radiofree.asia

Category: UK

  • There’s still hope for Julian Assange in his battle to avoid US trial

    Home secretary Priti Patel will decide before the end of May whether to recommend Julian Assange‘s extradition to the US. The WikiLeaks founder is accused of 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion.

    Patel’s recommendation will have implications for journalists everywhere, not just in the UK or US. But her recommendation is not necessarily the end of the matter. Because Assange’s lawyers can still apply to appeal earlier court rulings.

    Further appeals

    On 14 March, defence lawyers released a statement following a Supreme Court decision. The statement explained that they have an opportunity to put arguments against extradition to Patel.

    Crucially, it added:

    No appeal to the High Court has yet been filed by him [Assange] in respect of the other important issues he raised previously in Westminster Magistrates’ Court. That separate process of appeal has, of course, yet to be initiated.

    Former UK ambassador Craig Murray argued such appeals would likely consider:

    • the misuse of the extradition treaty which specifically prohibits political extradition;
    • the breach of the UNCHR Article 10, right of freedom of speech;
    • the misuse of the US Espionage Act;
    • the use of tainted, paid evidence from a convicted fraudster who has since publicly admitted his evidence was false;
    • the lack of foundation to the hacking charge.

    Grounds for appeal

    The Canary has already published several legal arguments as to why the prosecution’s case against Assange is flawed. Some of them are as follows:

    • The indictment includes a charge of conspiring (with Chelsea Manning) to commit computer intrusion. Yet what happened between Assange and his source is what any journalist does: to encourage the supply of further information and offer protection.
    • The charges raised are political. Some of the world’s most high-profile media outlets directly partnered with WikiLeaks to publish content from leaked documents – but were not prosecuted.
    • According to one US judge, WikiLeaks is protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

    The Canary has also reported on how a star prosecution witness – a convicted felon and paedophile – fabricated evidence in exchange for a deal with the FBI. Under English law, where a law enforcement agency is shown to have directly fabricated or colluded in the falsification of evidence, this provides grounds for dismissal of a prosecution case or of convictions. A famous example of this was the Guildford Four case.

    And then there are the revelations that the CIA plotted the potential kidnap, rendition, and murder of Assange.

    State vs public interest

    The Assange case should also be seen in the context of other cases that are of legal relevance.

    Katharine Gun worked as a translator for GCHQ. In 2003, she leaked a copy of a classified memo from the NSA. The memo requested that GCHQ monitor the communications of certain UN delegates. This was to pressurise them to support the US and UK in their intended invasion of Iraq. Gun later argued that the US and UK were attempting to either blackmail, bribe or threaten those delegates and their countries.

    The leaked memo ended up with the Observer, which ran a front page story on it. Subsequently, Gun owned up to the leak and some months later was charged under the Official Secrets Act.

    When Special Branch asked Gun why she leaked the memo, given that she worked for the British government, she poignantly replied:

    No, I work for the British people. I do not gather intelligence so the government can lie to the British people.

    In court, Gun’s lawyer threatened to disclose material that could question the legal basis of the war. At that point, UK authorities announced that they won’t proceed with the prosecution. Labour cabinet minister Clare Short suspected the prosecution was dropped “because they do not want the light shone on the attorney general’s advice [that the war was legal]”.

    As with Gun, the Assange case boils down to the question of whose interests a journalist should serve – that of the state or of the public? Assange’s lawyers compared him to Gun during the extradition hearings.

    (Official Secrets, starring Keira Knightly, is a film version of what happened to Gun.)

    When surveillance equates to a break-in

    Renowned whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg profoundly admired what Gun did. As reported in The Canary, Ellsberg also offered his unequivocal support to Assange.

    In 1971, Ellsberg was responsible for leaking the History of US Decision-making in Vietnam 1945-68 to the New York Times and Washington Post. The 7,000-page document became known as the ‘Pentagon Papers’. And it provided an insight into top-secret US decision-making during the Vietnam War.

    As with Assange, Ellsberg was charged with violations under the Espionage Act. Crucially, however, the whistleblower’s prosecution was dropped. This was after it became known that president Richard Nixon had organised a break-in of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office and the FBI had organised wiretapping.

    In Assange’s case, there was also a breach of confidentiality. Surveillance company UC Global secretly filmed Assange with his lawyers inside the Ecuadorian embassy. The company then allegedly passed the footage on to contacts with links to US intelligence.

    Right to protect sources

    In March, a UK court ruled that investigative journalist and former Labour MP Chris Mullin was right in refusing to disclose names of those who cooperated in his investigation into the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings. Back in 2019, The Canary had reported that Special Branch knew the real bombers’ identities as far back as 1975.

    In Assange’s case, the prosecution argued that his attempt to protect a source – Chelsea Manning – equated to collusion. In contrast, the UK courts ruled that Mullin had every right to protect his sources. Moreover, Mullin emphasised that this forms the basis of a free press.

    Conflict of interest

    A number of articles have also exposed a potential conflict of interest by Emma Arbuthnot, who presided as judge in the earlier stages of the extradition hearings:

    • On 17 June 2019, The Canary revealed that Arbuthnot’s husband James had extensive links with the intelligence community.
    • Later that month, The Canary published details of a search on the WikiLeaks database that showed James Arbuthnot was mentioned in 62 files, including a US secret cable.
    • On 14 November 2019, Declassified UK claimed that Emma Arbuthnot benefited financially from organisations exposed by WikiLeaks.
    • Declassified UK also revealed that Arbuthnot’s son is “the vice-president and cyber-security adviser of a firm heavily invested in a company founded by GCHQ and MI5 which seeks to stop data leaks”. That same firm invested in Darktrace, which “appears to have been established in response to data leaks from [Chelsea] Manning to Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks and from NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden”.
    • More compromising revelations regarding Arbuthnot’s husband were published by Declassified UK on 4 September 2020, exposing his links to a right-wing thinktank that had Priti Patel as financial beneficiary.
    • On 21 February 2020, Declassified UK revealed that James and Emma Arbuthnot were financial beneficiaries of two Foreign Office partner organisations, and one of these organisations had been exposed by WikiLeaks.

    All these revelations suggest that what we’ve been witnessing from the very beginning is little more than a show trial.

    A glimmer of hope

    Any one of the above concerns raised should, in theory, be enough to have the US extradition request dismissed. But first, any appeal requires High Court approval. And if that approval is given, there will be a glimmer of hope for Assange.

    Ultimately, the core defence for Assange can boil down to two fundamental arguments. These are: freedom of speech, and the right to publish information of wrong-doings in the public interest.

    Featured image via Wikimedia / Cancillería del Ecuador cropped 770×403 pixels

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Unions hit out at Grant Shapps’ plans to block industrial action

    Government plans for a minimum staffing requirement during rail strikes have been slammed as “desperate nonsense”.

    Unions reacted with anger to an interview in a Sunday newspaper by transport secretary Grant Shapps. It’s come just days before a ballot result set to bring the threat of a national rail strike closer.

    More than 40,000 members of the Rail, Maritime and Transport union (RMT) at Network Rail and train operators have been voting on whether to launch an industrial action campaign over jobs, pay and conditions.

    RMT general secretary Mick Lynch said he expected support for strikes when the ballot result is announced later this week. He told the PA news agency:

    We are asking for job security and a guarantee of no compulsory redundancies, and we will not accept imposition of detrimental pay and conditions.

    P&O Ferries announcement
    Mick Lynch of the RMT said his union would not accept detrimental pay and conditions (Gareth Fuller/PA)

    Making industrial action illegal

    Shapps told the Sunday Telegraph that ministers are looking at drawing up laws which would make industrial action illegal unless a certain number of staff are working.

    Referring to a pledge in the Conservative manifesto for minimum services during strikes, he said:

    We had a pledge in there about minimum service levels.

    If they really got to that point, then minimum service levels would be a way to work towards protecting those freight routes and those sorts of things.

    In response, Lynch said:

    Any attempt by Grant Shapps to make effective strike action illegal on the railways will be met with the fiercest resistance from RMT and the wider trade union movement.

    The Government need to focus all their efforts on finding a just settlement to this rail dispute, not attack the democratic rights of working people.

    Britain already has the worst trade union rights in Western Europe.

    We have not fought tooth and nail for railway workers since our forebears set up the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants in 1872, in order to meekly accept a future where our members are prevented from legally withdrawing their labour.

    Moreover, the Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association (TSSA) is also threatening industrial action in the same dispute. TSSA general secretary Manuel Cortes said:

    What we are seeing here is desperate nonsense from the Tories who have chosen to attack working people in our union who kept the railways running every single day of the pandemic.

    What the Government should be doing is putting in place measures to deal with the Tory cost of living crisis, including ensuring that wages keep pace with inflation.

    It’s laughable to see Grant Shapps scampering off to drip poison in the ears of journalists instead of backing polices to put our railways front and centre of our economic recovery from Covid. He should be ashamed.

    Frankly, the Tories can pass whatever law they wish to deny our members their fundamental rights – our union will defy their unjust and undemocratic laws every step of the way.

    The difference between a slave and a worker is the latter’s ability to withdraw their labour.

    TUC Congress 2015
    Manuel Cortes described the Tory plans as ‘desperate nonsense’ (Rick Findler/PA)

    Other unions vow to fight

    Other unions have also joined in to voice their criticism. TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady said:

    Ministers have spectacularly failed to deal with the cost of living crisis. Now they are trying to distract from their failure by picking a fight with unions.

    The right to strike is crucial in a free society.

    Threatening the right to strike tilts the balance in the workplace too far towards the employers. And it means workers can’t stand up for decent services and safety at work – or defend their jobs or pay.

    We will fight these unfair and unworkable proposals to undermine unions and undermine the right to strike, and we will win.

    TUC Congress 2019
    Frances O’Grady of the TUC said the Government was trying to pick a fight with the unions (Andrew Matthews/PA)

    Meanwhile Unite general secretary Sharon Graham said:

    Unite will confront head-on, and by whatever means necessary, any further attacks on the right to strike.

    In Britain we already operate under the most restrictive labour laws in western Europe. A workers’ right to withdraw their labour is inalienable in any democracy worth its name.

    This is a cynical, authoritarian move designed to protect corporate profits and has been wheeled out to satisfy the needs of short-term factional politics.

    While corporations make billions and ordinary working people suffer, this Government chooses to attack the rights of British workers.

    When P&O, a billion-dollar company owned by a foreign dictatorship, brutally sacked 800 British workers, they broke the law. The Government’s response was a fine.

    When British workers threaten to defend their living standards in the face of a cost-of-living crisis not of their making, this Government threatens to take away their democratic rights.

    We are now forced to put the Government on notice. Unite will not sacrifice the protection of our members’ jobs, pay and conditions on the altar of ‘partygate’. If you force our legitimate activities outside of the law, then don’t expect us to play by the rules.

    The RMT ballot closes on Tuesday 24 May, with the result expected on Wednesday.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Hundreds of grocery items more than 20% pricier over last two years

    Consumers have seen the price of hundreds of popular grocery items rise by more than 20% over the last two years. That’s alongside a drop in supermarket discounts and budget ranges, a study has found.

    Which? found that the price of 265 groceries soared by more than a fifth. And the availability of supermarket discounts and budget ranges – upon which consumers are increasingly relying – fell at the same time.

    The watchdog analysed prices of more than 21,000 groceries over two years. It compared their average prices at eight major supermarkets between the start of December 2021 and the end of February 2022 with the same period two years previously.

    Grocery items in the study

    Items included Kellogg’s Crunchy Nut Corn Flakes Cereal 500g, which increased by 21.4% at Tesco. Asda’s 250g Own Label Closed Cup Mushrooms rose by 21.4% in price. And Cathedral City Extra Mature Cheddar 350g rose by 21.1% at Ocado.

    Across 20 categories of groceries, fizzy drinks saw the biggest average price rise at 5.9%. This was followed by butters and spreads (4.9%), energy drinks (4.8%) and milk (4.6%).

    Groceries with the lowest inflation included chocolate (1.4%), fresh fruit (1.6%), biscuits (1.8%) and vegetables (1.9%).

    The study also found that across different supermarkets, there have been fewer discounts, limited availability of own-label budget ranges and products decreasing in size but remaining the same price over the same period.

    The number of promotions fell across every one of the 20 categories the watchdog studied. That’s including the number of discounts on bottled water down 14.7% and on vegetables down 11%.

    Meanwhile, the size of savings in promotions that did still happen were also cut in three-quarters of the categories. This was most pronounced for butters and spreads, where the size of savings fell by 3.6% over the two years, followed by vegetables (3.5%) and crisps (2.9%).

    Examples of ‘shrinkflation’ – reducing the size of product while maintaining the original price – included Walkers Classic Variety crisps dropping from 24 bags in a multipack to 22 bags.

    Own-brand budget ranges have seen the lowest level of inflation at just 0.2% compared with 3.2% for own-label premium ranges. But Which?’s investigation also found that these have become less available.

    Own-brand low in stock

    Budget own-brand items were unavailable on three times as many days during the most recent three-month period than two years previously, according to the study.

    Of the 20 product categories, own-brand cheese was out of stock the most at 17 days in 2022 compared with six days in 2019.

    Which? is calling on supermarkets to ensure that budget items are readily available. And it’s also calling on supermarkets and manufacturers to provide clear unit pricing such as cost per 100g or 100ml. This would allow consumers to easily compare and choose the best value items.

    Sue Davies, Which? head of food policy and consumer rights, said:

    Our research reveals that eye-watering price rises are being exacerbated by practices like shrinkflation and limited availability of all-important budget ranges – and these factors are combining to put huge pressure on household shopping budgets.

    During an unrelenting cost-of-living crisis, consumers should be able to easily choose the best value product for them without worrying about shrinkflation or whether their local store stocks budget ranges.

    British Retail Consortium director of food and sustainability Andrew Opie said:

    Rising inflation is a continued concern for both consumers and retailers. The global price of many food commodities has reached record highs over the last few months, pushing up prices for consumers. Other price pressures include increased energy, transport and labour costs, all of which are being exacerbated by the situation in Ukraine.

    Retailers will continue to do all they can to keep prices down and deliver value for their customers by limiting price rises and expanding their value ranges.

    In 2021, Tesco made an operating profit of £2.6bn; meanwhile Asda made a profit of £693m.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Government was wrong on risk of Aids to blood scandal victims, inquiry told

    A former junior health minister has agreed the Government was wrong in the 1980s to underplay the risk of Aids to those affected by the infected blood scandal, an inquiry has heard.

    Lord John Patten, a former Parliamentary under-secretary in the Department of Health between 1983 and 1985, told the Infected Blood Inquiry a leaflet to discourage people who were at high risk of contracting Aids from donating blood should have been distributed “faster”.

    The inquiry is examining how thousands of patients were infected with HIV and hepatitis C through contaminated blood products in the 1970s and 1980s.

    About 2,400 people died in what has been labelled the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS.

    A large amount of the infected products were imported from overseas, such as the US, after the UK failed to meet demand from patients, particularly from those with the blood-clotting condition haemophilia.

    Proactive

    On Friday, Patten said he had expressed an interest in dealing with Aids in 1983 amid increasing “public concern”.

    Lead counsel Jenni Richards QC, asked:

    Do you think that someone within the department should have been proactively asking whether there were steps that might be taken to reduce the risk to haemophiliacs?

    He replied:

    That’s an entirely reasonable question and without blaming anyone in the civil service, or the Department of Health, I suppose it causes at least one raised eyebrow.

    Now you ask me that question and I hadn’t asked myself that question that maybe people should have been putting up advice to ministers to say we should do something about it and indeed perhaps I should have thought that.

    But there is no documentation I think which helps me in saying who should or shouldn’t have done this.

    But I accept responsibility for anything that wasn’t done.

    Ms Richards also asked if it was “wrong ” for the Government “to suggest that the risk of Aids to haemophiliacs was “very small”.

    Patten simply answered:

    Yes.

    The inquiry heard he pushed to get an information leaflet to blood donors about Aids published “as soon as possible” in August of that year.

    It said that people should not donate blood if they think they have Aids.

    He wrote at the time:

    We need to do something, and for it to be known that we have done something, in case the worst does happen.

    Asked if the language in the leaflet was too cautious, Lord Patten replied:

    I must say on behalf of long ago, civil servants, particularly at this stage in the development of science and the low levels of testing that there had been, that I can see and empathise with them being tentative to a certain extent because they didn’t want ministers in particular to go around causing alarm which might not turn out to be justified.

    So I can understand the intellectual policy forming context that those words were used.

    I suspect turning the clock on, which we can’t do, another six months of a year they would not have phrased it in that way because by that stage there was much more information and we were more clear.

    Richards also asked if it took too long to publish the leaflet by the time it was issued in September.

    The former MP said:

    There’s always this very difficult judgment to make, particularly retrospectively between time reasonably taken and where that slides across into delay, which is a sort of judgmental world at that stage that there was a delay.

    I certainly think and believe that we could have got on with it faster.

    Downplayed risk

    The inquiry then heard about the Government’s line in 1983 that there was “no conclusive proof’” of Aids being transmitted through blood.

    Asked if this downplayed the risk, Patten said:

    Changing those words to ‘it is certain that’, I don’t think retrospectively at that particular moment it was certain because I don’t think the evidence was there.

    He also spoke of how junior ministers “are quite often told what they have got to say and accept that”.

    A letter sent to the Department of Health dated May 9 1983, before Patten was in his role, was also shown to the inquiry, which warned of the dangers of blood products.

    Asked if ministers should have been warned about the material, he responded:

    Yes, unequivocally.

    If I saw it I think I would have probably pressed the panic button because the information given at that time was a broad range of knowledge of what was happening.

    The Infected Blood Inquiry is being led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Langstaff.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Failure to save the Congo Basin forest ‘would mean world loses climate fight’

    Failing to conserve the carbon-rich forests of the Congo Basin would mean the world loses the fight against climate change, officials in Gabon have warned.

    The central African country’s sustainable forestry and rainforest conservation are storing carbon, helping wildlife and providing jobs – and should be supported as part of global efforts to address the climate and nature crises, they urge.

    The call comes after countries at the Cop26 summit in Glasgow made renewed commitments to reverse deforestation, and ahead of the “Nature Cop” in China later this year to agree a deal to protect the world’s wildlife.

    Gabon is part of the Congo Basin, with 88% of its land covered by tropical forests that are home to wildlife including critically endangered western gorillas and forest elephants and endangered chimpanzees.

    Forest elephants
    Forest elephants in Gabon (Alamy/PA)

    Coastal mangroves absorb carbon emissions and provide nurseries for young fish and crocodiles, and there are nesting sites for leatherback turtles on the country’s beaches, though the coasts are also affected by plastic waste.

    Out to sea – as well as offshore rigs for the oil that provide 60% of Gabon’s economy – humpback whales can be seen.

    Sustainable development

    Gabon’s Minister of Forests, Oceans, Environment and Climate Change Lee White said he would like to see countries such as the UK encourage companies to invest in sustainable development of forestry and fisheries in the country.

    And payments that support Gabon’s efforts to maintain the carbon absorption of its forests can help the world in its efforts to cut emissions to net zero.

    Omer Ntougou, adviser for Gabon’s national parks agency ANPN, said:

    There are countries creating carbon, and with our mangroves and forests we absorb the carbon. We would like to be paid for it.

    He added:

    We don’t want to cut (the forest), we want to protect it, we want others to help us to protect it.

    Prof White says Gabon has managed to achieve near-zero rates of deforestation through its forestry laws and is one of the most “carbon positive” countries on Earth, absorbing far more than it emits each year.

    Under the rules, loggers can only take two trees per hectare every 25 years and nature is left to regenerate.

    This allows the forest to capture more carbon than an unlogged forest, because the more open canopy lets light in and stimulates the growth of the remaining trees, Prof White said:

    In terms of climate change you can log the forest and still increase your carbon stock so you can save the forest by exploiting it.

    Government space agency Ageos uses satellites and drones to monitor and flag up illegal logging and forestry concessions that are breaching the laws.

    Economy shift

    Gabon is also trying to shift from an extractive economy in which raw materials such as logged trees are directly exported, keeping only 8% of the value of the timber and associated jobs in the country.

    The export of unprocessed logs was banned more than a decade ago and efforts have been made to encourage international companies to invest in processing factories in-country, including by establishing a free-trade zone.

    The vast, sprawling Nkok site outside the capital Libreville includes factories to create veneers, plywood and furniture from Gabon’s versatile Okoume tree and other species, as well as activated charcoal made from wood waste products.

    A Chinese factory making veneers from wood in Gabon (Emily Beament/PA)
    A Chinese factory making veneers from wood in Gabon (Emily Beament/PA)

    Factories on the site are expanding so fast, some even say they are struggling to get the logs they need for their operations.

    But creating a sustainable forestry industry with processing in-country can multiply the value of the sector and the jobs created by 10 times or more.

    Prof White said:

    In that way, we make the forest more precious. If the forest is precious and valuable to the Gabonese, then there’s much more chance we will nurture the forest than if it has no value.

    Preserving the forest is important not just for Gabon but for the world, he warns:

    We know today that we are on the edge of a climate crisis if we are not already in it.

    If we lose the Congo Basin, we lose the fight against climate change.

    Climate change and the loss of natural services provided by the Congo Basin rainforest, such as rainfall to the Sahel region of Africa and for the Nile, could destabilise the continent and create hundreds of millions of refugees.

    Those refugees could come into countries such as Gabon, cutting down forest to grow crops, creating a vicious cycle for the climate, or head to Europe, he warned.

    As the climate fight intensifies, the country is looking mostly at sustainable forestry to replace oil to provide revenue – and create new jobs for its young population – but ecotourism can also play a smaller role, Prof White said.

    Gabon's mangroves are also an important carbo store (Emily Beament/PA)
    Gabon’s mangroves are also an important carbon store (Emily Beament/PA)

    National parks

    Gabon’s 13 national parks are part of a network of protected areas covering 22% of land and 27% of the seas, with an aim to expand that to 30% by 2030.

    They include Loango on the coast, where tourists can see gorillas in a scheme that supports a research project, as well as forest elephants and other wildlife, and go sport fishing, providing jobs and income for local people.

    Gabon’s protected areas, created to conserve valuable nature that could be affected by activities such as forestry, mean the “carbon credits” the country is now looking to sell internationally for the pollution the forests absorb are “highly biodiversity positive”, Prof White argues.

    And he suggested there could be bilateral deals where countries could pay to offset their ongoing emissions using the net 100 million tonnes a year of carbon Gabon absorbs with its forests.

    He added:

    I would much rather a country like the UK was not giving (aid) money but used their investment portfolio to encourage companies with the right mentality to come and invest in sustainable development in Gabon, in sustainable fisheries and ecosystems.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Calls for Home Office probe into handling of ‘abusive MI5 agent’ case

    Priti Patel is facing calls to investigate reports an MI5 agent exploited his status to terrorise and attack his girlfriend.

    Labour’s shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said there needed to be an “independent assessment” of how the “troubling” case was handled, after the BBC reported the man attacked the woman with a machete and threatened to kill her.

    It comes as it emerged the woman, known as Beth in the report which is not her real name, has launched a legal case against MI5.

    According to the Centre for Women’s Justice (CWJ), she has launched a legal complaint and made a claim in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal as well as potentially looking at taking action against police.

    Injunction

    The BBC reported the story on Thursday for the first time since a ruling in a legal battle where the Government sought to block publication of the agent’s identity.

    An injunction – which the government said is in the interests of national security and to avoid an immediate risk to life, safety and privacy – remains in place preventing the corporation from disclosing information likely to identify the man, referred to only as “X”, who is said to be a covert human intelligence source (Chis).

    Cooper said:

    The Home Secretary needs to ensure that there is an independent assessment of this very troubling case and how it has been handled – including looking at safeguarding responsibilities, the way that concerns about domestic abuse are handled by MI5 and at the criminal investigation that took place.

    Domestic abuse is an appalling and dangerous crime and victims need to know that it will always be taken immensely seriously by all agencies, especially those responsible for keeping us safe.

    The BBC reported that evidence shows the agent is a violent “right-wing extremist” who routinely terrorised his partner.

    The foreign national moved abroad and continued intelligence work after assaulting the alleged victim with a machete and threatening to kill her, according to the report which featured purported footage of the incident.

    The broadcast also raised questions over how police handled the case, with charges apparently dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) when it reached court.

    The BBC also said it tracked down another woman who also suffered at the hands of X in a different country as it described the story “firmly in the public interest”, arguing that the women have a right to know his identity and it would protect other potential victims from harm.

    Exploring options

    The CWJ said it was acting for Beth “in a formal complaint, and linked human rights claim, lodged earlier this month with the Investigatory Powers Tribunal” and “are also exploring action against a police force who have failed to take action against the perpetrator despite repeated reports”.

    It added:

    Beth is asking the Investigatory Powers Tribunal to investigate MI5’s recruitment and handling of X, and whether any steps were taken to address the clear risk of harm that he posed.

    She will seek to argue that MI5’s conduct may have breached her rights under Articles 2, 3, 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in that by recruiting and affording protecting to X, they were effectively enabling X to subject her to serious violence and abuse with impunity.

    In a statement issued by the organisation, Beth said:

    I hope that this will cause the police to reopen the case against [X] and actually do something about his crimes, none of which have been properly investigated.

    Her solicitor Kate Ellis said her case:

    raises a number of issues regarding the state’s protection – whether intentionally or through neglect – of those who hold extreme misogynistic views and pose a risk of serious violence towards women and girls.

    The Government previously said it would not comment on security or intelligence.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The DWP is about to become a corporate fascist regime

    The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) will have new powers like the police. The government will allow it to arrest claimants and issue fines over alleged fraud. But crucially, the DWP won’t even have to take people to court to issue fines. This new agenda from the government can only be described as corporate fascism – and ministers aren’t even trying to hide it, either.

    The DWP: powers of the police

    On Thursday 19 May the government announced its new “Fighting Fraud In The Welfare System” plan. DWP boss Therese Coffey and minister Jacob Rees-Mogg are behind it. The DWP has made no secret of just what the plan involves. It clearly stated on its website that it will give social security staff the power to:

    • “Undertake arrests”.
    • “Execute warrants”.
    • “Conduct searches”.
    • “Seize evidence”.
    • Issue a “new type of civil penalty” (fine).

    Coffey dressed the announcement up with far-right populist language. Her intention is clearly to sell it to the public under the guise of ‘benefit cheats cost you, the hardworking taxpayer, money’. She said:

    The welfare system is there to help the most vulnerable. It is not a cash machine for callous criminals and it’s vital that the government ensures money is well spent.

    Fraud is an ever-present threat and before the pandemic, our efforts brought fraud and error close to record lows… we can keep up with fraud in today’s digital age and prevent, detect and deter those who would try to cheat the system.

    “Criminals”; “money-well spent” and “cheat” could almost be from a Daily Mail front page. However, the reality behind the DWP’s claims over fraud doesn’t match its rhetoric.

    Fraud: the actual figures

    The Mirror reported that:

    benefit overpayments due to fraud and error rocketed to a record £8.3bn in 2020/21. But this includes errors by the department or claimants – not just deliberate fraud.

    Sadly, the Mirror couldn’t be bothered to actually look into the figures. If it had, it would have found that the £8.3bn figure is still a tiny amount of the DWP’s overall expenditure.

    Government figures show that the total overpayment rate in 2020/21 was 3.9% of the DWP’s £211bn total spend. In this:

    • Fraud was 3%.
    • DWP error accounted for 0.4%.
    • Claimant error was 0.6%

    But crucially, it seems much of the fraud may not be from actual claimants.

    Made-up billions

    As ITV News reported, in May 2020 the DWP “prevented” £1.9bn of fraud by “organised criminals”. The DWP’s own data shows that this involved 152,000 claims. This has nothing to do with claimants as it was, in the DWP’s own words:

    fraud risks from organised crime groups [where the DWP was] detecting and shutting down systematic attacks.

    Moreover, all the other data is not fully evidence-based. For example, the DWP’s own methodology organises fraud into various categories. It states that:

    Any Fraud that is Causal Link (Low Suspicion) has been recategorised to a new category of “Failure to provide evidence/fully engage in the process”. Cases with an error in this new category have forgone their full benefit entitlement rather than engage in the benefit review process. We therefore make the assumption that the claim was fraudulent, even though the reason for their non-engagement is not clear.

    So, the DWP assumes this category is fraud  – without any evidence to back it up. Its own figures show that this accounted for over half a billion pounds in 2020/21:

    A table showing DWP fraud figures

    Making assumptions

    Then, you have “high suspicion” causal link cases. The DWP defines these as where:

    • Shortly after review the claimant terminates their claim (rather than send in evidence)
    • The claimant told us at the review of a change of circumstances, but we cannot confirm that the change occurred prior to (or in) the assessment period checked
    • Post-review, the claimant made a change of circumstances that cannot be confirmed as starting after the assessment period checked
    • When asked to send in more information or to clarify further queries on evidence sent in, the claimant stops engaging

    So again, the DWP does not have evidence of fraud. It’s working around the idea that the claimant has, in its eyes, done something suspicious. In terms of figures, the DWP would include things like “living together” and “housing costs” under so-called change of circumstances – and people terminating claims could be for any reason. The point being there is potentially more billions in alleged fraud that doesn’t actually happen.

    Then, the DWP bases all this on a sample of 2,750 claims – out of nearly 4.7m new ones in 2020/21.

    Creeping corporate fascism

    So, much of the £8.3bn the DWP promotes as fraud (and that the media dutifully laps up) is just based on assumptions and guesswork. In 2020/21, 152,000 claims the DWP valued at £1.9bn were not even real claimants. Yet the government is using this as an excuse to push-through the most authoritarian powers the DWP will have ever had.

    As The Canary previously wrote, corporate fascism is:

    a form of oppressive regime that removes civil liberties while handing corporations huge wealth from the public purse as well as giving them power and control over all of us.

    Then, authoritarianism is:

    the concentration of power in the hands of a few people – where a government has power over the public, does what it wants, removes people’s basic freedoms and fails to act in the best interests of the majority.

    As shown with new laws like the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill and the Nationality and Borders Bill, the UK government is an increasingly authoritarian, corporate fascist one. The DWP’s new powers to effectively police claimants are another example of this.

    When a government pushes through new, highly regressive rules that will oppress a whole section of society – and it does it off the back of ideology not evidence – it can only be called corporate fascism. We must resist the DWP’s authoritarian new powers by any means possible.

    Featured image via 5 News – YouTube and Wikimedia 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Sub-postmaster ‘blamed staff’ for Horizon IT system shortfalls

    The Post Office must not be allowed to get away with ruining the lives of hundreds of wrongly accused postmasters across the UK, an inquiry has heard.

    Former sub-postmaster John Gormley, from Co Londonderry, said there are serious questions to be asked after a faulty IT system saw workers having to use their own money to balance the accounts every week.

    Fiona Elliott, a former sub-postmistress in Co Tyrone, said she wants those responsible to be accountable and for prompt compensation.

    She told the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry sitting in Belfast:

    We’ve been waiting about now for 10 to 15 years, they were quick enough to take all our money, and now they won’t pay us back for what we’ve lost.

    I hope that the Post Office finally takes responsibility for their actions and apologises. I also want accountability for their actions. I would like Post Office to compensate fairly and promptly the people whose lives and businesses have been ruined.

    £60-80 per week

    Gormley was sub-postmaster of a Post Office in the Shantallow area of Londonderry from 2002 to 2008.

    He described being told to “make good” on discrepancies thrown up by the Post Office IT system Horizon every week of around £60-80:

    As time went on the pressure started to grow, I was getting pretty worried, there was weeks it could have been £100, there was weeks it could have been down to £30 short, very few weeks it was break even, and I rarely saw a plus.

    He described a “strained” relationship with staff in the Post Office due to the shortages.

    He said it only started to register with him when he saw media coverage in recent years of issues with Horizon.

    Gormley said:

    I blamed my staff and went into a situation where the business in the store started to go down big time because the blame game was being put on the staff in relation to shortages, but I always made good every week.

    We were in a very volatile place and I had to use measured words in a big way. I had to protect staff but at the same time the business was going down, the supplier was owed a fortune, we weren’t able to meet our direct debits.

    In 2008 Mr Gormley resigned as postmaster, describing being in “deep, deep issues”. He estimates he paid £20,000 attempting to balance the Horizon system:

    I was well down by that stage, I didn’t want to express my depression… my wife was feeling the pressure, it was affecting our marriage, we didn’t know at one stage whether we were going to have a loaf of bread for the end of the week next week.

    Gormley said he did not apply for compensation when a fund opened because he wanted to get the situation off his mind and did not want his family or friends to know about his problems, but he is now pursuing it.

    He told the inquiry:

    I find it hard to believe that this could happen, that an organisation like Royal Mail can get away with what they have got away with.

    I can’t understand how it got so far, or where was the Government at this stage, were they not aware of it? Who was overseeing this?

    There are serious questions to be asked.

    Shortfalls

    Elliott bought into a Post Office in 2005 because her and her husband felt it would be a good investment to provide for their retirement.

    She told the inquiry they initially blamed the internet connection for the issues with Horizon, and asked for support repeatedly to probe the shortfalls.

    Elliott said she was making good on underpayments of £60-80 a week, sometimes going up to £200-300 a week, before she was told following an audit that there was now a £6,000 shortfall.

    She told the inquiry:

    We don’t know where it came out of because we had rolled over the night before, we made everything right. This £6,000 just appeared in the system and we don’t know where it came from.

    She was told to pay the £6,000 or face criminal proceedings, and had to borrow cash from her brother’s business because the Post Office officials said they would not wait for her bank to open following the lunch hour.

    Elliott has applied for compensation from the historic shortfall scheme, working out a figure with her accountant of £1 million to take into account lost wages, lost retail sales and having two houses repossessed.

    She was offered £24,000, which she described being “disgusted by”:

    We lost the shop business, we lost the two properties, financially it was terrible. Now my husband and I are both back working full time whereas we should be getting ready for retirement.

    The Post Office Horizon IT inquiry, which has been sitting across the UK, sat in Belfast on Wednesday and Thursday.

    Inquiry chairman Sir Wyn Williams emphasised it is important for people to come forward and speak about how the experience impacted on their lives.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Prevent leak is horrifying business as usual

    The government-commissioned Prevent review led by William Shawcross has been partially leaked. In extracts seen by The Guardian:

    the review claims there has been a “double standard” approach to tackling different forms of extremism, with individuals targeted for expressing mainstream rightwing views because the definition of neo-nazism has expanded too widely, while the focus on Islamist extremism has been too narrow.

    For anyone who has paid any attention at all to the last 20 years of Islamophobic policies, this claim is the usual bullshit from an Islamophobic review. As The Canary covered last year, the Shawcross review of Prevent has been boycotted by over 550 organisations and individuals. It’s no surprise to anyone that the contents of this leak leave much to be desired.

    In fact, when he was the director of the neoconservative Henry Jackson Society, Shawcross said:

    Europe and Islam is one of the greatest, most terrifying problems of our future. I think all European countries have vastly, very quickly growing Islamic populations.

    Reactions

    Responses to the content of the leak came from a number of people. Co-author of Race to the Bottom Ilyas Nagdee shared:

    Here, Nagdee is referring to the self-identified white nationalist and fascist who shot and killed 10 Black people in a predominantly Black neighbourhood.

    Senior lecturer Tarek Younis said:

    The Network for Police Monitoring pointed out that the review seemed to be going exactly as expected:

    Moazzam Begg, who was tortured in Guantanamo Bay, looked at Shawcross’ own credentials:

    So far, so predictable. Muslims in Britain have always been treated with suspicion and this review is doing exactly what we all thought it would. However, there’s more to this leak.

    As The Guardian also reported:

    The draft Shawcross review also claims that:

    • a renewed focus on Islamist extremism is needed, including when individuals do not yet meet the terrorism threshold.
    • individuals have been referred to Prevent, the government’s anti-extremism programme, to access mental health support even when there is no evidence of extremism.
    • some Prevent-funded groups have promoted extremist narratives including support for the Taliban.

    Let’s get into it.

    ‘Terrorism threshold’

    The idea that a “renewed” focus is needed on “Islamist extremism” is ludicrous. How do you renew something which has been a cornerstone of British politics for at least the last 20 years?

    The phrase “including when individuals do not yet meet the terrorism threshold” tells us that the Shawcross review is indeed going to be business as usual. If individuals do not meet terrorism thresholds, what is the reason for monitoring them?

    An article from over 10 years ago by Mehdi Hasan explained:

    How the fear of being criminalised has forced Muslims into silence

    Not much has changed since then. Muslim communities continue to be surveilled, criminalised, and targeted. Since 9/11, there has been a concerted effort from numerous governments to disproportionately target Muslims. The very idea that yet more focus is needed on “Islamist extremism” is exactly the kind of thinking you’d expect from a former director of the Henry Jackson Society.

    Vulnerability support hubs

    Medical advocacy organisation Medact also responded to the leak:

    Medact spoke to The Canary last year for an investigation into vulnerability support hubs. Patients are referred to these hubs if their medical team believes they are “at risk of being a terrorist in the future.”

    At the time, Hilary Aked – Medact’s research manager – told us:

    We think these hubs should be shut down. There’s wider problems of racism and coercion in mental healthcare already. Shutting these hubs is not going to solve those problems overnight, but these hubs really encapsulate some of the worst dynamics of both racism in mental healthcare and the racism and securitisation of Prevent policy.

    These hubs represent a wider blurring of boundaries between health and security. As the Prevent review leak states:

    individuals have been referred to Prevent, the government’s anti-extremism programme, to access mental health support even when there is no evidence of extremism.

    As is so often the case with discussions of racism, when Muslims have spoken out in defence of fellow Muslims being targeted by Prevent, those criticisms are dismissed. Just last month, a right-wing think tank published a report that singled out the fact that:

    the groups opposing Prevent have tended to criticise pretty much any counter-terrorism policy.

    David Cameron described the report as having:

    lifted the lid on how a vocal minority is attempting to undermine efforts to prevent such radicalisation. We can’t let the Prevent strategy be defeated by extremists.

    What exactly are Muslims supposed to do here? If we can’t show dissent, or if any dissent is not taken seriously, how can historically racist policies like Prevent be opposed? It’s almost as though they want us to take this lying down.

    Prevent funding

    But even further than that, the Home Office won’t even be open about what they’re up to. The Prevent leak also says:

    some Prevent-funded groups have promoted extremist narratives including support for the Taliban.

    It would be very helpful if information about which groups are funded by Prevent, how much money they get, and how they operate was publicly available.

    When The Canary sent off a number of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests about how many premises were raided as part of counter-terror initiatives, we got nothing back. When The Canary used another FOI request to find out more details about Prevent funding, we found that around £44m per year was sunk into Prevent – with a lack of information about where exactly this was going. In this case we specifically asked which groups were receiving Prevent funding and we were told they couldn’t tell us anything because of “security concerns.” When The Canary reported on an FOI request sent off by Prevent Watch, not only did we see information on the sheer amount of money involved in Prevent, we also saw the range of people who were targeted by Prevent:

    • An Imam who gave a speech about white supremacy and Martin Luther King.
    • A 26-year-old mum who put together aid packages for Syrian refugees.
    • A mum who took her 8-year-old child to a Palestine protest.
    • A woman discussing her religious beliefs with her psychiatrist.
    • A 12-year-old boy questioned without a parent or guardian present.

    How questioning any of these people kept anyone safe remains unclear.

    It’s entirely unsurprising that Prevent appear to have funded groups that support the Taliban. If they’re not going to be transparent about who they fund, how, and why, how can they be held to account?

    Business as usual

    Muslims have spent a long time warning that Shawcross’ review was always going to be a whitewash. We’ve spent even longer warning about the horrifyingly racist and Islamophobic policies of the past 20 years. We’ve also had to warn about the rising threat of what the Home Office call ‘extreme right-wing‘ terrorism.

    Those warnings are going unheeded because it doesn’t matter which government has been in power over the past 20 years – institutions are always willing and able to surveil and criminalise Muslims. They then repeat the same cycle of criticising Muslims for calling out Islamophobia, all whilst continuing their racist onslaughts.

    Shawcross’ report was always going to come to conclusions that are unrelated to reality. These conclusions are entirely embedded in upholding white supremacy, no matter how you slice it.

    Featured image via Youtube Screenshot/HKTDC

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Grenfell Tower families ‘enraged’ by Government plan to retain ‘stay put’ policy

    Bereaved relatives of the Grenfell Tower blaze have said they are “enraged” by Government plans to keep the controversial “stay put” policy instead of adopting an inquiry recommendation.

    Grenfell United has criticised new Home Office papers which outline its reasons for retaining the policy – meaning that residents of most buildings should wait for rescue services rather than leaving in the event of a fire.

    This goes against a recommendation from Phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry – published in October 2019 – which advises the Government to place a legal obligation on building owners to outline Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) for residents in the event of a fire.

    Putting disabled people at risk

    Grenfell United, which represents people affected by the 2017 tragedy, described the response as “a disgrace” for putting disabled people at risk.

    The group said:

    We are enraged at the Government, whose sole focus continues to be profit and not public safety.

    We’ve fought for years to create a legacy for our 72 loved ones, and to prevent another Grenfell.

    But five years on, the Government has reverted back to the same policy in place before Grenfell.

    This policy resulted in 41% of those living with disabilities dying at Grenfell.

    It left them with no personal evacuation plan and no means of escape.

    They didn’t stand a chance. This report is a disgrace.

    Disabled people have the right to leave their homes safely.

    The group concluded:

    The Government must implement the recommendation from the Phase 1 report of the Grenfell Inquiry and ensure personal evacuation plans for disabled residents.

    In a consultation document published on Wednesday, the Home Office said it believed the cost of adopting the PEEPs policy would not be “proportionate” and that it would not be “practical” or “safe” to implement.

    The department said the “stay put” policy is in place for buildings which are “designed to give appropriate protection” from fire so it is “generally safer” for residents to wait for emergency services to rescue them.

    It said this knowledge, combined with safety reforms in the Building Safety Bill means “it would not be proportionate to mandate” the inquiry’s recommendation.

    Fire safety

    London Fire Brigade (LFB) Commissioner Andy Roe described PEEPs as a “key recommendation” from the inquiry and urged the Government to prioritise it.

    He said:

    It’s vitally important that people feel safe in their own homes and have certainty about how to leave their building in the event of a fire or other emergency.

    Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) were a key recommendation from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry and we want to work with Government, communities and other partners to make progress on evacuation plans.

    Roe added it is “extremely concerning” that more than 1,000 residential buildings in the capital still have serious fire safety failings – and warned rogue property owners LFB will crack down on them using powers granted in the Fire Safety Act 2021, which came into force this week.

    He welcomed other parts of the consultation which adopt several of the inquiry’s other recommendations, including transferring fire governance to an elected individual who will oversee chief fire officers.

    The Home Office also said it will “improve the professionalism of the fire and rescue service through modern workforce practices” and “potentially” establish a College of Fire and Rescue.

    Grenfell United also tweeted:

    Deborah Coles, director of INQUEST, said:

    By The Canary

  • Mass media fuelled Buffalo shooting

    A white supremacist conspiracy theory is at the heart of the recent racist mass shooting in the US. Curtis Daly shows how the mass media, specifically Fox news, has fuelled these racially motivated murders.

    By Curtis Daly

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Doctors let down by Government during Covid-19 pandemic, says BMA

    The Government “failed in its duty of care” to doctors during the coronavirus crisis, a union has said.

    The British Medical Association (BMA) launched a scathing attack on the ministerial response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

    The union, which has conducted its own review of the Government’s handling of the crisis, highlighted the lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the early stages of the pandemic.

    It also pointed to the mental and physical exhaustion felt by most doctors as they cared for hundreds of thousands of patients with Covid – all while working in a “dystopian reality”, the union said.

    New figures

    Four in five (81%) doctors said they did not feel adequately protected during the first wave of the virus, according to figures released in the BMA report.

    One doctor quoted in the report said:

    We made our own, and bought our own when we could find any, we depended on friends sourcing FFP3 masks, my son’s school was 3D printing visors.

    A GP in Northern Ireland added:

    We were sent six pairs of gloves and six aprons in an envelope approximately three weeks after the start of lockdown.

    The report states that action was not taken quickly enough to address the shortages and some doctors felt more exposed than others, including female medics and those from ethnic minority backgrounds.

    Meanwhile, healthcare workers had higher rates of infection than the general public, leaving many to deal with the ongoing effects of long Covid.

    One junior doctor told the union:

    I caught Covid-19 in March 2020 from a colleague at work. I have been mostly bedbound since. My life as I knew it had ended. These are supposed to be the best years of my life but I’m spending them alone, in bed, feeling like I’m dying almost all the time.

    And the mental health and emotional wellbeing of medical professionals working on the front line “suffered considerably”, the report adds.

    One consultant told the union:

    I’m used to seeing people die, I’m a palliative care doctor, but how do I talk about caring for people with Covid-19 who were watching patients in beds opposite them literally dying before their eyes from exactly the same thing as they had?

    Another medic said:

    Psychologically it was one of the worst periods of my life. I received private therapy throughout the pandemic and that helped tremendously but I have felt suicidal at times.

    No respite

    Dr Chaand Nagpaul, chair of the BMA council, said:

    Doctors were desperately let down by the UK Government’s failure to adequately prepare for the pandemic, and their subsequent flawed decision-making, with tragic consequences.

    Many doctors were left unprotected due to critical shortages of PPE as coronavirus hit our shores, resulting in healthcare professionals becoming infected at a higher rate than the rest of the population.

    Dr. Nagpaul also said:

    Hundreds of healthcare workers lost their lives after contracting Covid-19, 95% of doctors who died in April 2020 were from an ethnic minority, a figure which demands that the UK Government addresses the deep race inequalities afflicting our NHS workforce.

    Dr. Nagpaul continued:

    With no respite, doctors worked on the front line exposed to the virus – while the majority of the public stayed at home during the lockdowns.

    They saw levels of illness and death they were never trained for. With the dystopian reality of no hospital visitors, doctors had to hold phones in front of dying patients so they could say goodbye to loved ones.

    The evidence presented in our reports also demonstrates, unequivocally, that the UK Government failed in its duty of care to the medical profession.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Ex-diplomat pins blame on Truss for ‘turnips’ Brexit comments

    A former British diplomat has claimed that Foreign Secretary Liz Truss was behind comments in 2019 suggesting that the impact of a no-deal Brexit on Ireland would only “affect a few farmers with turnips in the back of their trucks”.

    The claim, which has unearthed the comments from 2019, comes as Truss continues to defend UK Government plans to legislate to override parts of the Northern Ireland Protocol as necessary to protect the Good Friday Agreement.

    ‘Genuine expert’

    Alexandra Hall Hall, a former British ambassador to Georgia who was the lead Brexit envoy for the UK Government in Washington for several years, alleged that Truss made the comments as part of a speech to a US audience in 2019.

    She tweeted late on Wednesday:

    So pleased to see Liz Truss become a genuine expert on Irish matters.”

    She was, after all, the Minister who told a US audience three years ago that Brexit would not have any serious impact in Ireland…it would merely ‘affect a few farmers with turnips in the back of their trucks’.

    Hall Hall had previously claimed to have heard a “senior British minister” make the comments about a no-deal Brexit, but on Wednesday she attributed the remarks to Truss, who was then trade secretary.

    It is understood that those close to Truss have claimed not to recognise the comments.

    Hall Hall later quit as a diplomat after more than three decades in 2019, citing concerns over the UK Government’s handling of Brexit and being forced to “peddle half-truths”.

    Featured image by Wikimedia Commons/UK Government via Open Government License v3.0

    By The Canary

  • Inflation: here’s how much more an average day costs you

    It’s official – inflation hit 9% in April. We know what that means: the cost of everything we buy has gone through the roof. However, inflation isn’t the same on everything we buy. So, across the course of an average day, how much more does it cost just to live? Hint: it’s a lot more expensive for the poorest people than it is for the richest.

    Inflation: the worst for 40 years

    Sky News reported that:

    Inflation has hit its highest level in 40 years…

    The rate shot up to 9% last month – its highest level since comparable readings in 1982.

    It also noted that almost three-quarters of the rise came from the 54% increase in energy prices. However, this isn’t the whole story – as a day in the life of many of us shows.

    Don’t even try to live a life

    You’d best start putting less milk in your morning tea, because that’s gone up by 12.2%. If you want some toast to go with that, spread the jam thinly – it now costs 15.6% more. But you might want to skip both, given that the transport costs of doing the school run, getting to work, or going to sign on at the Department for Work and Pensions have rocketed by 13.5%. Let’s hope your car (if you can afford one) doesn’t run on diesel – because the price of that has gone up by 36%.

    Lunch could be a no-no, unless you can afford the 22.7% increase in margarine to spread on the bread. Fortunately, that’s only gone up by 4.9% – so you can just eat it dry. Now, don’t forget to check on your baby – but only if you can afford to reproduce in the first place. Baby-related products have gone up by 15.9%. When the older kids get back from school, check their shoes for tears and tape them up if necessary; there’s been an 11% increase in the cost of children’s footwear.

    It doesn’t really matter what (if anything) you choose to have for dinner – overall food prices have gone up by 10.6%. But if you want to make stuff from scratch, even that is costing a lot more. Because while the price of flour has risen by 9.3%, ready meals have only gone up by 7.8%. And if you can’t afford the gas/electric to cook or heat either of those things? Hey – at least the ready meal can technically be eaten cold.

    Inflation = class war

    If you try to navigate all this, you’d best not be poor. Because while headline inflation is 9%, for the poorest households it’s actually 10.2%. Take comfort from the fact that the inflation rate for the richest households is less than yours and the headline figure – sitting at 8.7%. Luckily for them, the cost of their servants has only gone up by 1.4%. They can jet off on a package holiday that’s only gone up by 3.1%, knowing that the kids will be well looked-after in their absence.

    The point being, the government knows that inflation hits poor people the hardest. Yet it still chooses to do nothing about it – making the current chaos we face an intentional class war, not a cost of living crisis.

    But don’t worry – if all this is utterly depressing, the cost of chocolate has actually fallen by 0.4%, and fags have only gone up by 7.5%. So, you can gorge and smoke yourself to an early, heart attack-induced grave safe in the knowledge that the cost of a funeral has only gone up by 3.5%. Small mercies, hey?

    Featured image via The Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Cop watching and legal observers will be crucial as Priti Patel expands stop and search powers

    Weeks after the draconian Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act (PCSC Act) became law, Priti Patel has written a letter to police forces lifting restrictions on stop and search powers.

    When a section 60 order is in place, officers have the right to search people without suspicion in an area where they expect serious violence. While home secretary, Theresa May imposed restrictions on its use due to concerns they were used discriminatorily.

    Stop and search powers disproportionately target Black and other ethnic minority people. Just last month, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) found:

    In year ending March 2021, people from a Black or Black British background people were seven times more likely to be stopped and searched than those from a White ethnic background.

    While people from an Asian or Asian British background, or mixed ethnic background, were approximately two and half times more likely to be stopped and searched than those from a white ethnic background.

    Nina Champion, director of Criminal Justice Alliance, said in 2021:

    Just 0.79 percent of section 60 searches resulted in police officers finding weapons over the last year.

    And, as The Canary’s Sophia Purdy-Moore argues:

    Stop and search, and policing in general, does not prevent crime. It doesn’t protect communities, and it only serves to traumatise and criminalise the most marginalised people in society.

    Even further expansion of search powers

    If this wasn’t bad enough, the government has recently introduced a new bill that will further expand the reach of section 60 searches to protests. This will give the police the power to use suspicionless stop and search powers if they think protest-related offences are going to occur. It is anticipated that, like the original section 60 powers, this will be used disproportionately against marginalised communities.

    Police do not keep people safe. If anything, the police cause harm to individuals and communities. But there are grassroots groups that monitor the police and help to hold them to account. Organisations like Bristol CopWatch provide examples of how we can use community monitoring to challenge the way we are policed.

    Meanwhile, at protests, legal observers monitor the police. Now, an important new report shows the importance of these volunteers. Legal observers are even more vital given the government’s plans to further stifle dissent in any way it can.

    Legal observers

    The Article 11 Trust, alongside the Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol), have released a new report called Protecting Protest: Police Treatment of Legal Observers. According to the report, legal observers (LOs) are volunteers who:

    are independent and don’t participate in protest activity such as chanting or carrying placards. They monitor police operations and conduct, compiling independent notes as evidence of incidents including arrests, and distribute legal advice to protesters.

    So why are legal observers important for the right to protest? Legal observers are trained to independently monitor police behaviour at protests, and to give support to protestors. In the current climate, policing is becoming more aggressive. This includes restrictions on protestors, increased police powers that are proven to target minorities, and the use of excessive force.

    Findings

    The people who participated in the research had a cumulative experience of 135 years and 8 months as legal observers. The report found that:

    • 38% of LOs thought police had “poor or no knowledge” of legal observers.
    • 86% of LOs thought that police attitudes towards observers were “somewhat” or “strongly negative”.
    • 75% of LOs had experienced a threat of arrest.
    • 90% of LOs were met with “aggression or physical force”.

    And, worryingly:

    78% of LOs indicated experiencing police attempting to restrict or obstruct the activity or effectiveness of LOs, somewhat often to extremely often.

    The report also found that certain causes were policed more harshly:

    BLM, environmental groups, and Palestine solidarity movements were more harshly policed.

    LO 19 explained how: “The presence of mainstream media cameras is the number one thing that keeps you safe at a protest. As soon as nobody is watching police violence will follow”.

    Accountability

    It’s important to note that LOs support people who are arrested:

    This involves observing and taking detailed contemporaneous notes of arrests in case of, for example, excessive use of force or police misconduct, and reporting the arrest to a back office team that can follow up with the arrestee. Evidence from LOs can be used in criminal or civil proceedings.

    The use of phone cameras has been vital in holding police accountable. Of course, not everything can be filmed, and this is precisely why LOs are so important. LOs are able to empower protesters and hold police accountable through their work.

    This vital role has more general applications too. Under section 60, police are able to stop and search people at will. Whilst LOs are trained volunteers who observe during protests, it is also good practice for passers-by to take note of police behaviour. CopWatch groups around the country also offer training on the best ways to do this.

    Deterrent

    The report also highlighted the effectiveness of LOs.

    One particular LO said:

    I’ve seen it where it’s been clocked that LOs are present and it’s changed how the police have decided to police. You can see it’s deterred them. You can see they are about to do something and [when] it’s pointed out they stop” (LO 1).

    As the Article 11 Trust said:

    Article 11 rights are the right to peaceful assembly and the freedom of association with others. It includes both the right to form and to join trade unions, and the right to gather for peaceful protest.

    In effect, LOs make protests safer for the people attending them. They observe and note police behaviour, and act as deterrents. LOs are supposed to be visible and able to do their work freely.

    From Freedom of Information requests to police forces around Britain, the report concluded:

    Forces around the country seemed to demonstrate varying levels of awareness and perceptions of LOs.

    This is a problem because police knowledge about LOs makes it easier for LOs to do their vital work.

    Discrimination

    In fact, some LOs shared their experiences of being discriminated against by the police. The report stated:

    Class, ethnicity, height and gender were identified as particular indicators of discrimination.

    One LO shared:

    I have been sexually and otherwise harassed multiple times by police officers, who seem to particularly enjoy doing so in front of protesters I am supporting.

    Another LO said:

    I feel that the way I’m treated by police (being patronised and dismissed, told I know nothing or officers suggesting I didn’t train as an LO) is often related to my gender and age (female and young). I have often experienced very different treatment by Police compared to male LOs who I’ve had equal training and experience to.

    LO 19 said:

    I’ve found police behaviour sometimes but not always varies according to how they perceive my gender. I’ve gotten in the habit of dressing very androgynously while LOing (in part to protect my identity), and especially with a facemask and hat on have found that Police are less likely to allow me to move through police lines and more likely to obstruct me if I’m dressed ambiguously.

    The report also quoted two members of Black Protest Legal Support, who said:

    “The Police’s interaction with Black and Brown protesters and Legal Observers alike has been starkly different to their interaction with white protesters”

    From the experiences of these LOs, it is very clear that they are often restricted from doing their jobs and observing police actions because police discriminate against them.

    Democratic society

    The report stated:

    The treatment of protest by police as a public order threat to be managed, leaves Article 11 Rights at risk.

    Article 11 rights protect the basic functions of a democratic society. Because legal observers are not uniformly or officially recognised, it’s difficult to monitor police attitudes and compliance. This is also why this report from Netpol and the Article 11 Trust is invaluable.

    LOs are not protestors, and police forces must recognise this. As the report says:

    the best way to protect Article 11 Rights to freedom of Assembly and Association is for Police forces to have a proper benchmark – like the Charter for Freedom of Assembly Rights – that sets out what a Human Rights based approach to protest policing should look like in practice.

    We all need to hold the police to account

    This independent monitoring is even more vital with the new protest powers in the PCSC Act and the authoritarian Public Order Bill that the government has just introduced. This bill brings together the defeated amendments from the PCSC Act and will further criminalise protest. The expansion of stop and search powers to protest-related offences is also in this bill.

    In an explainer about the new bill, Netpol highlighted the concerning inclusion of Serious Disruption Prevention Orders:

    Crucially – because you do not need to be convicted of an offence to be issued with one – Serious Disruption Prevention Orders actively encourage the expansion of police intelligence gathering on a range of social and political movements.

    This is just one of a number of areas for concern for protestors and anyone who dissents from government action. The expansion of stop and search powers is part of a wider move from the government to continue to target, spy on, and punish civil disobedience, which is the cornerstone of any democracy.

    The abuse of protestors and arrestees has been widely documented. Alongside this, what’s also documented is that success that can come from collective action and cop watching. Whether it’s communities coming together to stop immigration raids or to de-arrest people, or the scrutiny of LOs, we can hold police to account.

    Patel’s decision to lift restrictions and expand stop and search powers is yet another example of the government stripping away safety for protestors and, in particular, minorities who are likely to be stopped by the police. It’s also exactly why cop watching and legal observers are so very needed.

    Featured image via Flickr/Tyler Merbler, resized to 770×403, via Creative Commons by 2.0

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Tory MPs top tips for beating the cost of living crisis

    cost of living crisis

    By Ralph Underhill

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The Daily Star just did the Guardian’s job for it

    Who’d have thought that the Daily Star would end up being more truthful than the Guardian? Well, this is 2022 – anything is possible. And the notorious tabloid just put the allegedly left-wing broadsheet to shame over Tory MP Rachel MacLean’s response to the so-called ‘cost of living crisis’.

    Rachel MacLean: shithouse extraordinaire

    As the Big Issue reported, the Tory minister faced a backlash after saying poor people need to work more hours or get better paid jobs. This was in response to what the political and media class are calling the ‘cost of living crisis’. At The Canary, we prefer to call it an ongoing class war.

    Government minister MacLean said during an interview with Sky News that:

    Over the long term we need to have a plan to grow the economy and make sure that people are able to protect themselves better – whether that is by taking on more hours or moving to a better paid job and these are long term actions but that’s what we’re focused on as a government.

    Never mind the fact that one in eight workers are in poverty, or that poverty itself is the fault of the system and the government, not the individual. Of course, we wouldn’t expect a Tory MP to admit that. Thankfully, Sky News‘s Kay Burley pulled her up on it:

    Maybe we’d also expect the Guardian to call it out forcefully? Sadly not.

    Daily Star doing the Guardian‘s job for it

    The Guardian failed to even report on MacLean’s comments. It was left to columnists Dr Frances Ryan and Marina Hyde to mention the story. Considering the wilful obtuseness of MacLean, the Guardian surely should have at least reported on it. People need to know that MacLean’s is the kind of mindset that pervades the government and the Tory Party, believing that poor people are irresponsible and poverty is their own fault. But no. There was nothing on the front page on 17 May nor any reporting:

    Thankfully, one media outlet did report on MacLean’s comments with some brutal honesty. It was the Daily Star. The tabloid ran with the headline:

    DON’T BE SO POOR

    The Daily Star continued in this sarcastic tone:

    Minister: Either get a better job or work harder in the crappy one you have

    The point being, of course, that MacLean either has no idea about how the rest of us live, or she does, and is gaslighting millions of people. The Daily Star also highlighted MacLean’s hypocrisy, given that she bags £218k in expenses.

    When a notorious tabloid calls out the class war while the Guardian turns the other cheek, the state of the UK media landscape really is a peculiar one.

    Featured image via The Canary, Wikimedia and David Woolfall – Wikimedia, reduced in size under licence CC BY 3.0

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Tory government admits to using bogus data in row over badger cull study

    An explosive study came out in March. It found that killing badgers hasn’t meaningfully assisted in lowering bovine TB (bTB) rates in cows. However, successive Conservative governments have green-lit the massacre of around 175,000 badgers since 2013 on this very basis.

    The Department for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) responded quickly and furiously to the study. It accused the study’s authors of all manner of wrongdoing, including manipulating data. But it turns out that the data DEFRA used to counter the study’s findings was in itself flawed.

    The study’s findings

    Conservation ecologist Tom Langton, veterinarian and Prion Group director Iain McGill, and Born Free’s head of policy and veterinarian Mark Jones carried out the study. They have consistently opposed the cull on ethical, scientific, and ecological grounds. Langton is engaged in legal action regarding the government’s legal duty to consider biodiversity conservation in its badger killing policy. The case is now at the Court of Appeal, with hearings scheduled for 26 and 27 July.

    The author’s probe featured in the journal Vet Record; it focused on the High Risk Area (HRA) in relation to bTB. This area amounts to around 30% of England. The study compared bTB rates – confirmed and suspected – in cow herds in areas that had badger killing and those that didn’t. It derived much of its data from government statistics.

    Langton explained to The Canary at the time that the statistics showed a levelling off, and decrease in, bTB rates across much of the HRA over the last decade or so. However, the study indicated that this pattern endured regardless of when each county introduced badger killing. Instead of badger-killing, it pointed to cow-focused measures, such as bTB testing, as likely being responsible for the reductions in the disease.

    DEFRA’s rebuttal

    DEFRA’s chief veterinary officer Christine Middlemiss, and chief scientific advisor Gideon Henderson, wrote a letter for Vet Record in response. It appeared in the same edition as the paper. In a further blog, Middlemiss shared DEFRA’s own calculations on how areas with killing compared to those without:

    The accompanying graph indicated the confirmed bTB levels in different areas from the year they began killing badgers. It showed that unculled areas (the blue bar) generally maintained higher levels of bTB than those subject to culling, particularly after a year or so of badger killing.

    Flawed data

    DEFRA wrote to Langton earlier in May, however, to highlight that it had used “incorrect calculations” in the rebuttal. This followed weeks of pressure from the study’s authors to release the data behind its claims. The department apologised for the “error”. However, it asserted that the flaw didn’t impact the rebuttal’s “overall argument”.

    In particular, DEFRA’s top scientific brass generally overstated the levels of bTB in unculled areas, as the revised graph shows:

    The study’s authors say that the revision vindicates their findings, as it narrows the gap between bTB rates in culled versus unculled areas that DEFRA initially suggested existed. Jones explained that in the study:

    We saw no difference between culled and unculled areas. Defra has gone out of its way to try to discredit our study, but its own corrected calculations now appear to corroborate our findings. Defra should hold up its hands and apologise. More importantly, no further badgers should have to lose their lives for the sake of this ineffective, inhumane, unscientific and unnecessary policy.

    Langton also called on DEFRA to apologise, asserting that:

    our study is robust and has had four independent expert peer reviewers approve it prior to its publication. Defra’s rebuttal, on the other hand, is unverified, not peer-reviewed and we now know is based on false data.

    In a written response to DEFRA following its admission, all three authors called for the immediate suspension of badger killing, pending a review of government policy.

    Review incoming

    DEFRA’s rush to rebuke the study’s conclusions suggests that getting the department to candidly review its policy won’t be easy. The British Veterinary Association (BVA) is, however, conducting a review of its position in light of the new evidence.

    Currently, the body broadly supports DEFRA’s policy but objects to the cruel way in which most badgers are killed. Cull companies kill the vast majority of badgers by free shooting, meaning that people shoot at them in the open. This is typically less accurate than killing them in a controlled setting, and it risks them “dying slowly and in great pain”, as the Badger Trust stated.

    The BVA’s senior vice president James Russell told The Canary:

    BVA sets all our policies based on in-depth consideration of the evidence base.  We’ve said that we’ll review any new data or research on bovine TB control in order to draw our own conclusions on the robustness of the analysis and any implications for our policy.

    Correction due

    Suzanne Jarvis, editor-in-chief of Vet Record – a BVA journal that has editorial independence – also confirmed that the journal will publish a correction from DEFRA in the next issue regarding its erroneous calculations. Jarvis added:

    the authors of the research have been offered an opportunity to respond to this in the same issue.  The correction will appear in the letters section, so it will have the same prominence as the previous rebuttal.  We make it clear that letters are not peer reviewed.

    The editor-in-chief asserted that Vet Record published the rebuttal letter out of a “responsibility to readers”, as its aim is to:

    to further the scientific debate and provide an interesting read to our veterinary audience.

    Russell further said that the BVA is unable to comment on DEFRA’s error:

    as we haven’t seen what’s covered in the clarification ahead of publication.

    He pointed to the fact that the department has described it as a ‘minor discrepancy’. He also highlighted that the study:

    had its own limitations acknowledged by the authors themselves.

    Not inspiring confidence

    The study’s authors did acknowledge its limitations, one of which was the government’s failure to disclose the culling area boundaries. However, it was based on an exhaustive probe, and it concluded that cow-focused measures – not badger killing – are responsible for reductions in bTB.

    DEFRA’s flawed and furious response will do little to inspire confidence that the government’s forthcoming research on the cull’s usefulness will be rigorous or impartial.

    Featured image via Carone06 / Flickr, cropped to 770×403, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

    By Tracy Keeling

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Relatives protest over Troubles legacy proposals during Boris Johnson’s NI visit

    A demonstration has taken place in Hillsborough, Co Down during a visit by prime minister Boris Johnson. The demonstration is over his government’s proposals for dealing with Britain’s past actions in the North of Ireland.

    British soldiers killed 11 people in Ballymurphy in west Belfast in 1971. The event is known as the Ballymurphy  Massacre. On 16 May, some of the victims’ families protested against the plans to offer an effective amnesty for Troubles-related crimes.

    The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill will see immunity offered to some. That dependent on their co-operation with a new Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.

    NI Assembly crisis
    John Teggart, son of victim Daniel Teggart, demonstrating with some of the families of the 11 people killed by British soldiers in Ballymurphy in west Belfast in 1971, outside Hillsborough Castle (Liam McBurney/PA)

    The new body aims to help individuals and family members to seek and receive information about Troubles-related deaths and serious injuries.

    If the proposals are enacted, it will mean prosecution will only be possible for individuals not deemed to have earned their immunity.

    ‘A dangerous course of unilateral action’

    Amnesty International has urged the UK government to “pull back from a dangerous course of unilateral action on legacy of the conflict”.

    Grainne Teggart, campaigns manager for Amnesty International UK, said the government is on a “collision course with rights and the rule of law”. She said:

    They must pull back, now, from a dangerous course of unilateral action on legacy and the protocol…

    We have yet to see a real departure from plans to legislate for a de facto amnesty. We will be watching closely, along with victims, to see if the strong objections and warnings on lack of human rights compliance have been listened to.

    Teggart also expressed concern at the government’s approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol.

    She said any unravelling of the international agreement between the UK and EU “could threaten guarantees within the protocol, including essential human rights protections for people in Northern Ireland”.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Climate change is disrupting ‘the language of life’ across all types of ecosystems

    Climate change is disrupting essential chemical communication processes across all types of the Earth’s ecosystems, according to new research.

    An opinion paper published this week is the first time researchers have demonstrated that climate change affects in similar patterns the interactions between organisms in different realms.

    Chemical communication plays an essential role in ecosystems, enabling organisms to mate and interact with each other; locate predators, food and habitats; and sense their environment.

    ‘A wake-up call’

    The opinion paper shows the extent to which alterations in temperature, carbon dioxide and pH levels – created as a result of climate change – can affect every step of this fundamental way in which organisms communicate with each other.

    These chemical communication processes regulate interactions in the Earth’s ecosystems and are essential to our environment.

    Dr Christina C Roggatz, Research Fellow in Marine Chemical Ecology at the University of Hull and lead author of the paper, said:

    This paper is a wake-up call. We are heavily reliant on the Earth’s ecosystems and the chemical communications that regulate them.

    The predominantly negative effects that climate change has upon the language of life within terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems could have a range of far-reaching implications for the future of our planet and human wellbeing, for example by impacting food security and fundamental ecosystem services that make our planet habitable.

    Chemical communication in jeopardy

    The paper was published on 16 May in the Global Change Biology journal. It’s titled ‘Becoming nose-blind – climate change impacts on chemical communication’. And it was co-authored by the University of Hull, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, the Universite de Liege and the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research GmbH – UFZ.

    It is an overview of existing evidence and insight across marine, freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems.

    Dr Patrick Fink, co-author and research group leader at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, said:

    Chemical communication is the ubiquitous language of life on earth – but this is being jeopardised by global change.

    There’s no talking with words for life under water, so aquatic organisms ‘talk’ in chemical signals.

    But this fine-tuned ‘language’ is in peril. Globally changing climate and water chemistry are causing acidification threats that may disturb chemical information exchange among freshwater and marine organisms.

    A call for understanding

    The authors also call for a systematic, universal framework approach to address the highlighted knowledge gaps.

    Roggatz said:

    Although a growing number of studies suggest that climate change-associated stressors cause adverse effects on the communication between organisms, knowledge of the underlying mechanisms remains scarce.

    We urgently need a systematic approach to be able to compare results and fully understand the potentially disruptive impact that climate change is having upon each step of this fundamental communication process. Understanding this means we are better equipped to predict and protect the future of our planet.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Tory cuts to civil service jobs signal further austerity

    Boris Johnson’s plan to cut 90,000 civil service jobs marks a return to austerity and will damage public services, a trade union leader has said. It comes as union leaders prepare to meet government officials next week.

    “Back to austerity”

    The prime minister recently tasked his Cabinet with shrinking the size of the service by a fifth. The government will purportedly use the savings for tax cuts to ease the cost-of-living crisis. However, Frances O’Grady, head of the Trades Union Congress, argued the move would provoke widespread anger.

    Speaking to Sky News‘s Sophy Ridge, she said:

    This is back to austerity – and we saw how austerity failed not only ordinary people, families, but it failed the country in the end by holding back growth.

    How on earth the Government expects to be able to shed 90,000 (jobs) at a stroke and for it not to damage communities in the country, I really don’t know.

    Communities will be extremely angry if they’re looking to get hit again in terms of key public services.

    Excessive cheese

    In the same interview, O’Grady urged the prime minister to show “basic respect” to those working from home. Johnson has repeatedly criticised civil servants who work remotely and in a recent Daily Mail article called for staff to return to the office.

    He added that his experience of working from home, where he spent “an awful lot of time” making cups of coffee and eating cheese, was unproductive. There’s no evidence to suggest that excessive cheese eating is a widespread issue among the general working population.

    O’Grady said:

    It feels a bit ironic given the Prime Minister is the classic case of somebody who always works from home because he’s based in Number 10. People deserve a bit of basic respect, I think people who work from home work very hard.

    I would have hoped that politicians facing a living standards emergency had more important things to be getting on with. They’re trying to interfere in day-to-day industrial relations between civil servants, managers and their unions.

    “A state of shock”

    Representatives from the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) will warn that delays in issuing passports and driving licences will get worse if staff numbers are cut. The union has warned of strikes in response to Boris Johnson’s planned 91,000 civil service job cuts.

    PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka said:

    Our members are in a state of shock. That the first they heard of these cuts was when it was announced in the media tells you all you need to know about what the Government thinks of civil servants.

    Our members, the heroes praised by the Government for risking their lives keeping the country running during the pandemic, are now being told their jobs are at risk. Our national conference in 10 days will debate taking co-ordinated strike action. If our members weren’t angry before, they are now, and rightly so.

    Making cuts will only make things worse, make waiting lists longer for those seeking passports and driving licences, make telephone queues longer for those with tax inquiries.

    We shall fight for every job in the civil service. Not just on behalf of our members, but on behalf of every member of the public who relies on the services they provide.

    The PCS will hold talks with government officials early next week. And there will also be an emergency meeting of its executive to discuss its response to job losses.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Number of people seeking help for Long Covid doubles, charity says

    A charity has seen a doubling in the number of people seeking help for Long Covid. And it warned that NHS services are failing to meet demand.

    Long Covid

    Asthma and Lung UK said around half a million people have visited its Long Covid advice web pages or called its helpline for support in the last six months. The number of people viewing the web pages nearly doubled from September to March, as cases of Omicron rose across the UK, it said.

    Latest figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that an estimated 1.8 million people in UK households (2.8% of the population) were experiencing Long Covid as of 3 April – the most recent data available. In these self-reported cases:

    • 382,000 (21%) first had, or suspected they had, coronavirus less than 12 weeks previously;
    • 1.3 million people (73%) had it at least 12 weeks previously;
    • 791,000 (44%) at least one year previously;
    • And 235,000 (13%) at least two years before.

    Fatigue is the most common symptom reported (51% of those with Long Covid). This is followed by shortness of breath (33%), loss of sense of smell (26%), and difficulty concentrating (23%). Some 1.2 million people (67% of those with Long Covid) say symptoms stop them doing some or all of their normal activities.

    According to Asthma and Lung UK, many callers to its helpline are at crisis point. And some have asked for advice on buying oxygen to manage their Long Covid breathlessness. This can be dangerous if it’s not issued on prescription.

    People have also called the helpline to get information on private healthcare providers, because they’re struggling to get NHS help. The latest data from NHS Long Covid clinics in England shows 30% of people waited more than 15 weeks for an initial appointment as of March/April. Data on the overall number of people still waiting for first appointments is not published by the NHS.

    A hidden problem

    Asthma and Lung UK said many more thousands of people could be waiting to access care.

    Sarah Woolnough, its chief executive, said:

    As we near the grim milestone of two million people living with long Covid, there is still a dismal lack of treatments for this disabling condition, which is leaving people fighting for breath and devastating every aspect of their life, health, work and relationships.

    Coupled with a lack of support and long wait times for specialist care, hundreds of thousands of people are turning to charities like Asthma and Lung UK, desperate for vital advice and support.

    With cases only rising, the problem is not going to go away.

    The Government must invest in more research into possible treatments and staffing for long Covid clinics to help people with this new and unpredictable condition to get their lives back on track.

    A NHS spokesperson said:

    Since the pandemic began, the NHS has invested over £220 million and opened 90 specialist clinics and 14 hubs for children and young people to help people with long Covid, so we urge anyone who is concerned about long-lasting symptoms after having coronavirus to get in touch with their GP practice or visit the NHS ‘Your Covid Recovery’ website for further advice on the support available.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Sinn Fein claims PM is ‘in cahoots’ with DUP to block power sharing between parties

    Sinn Fein has accused the UK government of conniving with the DUP to deliberately block power sharing at Stormont.

    “Cahoots”

    Party president Mary Lou McDonald claimed Boris Johnson was “in cahoots with the DUP” in preventing the formation of a new Executive and Assembly in Belfast. McDonald alleged Johnson was “recklessly and cynically” facilitating the DUP as part of a “game of brinkmanship” with the EU. This was over Brexit’s contentious Northern Ireland Protocol.

    McDonald made comments following a meeting of Sinn Fein’s ruling council (ard chomhairle) in Dublin. They come ahead of Johnson’s anticipated visit to Belfast on 16 May to hold talks with the region’s political leaders. In the wake of last week’s Assembly election, the DUP has refused to re-enter a power-sharing executive. It claims to be doing this in protest at post-Brexit trading arrangements which have created barriers on goods moving between Great Britain and the North of Ireland.

    Under Stormont rules, a new administration cannot be formed without the participation of the largest unionist party.

    The DUP has also blocked the nomination of a new Assembly speaker. This means the legislature at Parliament Buildings cannot meet while the impasse continues. The moves come amid mounting speculation that Johnson may signal an intent to override aspects of the Northern Ireland Protocol by way of domestic legislation. However, this is a tactic which the EU has warned against.

    Changes

    The Stormont election saw Sinn Fein displace the DUP to become the overall largest party in the North of Ireland for the first time. Addressing reporters in Dublin, McDonald said:

    The DUP have not simply called a halt to the formation of an Executive, they have equally attempted to place a veto on the operation of the Assembly.

    I mean, it is outrageous.

    And the British government have assisted the DUP in these blocking tactics and they need to desist and certainly when we meet Boris Johnson on Monday we will be making that very clear to him.

    2022 NI Assembly election
    Sinn Fein’s president Mary Lou McDonald (left) and vice president Michelle O’Neill speak to the media after addressing the party’s ruling council in Dublin (Sam Boal/PA)

    On the prospect of unilateral action from the UK over the protocol, the Sinn Fein president added:

    It is very dangerous, it’s reckless, it’s a game of brinkmanship, very cynically carried out by a Tory government in London that has no care for the island of Ireland, north or south.

    The republican leader said people should not be overly “spooked or distracted” by Johnson’s “rhetoric”. She said the London government had repeatedly failed to act in “good faith” throughout the Brexit process. And she added:

    They have consistently threatened to act and have acted unilaterally.

    And let’s just be clear that the protocol is going nowhere. The protocol is a necessary outworking of Brexit for which the Tory party and the DUP campaigned.

    And the British government cannot use Ireland as a pawn, we won’t be the collateral damage in the Brexit negotiations.

    She added:

    We’re not one bit naive as to what’s happening here – it is very clear that the Tory government in London is in cahoots with the DUP to stall and to hold back progress, to frustrate the will of the people as expressed in the election and that, to anybody who calls themselves a democrat, is clearly unacceptable and clearly shameful. And that case will be made to Boris Johnson.

    “Punishing the public”

    Party vice president Michelle O’Neill will be in line to become Northern Ireland’s first minister if the DUP does agree to go back into government. She also addressed the ard chomhairle on 14 May.

    Afterwards, O’Neill also criticised Johnson:

    They (the DUP) are punishing the public for their own Brexit mess and they’re being facilitated in that by the Tories.

    They are punishing the public and that is not acceptable. And Boris Johnson has no mandate here on the island of Ireland.

    But yet he’s facilitating this DUP madness at a time whenever the people need us to be there for them.

    Justifying his party’s stance, DUP leader Jeffrey Donaldson has said there’s a need for a “very clear message” to be sent to the UK government and the EU that action must be taken on the protocol. He insists the trading arrangements have undermined the terms of the 1998 Good Friday/Belfast peace agreement. And he has maintained his party will not re-engage with the Stormont institutions until unionist confidence in them is restored.

    Last week, Johnson said:

    The people of Northern Ireland need leadership, they need a regional, a provincial government… they haven’t got that. That’s a real, real problem.

    And the reason they don’t have that is because there’s one community in Northern Ireland that won’t accept the way the protocol works at present – we’ve got to fix that.

    Meanwhile, foreign secretary Liz Truss has warned that the UK will have “no choice but to act” if the EU does not show enough “flexibility” on reducing post-Brexit checks on goods crossing the Irish Sea.

    Both the Conservatives and the DUP actively campaigned for Brexit.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Margaret Thatcher statue egged within hours of being installed in home town

    A statue of Margaret Thatcher has been egged less than two hours after it was installed in her home town.

    A protester threw eggs from behind a temporary fence surrounding the memorial.

    The statue was lowered into place in Grantham, Lincolnshire, amid previous threats of “egg throwing”.

    In February 2019, a planning committee unanimously voted in favour of the £300k statue. It was originally intended for Parliament Square in Westminster.

    “Coal not dole”

    Despite its unveiling being delayed due to the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, the statue was erected on a 10ft-high granite plinth on the morning of Sunday 15 May.

    Reports originally presented to South Kesteven District Council showed the statue was moved to the area due to fears of a “motivated far-left movement… who may be committed to public activism”.

    A man in a white T-shirt was seen holding an egg carton in one hand and preparing to throw an egg from the other on Sunday.

    Another man arrived wearing a t-shirt displaying the words “coal not dole”. This was the slogan of workers striking against Thatcher’s closure of coal mines in 1984-85. The closures resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and wrought lasting economic devastation on mining communities.

    The council approved a £100k unveiling ceremony in 2020. Following this, a Facebook group proposing an “egg-throwing contest” at the event attracted interest from more than 13,000 people.

    Around 2,400 others visited the Facebook page to say they would go to the event including “egg throwing … and potentially graffiti art”.

    The contents of a thrown egg drip down the newly installed statue of Baroness Margaret Thatcher (Joe Giddens/PA)
    The contents of a thrown egg drip down the newly-installed statue of Baroness Margaret Thatcher (Joe Giddens/PA)

    A CCTV camera has been installed directly opposite the memorial to attempt to combat any threats of vandalism, the council said.

    Egg residue and a piece of shell could be seen on the statue’s lower half.

    Police turned up at the scene within minutes of the incident.

    Council response

    A council spokesperson said the Public Memorials Appeal, which funded the monument through donations, will host an official unveiling ceremony at a later date.

    Leader of South Kesteven District Council Kelham Cooke said:

    Margaret Thatcher will always be a significant part of Grantham’s heritage. She and her family have close ties with Grantham. She was born, raised and went to school here.

    It is, therefore, appropriate that she is commemorated by her home town and that the debate that surrounds her legacy takes place here in Grantham.

    We must never hide from our history and this memorial will be a talking point for generations to come.

    The statue, standing at just over 20ft high, is situated in between two existing statues of Isaac Newton and Frederick Tollemache in the town’s Civic Quarter.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Ex-police constable facing jail over string of racist WhatsApp messages

    An ex-police constable who posted racist WhatsApp memes mocking the death of George Floyd has been warned that he could face a jail sentence.

    James Watts was serving with West Mercia Police in 2020 when he shared the “grossly offensive” material in a group chat which included former colleagues at a Warwickshire prison.

    Charges brought

    Birmingham Magistrates’ Court was told the 31-year-old was charged after a police inquiry into 10 memes posted in May and June 2020, including one featuring a white dog wearing Ku Klux Klan clothing.

    James Watts (right) was accompanied by Police Federation representatives for the court hearing.
    James Watts (right) was accompanied by Police Federation representatives for the court hearing. (Matthew Cooper/PA)

    Other memes posted by Watts, who accepted in police interviews that the messages were racist in nature, featured images of a kneeling mat and a monkey.

    Another message, which was found after a Twitter user claimed a serving policeman had posted racist memes, mocked a line in the movie Jaws.

    Prosecutor Richard Purchase told the court:

    Mr Watts was a probationary police officer with West Mercia Police.

    Four of them (the memes) explicitly referred to George Floyd and the ongoing protests, and to some extent, mocked his death.

    The other six appear to be more general racist memes.

    Watts, of Clifton Road, Castle Bromwich, Birmingham, pleaded guilty on Friday to 10 counts of sending a grossly offensive or menacing message by a public communication network.

    Same offence

    The former prison officer appeared in the dock alongside West Mercia Police Constable Joann Jinks, who entered not guilty pleas to three counts of the same offence.

    Jinks, 41, from Redditch, Worcestershire, was granted unconditional bail to appear for trial at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on August 23.

    Joann Jinks
    West Mercia Pc Joann Jinks outside court after denying three charges of sending a grossly offensive message (Matthew Cooper/PA)

    Adjourning sentence on Watts until next month, the Deputy Chief Magistrate Tan Ikram told him:

    I will seek a pre-sentence report.

    At this stage I am not going to rule out custody. There are aggravating features in this case.

    The court has to bear in mind the considerable reputational damage there can be by this sort of offending, when one is dealing with police officers.

    The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) announced in April this year that charges had been brought against Watts and Jinks under the Communications Act 2003.

    The police watchdog said in a statement announcing the charges:

    Our investigation began in June 2020 following a referral from West Mercia Police after intelligence was received by the force.

    Both defendants were serving West Mercia Police officers at the time of the alleged offences.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • PM does not apologise after Nazanin tells him she lived in ‘shadow of his words’

    Boris Johnson failed to apologise to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe after she described the “massive impact” his false claim had on her six-year detention in Iran, her husband said.

    The Prime Minister was seemingly “shocked” after the British-Iranian dual national told him she had lived for years in the “shadow of his words” during their first meeting since her release.

    Zaghari-Ratcliffe and husband, Richard Ratcliffe, took their daughter, Gabriella, and constituency MP, Tulip Siddiq, to the discussions in Downing Street on Friday.

    Historic debt

    Nazanin was freed in March along with fellow detainee Anoosheh Ashoori after the UK agreed to settle a historic £400 million debt dating to the 1970s.

    But Johnson had been accused of lengthening her ordeal when, as foreign secretary in 2017, he wrongly claimed she had been training journalists at the time of her arrest in 2016.

    Speaking to reporters in Downing Street, Mr Ratcliffe said his wife challenged the Prime Minister on “why did it take so long” to secure her release.

    Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe meets PM
    Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe with her husband Richard Ratcliffe and daughter Gabriella arriving in Downing Street (Victoria Jones/PA)

    She also told him the “massive impact” his comments had on her, even saying the Iranian authorities brought Johnson’s words up during interrogation shortly before her release.

    Asked if the Prime Minister apologised, Mr Ratcliffe responded:

    Not specifically.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The GMB Union just scabbed on Deliveroo workers

    A notorious food delivery company has just signed a deal with an equally contentious trade union. It reeks of corporate capitalist cronyism. And, it looks set to completely undermine workers’ rights – despite what both parties are claiming.

    GMB Union: the bosses’ Trojan horse

    The GMB Union is hardly radical. From its backing of fossil fuel-burning, earthquake-causing fracking to its support for Lisa Nandy in Labour’s 2020 leadership contest – the GMB is as centrist as a union gets. Now, its deal with Deliveroo cements the union’s status as a scabbing, right-wing, bosses’ Trojan horse.

    It gleefully announced on Twitter:

    The accompanying video was a nauseating piece of PR. It stated things like:

    Together, Deliveroo and GMB are standing up for what matters to riders.

    Eh? If the GMB is working “together” with Deliveroo – then who is the union “standing up for”? What exactly do they think riders care about? It could be they care about inflation that keeps making their slave wages worth even less?

    No, of course not. If GMB are in bed with Deliveroo, then they’re saying that the most basic function of a trade union – standing up to bosses – is surplus to their requirements.

    Fuming

    The IWGB Union, which has brilliantly represented Deliveroo workers for years, was fuming. It said:

    Deliveroo… has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds fighting the IWGB in court to prevent collective bargaining with its riders. Deliveroo has always claimed that collective bargaining would come at the cost of flexible working, but this partnership proves that this has always been a lie to scare workers away from unionising. Now as we appeal our collective bargaining case to the Supreme Court, Deliveroo has cynically made this backroom deal with the GMB, which has no record of organising couriers and presents no threat to their exploitative business practices, to protect itself in the event that it loses at the final stage.

    So, the GMB has effectively scabbed on another union.

    Scabs gon’ scab

    The bosses and scabs who organised this dodgy deal with Deliveroo should be ashamed. But they probably won’t be. Because just think: was this even a difficult choice for GMB? No, it’s an easy choice for those shitheels. And, it’s nothing new for a centrist Labour-affiliated union.

    As far back as 1944, Marxists were moaning about how Labour’s trade unions were effectively working for the bosses. As George Padmore wrote back then:

    because the ideology of the ruling-class has permeated the Labour Movement and corrupted influential sections of the leadership…Trade Union leaders have become… closely tied with Monopoly-Capitalists. And as a corollary of this, some of those Labour officials are now actively preaching capitalist control and planning, and at the same time helping Ministers of a Tory-disguised Government to make regulations against the fundamental interests of the working-class. In this way, the Corporate State is being gradually introduced.

    Ring any bells? That’s exactly where we’re at now. It’s time for every decent trade unionist to drop the GMB Union quicker than Keir Starmer can gulp down a curry and a beer. These scabs don’t stand up for workers. They represent no-one but themselves.

    Featured image via GMB Union – screengrab 

    By Steve Topple

  • Boris Johnson sacking civil servants will save 0.4% of the government’s budget

    Boris Johnson has said he’s ordered civil service bosses to sack 90,000 members of staff, according to reports in the corporate media. The reason? The PM says the money saved will “reduce the cost of living”. But in reality, this is just spin – the cash saved from the move amounts to less than 0.4% of the government’s entire spending.

    Johnson: culling civil servants

    BBC News reported that Johnson wants to return the number of civil servants to 2016 levels. As it noted:

    There were 384,000 civil servants employed in 2016… numbers steadily rose until they reached 475,000 at the end of last year.

    The Daily Mail originally reported the story. It quoted Johnson as saying the civil service was “swollen” and:

    We have got to cut the cost of government to reduce the cost of living…

    Every pound the government pre-empts from the taxpayer is money they can spend on their own priorities, on their own lives.

    The right-wing tabloid pushed the idea that Johnson’s cull of staff would save £3.5bn. That may sound like a lot. But in reality, it’s the equivalent of the Tories finding a fiver down the back of the sofa.

    Money for literally nothing

    In 2019/20, pre-pandemic, total government budgeted spending was £884bn. So, the Daily Mail‘s £3.5bn works out to under 0.4% of government spending. But what does this amount of money look like?

    £3.5bn is equivalent to:

    These aren’t exactly huge figures. But what about Johnson’s claim that his sacking of 90,000 staff will mean the rest of us can spend more on “our own lives”? The Daily Mail‘s saving of £3.5bn would be the equivalent of giving everyone in the UK around £52. That wouldn’t even cover the weekly food shop for two adults.

    So if Johnson’s sacking of 90,000 civil servants is barely saving any money – then why is he doing it?

    The ghost of Cummings?

    Johnson’s former adviser Dominic Cummings, along with now-housing secretary Michael Gove, spent a lot of time pushing for civil service reform. And while the former resigned a year and a half ago, his influence over Downing Street decisions seems to linger. Cummings didn’t like the size of civil service departments, much like a previous review into this under the coalition government. He also wanted to put more power in the hands of ministers, and ultimately Johnson.

    So by culling 90,000 staff it seems the PM is in part carrying on Cummings’ plan. The financial chaos faced by the rest of us is the perfect way to sell it to the public. But this mustn’t fool us – do we really want the Tories and Johnson to have more power over decisions that affect us all for the sake of £52?

    Featured image via the Independent – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Waiting list for urgent eating disorder care rises to record levels

    The number of children and young people waiting for urgent eating disorder treatment has risen to record levels, new data shows.

    Data published on Thursday by NHS England shows growing waiting lists for those under 19 suffering illnesses such as anorexia and bulimia.

    The figures show there were 249 children and young people in England waiting to start urgent treatment at the end of March, up from 130 the same time last year.

    The number of under-19s who had been waiting for more than 12 weeks for treatment rose for the sixth quarter in a row, to 94, up from 13 at the end of March 2021.

    The number waiting for routine care fell slightly from a record 1,918 at the end of December to 1,697 at the end of March.

    However, that was still up 21% on the 1,404 children and young people waiting for routine care at the end of March 2021.

    Rising cases, falling treatments

    The longest waiting lists were in the south west, with 123 children and young people waiting for urgent eating disorder care, and 376 waiting for routine treatment at the end of March.

    This compares to five under-19s in the north west waiting for urgent treatment, and 164 waiting for routine care in the Midlands.

    Meanwhile, the figures show that the number of under-19s starting urgent treatment dropped from 719 from January to March 2021 to 590 during the same months this year.

    Routine cases starting treatment fell from 2,421 to 2,396 over the same period.

    A missed target

    The Government made a commitment to ensure that 95% of under-19s receive treatment within a week for urgent cases, and within four weeks for every other case by the end of 2020-21.

    The target was knocked off course by the pandemic, however.

    The data shows that just 62% of patients started urgent treatment within a week in the fourth quarter of 2021-22, up slightly from the previous three months but well below the record high of 88% in the first quarter of 2020-21.

    Some 64% of patients started routine treatment within four weeks in the fourth quarter of 2021-22, which is the lowest number on record, down from a peak of 90% in the second quarter of 2020-21.

    In response, Andrew Radford – chief executive of Beat, a UK-based eating disorder charity – said:

    It is very worrying that momentum has been lost and the NHS is no longer on track to meet waiting times targets for routine cases by 2020. People who do not get treatment fast will become more ill, causing more suffering to them and their family and a greater cost to the NHS.

    The Government has allocated an extra £30 million every year for children and young people’s eating disorder services but it seems this is not always reaching the frontline services where it is most needed. More must be done to ensure it is spent as intended so that services have the resources to meet the waiting times targets and provide treatment fast.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Is beergate/partygate a distraction?

    Politicians should be held to account, but while most of the media is focused on beergate and partygate, the government is pushing through authoritarian laws with little opposition. Curtis Daily argues that we should be more concerned about the class war being waged against the poor and marginalised.

    By Curtis Daly

    This post was originally published on The Canary.