The British Medical Journal published an editorial a few days ago under the title:
Covid-19: Social murder, they wrote–elected, unaccountable, and unrepentant
Written by Kamran Abbasi, its executive editor, the core argument was this:
Murder is an emotive word. In law, it requires premeditation. Death must be deemed to be unlawful. How could “murder” apply to failures of a pandemic response? Perhaps it can't, and never will, but it is worth considering. When politicians and experts say that they are willing to allow tens of thousands of premature deaths for the sake of population immunity or in the hope of propping up the economy, is that not premeditated and reckless indifference to human life? If policy failures lead to recurrent and mistimed lockdowns, who is responsible for the resulting non-covid excess deaths? When politicians wilfully neglect scientific advice, international and historical experience, and their own alarming statistics and modelling because to act goes against their political strategy or ideology, is that lawful? Is inaction, action?1 How big an omission is not acting immediately after the World Health Organization declared a public health emergency of international concern on 30 January 2020?
It is then suggested that:
At the very least, covid-19 might be classified as “social murder,” as recently explained by two professors of criminology.
I would stress, that there is no such thing as social murder in British law. Whether that is a good or bad thing is open to debate. What is clear is that no one can be charged with an offence that does not exist. That said, I do wonder how far from manslaughter it might be?
I have three thoughts ion this article, which has been the subject of much debate in the Murphy household over the last few days.
The first is to ask whether this is a useful concept. My suggestion is that it is. In a recent post I suggested that I thought the primary goal of the government was to protect people from fear. I suggested that our government was not doing that. One way in which it fails is by not protecting them from unnecessary early death.
Second, the question has to be asked if the successive failings of the government on Covid 19 might meet this criterion? Opinions will differ. I think that there is a priority in the government to secure short term political gain over securing the well-being of people. I strongly suspect that the current vaccine programme might fail for this reason, as have many previous supposed efforts to tackle this crisis before it.
Third, why has this not been discussed in the mainstream media? It is as if there was a D notice on it. Doctors are suggesting our politicians might be committing social murder and the press does not notice. How does that happen? Is it that this is just not 'nice', or is there an unquestioning conspiracy to support that process? I wish I knew.
The one thing I am sure of is that this question will not go away.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I’ve not read the original article, but perhaps this sort of deliberate social neglect leading to avoidable death (particularly as it affects some social groups more than others) could be considered genocide or a crime against humanity.
Here is the cited source article.
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n314
It is powerful indeed as are some of the responses to it. One in particular by Holly Young, Consultant in Palliative Medicine, which highlights ongoing injustices in terms of the broader public health perspective. The author, IMHO, rightly points out the negative impacts of Govt’s poor policy decisions in respect of the management of C-19, which will be felt through the coming years.
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n314/rapid-responses
How does the Press not notice something: usually because they do not wish to notice it; it isn’t deemed part of the quasi-official ‘Agenda’, and they would rather ignore it. This is the British Press, something someway short of providing the public with an ‘impartial spectator’; and that includes the BBC.
There is a concept of corporate manslaughter applicable where there is a gross breach of a duty of care. The offence applies to the corporation itself rather than individuals. Individuals are prosecutable under Health and Safety legislation. It is possible that these current laws could/should apply to governments and ministers where a breach in a duty of care can be proven.
Social murder would extend this to individuals as prosecuting a government has no meaningful remedy
Interesting line of questioning and I, like most, will have more questions than answers. Policy is always a trade off and also there is always a trade between Liberty and well being..
For example there around 28,000 people killed or seriously injured in our roads every year and mainly these are The Young fit and healthy – should we ban driving?
Similar arguments with smoking, drinking etc…
Are these further examples of social murder through a failure of the Govt to legislate in favour of protecting human life?
Maybe, yes
But every though it is absolutely 100% certain to save many lives and serious injuries road travel is not going to banned neither is the consumption of alcohol.. even though they fall into your definition of social murder..it’s comes back to the policy trade off and impact on civil liberties. Likewise we can’t maintain lockdown until everyone is vaccinated and the virus 100% eliminated.
No one is suggesting we should
But there are many who know a great deal more about this than me who are seeing planned unblocking timetables are utterly recklkess
# Steve Jones – February 7 2021 at 12:08 pm
Policy can improve BOTH well-being and liberty.
Reducing urban traffic speeds to a blanket 20mph is proven to reduce casualties, See the evidence for the casualty reductions here:
https://www.20splenty.org/20mph_casualty_reduction
All residents benefit from lower casualties, lower stress, lower anxiety, freedom to let their child out, for example to go down the street to get some shoppng,
Here is the summary paragraph from this briefing
“Overall, therefore, it appears reasonable to assert that:
Where speeds are reduced to a maximum of 20mph in built-up areas a decline in casualties of more than 40% will occur.
In built-up areas, on non-arterial roads, where the speed limit is reduced from 30mph to 20mph there is typically an average decline in casualties of at least 20%.”
70% of the public want this speed limit. Wales is on the verge of introducing twenty as the default speed limit in urban areas nation – wide. See the same website.
20’s PLENTY – and it will come. Do help it along.
As a disabled person we have lived since 2009 under a hostile environment that has contributed to thousands of excess deaths, (the UN reported on this in 2016/17 https://www.inclusionlondon.org.uk/campaigns-and-policy/comment-and-media/austerity-policies-created-human-catastrophe-un-committee-chair-condemns-uks-record-human-rights/ saying there were ‘grave and systemic’ human rights abuses that had caused a ‘human catastrophe’ for disabled people) we have used the term Democide for this structural social murder by cumulative policy effects.
Democide is a wholly appropriate term
I think if any death that with the benefit of retrospective analysis is thought to be preventable becomes classified as “social murder” by the government who are then subject to criminal prosecution – then every government in history is guilty. It isn’t a helpful label.
Anybody who has to make quick decisions based on scanty data is going to find that some of them don’t turn out optimal. The real problem is that the electorate don’t understand that the governments they vote for really ought to be chosen for their likely competence in such a situation, not whether they succeed in having better PR.
(I am not trying to be defensive of a government who I do think have done a few things with easily predictable consequences of increasing infections, for which they should be held to account, but to point out that a blanket accusation of blame for “social murder” is not a helpful contribution to discussion).
The bar would have to be high
That does not mean that there shouldn’t be one
I think it is a fact of history, whether we like it or not, that “social murder” eventually ends up with actual murders – the murders of the social murder perpetrators by a revolutionary movement…..if there isn’t a judicial alternative e.g prosecution for “crimes against humanity” then angry citizens will eventually “take the law into their own hands”. Could get nasty.
The difference between France and England.
https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fworld%2F2019%2Fdec%2F20%2Fformer-france-telecom-bosses-jailed-over-workplace-bullying&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cf371e1c1749548880d0e08d8cba2e728%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637483247802092404%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=wBkSBahgXEI34MDgwVDQT4hmgtcivvp5JJTql3D3BsQ%3D&reserved=0
Thanks for that Andy – it is a good example of the possibility of judicial means to address “social murder” – it would be a good idea to enshrine this in a Scottish constitution I think. I will suggest it to the Constitution for Scotland team.
https://constitutionforscotland.scot/
Please feel free Jim but my purpose in posting was twofold :-
1. To show real bullying in action as compared to the fictitious nonsense dreamed up against Alex Salmond.
2. To highlight hypocrisy. The same ethics seemed to disappear when French owned Dunlop sold their Dundee employees down the river.
As an afterthought you also have Abellio (Dutch owned) who are remarkably unsuccessful in running their Scottish Rail Franchise yet remarkably successful in running their German based Franchise. I wonder why that is.
No I’m afraid there comes a time when events catch up and ‘holding your nose’ just becomes too painful.
So after 42 years as an Independence supporter that time has come for me. Things that didn’t make sense have coalesced in my mind and they now make sense and it’s scary. It would take too long to elaborate
Suffice to say I look at both the Scottish and Westminster Governments and then I look at the British people and I realise the old saying ‘Lions led by Donkeys’ should be changed to ‘Lions led by Hyenas’
At this point, and not even just about covid, you would have a hard time convincing me that there were more than a handful of people in the entire US government that aren’t explicitly trying to murder as many poor people as possible.
There’s another way at this. In many cases people and organisations have a duty of care to those affected by what they do. Not being a lawyer I don’t know whether the government and cabinet ministers personally have such a legal duty – though clearly they should have. But if they do then they could, should, be prosecuted.
Perhaps there is some notable lawyer – a former DPP perhaps – who could take up the case pro bono?
We also need to remember, as well as the obscene and needless number of deaths from Covid19, the research by UCL, also published in the BMJ.
It outlined the cuts to health/social/welfare due to unnecessary austerity measures where we know the rich became more obscenely rich and the poor died!!!
As I recall the research stated that 45,000 had died between 2010 and 2014 because of these cuts and at time of their writing, they predicted a further 150,000 would die. ( Little did they know what was to come)
Vital alarming research that was ignored yet again with the continued roll out of Universal Credit and sanctions, our already vulnerable most affected.
So we need to add those numbers to the current losses and tragically there will be more Covid deaths and many more excess deaths as a result of increased poverty and health /social/welfare neglect.
If you take the circa 120,000 deaths due to Gidiot’s “austerity” measures add in the 130,000 of Covid and you have 250,000 dead people with more than half that could be classed as poor (Covid deaths have a bias towards the poor). All this under Toryscum governments.
One conclusion one can draw: Toryscum don’t like the poor and have implemented policies to remove them.
Moving back to the 1930s, “Nazis don’t like Jews and have implemented policies to remove them.”
Thus with respect to history we have “positioned” current toryscum governments.
Doubtless workhouses/camps for the poor & those without housing will follow, soon.
In fairness to the toryscum – they invented concentration camps, in South Africa in circa 1900/1901.
As for a court case against the toryscum gov, it will be weaponised by the toryscum with the usual lefty-lawyer characterisation.
Indeed Mike and did not a Tory on Question Time, try to justify the use of those very concentration camps, claiming it was to protect the people.
He forgot to mention the ‘Scorched Earth Policy,’ that was adopted, the burning down of the farms, poisoning wells etc that forced the people to be interred in these dreadful camps where they were definitely not safeguarded.
The camps were overcrowded, people starved and there was very poor hygiene, resulting in typhoid, measles and dysentery killing 28,000, 22,000 of which were reportedly children!
No one challenged him on this as I remember, apart from Grace Blakeley.
[…] Cross-posted from Tax Research UK […]