Audioboo and with this tool we have been able to give small updates on projects, off the cuff interviews and allowing students another means to connect with the content we produce.
3. Similarly, sections have also started podcasting, providing more analysis of issues that ran out of space in the paper and allowing the personalities of our editors and writers to come across to our audience.
4. We have a live coverage kit in the office that consists of a netbook, 3g dongle, camera, eye-fi card, power monkeys, dictaphone and other accessories which allows for instant setup when events take place and means we can provide up to the minute coverage of whatever we need.
5. We have introduced an iPhone app – it is a little basic (unlike The Student’s) – but they have a developer and we do not. Following soon will Android and Blackberry versions – we are looking to give students as many ways as possible to engage and interact with Redbrick.
6. We started the Selly Oak Crime Map – in partnership with the local police, providing students with relevant crime information about their local area and we will be developing the accompanying crime prevention information over the summer.
7. We have been using twitter, Facebook and other social media services to serve our content directly to users, so they do not always have to go looking for it.
8. Our Guild election coverage was the best we had ever produced with Audioboos of the candidates, a map showing where they have been – linked with photos showing what they are up to. A live blog that was pulling in tweets and commenting on the events taking place around campus and a continuous slide show of all the pictures from the two weeks of campaigning.

We have a couple more surprises before the academic year is out and you will be able to see those soon.

However even with all these experiments and services we know there is one area we haven’t had the success we were hoping for – our community. There are 28,000 students at Birmingham and whilst we have decent website traffic for our first year, it is not what we know it could be.

We also do not get as much discussion and debate on the site, via Facebook or on Twitter as we would like, so the aim for next year is to develop a real sense of community around Redbrick, with engaged students that participate in debate. It is a slow process – especially because of the nature of student media – we build good momentum and then we hit a four-week holiday so there are challenges to overcome, but there is no reason this cannot be achieved.

As I have said before, there is so much potential within the world of student media, students just need to continue grabbing opportunities by the horns and get stuck in.

No risk, no adventure.

So, it has been a year since I attended my first Jeecamp – At the time I didn’t really know what to expect, I was just ready to learn. What I found was a melting pot of ideas, challenges, uncertainty and inspiration; I left Jeecamp overflowing with plans and possibilities to take back to Redbrick.

People such as Nick Booth, Joanna Geary and Christian Payne took the time to speak to me and my colleague Pete Blakemore, they were happy to pass on advice and have been happy to answer a tweet or email asking for help in the last year as well.

Unfortunately this blog has lost all the observations I made post Jeecamp last year, so I will do my best to summarise them now:

• I came away thinking the future was about engaging our readers better, Christian and Joanna suggested we think of them as ‘participators’ or ‘contributors’ rather than readers, which suggests a one-way relationship.

• I knew we needed to be introducing projects that were of value to our ‘readers’ as well as good journalism, which is where ideas such as the Selly Oak Crime Map originated.

• We wanted to build a community around Redbrick using social media, getting students involved in the process of analysis and comment after the fact.

• I thought we needed to be experimenting with all the mediums available to us through the web. There was no reason we shouldn’t be live blogging sports games and tweeting and interviewing using Audioboo.

So, what does Jeecamp hold for me this year? – I am a third year, so I am graduating; I will no longer be involved in Redbrick so I will not have as direct an output to test out ideas. However I am sure that Jeecamp will show me a new way of thinking about old problems, it will offer the opportunity to connect with individuals who are trying to navigate their way through the murky world of journalism and I am sure it will leave me just as excited about the potential for the future as it did last year.

I don’t know what I will be doing in 6 months time; I do know I would like it to be a project of my own. I think journalism is in such a state of flux at the moment that it is time for it to redefined, (as some people are doing) I want to be helping to shape the future of journalism, not training myself in the ways of the past.

When saying this to a friend the other day, she asked me what I thought that future is, I said:

• The future is niche, specialist content, it is local and it is data driven.
• It is about conversations and discussion and debate with your audience.
• It is about empowering people with data and knowledge.
• It is about collaboration and sharing.

These are the components I think will be at the core of what is to come and I don’t just want to be along for the ride.

(I will be looking at what we achieved at Redbrick this year in a different post)

University of Birmingham Great Hall. Photo: Lucy Percival

I would like to welcome everyone back to a new and improved Nickpetrie.co.uk, this blog has been neglected for a while now whilst a combination of a University degree and RedbrickJeecamp through to the ideas, trials and tribulations of Redbrick. However there is an impending Jeecamp on May 21st which will provide a chance to see where we have come in a year and reflect on what has been learnt.

I also have my notes from throughout the year so will be looking to summarize Redbrick’s successes and failures through a series of posts, as well as discussing what it should be looking to achieve next year.

Other content, such as my writing for Redbrick from the past 3 years is stored safely within the archive and over the next couple of weeks I will be re-uploading it so that I can build up my portfolio again. In the meantime – the picture in this post of the University’s Great Hall was taken last week when we hosted the final leaders debate. Redbrick was lucky enough to have BBC press access and our coverage can be found here

THERE are many challenges facing us as a society over the next few years. The major parties are desperately jostling for influence and power, to be the party in control come the next general election. With this jostling comes promises, something the British electorate are more than used to by now. But if we look at the progress we have made as a society across the last ten years, many things are perhaps not quite where we expected.

Technology has been developing and progressing at an ever-increasing rate; consumerisms’ expansion has been exponential, the desire bred into us to upgrade and invest. Yet what about the issues, and the problems that are addressed come election time – poverty, equality, access to education, social mobility and the economy?

It has been found that social mobility in Britain is actually declining, so in the last ten years, what have Labour been up to? Those of us under the age of forty are less mobile now than our parents were at the same age. Surely this isn’t progress? Yet that is what Labour promised to bring to the table all those years ago: progressive politics to take the country forwards and drag the poor and under-privileged out of poverty by reducing unemployment, providing a minimum wage, but most simply by ensuring equality of outcome ñ benefits and welfare.

Unemployment is still at its lowest since 1975 and we have an extensive and fairly functional welfare system in place to help the less fortunate members of society. Yet social mobility is actually in decline – how can this be explained? Well, although the economy has been growing and the country’s wealth has been expanding with this growth, the gap between the rich and the poor has also been expanding. Much of the new wealth that is generated in Britain goes to the rich, meaning that people often find it difficult to break the cycle of poverty and transcend class boundaries.

The impact of education here is undeniable, the neglect of our education system and the inherent problems with the national curriculum are causing widespread problems. In 2006, universities were complaining that school leavers ‘basic grammar and spelling’ was not up to scratch. The fact that our schools are inept at producing students with basic literacy and numeracy skills is testament to the problems rife in the current examination sys- tem, where knowledge is acquired not because it is interesting, or useful, but because it will be on the exam. Of course, once that specific examination has passed, so does the knowledge.

If school leavers can’t perform the tasks that will be required of them in the ‘real’ world, then it is no wonder they can’t transcend class – they haven’t been provided with the tools to do it. Now the Government will often wave the statistics of its increasing numbers of school leavers attending university. However, it is important to note that, although there has been a massive increase in the number of students at university, there has also been an increase in the number of students dropping out.

Crucially, the greatest increase in attendance is from students who have ‘richer’ (I use the term relatively) parents, rather than those from a poorer background. Research discovered that these students are often still put off by the large debt they will potentially face after completing a degree. Gordon Brown and David Cameron have been trading blows over a new phrase of late: ‘social opportunity’. It has long been realised that ‘equality of outcome’ is a utopian socialist dream.

This concept of ‘social opportunity’ is much easier -give everyone the same chances, and then it is up to them where they end up. The government has been looking at a scheme that has been introduced in New York, where families are given financial rewards for engaging in educational, work and health-related activities. This can increase the yearly income for the family and supposedly help develop more rounded children.

The Government is currently investigating the potential to instigate a similar idea here in the UK. So what about the people who do transcend class? What is different about them? Do they have more drive, more natural intelligence, or is it luck? Is it all about innovation or entrepreneurialism?
Along with ‘social opportunity’, Brown has also been lamenting ‘talent’, and most specifically the potential waste of talent in those who die young ñ what might they have contributed to society? Equally, although those who were never given an opportunity to follow their ideas through, to think big and to dream – what has this cost society? So now there will be a focus on ‘unlocking talent’. It shouldn’t just be down to charities, trusts and foundations to try and encourage people to innovate and provide the help, advice, support and expertise required to get ideas off of the ground.

The Government should be helping to bridge the gap, not least because it is vital for the future of the economy. It is estimated that soon there will be less than half a million unskilled jobs in Britain, meaning that more people will need a degree or training to perform specific jobs. This used to present a problem in the past. There wasn’t that much room at the ‘top’. Of course, we had doctors and lawyers and other high earners and skilled professionals, but being based in a capitalist sys- tem, there must always be people on the bottom of the pile.

The growth of the worldwide market and the economy means that this is not necessarily true any more. Britain only accounts for one percent of the world’s population, so why can’t the majority of it perform skilled jobs? Many people also believe that we should be trying to draw back from the consumerist nature of our society and reduce the control and impact of big business (such as the supermarkets like Sainsbury or Tesco) to encourage smaller businesses catering more directly to the need of their customers. With one in four members of the British population wanting to give it a go, providing an environment and a structure where it can happen seems the logical way forward.

Happiness is, of course, another consideration; business, government and society have been so focused on ‘progress’ that we haven’t stopped to wonder whether we are actually improving our lives. A few centuries ago, peas- ants only had to work 15 weeks of the year to have enough to sustain them- selves.
Nowadays, many people need two jobs just to survive. People are becoming increasing bored of the nine to five routine; the spontaneity of life has been removed, and many people have a warped view of what will bring them happiness.
This does not have to present any problems though; with new technologies and the Internet, people can be more flexible and jobs can be approached from new directions. Suiting every- one, people are happier, we will re-adjust the economy, so that it may continue to grow without just furthering the gap between the rich and the poor.

However, if this is going to be attained, then certain issues must be addressed. The poverty and inequality that is rampant throughout British society, which shapes peoples’ access to education and to opportunity, must be challenged and reduced. We must find a way to ensure that all can benefit from the growth the economy has experienced over the past decade.

We may be about to have a poor year financially, and with a credit crunch in progress and a recession looming in America, it is important that we look to tackle the problems head on. Politicians can bandy about terms like social opportunity, progressive politics and unlocking talent, but until we see proper reform within the education system, with value placed on knowledge, we will never install a desire for understanding within our younger generations.

Structure should be introduced to encourage people to strike out on their own, with a tailoring of jobs and industries to accommodate the needs of their workers, rather than the single, profit- driven approach that drives people to collapse from stress; are they any- thing other than empty phrases?

Humans, by nature, are not depressed; of course, people have different approaches to life – some pessimistic, some optimistic – and everyone will find their own equilibrium, but shouldn’t we be more driven as a collective to create an environment where we have more fun, where creativity is actively encouraged and promoted, and where we are healthier, not just because of new medicines but because of less stress?

We may well lament what we have lost, but I think this is a good thing; it means that we can realise when we have made mistakes and act to rectify them. It would be a terrible shame if we for- got how to have fun.

WHAT is the purpose of our criminal justice system? To protect the innocent? To deliver justice? To punish the guilty? have always believed in the principle ‘it is better to let ten guilty men go free, than let one innocent man go to jail.’ It is not a perfect system by any means; it never can be. We wield judgment and justice over each other in a society we created. It is a perfect concept in an imperfect world.

In the UK up until 1965, you could still be sentenced to death for certain crimes. There are only a few countries left in the world of which this is still true: among them the two most prevalent, China and the US. It is estimated that of all the executions that took place in 2006 (about 1,591), over 90% were carried out by China and the US. The official figures for China state about 1,000 people were executed, but some people believe that figure to be closer to 8,000.

On Thursday 15th November, three men stood before the UN committee of Human Rights. They have extraordinary stories: all sentenced to death in their respective countries, they have all been proven innocent and released before the ultimate punishment could be bestowed upon them.

Edward Edmary Mpagi spent 18 years on death row in Uganda for a murder he did not commit. Sakae Menda spent 34 years in jail before being exonerated in Japan and Ray Krone became the hundredth death row prisoner to be freed in the US.
Many people argue that the death penalty or capital punishment is a form of retribution, an eye for an eye. This is very much how the US justice system is constructed, for revenge and punishment. Imagine that the evidence that saved the three innocent men not been uncovered until after their sentences had been carried out. Then their respective countries will have ‘legally’ killed innocent men. For me that is far worse than let- ting a guilty man go free.

Between 1977 and 2002, 563 executions took place in America. Of these, 87.5% were carried out in the southern states. Any executions are actually suspended in America at the moment, pending a review of the humanity of the lethal injection, most states’ preferred method of execution.

It seems backwards and naive to apply capital punishment as a deter- rent because you are also setting an example. How can you preach to people that killing is wrong and then kill someone to prove your point? If this is an acceptable means of justice demonstrated by the state, then it’s no wonder that young people grow up believing that it is OK to take revenge on people.

What happened to the concept of rehabilitation and second chances? If sentencing becomes a purely punitive measure against defendants then where will the cycle of violence stop? The UN has no official position on the death penalty, yet its charter states that ‘everyone has the right to life’. Amnesty International, who brought the three men before the UN, are calling for a moratorium on executions around the world as the first step towards abolishing the death penalty.

It must be terrifying for an innocent man to be convicted, knowing of his own innocence, yet unable to prove it. That must be enough to drive anyone insane. At least life imprisonment and other sentences allow for the imperfections in countries’ criminal justice systems. They provide the opportunity for mistakes to be rectified before they become testament to why capital punishment is flawed, and therefore ultimately a bad idea.

IT has been over two years now since the 7/7 bombings in London and the Government has decided it is time for a review of our terror legislation. It was the 7/7 bombings that prompted the initial review two years ago, when the Government were pushing to be able to hold terror suspects for up to 90 days without charge (from the 14 days it was at the time). The announcement by Gordon Brown in the Queenís speech, to review the legislation, coincides with the rulings from the Jean Charles de Menezes case. Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead in Stockwell tube station in July 2005 following police operations in the wake of the 7/7 bombings.

A policy known as ‘Kratos’ is in operation when dealing with potential suicide bombers. It is a shoot-to-kill policy designed to prevent the attack from ever taking place. It was an apparent communication failure between officers and their superiors, and the subsequent confusion that led to some officers being under the impres- sion that the fire order had been issued.

This policy, along with the 28 day detention limit, are being considered. It has also been suggested that the power to question suspects after they have been charged may be introduced. This is being offered as an alternative to extending the 28 day limit. However the effectiveness of this approach has to be questioned. Why would a suspect that has been charged agree to answer any more questions? Surely they would be better off waiting for a jury. Under these proposed revisions, however, any refusal to answer questions would be put in front of the jury as a refusal to co-operate.

Although it is unlikely that the Government will push for 90 days again, it has been suggested that they will ask for somewhere in the region of 56 days, double that of the current limit. People often pose the question, why is it necessary to hold suspects for so long without charge? The answer is so that the police can gather evidence. These cases are often complex and need unraveling. The ability to wait until charging allows for a case to be more fully constructed before coming before a judge.

Civil rights group Liberty is very worried about the proposed extension, noting that we already have the longest detention period in the free world, and are encroaching on peoples’ human rights. However I feel it is important to point out that the police cannot just opt to hold terror suspects past the original 14 day limit at will. The case to extend the detention must be put before a judge.

If the limit were to be extended this practice of judicial review would be repeated every seven days to ensure that every- thing is in order and the suspects’ rights are being protected. Lord Carlile, the man in charge of reviewing our terror legislation, believes that in some cases 28 days is not enough. There is also talk, backed by the Conservatives, of allowing intercept evidence such as phone tapping to be admissible in court, allowing covert surveillance to be used as evidence when cases come to court. This is an interesting idea. By allowing all the evidence already collected to make up part of the case against the suspects, they will be facilitating a shorter detention for any suspects and free up valuable police time so they can pursue any active leads or information.

When talking with other students there is always fierce discussion over the validity of detaining people beyond the original 14 day limit under the terror laws. Obviously the debate over civil liberties is often banded around, almost becoming redundant because of the information age. It is like crying wolf.

Yet it is an important discussion, one that should be had more openly with the public rather than behind closed doors. Are Muslim communities marginalised by the public’s perception of terrorists? There is talk at the moment of creating a community of fear and suspicion. Muhammad Abdul Bar has commented: ‘the Government’s approach to terrorism is creating an atmosphere of suspicion and unease’
.
The media has a great responsibility here as a primary source of portrayal for events that take place throughout the UK, such as the car bombs that were placed in London this summer out- side Tiger Tiger and in the Haymarket. It took incredible bravery from the officers that dealt with the devices. However the media loves to sensationalise and it is often several days until accurate details emerge from such incidents. Meanwhile, people draw conclusions about the groups involved on sensationalist claims.

The Government will also use such incidents to bolster any of their terror legislation campaigns, such as after the 7/7 bombings with the ID card scheme. However the argument that the ID cards may have helped prevent the 7/7 bombings became null and void when it was discovered that the terrorists that carried out the attacks were British nationals.

What with the Madrid train bombings, the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the London bombings, the world has seen major atrocities. As we try to move forward, learning how to cope with these new and constant attacks against our freedom, surely we can’t get the laws right first time around?
So what do we do? I think it is very important to strike a balance between being cautious and bringing in the best laws and measures to protect ourselves, making sure that we don’t allow our society to become a hollow, suspicious and mistrustful entity.
If we allow an atmosphere of fear and intimidation to become accept- able then we will further advance the split that is developing within our different communities. It can never be defensible to allow the Muslim com- munity to be demonised throughout any of the events that take place, or any subsequent laws or measures brought in, in response to terrorism.

There are many questions and it is not a simple debate, but it is one we need to have more openly. It will be interesting to see what happens in the commons debate, whether the Government pushes for 56 days or more, and how much opposition is the protection we need, whilst ensuring the freed

CANCER. It is a hell of a word. It means many different things to many different people. Having suffered from Non-Hodgkinís T-Lymphoma when I was nine years old, it means many things to me. Number one of those is survival.
Yet, too often, this is not the case. Despite new headlines claiming the ‘ultimate cancer cure’ is just day’s away, people are dying every day.

Last week Dina Rabinovitch, a writer for the Guardian, died of breast cancer. She is one of the 12,000 or so women that will have died this year because of the disease.
So what goes through your head when you are diagnosed? It’s an everything and nothing moment. There are many associations with the word ‘cancer’ and you think them all through in milliseconds.
After that initial moment, there are decisions to be made – chemotherapy, radiotherapy or a trial, or maybe all three.
It’s one hell of a jump. Having been plunged into a surreal world of consultants’ offices, hospital wards and ever helpful and smiling nurses, you don’t know where to turn.

For many people, including Dina, trials are an important part of the psychological battle against their cancer.
‘I heard trial and thought, good; anything that turns this into some- thing more than being ill’
.
There is no one to blame and getting your head around that is hard enough to begin with. Yet for many people, the idea that their death may be in vein is too much and they take comfort in knowing that they are helping with the research of the next generation of cancer treatments.
In 2004 (these are the most recent statistics) 284,560 people in the UK were diagnosed with cancer. That is an awful lot of people. So after a cancer has been diagnosed, treatment begins and the drugs are expensive. It is predicted that by 2009 the oncological drug industry will be worth $55 billion (or £26 billion). The treatment of cancer is the fastest growing pharmaceutical industry, overtaking cholesterol-reducing drugs.

It is disgusting that such a tragedy can occur. These predicted figures mean that the oncological drug industry will have more than doubled in worth since 2004.
From some viewpoints, this is a good thing. It means we are developing more effective treatments and a wider range of drugs to help combat the greatest disease of our lifetime.

Yet there is a sinister and underhand side to such figures. First is the outrageous and inflated price of the drugs. Not a problem that is obvious to the average UK citizen because of the NHS, since treatment is free and the cost is absorbed. However, in countries such as America where you have to pay for all your treatment (this generally means being in possession of very expensive medical insurance), you are very aware of the cost of the drugs. The problem is that the big pharmaceutical companies that spend millions of pounds developing these drugs want to make a profit and they do, at the expense of the patient (or tax payer). It is a travesty that in today’s modern world people die because they can’t afford to live, not because we don’t know how to save them.
It is thought that about half of all cancers diagnosed are preventable. Healthy lifestyles, eating well and avoiding undue stress are all sup- posed to help reduce the risk. Now of course it is possible that you could do all these things and still get cancer. Sometimes it just happens. Yet there is not enough well written and well-presented information available to the general public.
Of course there is always one study or another being published telling us to avoid bacon, or eat more fruit. Yet these are often contradictory and the result of specific research. (It is also important to note who requested or sponsored the study).
This is because it is a lot more lucrative to treat a disease than cure it. The problems within the pharmaceutical industry extend much further than putting a price on human life.
It has recently been discovered that huge multinational companies such as GlaxoSmithKline, Wyeth, Novartis and Pfizer have been bribing doctors in developing companies to prescribe their most expensive drugs. In return the doctors have received lavish dinners, air conditioners and even down payments on a car. Murad M Khan, professor and chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at Aga Khan University, told researchers that in Pakistan, ‘for writing 200 prescriptions of the company’s high priced drug, a doctor is rewarded with the down payment of a brand new car.’
It is unethical that this is allowed to take place. Not only does this mean that patients are out of pocket but they may not be receiving the best available treatment for what they need.

There are many different ways to attack a cancer, but there are generally two main battles. Your body must fight the disease with the help of drugs (which are effectively poisoning you) and your mind must fight. To succumb to the cancer, to allow it to become what defines you will allow it to defeat you. Dina Rabinovitch was just like that; she refused to let cancer take over her life like it had taken over her body.

It has been almost ten years now since I was pronounced clear of my lymphoma and having recently turned twenty it’s a good time to look back and see what I gained from the experience. I refuse to let it be a negative blight in my past. I don’t resent it for what I lost. I take the positives from it, the skills and the outlook that I gained.
It strengthened already strong friendships, allowed me to grow closer to my parents and I developed a new approach to life, which, for an 11-year old is a difficult concept to get your head around. I am not defined by my lymphoma, but it is most definitely a part of my past.

So it’s important to remember that there is unlikely to ever be an ‘ultimate cancer cure’. That is too big an umbrella term. The different cancers are just that: different. No single drug can deal with them all. These claims give false hope to many people all over the world. So even though the drugs are expensive and the pharmaceutical companies need pulling into line, it’s as much about the fight in your head as it is the one in your body. If anybody needs any advice on any of the issues in this article you can call Cancer Research on 020 7061 8355.