Acceptable Deaths.

          How the state spends your money gives an indication of its priorities. Here in the UK, and I don't think other states are much different, counter-terrorism is a top priority, there will always be more money for that particular state fear. A recent Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, raised the counter-terrorism budget to £757 million, with a more recent increase of £50 million on top of that. The counter terrorism budget has increased by more than 30% since 2015.
       The likelihood of being killed by a terrorist in this country is approximately 1-in 2.2 million. Compare this with number of people killed on our roads, approximately 2.8 deaths per 100,000, has road safety seen a 30% funding increase recently?

 

       Another source of deaths in this country, and other developed countries, is air pollution. Each year, inhaling particulates causes around 29,000 deaths in the UK, which, on recent evidence, may rise to around 40,000 deaths when also considering nitrogen dioxide from diesel engines. 

 

       Then there is the humble cyclist, in 2016, 18,477 cyclists were injured in reported road accidents, including 3,499 who were killed or seriously injured. Where is the 30% increase in funding for safer cycle lanes?

 

 

       Why the lavish 30% increase in funding for counter-terrorism, but no similar increase for other forms of avoidable deaths? Could it be that the powers that be see terrorism as a threat to the state, while the other causes of avoidable deaths simply affect that disposable product, the humble citizen?

      We will only get our priorities right when we take control of our lives, our communities, and our work places. Only when we wrestle control from the hands of that cabal of leeches and parasites who are steeped in their vested interests and ill-gotten wealth, will we be able to create that society that sees to the needs of all its citizens, freed from the vested interest of privilege and power. 

Visit ann arky's home at radicalglasgow.me.uk