Post

@IPBES

More from @SteB777

Stephen Barlow

@SteB777

Dec 4

"Wes Streeting orders review of mental health diagnoses as benefit claims soar

Health secretary has asked experts to investigate whether normal feelings have become ‘over-pathologised’"

This outrageous neoliberal ideology. The idea that normal feelings have been over pathologised, is a right wing talking point, emanating from right wing think tanks. The only medical people who support this perspective, are right wing ideologues.
theguardian.com/society/2025/d…
1/🧵

What is ironic, is there's massive evidence, that neoliberal doctrine, which Wes Streeting is an arch exponent of, he is a neoliberal extremist, is hugely contributing to a rise in mental illness. It is giving people mental illness, by not seeing them as fully human, but consuming units. Simply cogs in the machine.

Neoliberal extremists like Wes Streeting, are only looking at the increase in those claiming benefits for these illnesses. It is not looking at the other dimensions of an increasing in mental illness, which have nothing to do with claiming benefits. In other words, there is a huge increase in mental health problems, with those in work, and not seeking benefits.

The right wing press, continuously pumps out this false idea, outright disinformation and propaganda, that people just go along to their GP, and say they are feeling mildly anxious or a bit down, and the next thing they are receiving maximum disability benefits and PIP. This is almost the diametric opposite of reality, where it is increasingly difficult to get mental health diagnoses, because of this prevailing neoliberal dogma, which assumes anyone with a mental health problem, is swinging the lead.

Labour itself, has contributed to this, by previously introducing fitness for work tests, run by private companies, under the New Labour regime (founded on extreme neoliberal doctrine.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC81…
2/

What is outrageous about this, is that unqualified, propaganda from the oligarch owned right wing press, oligarch funded right wing think tanks, is the basis for setting up a presumably very expensive review, where we can expect, extreme political pressure, and cherry-picking of this review.

Essentially, neoliberal extremists like Wes Streeting, are trying to raise the bar of scepticism, so that anyone saying they are mentally struggling, will be disbelieved, and presumed to be exaggerating their symptoms, to get benefits, which are not very generous at all.

The reason this is so dangerous, is that it is very easy to claim someone is exaggerating symptoms of mental distress, simply because it is necessary to take someone's word for what they are experiencing.

There is the very real danger, that this could result in an increase in suicide rates, which have fallen (most of the fall being prior to 2000) substance abuse, and crime.
3/

Read 7 tweets

Stephen Barlow

@SteB777

Dec 3

"Hillsborough families decry ‘bitter injustice’ that no officers will face disciplinary proceedings"

We see this time and time again, not just with the police, but all officials, politicians and establishment figures. They are rarely held responsible for even terrible crimes.

The system, uses exactly the same method for achieving these aims. Dragging it out for as long as possible, to let them retire, or die of old age, before the truth comes out.

The Hillsborough Disaster, happened in 1989, and the basic facts, were in official circles, widely known at the time. The way in which the basic truths, were only officially acknowledged, 36 years later, was not an accident. It isn't that this sometimes happens, it always happens.

I cannot think of a single example, where the truth and the facts, were acknowledged and established at the time, so those responsible, could be held properly accountable.

This always happens. Not, it happens sometimes.
theguardian.com/football/2025/…
1/🧵

For a long time, I have had a fully worked out hypotheses, supported by all the circumstantial evidence, of why this happens. The system, is fundamentally corrupt. If anything happens, that calls into question the honesty, and moral rectitude of the system, the whole establishment, works together, to cover-up what went wrong.

This need to lie and cover-up, is what makes the system, fundamentally corrupt. Often, the cover-up, involves far more serious crime and dishonesty, than what they are covering up. They are compelled to lie.

I think the reason, it's very rare for someone to be held criminally responsible for their actions, is very simple.

If the people responsible, were held criminally responsible, and dealt with and sentenced appropriately, they'd have no reason for keeping quiet. In their defence, they'd tell everything they knew, and this would be truly embarrassing for the whole system.

So they are not held legally accountable, so they keep their loyalty to the system, and don't tell the public what they know.
2/

Of course, it is impossible to prove this, because most of what happened behind the scenes, the full picture, of who did what, is kept highly secret.

But the circumstantial evidence of what goes on, is so overwhelming, that there is no doubt, whatsoever, about this.

As I say, there is not one single official scandal, that is not covered up like this. Whereas is the example, where those responsible, were held to account, and criminally tried for their actions? I cannot think of one single example of this.

Each one of these scandals and cover-ups, is treated as if it were a shocking one off incident. Despite the fact, they happen all the time, and never are those clearly responsible, held responsible for their actions.
3/

Read 5 tweets

Stephen Barlow

@SteB777

Nov 30

"Water shortages could derail UK’s net zero plans, study finds"

What this demonstrates is a complete lack of joined up thinking. Climate and other government environmental planning, is incoherent and unrealistic. This is not confined to the UK.

This incoherence and unrealistic planning, demonstrating a lack of joined up thinking (making all government planning coherent), seems to result from not taking the climate and ecological crisis seriously. Putting economic growth first, even though there will be huge economic impacts.

Overall, things like Net Zero, seem more like a list ticking exercise, so politicians can pretend they have done their duty, whilst doing very little to nothing.

As I keep trying to get across, politicians and economists, have a totally unrealistic grasp of dealing with near term, climate and ecological impacts, which are going to be far more severe than envisaged.
theguardian.com/environment/20…
1/🧵

It's not exactly clear, what is going on here. Are mainstream politicians just plain ignorant and in denial? This explanation is not really credible, because there are informed and honest scientists, who will give realistic evaluations if asked.

The #NationalEmergencyBriefing on 27 November, gave a realistic assessment, by expert scientists and planners, on the situation we face, but major mainstream politicians and economists, just ignored it, as they always do.

When I say it's not clear what is going on, I mean the actual thinking of senior government figures, and most mainstream, senior politicians. The mainstream media and senior journalists are not fit for purpose, in that they refuse to challenge the senior figures in the government, to explain their thinking.
nebriefing.org
2/

There are a number of scenarios about what is going on. That senior politicians and economists, do have a coherent view of the situation, which is clearly unrealistic, to the point of being delusional. What I mean by this, is that they are guided by misinformed and scientific ignorant, economists, or powerful vested interests, who insist the climate and ecological threat is greatly overstated.

Maybe they are just massively ignorant, and reckless, and are just burying their heads in the sand. As I say, it is impossible to know, and until they face serious scrutiny, to uncover their knowledge, who is briefing them, there is not much point speculating, as we are just guessing.

However, what we can be absolutely certain of, is that government planning, all governments, not just this one, are ignorant, reckless, dangerous and irrational. They are not true leaders, they are the representatives of vested interests, just pretending to be in control.

They are pursuing AI, and totally unrealistic negative emissions technology, NETs, which as the first report says, will create massive future water shortages. The question is why? Is it, that governments are actually powerless to stand up to oligarch/billionaires, and big corporations, or are they are just plain corrupt, and totally indifferent to the public interest and safety?
3/

Read 4 tweets

Stephen Barlow

@SteB777

Nov 29

"Revealed: Europe’s water reserves drying up due to climate breakdown"

Future climate related water shortages, are one of the near future challenges we face. Yet, our leadership, is remarkably indifferent to these threats.

However, the big challenge, is how these near future threats interact. You can without much difficulty, see how water shortages, combined with agricultural yield, and how water shortages could cripple industry, and the economy.

Nevertheless, these interactions are far too simplistic, because there are a myriad way, near future climate impacts, are going to interact, and most have never even been thought of.
theguardian.com/environment/20…
1/🧵

As I have pointed out with regard to the danger of climate induced civilization collapse, no one, no field of science, no institution, has ever systematically studied the resilience of our societies, and our civilization, to climate and ecological impacts.

Some well known scientists, who have dismissed the possibility of civilization collapse, as unscientific, because there are no scientific papers supporting this concern, are not being scientific. Because there has never been scientific research into this, so of course there are no papers supporting a scenario, that has never been examined. Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.

Don't take my word for it, that this has never been studied, read the paper linked to.

I have always been very unsettled, for well over 40 years, why no one has been looking into this.

As a graduate in ecology, I realize the practical difficulties. When you look at interactions on this scale, the complexity is overwhelming, and well beyond anything else, ever successfully modelled.

However, even if the conclusion of such a well funded study, was that it was far too complex to investigate, using any known scientific methodology, it would be useful, if only to tell us that we were playing with fire, and flying blind.

I don't know, how conscious scientists/governments have been about the failure to study this. Is it a case of they just don't want to know, because they already know this, because they know the conclusions would be very frightening. Or is it some sort of unconscious denial?

You could only really establish this, if some sort of parliamentary committee investigated this, and asked tough questions of key politicians and scientists, to find out why such a vitally important topic, has never been investigated.
pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pn…
2/

The reason I am wary of starting to explain the level of interaction, I'm talking about. Is that just to illustrate the problem with examples, would be highly misleading. In that it would give the false impression, that this is what the future danger is, whereas in reality, it is this, and far, far more.

We can see this with future water shortages. Yes, you can illustrate it with people's taps running dry, the immediate and direct impacts. But this is just the tip of the iceberg, as water is so central, to so many everyday things, that it would totally disrupt everything. Our societies, political stability, food supplies, and biodiversity, which is taken for granted, as are the myriad ecosystem services it provides. Most of it, which we have never even thought about, until the absence of those ecosystem services, hit us hard.
3/

Read 4 tweets

Stephen Barlow

@SteB777

Nov 23

https://x.com/SteB777/status/1992271771475608051

I want to make it clear, why I so often hark back to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. There is a very powerful reason for doing his. I hadn't just become environmentally aware then. In fact, I'd become environmentally aware over 20 years earlier, and was 32, starting an ecology degree as a mature student.

In other words, I had a very clear impression of the time and the lead up to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, because here, was the things I had passionately believed in for over 20 years, finally being addressed. It was a time of incredible optimism by the environmentally aware. Finally politicians were taking the ecological and climate crisis seriously, and were going to address the problem. Rather, it seemed that way at the time.
1/🧵

https://x.com/SteB777/status/1992271771475608051

I attended a seminar around the time I started university, a panel of leading scientists. The chair of the panel, Professor Alan Wellburn, then probably the leading expert on air pollution, opened by saying, now we know what the problem is, we can address it.

I was troubled by this, and had the temerity to stand up and challenge this narrative. I said most of this situation, was actually known at the time of the 1972 UN Environment Conference, and the only reason the 1992 Rio Earth Summit happened, was because in 1983, the UN was alarmed that no progress had been made on the agreed action plan, of the 1972 UN Environment conference, and they set up the Brundtland Commission.
un.org/en/conferences…
2/

Before, I go on, I want to make it clear what my real point is. THE BIG problem, is this sense of progress. So much so, that people, including those who should no better, insist that it is only recently, that humanity understood how serious the climate crisis is, and that somehow back in 1992, there was little understanding of our predicament. No one believes me, when I say people took the climate crisis, far more seriously than they take it now.

I have seen environmental journalists, state that until Al Gore's 2006 movie, An Inconvenient Truth, most of the public had never heard of the climate crisis. I have to pinch myself. It is possible that public awareness of the climate crisis, was greater in 1989, than it is now. Don't take my words for it.

"These authors presented findings from separately conducted national polls that showed that whereas in 1986 less than a half of respondents (between 39 and 45%) reported having heard or read anything about climate change, this proportion rose to around three-quarters (74%) of respondents by 1990."

That's right, by 1990, 74% of the public were aware of climate change, and public climate change denial, was almost unknown.
wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.100…
3/

Read 9 tweets

Stephen Barlow

@SteB777

Nov 23

"Boris Johnson ‘beyond contempt’ for attack on Covid inquiry’s findings and refusal to apologise"

Boris Johnson was totally unfit for public office, and he has got a record of refusing to take responsibility for lies and errors, that goes back to his school days.

1/🧵independent.co.uk/news/uk/politi…

Max Hastings, himself a staunch Conservative, warned people about the dangers of Boris Johnson becoming PM, many years before he became PM.

What's more, Max Hastings was his former boss, as editor of the Telegraph and has known him, his whole working life, where Johnson was first forced to resign as a journalist, for making stuff up, and then as Shadow Culture Secretary, for lying to then Conservative Party leader, Michael Howard, about an affair he'd had. He is an unrepentant serial liar.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
2/

Johnson's schoolmaster said this about him.

'The report, from classics master Martin Hammond to Stanley Johnson in 1982, criticised the 17-year-old for thinking he should be free of the "network of obligation that binds everyone".

The teacher also said Johnson "believes it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception".'
thenational.scot/news/19858214.…
3/

Read 8 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Stephen Barlow

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @SteB777

Stephen Barlow

Stephen Barlow

Stephen Barlow

Stephen Barlow

Stephen Barlow

Stephen Barlow

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!