An icy lack of clemency

Of course, China had the right to execute Akmal Shaikh, under its own judicial system - but it did not need to exercise that right. It was clear that Mr Shaikh was mentally ill but the Chinese, who held him for two years, displayed a flagrant disregard for his mental health. They refused to let him undergo a mental check before executing him. This is utterly unforgivable - especially from a new superpower.

Perhaps there is a feeling that the Chinese authorities refused to show clemency because they wanted to seem strong in the face of international condemnation. They wanted to show that they would stand by their judicial system and not appease interational diplomatic pressure. There is a strong sense that in this case, the authorities were not directly considering the case at hand, but making an audacious statement that China will not bow to international pressure.

However, regardless of this case, there is a serious need for reform in China. Even if they do not acknowledge that Mr Shaikh's human rights were flagrantly disregarded, they cannot hide from their abominable human rights record.

Britain's Achilles' Heels

It is a depressing thought: billions have been splurged on a myriad of anti-terrorism measures overseas and domestically - yet we have not adquately addressed the dilemma of radicalization in our own backyard. This is our Achilles' heels. All other measures are rendered futile if we do not tackle the problem of alienated young people groomed by radicals.

The Christmas Day airline bomb plot suspect was one of those targeted. He studied in UCL, London and was presumably taken advantage of and brainwashed. A 23 year-old graduate was just a few seconds away from killing hundreds.

This underlines a deeper problem in our society. If educated young people are susceptible to radicalisation in the heart of London, there a grave problem. We must not allow these people to have such easy access to impressionable young people.

RBS bonuses: a necessary evil.

RBS and the Treasury have reached an impasse, with key executives threatening to quit if their bonuses are capped.

Last year, when RBS sunk, the government had two options: let it sink and risk a 1930s-style Depression or face "moral hazard." They were tossing a two-headed coin when tails was being demanded - an invidious position.

Now, comes the question about bonuses. It is the widespread belief that it is utterly immoral to fill the pockets of the executives when the rest bear the brunt of the recession - even more so when the taxpayer kept RBS afloat.

Nevertheless, however vehementely we disagree with bonuses in such a sombre period, it is in our interests. RBS needs to remain competitive. 84% of the bank is state-owned, and thus, if the bank is to return our money in the long-term, they must be competitive. This will not happen if the Treasury meddles with their bonuses: those at the top will leave and the bank will crumble. They will go to the other top four banks - exactly what the government do not want. So although we despise bonuses, it would be counter-productive to cap them.

However, that does not mean to say that bonuses by its very nature is a good thing. That would be grossly wrong. The insidious culture of bonuses needs to be reformed - but that cannot be achieved by targeting one bank by itself - the whole system needs to be changed collectively.

Just as the smoke dissipated...

Just as the smoke started to dissipate...the fire was re-lit. A debt-laden Dubai state corporation, Dubai World, has suggested it may need to default on its interest bill.

The panic and uncertainty was fuelled by the fact that it a national holiday in the Middle East and USA, celebrating Eid and Thanksgiving respectively.

Shares plunged; weak currencies were hit; and £14 billion was lost by UK banks. Speculation and low confidence was not helped when a computer crash at the London Stock Exchange stopped trading for more than three hours (!)

However, it has to be noted that these debt of $80 billion are just chicken feed in comparison to bank bailouts. Therefore, if British Banks like HSBC and Standard Chartered did have to write off their loans, it would not dent their balance sheets beyond repair. What will be burnt to ashes is confidence: investment in Dubai could totally dry up.

Although this disaster has taken place in Dubai, there could be major repercussions around the world. Not only have British banks lent to businesses in the Gulf, but Dubai owns lots of assets in Britain - from part of the London Stock Exchange to Legoland to Travel Lodge.

For now we just have to hold our breath and wait for their emirate brother, Abu Dhabi, to put out the fire.

Fit for a hero?

Where are you based? "Airports around the world." Not a fugitive, not a homeless person or a lunatic; this was the response from Shirin Ebadi, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, who has campaigned against infringements of human rights in Iran.

A character of this calibre has been effectively "threatened with death" by the Iranian government because she is a prominent figure who continues to denounce the regime. Officials in Iran have beaten up her husband and brother telling them to mute Dr. Ebadi.

Dr. Ebadi has raised awareness of the recent alleged electoral fraud and fought against the brutality towards protestors, opponents and the plethora of other grave human rights abuses. They claim she is conspiring against the state.

The Recession's Winners

Sub-prime mortgages have been the catalyst for a disastrous recession: bank loans dried up; consumer confidence and demand plummeted; large and small firms went into liquidation; and unemployment is still rising.

However, for some companies, their adroitness has taken advantage of this recession. It was the most poignant moment of the recession when, one year today, Woolworth's crumbled - an unrivalled loss for customers and the high street. However, it left a gaping gap the market. Woolworth's held 14% of the market share for toys received. Those boots were quickly filled by competitors. Amongst many others, a notable beneficiary, was HMV who saw a rise in profits by 17%.

It is debatable how much of this rise can be attributed to competitors closing down: the government have pumped billions into the economy as part of the quantitative easing programme to bring liquidity to the markets, and thus increase lending and consumer demand.

Behind the Curtains: Secret Loans

Today the Bank of England revealed that it lent RBS and HBOS £61.6bn, in an attempt to rescue the banks, last autumn. The move was rightly done in order to "prevent a loss of confidence spreading through the financial system."

The country has been treated like little children. The shocking truth has been kept from us for so long.

However, these measures must be seen in context. The loans were given as a "lender of last resort" at the height of the panic, just two weeks after the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

The Bank of England also announced an increase in its quantitative easing programme to inject liquidity into the market, and thus encourage banks to loan responsibly to the public.