Category: UK

  • The government’s so-called VIP lane for personal protective equipment (PPE) contracts was not just “dodgy” but “illegal”, Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner has said. During Cabinet Office questions in the House of Commons on Thursday, Rayner pressed Cabinet Office minister Steve Barclay on the High Court’s judgement that the government’s use of the lane to award multimillion pound contracts was unlawful.

    Rayner said:

    The Government’s VIP lane for PPE procurement wasn’t just dodgy, it was actually illegal. That was not my opinion, but the judgment of a High Court yesterday.

    No due diligence

    The Labour deputy leader said Cabinet Office ministers stood at the despatch box “time and time again” to say “detailed diligence and full financial checks were done”, but on Wednesday the court “found that the Cabinet Office simply did not have the resources necessary to undertake due diligence”.

    She added:

    Officials simply searched online to confirm one company existed and another received a red warning but it wasn’t passed on. Can he tell us how much from those two contracts alone was spent on equipment that wasn’t even used by the NHS?

    Barclay dismissed Rayner’s claims as he argued the government strained “every sinew” to ensure PPE was provided. He said:

    The court acknowledged, quote, that it’s highly unlikely that the outcome would have been substantially different if a different assessment process had been followed.

    I think what the House quite rightly would have challenged the Government on is, firstly, if anything different would have occurred if a different approach had happened, and secondly, on the fundamental point, which is at a time of national crisis, whether the Government was straining every sinew to ensure that those at the sharp end in our NHS – clinicians – had the PPE that they needed. The Government did do that.

    Legal action

    The Good Law Project and campaign group EveryDoctor took legal action over contracts worth almost £600m awarded to pest control firm PestFix and hedge fund Ayanda Capital at the height of the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic.

    The High Court was told a VIP lane was reserved for referrals from MPs, ministers and senior officials, with the campaigners arguing the Government “prioritised suppliers including PestFix and Ayanda because of who they knew, not what they could deliver”.

    In a judgment on Wednesday, Mrs Justice O’Farrell said the use of the lane, officially known as the high priority lane, was unlawful. However, she found both of the companies’ offers “justified priority treatment on its merits” and were “very likely” to have been awarded contracts even without the VIP lane. The government’s VIP lane was not the only issue raised by Labour MPs on Thursday morning.

    “Wallpaper for access”

    Shadow Cabinet Office minister Fleur Anderson also asked for a “serious explanation” as to why Boris Johnson’s exchange with Lord Brownlow about the refurbishment of the prime minister’s No 10 flat “was not passed on to the independent adviser on ministerial interests when it was passed on to the Electoral Commission for their investigation”.

    She said:

    We have a new term in British politics. Wallpaper for access.

    Cabinet Office minister Michael Ellis said:

    Lord Geidt has not changed his assessment that no conflict of interest arose from the support provide by Lord Brownlow.

    The Prime Minister correctly declared an interest as required under the ministerial code and Lord Geidt now considers the matter closed.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The predicted 50% rise in energy bills from April could trigger a national emergency for millions of older people, a charity has warned. Age UK has urged ministers to take immediate and decisive action on energy bills to “mitigate the potentially devastating impact of the escalating crisis”.

    Rising bills could be affecting physical health

    In a letter this week to business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng and work and pensions secretary Therese Coffey, the charity wrote:

    We know that many older people on low incomes already feel under so much financial pressure that they are rationing their energy use, and this is causing us real concern.

    For example, we have heard from older people who are too worried to use their oven and are living off soup and sandwiches instead, showering only every two days rather than daily, and constantly watching their smart meter and turning their heating off once their daily spending exceeds the meagre limit they have set.

    Now that winter is well and truly upon us, it is all the more important that older people on low incomes have the confidence to keep their heating switched on so they can stay adequately warm over the next few months and protect their health.

    This means that the Government must reassure them that, if they do so, they will not face an energy bill in the spring that will be beyond their means to pay.

    Increased prices are eating into people’s pensions

    The government’s price cap, which limits the amounts that suppliers can charge, is currently at an already record-beating £1,277. But analysts at Investec think this could go up to £1,995 on April 1.

    The rises are due to a major spike in global gas prices, which have been pushed up by high demand around the world.

    Age UK said rising inflation was already eating into the pensions of swathes of older people, but warned that the unprecedented hike in wholesale energy prices would be unmanageable for those living on low fixed incomes.

    Older people are typically at home more than younger age groups and feel the cold to a greater extent, meaning predictions of a £600 bill increase is likely to be a significant underestimation for many.

    The charity said cutting the five percent VAT from all households’ energy bills from April until at least the end of 2022 and providing additional payments of up to £500 to those on the lowest incomes could encourage vulnerable older people to keep their heating on this winter.

    Some are switching off their heating to save money

    Age UK’s director Caroline Abrahams said:

    The astronomical hike in energy prices now widely anticipated has already forced many deeply anxious older people on low incomes to turn their heating down below what is comfortable or advisable, with some switching it off altogether for some or all of the day and night.

    CITY Bulb
    (PA Graphics)

    Make no mistake, this situation will have a devastating impact on the health of our older population unless the Government intervenes quickly and takes their fears away.

    Older people, particularly those living on low fixed incomes, urgently need reassurance from the Government that they can afford to keep warm when low temperatures demand it without going into debt – something most dread and will do anything to avoid.

    Ministers will have to go considerably further than offering token gestures of financial support such as adding £10 per year to the Warm Home Discount Scheme from next year. Energy price rises on the scale we are now seeing are unprecedented and the Government’s response must be equal to the threat they pose to older people living on low and modest incomes.

    Age UK is urging older people to call its free national advice line on 0800 169 65 65 before turning the heating off or down to check they are receiving all the financial support available to them, and to be aware that energy suppliers have a duty to offer support if people are struggling with bills or debt.

    A government spokesman said:

    We are taking decisive action to help more than 11.4 million pensioners with the cost of living by providing Winter Fuel Payments of up to £300 per household.

    This is on top of wider support which includes billions of pounds for households via the Energy Price Cap, Warm Home Discount Scheme, Cold Weather Payments, Household Support Fund, and freezes to alcohol and fuel duty.

    Domestic fuels such as gas and electricity are already subject to the reduced rate of five percent of VAT.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • England’s rivers are filled with a “chemical cocktail” of sewage, agricultural waste and plastic putting public health and nature at risk, a cross-party parliamentary group has said. In a new report published on Thursday, the Environmental Audit Committee said only 14% of English rivers meet good ecological status.

    It added that it has been tricky to get a complete overview of the health of rivers due to “outdated, underfunded and inadequate monitoring” and until the passing of the Environment Act last year, there had been a “lack of political will” to improve water quality.

    Woodlands for water project
    The committee said it has been tricky to get a complete overview of the health of rivers due to ‘outdated, underfunded and inadequate monitoring’ (PA)

    The build of waste is suffocating fish

    Some of the issues the group has raised includes river quality monitoring not identifying microplastics, persistent chemical pollutants or antimicrobial resistant pathogens flowing through rivers. Other concerns the committee has include plants, invertebrates and fish being suffocated as a result of the build-up of high levels of nutrients, such as phosphorus and nitrogen, from sewage and animal waste and the extent of sewage discharge, misreporting and large spills by water companies.

    In its report, it added that fats, oils and greases, and cleaning and hygiene products containing plastic, are also causing problems for drainage systems – while single-use plastic hygiene products are clogging up drains and sewage works. Its recommendations include urging for regulatory action, water company investment and ross-catchment collaboration to restore rivers to good ecological health.

    The committee says Ofwat should examine the powers it has to limit payment of bonuses to water company executives until the permit breaches cease and that the Environment Agency should consider creating an online platform where scientists can upload their data on water quality.

    MP portraits
    Philip Dunne is the chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee (Chris McAndrew/UK Parliament/PA)

    A “Victorian sewerage system”

    Environmental Audit Committee chairman Philip Dunne said:

    Rivers are the arteries of nature and must be protected. Our inquiry has uncovered multiple failures in the monitoring, governance and enforcement on water quality. For too long, the Government, regulators and the water industry have allowed a Victorian sewerage system to buckle under increasing pressure.

    Today, we are calling for these relevant bodies to come together and develop a system fit for the future. Monitoring regimes need to be reviewed, enforcement needs to be ramped up, and even public awareness needs boosting on what can and cannot be poured down drains or flushed down the toilet. So many emerging pollutants are being missed by inadequate and insufficient monitoring, and court actions against polluters have fallen dramatically.

    To deliver real change and improve the state of our rivers, a wide range of stakeholders must come together including the Government, regulators and water companies. The Environment Act signalled the first welcome sign of political will to tackle this issue. I hope this marks the start of Government regulatory and polluter action to improve the state of our rivers for all to enjoy.

    Over £137 million in fines since 2015

    Environment minister Rebecca Pow said the government welcomes the report and was going “further and faster than any other government to protect and enhance the health of rivers and seas”.

    An Environment Agency spokesperson said:

    The EA has launched a major investigation into possible unauthorised spills at thousands of sewage treatment works, secured fines of over £137 million since 2015 for pollution incidents and placed new requirements on water companies to significantly increase their monitoring and reporting so that everyone can see what is happening. We are also working with farmers to support environmentally friendly farming that doesn’t damage water quality.

    Everyone should understand the scale of the challenges and the investment needed to put things right. We welcome the EAC’s recommendations and will respond in due course.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • 4 Mins Read Dr. Shireen Kassam claims that the NHS would save billions if more people embrace a plant-based diet. Kassam is the Founder of the Plant-Based Health Professionals network. She has bolstered her claim with global study findings.  One particular Taiwanese study, published in 2019, has been cited as proof that a switch to whole foods and […]

    The post NHS Doctor Claims Vegan Diet Will Save UK’s Embattled Health Sector £30 Billion appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • 3 Mins Read UK supermarket chain Morrisons has launched its Plant Revolution brand. The fully vegan range aims to make plant-based eating simple and interesting. The brand’s debut features 50 products from grab-and-go sandwiches to ready meals and desserts. Plant Revolution was inspired by existing Morrisons’ customers who asked for more began options. The overarching feedback was that […]

    The post Morrisons Joins The Plant-Based Race With 50 New Vegan Products appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Politicians and pandemics don’t always mix well. By nature, politicians like Boris Johnson lie, bend facts, distort and obfuscate. In contrast, the scientific community is largely focused on finding the best evidence and applying that evidence in practice.

    Most people, however, haven’t the training to locate, let alone properly appraise, scientific evidence – especially as there are also allegations of dodgy science and fault-ridden claims. But there is one resource – a mammoth resource – that may help in regard to coronavirus (Covid-19). Moreover, that resource is available to everyone, not just the experts. It’s an excellent example of knowledge empowerment, providing evidence summaries on all aspects of the virus and likely treatments.

    A global resource for all

    COVID-END is hosted by McMaster Health Forum. Its global partners are extensive and include: Cochrane, EPPI Centre, NICE, Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (Oxford), Africa Centre for Evidence, Epistemonikos Foundation, TRIP Database, and Magic Project among others. COVID-END aims to:

    help those already supporting decision-making to find and use the best evidence that is already out there. It will also help reduce duplication and better coordinate the evidence syntheses, technology assessment and guidelines being produced.

    This video provides an introduction, stressing that the resources are not just for scientists and clinicians:

    COVID-END is funded by the Canadian government, the government of Ontario, the UK’s National Institute of Health Research (Evidence Synthesis Programme), and individual donors.

    Searching the evidence

    COVID-END specialises in evidence syntheses, which is about bringing high quality evidence studies on a single topic together. Evidence syntheses are updated once new evidence is made available, though that means during a pandemic there is an inevitable delay in updates.

    One COVID-END “living evidence synthesis” is dated 17 November 2021, in answer to the question, “What is the efficacy and effectiveness of available COVID-19 vaccines for variants of concern?” (Note: this synthesis was too early to include evidence about the Omicron variant). A plain language version is also provided.

    Another COVID-END resource is living evidence profiles, which examine guidelines not included in existing syntheses. For example, there’s the living evidence profile regarding the question:

    What is known about how schools (K-12) and post-secondary institutions (colleges and universities) adjust COVID-19 transmission-mitigation measures as infection rates change and vaccination rates increase?

    The answers, including the issue of mask wearing in schools and similar settings, are provided here.

    A further feature is its searchable link to over 343 [spreadsheet] global coronavirus knowledge hubs. These hubs are defined as a “publicly available platform whose main aim is to collate and share relevant data, research and other types of evidence related to the COVID-19 pandemic”.

    COVID-END also includes a free subscription service, providing “updates to the ‘best’ living evidence syntheses and new ‘best’ evidence syntheses”.

    WHO guideline

    In addition to the COVID-END collection of resources is the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) evidence-based guideline, last updated 23 September 2021. It focuses on drug treatments for coronavirus.

    The WHO recommendation for corticosteroids for patients suffering from severe or critical coronavirus is strong. A drop-down menu lists recommended corticosteroids: Dexamethasone, Hydrocortisone, Methylprednisolone, and Prednisone. However, for non-severe coronavirus cases, the WHO guideline recommends that corticosteroids should not be used. It also states:

    conditional recommendation against remdesivir; a strong recommendation against hydroxychloroquine; a strong recommendation against lopinavir/ritonavir; [and] a recommendation against ivermectin, except in the context of a clinical trial.

    Ivermectin is used as “an anti-parasitic medication” and “a veterinary drug that can get rid of parasites in animals”. It has been widely promoted, despite the fact that studies supporting it have shown to be flawed.

    The evidence that it can be used to treat Covid is “thin”. Indeed the WHO guideline states “We recommend not to use ivermectin in patients with covid-19 except in the context of a clinical trial, regardless of disease severity or duration of symptoms (strong recommendation)”. An evidence profile on Ivermectin is provided in the drop down menu.

    Neither the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) nor the European Medicines Agency (EMA) advise using Ivermectin for treatment of coronavirus.

    An acknowledgement is given by the WHO guideline to the “living systematic review and network meta-analysis team” at McMaster University.

    Other evidence-based resources

    Another useful resource is the Covid living network meta-analysis (LNMA), a partnership between WHO, the BMJ, Magic (Evidence Ecosystem Foundation), and McMaster University. LNMA provides a structured search facility for coronavirus, focusing on drug treatments, prophylaxis (preventative treatments), and antibodies and cellular treatments.

    There’s also the Living Overview of Evidence (LOVE) searchable database. It’s powered by the Epistemonikos Foundation which is partnered with Cochrane. LOVE provides access to over 8,000 systematic reviews, over 5000 broad syntheses, and more than 250,000 articles – all on coronavirus. To make searching easy, it includes a filtering system to narrow results. There’s also a browsable facility (in this case by clicking on a menu of topics, listed in alphabetical order).

    Warnings

    In a September 2020 article in Emergency Medicine Journal, the authors issued a warning about the problems facing evidence-based medicine (EBM) during a pandemic:

    The expedited thirst for information and the rapidity of the pandemic have led to abbreviated peer review, publication of unvalidated data, retraction and dissemination through press release.

    They also warn how wider issues can often get in the way of science:

    The principles of EBM are more important now than at any other time in our careers. We must collectively do all that we can to ensure that our response to the [coronavirus] pandemic is based on the science and not on the emotional, political or economic issues that challenge it.

    The last part of that second warning is arguably the most pertinent, given how politicians often put out mixed messages – such as Boris Johnson’s 2021 Christmas Covid rules. Or when they ignore the science for political reasons.

    As global citizens, it’s our responsibility to keep politicians in check, while arming ourselves with the latest evidence available. It’s about saving lives.

    Featured image via US Secretary of Defense cropped to 770×403 via Wikimedia Commons

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The scandal over Downing Street partying while the rest of us were under coronavirus (Covid-19) restrictions is rumbling on. So, you’d think that Keir Starmer’s Labour would want to shame Boris Johnson’s team at every opportunity. But that’s not the case. Because a vote in parliament managed to shame Labour itself.

    Labour: the abstaining way

    The welfare cap is a limit the government is allowed to spend on social security. FYI – it’s not the same as the so-called benefit cap, which limits how much the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) can give a household. On Monday 10 January, there was a parliamentary vote to keep the cap in place and set it at a certain level, and most Labour MPs abstained. This caused uproar among many people, because the welfare cap affects millions of people.

    Con-Lib social security restrictions

    In 2014, the Tory-Lib Dem coalition government introduced the welfare cap. It was part of its Charter for Budget Responsibility. This is a government document saying how much it can spend.

    Every so often, parliament reviews the welfare cap. For example, as a House of Commons briefing paper said:

    The cap is only formally assessed at the first Budget or first fiscal update of each new Parliament.

    The current welfare cap was set in the Spring Budget 2020, and the Treasury said it would apply until 2024/25. It set it at £137.2bn. The Treasury also said this was with a margin of 3%. That is, the government could spend 3% extra or less on either side of £137.2bn. During 2021’s Autumn Budget, however, the Tories said they would be changing the welfare cap again.

    Hitting the poorest families

    The government has now increased the amount it can spend on social security. The figure is set at £138.3bn, with a margin of 2%. This is a £1.1bn increase, or 0.8%. On the face of it, it seems that the Tories have increased social security spending. But in reality, this is not really the case. For example, when you factor in inflation (the cost of everything we buy), it wipes the Tories’ welfare cap increase out, because Consumer Prices Index inflation rose by 4.6% in the 12 months to November 2021 alone.

    Then, you also have the fact that due to the pandemic and changes to DWP policy, there are more people claiming social security. For example, the number of people claiming Universal Credit more than doubled between February 2020 and May 2021. And as of October 2021, this figure had barely changed. So, the 0.8% increase in spending may not even cover that.

    The cap also means that if there is a continued increase in social security claimants, the government doesn’t have to increase the welfare budget accordingly. This may inevitably lead to reduced benefit rates for claimants

    Get out of jail free card

    Within the welfare cap update was a change to how it works. And it’s one that’s potentially more worrying.

    The Tory government has updated the terms of the Charter of Budget Responsibility. In it, it has a ‘get out’ clause for the welfare cap. In short, if there is what the government calls a “negative shock” to the economy, it doesn’t have to stick to the welfare cap. That is, if there’s a financial crash (or the pandemic worsens), the Tories can cut spending on social security to below the cap. And while the Tories could use this to increase welfare spending, the party’s track record makes this highly unlikely.

    Despite this, most Labour MPs thought it was okay to abstain on 10 January’s vote.

    The wrong message

    Of course, even if the Labour MPs had voted against the cap, the Tories would still have won. But that’s not really the point. It sends out the message that Labour isn’t fully against the welfare cap. Or, as one SNP MP told the National:

    As the UK faces a Tory-made cost-of-living crisis, it is the duty of the opposition to fight for those being directly affected. However, yet again, the Labour Party are posted missing and continue to let down the UK’s working class.

    Starmer’s party was completely on the wrong side of the argument here. So, even when the Tory government is under huge pressure, Labour still manages to look uncaring and ‘Tory-lite’. Shameful.

    Featured image via Guardian News – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • People are rightly furious after Boris Johnson admitted that he was at the Downing Street party. Social media is full of heartbreaking stories of relatives who died without seeing loved ones, and sacrifices that people made because of the pandemic. Other people are highlighting the covid fines or warnings they faced as the police ran rampant and abused their powers on ordinary citizens.

    But there’s an even bigger scandal that’s hit the headlines today. And it’s vital that it’s not ignored.

    The government broke the law over PPE contracts

    The High Court has ruled that the government’s use of a so-called “VIP lane” to award millions of pounds worth of contracts for personal protective equipment (PPE) was unlawful.

    The Good Law Project and EveryDoctor took legal action over nearly £600 million of contracts awarded to pest control firm PestFix and hedge fund Ayanda Capital at the height of the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic.

    The High Court was told a VIP lane was reserved for referrals from MPs, ministers and senior officials, with campaigners arguing the government “prioritised suppliers including PestFix and Ayanda because of who they knew, not what they could deliver”.

    In a judgment on Wednesday, justice O’Farrell said the use of the VIP lane was unlawful.

    The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) had contested the claim, telling the court it “wholeheartedly” rejected the case against it and that the VIP lane was rational and resulted in a “large number of credible offers” in an environment where PPE deals often failed within “minutes”.

    But at a hearing last May, the Good Law Project and EveryDoctor argued a VIP supplier was “more than 10 times as likely” to get a contract compared to a non-VIP supplier.

    O’Farrell said DHSC’s evidence “establishes that presence on the high priority lane did not confer any advantage at the decision-making stage of the process”.

    However, she concluded that the VIPs lane did give a “material advantage” to selected contractors.

    The Good Law Project summarised the judgment:

    And as the Good Law Project pointed out, most of the PPE produced by these companies wasn’t even suitable for the NHS:

    Enough is enough!

    This is a corrupt government that thinks it can get away with blatantly breaking the law whilst awarding multimillion-pound contracts to its friends. It’s time to say enough is enough. We cannot and should not put up with this morally bankrupt government any longer.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • So far, 12 people have been sentenced to prison for the Kill the Bill demonstration that took place in Bristol on 21 March 2021. Their convictions range from arson to riot after they fought back against state brutality in what was some of the worst policing I have ever seen in the UK.

    Eight of the prisoners are currently serving their sentences at HMP Portland in Dorset. Portland prison is an imposing fortress, built in the 1880s, designed to grind down those trapped inside. But on 9 January, activists from around the country travelled to Portland in solidarity with the prisoners. They made as much noise as they could outside the prison walls, unfurled banners, set off fireworks, and chanted to the prisoners that they weren’t alone.

    One of the activists explained to The Canary why they had driven across the country to take part in the demonstration. They said:

    Noise demonstrations like this are extremely important. We do this to remind those who have been imprisoned that they are not alone, and that the struggle continues on their behalf outside of the prison walls. People are not forgotten as soon as they are behind bars. They are bearing the consequences of the repressive laws that we are fighting against, and they remain a central part of our movement.

    In response, prisoners waved from their cell windows, shouted back at the activists, and later on sent their love.

    State wrath

    Since scenes of Bristol’s burning police cars were broadcast around the world, the state has been intent on saving face and showing its might. It’s doing this by making an example of those who dared to fight back against both police violence and the draconian policing bill being brought in. It hopes that by cracking down on the Bristol ‘rioters’, it will ensure that the rest of the population tows the line.

    So far, 82 people have been arrested – most of them for riot – following the 21 March demonstration. 12 of them have now received sentences totalling over 49 years in prison, including Ryan Roberts, who was sentenced to a brutal 14 years in prison in December. Putting his conviction into perspective, the starting sentence for someone convicted of murder is 15 years.

    Support the prisoners

    Bristol Anarchist Black Cross, a group that supports prisoners, is urging the public to write to those locked up. It says:

    Writing to prisoners is one of the most important acts we can do to break the isolation that prisons enforce on people. It can make a huge difference to prisoners knowing that people on the outside are thinking of them.

    2022 will see many more court cases and potential convictions over the Kill The Bill demonstrations of 2021. And when the police bill passes, we’re likely to see a myriad of different arrests as the police get increased powers. This is a historical moment in British history, and will be remembered as a time when people either stood up for their rights or stayed silent while the state took our last freedoms away. There’s another Kill The Bill demonstration on 15 January: let’s make ourselves heard.

    Featured image via Nigel Mykura / Wikimedia Commons / licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

    By Eliza Egret

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • 10 January saw the highly controversial police bill back in parliament yet again, this time to vote on one of its most racist elements. The House of Lords voted on amendments to Part 10 of the bill, which will introduce Serious Violence Reduction Orders (SVROs).

    But home secretary Priti Patel faced a blow to her powers after the Lords voted to adopt an amendment to stop her rolling out SVROs after a pilot scheme. Instead, once the pilot scheme is completed, both the Commons and the Lords will have a chance to debate the evaluation of the scheme before its implemented further. As Green peer Jenny Jones pointed out:

    Why on earth would they be brought in before they [SVROs] have been measured? It is essential that the Government prove the efficacy of these measures and demonstrate that they are not being used in a way that is racially or otherwise discriminatory.

    The amendment will now go back to the House of Commons where MPs will decide whether they accept it or whether the bill goes back to the House of Lords without the amendment.

    But while any curtailment of government power is welcome, SVROs should not be introduced in any area and this amendment will do nothing to help all the people who will be harassed and criminalised under the pilot scheme.

    SVROs

    In March 2021, the government announced pilot schemes for SVROs in four police force areas – Thames Valley, West Midlands, Merseyside and Sussex.

    According to Liberty:

    Serious Violence Reduction Orders (SVROs), created under the Policing Bill, are a new civil order that can be given to an individual, including if they knew, or ought to have known, that someone else had a knife or would use a knife. The police will be given the power to stop and search people who have an SVRO without suspicion at any time in a public place.

    This will give the police much more power to harass certain individuals with impunity, as they will no longer require the ‘reasonable grounds’ generally needed to stop and search someone. Instead, the individual can be searched at any time, whenever they are in a public space, if they have been issued with an SVRO.

    Of course, this will have a massive impact on the Black community, which is already traumatised by the police’s stop and search powers. Before this bill has even passed, Black people are already 9.7 times more likely to get stopped and searched. Individuals listed on the Met Police’s Gangs Matrix – a database of people that the Met suspects to be gang members – are likely to find themselves particularly targeted.

    According to Garden Court Chambers:

    People who have never been involved in violence are added to the Matrix and it’s disproportionate. In October 2017 78% of the people on the Matrix were Black, an even more striking statistic in light of the fact that only 28% of those responsible for serious youth violence were Black.

    Guilt by association

    As Liberty has stated, someone can be issued with an SVRO if they know, or ought to have known, that someone else had a knife. The term ‘ought to have known’ is so subjective that it’s laughable. It gives the state the power to issue an SVRO to pretty much anyone it doesn’t like, and that person doesn’t need to be guilty of any crime. It will, however, be a crime to breach the restrictions.

    Campaigners argue that this will effectively expand the crime of ‘joint enterprise’. While the Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that the law had been wrongly used for thirty years, campaigners are still fighting for the law to be reformed. Jun Pang, policy and campaigns officer at Liberty, argued:

    Joint Enterprise is widely recognised as an unjust way of dragging people into the criminal justice system, and is used overwhelmingly against people from poor and minoritised communities, especially Black men and children.

    We know that existing stop and search powers don’t reduce crime, and that they’re used “unfairly and sometimes unlawfully“. SVROs will make racial discrimination even more prevalent in society.

    They are just one proposal in a long line of draconian measures that will be brought in once the racist police bill is passed. It’s time scrap the whole ludicrous bill.

    Featured image via Ilovetheeu/Wikimedia Commons, resized to 770px x 403px, licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)

    By Eliza Egret

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Tuesday 11 January sees yet another Tory bill being debated in the House of Lords. This time it’s Sajid Javid’s disgraceful Health and Care Bill. If it passes, we will see a healthcare system with further privatisation of the NHS, giving companies dangerous sway over how our health system is run.

    The key change, once the bill becomes law, will be the increasing power of Integrated Health Care Systems (ICSs) and the boards that will run them. According to the NHS, the role of ICSs is to coordinate:

    partnerships between the NHS, local authorities, and a range of stakeholders to improve services and the health of people within their area.

    A push towards privatisation

    By April 2021, 42 ICSs were already in place across England. The NHS says that the boards are organisations “with responsibility [for] NHS functions and budgets”. According to The Canary’s Curtis Daly:

    The important part to look for is who’s represented on these Care Boards. It will range from charities, councils… and private health firms.

    What insight do private health providers bring to the table? Nothing except profitability over the quality of care. The aim is not to provide patients with the best services but to serve shareholders.

    That is the whole point of these structural changes – to move public wealth into private hands.

    The NHS has already designated who will be chair of the majority of the boards, even though the bill hasn’t yet passed.

    And the NHS was already dealt a huge blow when the Health and Social Care Act was passed in 2012. Daly says:

    The Health and Social Care Act was a significant move to privatisation. Before the legislation was brought in, hospitals were restricted to only making 2% of their income from the private sector. This dramatically increased to 49%.

    The bill will also hand a huge amount of power to the government to control what happens at a local level in the NHS. According to Keep Our NHS Public:

    •  the Secretary of State for Health will assume decision making power to impose local service reconfigurations
    •  the right and power of scrutiny by local authorities of significant health changes will be weakened or abolished
    • the right of access by the public to board meetings and papers may also be threatened.
    Is this our last chance to save the NHS from complete destruction?

    As the public urges the House of Lords to step up to save our health care system, SOS NHS – a coalition of campaign groups – has called a public emergency. At a time when coronavirus (Covid-19) deaths have exceeded 175,000, SOS NHS argues that:

    There has also been a total failure of government during the pandemic. Public health measures have been undermined and far too many have been allowed to die, especially among vulnerable groups.

    It also says:

    Billions have been wasted on failed, privatised test and trace and useless PPE: we need investment to expand our NHS, not line the pockets of private shareholders. But the Health and Care Bill going through parliament won’t stop privatisation. Instead it strengthens central powers and further reduces any local control or accountability.

    A core demand of the campaign is to “invest in a fully publicly-owned NHS & guarantee free healthcare for future generations”. But as the bill passes through the Lords, it’s highly unlikely that parliament will put the public before profit.

    We already live in a desperately unequal society, divided by both class, race, and migration status. We mustn’t stand by and watch the last remnants of our public healthcare be crushed by the rich and their powerful corporate friends. After all, it’s society’s most vulnerable that will suffer the most from the changes to the NHS. As the Tories pass bill after draconian bill, we must continue to shout out our resistance.

    Featured image via Flickr/Gary Knight

    By Eliza Egret

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Hundreds of fines for breaking coronavirus (Covid-19) laws were handed out by police in the week of the Downing Street garden party during England’s first lockdown.

    Scotland Yard has said it is in contact with the Cabinet Office about the 20 May 2020 allegations at Number 10.

    The coronavirus crackdown

    There were 807 fixed penalty notices issued for breaches of coronavirus rules in England and Wales in the week between 15 May and 21 May 2020, the latest data from the National Police Chiefs’ Council shows. According to the figures, a total of 118,963 fines were processed by police between 27 March 2020 and 16 December 2021.

    Coronavirus rules had changed a week before the party as the government warned it was considering tougher enforcement measures for anyone flouting the rules.

    Lockdown fines rose to £100 in England on 13 May 2020 – a figure that mirrors the number of attendees invited to a Downing Street garden party around the same time. The fines could be issued to anyone believed to be breaching restrictions on movement amid the coronavirus outbreak. While anyone found breaking the law would have had their first fine lowered to £50 if paid within 14 days, the penalty doubled for each repeat offence, up to a maximum of £3,200.

    Existing legislation known as the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 was updated to reflect the changes.

    At the same time, the government published a 50-page document setting out its coronavirus recovery strategy for England which said it was “examining more stringent enforcement measures for non-compliance”. The document said the higher fines “reflect the increased risk to others of breaking the rules as people are returning to work and school”.

    ‘Reasonable’ excuses

    Laws in force at the time still required people to have a reasonable excuse to leave their home, such as to buy food and medical supplies, and limited other exceptions such as attending a funeral, court, or legal proceedings, or to “escape a risk of harm”. There was no provision for people to attend garden parties with colleagues.

    Changes in the law also allowed people to collect orders from shops and other businesses which had been permitted to stay open or go to waste and recycling centres.

    According to the legislation, people could only meet one other person from outside their own household at a time in a public space or for exercise. Government ministers urged people not to visit relatives and friends in their own homes or gardens.

    Guidance issued at the time said people would be able to spend time outdoors, other than just for exercise, as long as they were not meeting more than one person from outside their household, while observing social distancing measures by keeping two metres apart.

    In terms of ‘excusing’ the current situation, Tory attempts to defend the prime minister have drawn criticism:

    At the same time, Johnson has struggled to find MPs who will actually come out and support him:

    In fact, some Tory politicians are openly calling for him to resign:

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Britain’s third largest energy supplier has apologised after it advised customers to “have a cuddle with your pets” to stay warm and save on heating bills. It comes as MoneySavingExpert founder Martin Lewis has announced his intentions to fund a new £100,000 advice service for vulnerable energy customers, warning bills will rise by 51% on 1 April “unless the Government intervenes”.

    Pet peeves

    According to the Financial Times, Ovo Energy last week emailed customers a list of 10 “simple and cost-effective ways to keep warm this winter”. As well as cuddling pets for warmth, other tips included “challenging the kids to a hula hoop competition”, “doing star jumps”, and “cleaning the house”.

    It came as Britain’s dire cost-of-living crisis is expected to worsen.

    According to some predictions, energy bills could rise by more than 50% in April for millions of households that are on a standard tariff. Bristol North West MP and chairman of the Business Select Committee Darren Jones branded Ovo Energy’s tips “offensive” and called on the company to apologise.

    In a subsequent tweet, he wrote:

    I’m not sure who signed off a marketing campaign telling people to wear a jumper and eat porridge instead of turning on the heating if you can’t afford it.

    Ovo has since apologised for the tips, telling the FT:

    We understand how difficult the situation will be for many of our customers this year.

    We are working hard to find meaningful solutions as we approach this energy crisis, and we recognise that the content of this blog was poorly judged and unhelpful. We are embarrassed and sincerely apologise.

    A woman carries her dog during day one of Crufts 2017 at the NEC in Birmingham.
    Customers were told to have ‘a cuddle with your pets and loved ones to help stay cosy’ (Joe Giddens/PA)

    Privatised energy has created a crisis for customers

    In April, the price cap, which limits the amounts energy suppliers can charge, will rise. It is already at a record £1,277, but analysts at Investec think it could go up to £1,995. According to Cornwall Insights, it could spike to £2,240 a year at the following quarterly revaluation in August 2022 without a significant fall in energy prices globally.

    The increases are due to a major spike in global gas prices, which have been pushed up by high demand around the world. Those in favour of nationalisation argue that if the energy sector had remained in public hands, the ‘profits’ made when prices were less steep could have been used to balance out the current situation. In such a situation, energy bills could theoretically also be cheaper at other times because shareholders would no longer be extracting money from the system.

    Trade body Energy UK’s chief executive Emma Pinchbeck said last month that the government could cut each household bill by £90 by slashing taxes or VAT. Meanwhile, bills could be cut by a further £190 by bringing forward proposals on removing policy costs.

    The crisis has led to talk of nationalisation, albeit not from the Conservative or Labour parties. In September 2021, Keir Starmer actually made it clear that Labour would not re-nationalise the failing sector despite how popular such a move would likely be.

    Writing in the i newspaper, a Bulb employee said of nationalisation:

    The fact that the company’s continued operations are being paid for by the UK government shows how straightforward the process could be

    They also noted:

    Since the privatisation of the energy sector back in 1990, energy companies have funnelled billions of pounds back to private shareholders. Since then, the price people pay for their energy bills has continued to increase despite the argument that a privatised energy sector would be more efficient and therefore cheaper

    The money saving expert

    Speaking on his proposed initiative, Martin Lewis said the money would go to fuel poverty charity National Energy Action (NEA) to “free up its helplines” by 1 April, when expected increases to the government’s energy price cap will come into effect on consumers’ bills.

    In a tweet, Lewis wrote that 1 April would see energy bills rise by 51% unless the government intervened, adding:

    His funding announcement follows his warning last week that households could expect to take a “seismic” hit to their energy bills which could force some to decide whether to heat their homes or eat.

    A poll by NEA found six out of 10 British adults say they would reduce their heating use by a fair amount or a great deal if the cost of heating doubles.

    Some 85% of UK residential buildings, or 23 million homes, are still currently connected to the gas grid, using a boiler and central heating system.

    Martin Lewis
    Martin Lewis (Ian West/PA)

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The daughter of a key worker who died after contracting coronavirus (Covid-19) has said it makes her “feel sick” to think Boris Johnson was “partying” on the day her father’s death certificate was signed. At the same time, a minister has accepted that the public is “angry and upset” about what his boss allegedly did. It comes as a leaked email revealed what seems to be yet another restriction-breaking Downing Street party – an email sent to 100 employees.

    Police are in contact with the Cabinet Office over the claims.

    Boris Johnson is ‘sickening’

    Hannah Brady, a spokeswoman for the Covid-10 Bereaved Families for Justice Group, said her father Shaun died four days before an email was sent out by the prime minister’s private secretary appearing to organise drinks in the garden of Number 10. Her father worked at the Kraft Heinz factory in Wigan.

    Martin Reynolds, Johnson’s principal private secretary, sent an email to more than 100 Downing Street employees in May 2020 saying they should “make the most of the lovely weather”. This was despite England being under tough coronavirus restrictions.

    ITV reported the party took place on 20 May 2020 and alleged it was attended by Johnson and his wife Carrie. Brady said her father was 55 and fit and healthy when he contracted coronavirus, and she and her family had done “everything they could” to keep him safe during lockdown. She said:

    Those days will stay with me for the rest of my life, just like the families of the 353 people that died that day, my family couldn’t even get a hug from our friends,” she said.

    To think that whilst it was happening Boris Johnson was making the ‘most of the weather’ and throwing a party for 100 people is truly beyond belief.

    At the time, everyone would have known that going to a party was wrong, so how can those running the country have thought it was OK? Could there be a more disgraceful example of ‘one rule for them, and another rule for the rest of us’?

    In September last year, Brady was among five families from the campaign who met Johnson. She added:

    To make matters worse, in September I sat in that same garden, looked the Prime Minister in the eyes and told him how my dad had died. He told me he had ‘done everything he could’ to protect my dad.

    Knowing that he had partied in that same spot the very day that Dad’s death certificate was signed. It makes me feel sick to think about it.

    Hannah Brady with photos of Shaun and Margaret Brady, who died with Covid-19
    Hannah Brady with photos of Shaun and Margaret Brady, who died with Covid-19 (James Manning/PA)

    Boris Johnson is ‘infuriating’

    Health minister Edward Argar has told the BBC:

    I can entirely understand why people who’ve lost loved ones, or people who’ve just had their lives hugely disrupted by these restrictions, are angry and upset by these allegations.

    He refused to be drawn on details of the 20 May 2020 “socially distanced drinks”, insisting that it was a matter for the investigation into Whitehall parties being carried out by senior official Sue Gray. He said that “appropriate disciplinary action” should be taken if rules were broken – something that could prove incredibly awkward for Johnson if he is found to have attended, as has been claimed by sources including former aide Dominic Cummings.

    Johnson refused to say whether he was at the event when questioned by reporters on 10 January. At the time:

    • People in England were allowed to meet only one person from another household, providing they were at least two metres apart and outside.
    • People were not permitted to visit the homes of friends and family – unless it was for care and medical reasons, or to take a child to another household with whom parental responsibilities were shared.
    • Non-essential shops, pubs and restaurants remained closed.

    Former Scottish Tory leader baroness Ruth Davidson has joined those expressing their horror at the ‘unthinking’ prime minister on social media:

    Boris Johnson may find himself under further investigation

    A spokesman for Scotland Yard said:

    The Metropolitan Police Service is aware of widespread reporting relating to alleged breaches of the Health Protection Regulations at Downing Street on May 20 2020 and is in contact with the Cabinet Office.

    A tweet from the time of the party read:

    Human rights lawyer Adam Wagner, who interprets coronavirus regulations on Twitter for the public, said the alleged event looked “unlikely to be legal for attendees”.

    The-then culture secretary Oliver Dowden used a Downing Street press conference that day to remind the public they could “meet one person outside of your household in an outdoor, public place, provided that you stay two metres apart”.

    Boris Johnson is a ‘flagrant breacher’

    The latest row over Whitehall parties and Johnson’s alleged attendance was commented on by Labour, with shadow climate change secretary Ed Miliband telling Sky News:

    How can he lead the country through these difficult times, get people to follow public health advice, if he has so flagrantly breached the rules?

    I mean, this is not some accidental thing. This is a party invite. I think it’s extraordinary that the civil servant in question was part of a culture that would be inviting people to this party.

    The Liberal Democrats said if rules were found to be broken then “those responsible should face the full force of the law”.

    The criticism of Johnson and his alleged breaches is only growing:

    At this point, it seems that Johnson’s ‘sickening’ effect on Britain has reached a pandemic level of virulence.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • On 9 January 2021, 24-year-old Mohamud Hassan suspiciously died after being detained by South Wales police. Mohamud had been arrested by the police and then released without charge the next morning, but died in his flat that day. Witnesses say he had been severely beaten, with blood on his clothes and bruises all over his body. A post-mortem did not state the cause of this death.

    At the time, Mohamud’s cousins said:

    He told our family members that he was tasered twice and through images they could see bite marks all over his body. Additionally, he stated that he was brutally kicked in the head and suffered injuries to his face and knee- it was dislocated, and he struggled to walk. Witnesses say that he was covered in blood with significant injuries to his mouth.

    The police involved haven’t even been suspended

    Disgracefully, the six police officers who were put under investigation following Mohamud’s death haven’t been suspended from duty. Back in March 2021, it came to light that one police officer:

    saw [Mohamud] collapse, literally slumping over in the back of the police van, and still did not report this to his senior officer.

    In failing to report and get urgent medical attention, the officer missed a real opportunity to have potentially prevented Mohamud’s untimely death.

    And yet, this police officer, as well as the others who had contact with Mohamud, has kept his job. This is a prime example of the blasé attitude of a police force that is institutionally racist and sees Black people as second-class citizens. South Wales police doesn’t even consider Mohamud’s death as serious enough to suspend those who are suspected of being responsible. Can you imagine the public outrage over this if Mohamud had been a white person?

    Lee Jasper, spokesperson for the campaign to get justice for Mohamud, argued:

    In no other profession can you be under investigation for suspicion of causing death and remain at work.

    It doesn’t bear thinking about that those who are responsible for inflicting the brutal violence on Mohamud that might have led to his death, are still free to ‘police’ others in a similar way.

    Release the bodycam footage

    It’s disgusting that one year on, Mohamud’s family are still campaigning for the release of the police’s bodycam footage. This begs the vital question, what is South Wales Police hiding? Mohamud’s family has stated:

    The Police and the IOPC [Independent Office for Police Conduct] have conspired to cover up, obscure, frustrate, delay and dispute our search for the truth.

    The family continued:

    most families who suffer a death in custody are routinely denied access to this footage because the IOPC wishes to dampen down public outrage whilst the police, we believe, use these body cam videos to construct a plausible legal defence.

    Had the footage of Mohamud’s last moments been released to us, then we would have been spared the slow torturous agony of consistently speculating day by day on precisely what happened to him that awful night.

    Defund the police

    According to Inquest, in England and Wales there have been 1,803 deaths either in police custody, or following contact with the police, since 1990.

    The organisation says:

    people with Black, Asian and Minoritised Ethnicities (BAME) die disproportionately as a result of use of force or restraint by the police, raising serious questions of institutional racism as a contributory factor in their deaths.

    Black people have always known that the police aren’t here to protect the people. But those of us who are white are brainwashed from a very early age to believe that the police are there to do exactly that. As white people, we can never know what it is like to be singled out, stopped and searched, arrested, or even murdered, primarily because of the colour of our skin.

    But there is some hope. 2021 saw greater calls from both BAME people and white people to defund the police. We are coming together to question the police’s role in society, and why they wield the complete power to brutalise the public, which has no right to defend itself. Whether it be the police officers responsible for the death of Mohamud Hassan, the Met police officer who murdered Sarah Everard, or the disgusting police officers who took selfies of themselves next to the bodies of murdered women Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman, we are, as a society, finally waking up to the brutality of the police. We are scrutinising the police’s role full-stop, questioning whether that role is even necessary, and talking about alternatives.

    This spring will see the passing of the new police bill, which will give the police terrifying new powers. Once enacted, we are likely to see the police using greater violence, safe in the knowledge that the law is there to protect them. This will, of course, disproportionately affect Black and Traveller communities the most. The government will introduce Serious Violence Reduction Orders, giving police significantly more power to stop and search people on the street. Statistics from 2019 showed that Black people were 9.7 times more likely than white people to be stopped and searched. Meanwhile, the way of life of Travellers will effectively become unlawful.

    Mohamud’s case is, sadly, not an exceptional case but an example of the systematic rot that exists across UK police forces. But it highlights exactly why the police don’t need more powers.

    15 January will see a National Day of Action to protest the bill as it passes through the Lords. Once more, it is time to show up in numbers to stop this racist and classist bill before it’s too late.

    Featured image via Lee Jasper

    By Eliza Egret

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Boris Johnson will not face an investigation by Parliament’s “sleaze” watchdog into the £112,000 refurbishment of his Downing Street flat, No 10 has confirmed.

    The situation is already provoking anger.

    Banana man

    Parliamentary commissioner for standards Kathryn Stone had faced calls to investigate whether the prime minister broke the rules for MPs after lord Geidt, his adviser on ministerial interests, revealed last week that Johnson had failed to tell him about exchanges with a Tory donor who helped fund the revamp.

    Labour called on Stone to open an inquiry after it emerged that the prime minister had discussed a pet project by lord Brownlow for a “Great Exhibition 2.0” in WhatsApp messages in which he also asked for the go-ahead for the refurbishment work. Ministerial records show that, six weeks later, Brownlow met then-culture secretary Oliver Dowden and representatives of the Albert Hall to discuss his proposal – although it did not in the end proceed.

    The situation has led to much criticism:

    Lord Geidt
    Lord Geidt said he was not informed of Boris Johnson’s exchanges with a Tory donor (Dominic Lipinski/PA)

    “Corruption”

    Labour said it was “corruption plain and simple” if Brownlow was able to get access to ministers in return for helping to bankroll the redecoration work. However, the prime minister’s official spokesperson said it had been confirmed that Stone would not be carrying out an inquiry into the matter. The spokesperson said:

    It is not for me to speak on behalf of her, but I understand she has confirmed they won’t be looking at that

    It is understood that Stone wrote to No 10 at the end of last week, making clear that support for ministers in their ministerial activities should be declared through the Ministerial Code – which Johnson did – rather than the Register of Members’ Interests, which she polices.

    In his report last week, Geidt said he would not have changed his original conclusion that Johnson did not breach the Ministerial Code if he had been aware of the exchanges with Brownlow, although he made clear his deep unhappiness at the way the issue had been handled.

    The prime minister said after he learned that the work – which far exceeded the official £30,000 allowance – had been paid for by the Conservative Party, including a donation by Brownlow, he reimbursed the costs from his own pocket.

    A previous investigation by the Electoral Commission resulted in the party being fined £17,800 for failing to properly declare a £67,000 donation from a firm controlled by Brownlow.

     

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Michael Gove has defended former prime minister ‘sir’ Tony Blair as an “outstanding statesman and performer”. It comes as over a million people have called for Blair’s knighthood to be stripped because of – among other travesties – the Iraq War.

    Sir Blair the “war criminal”

    The Tory cabinet minister came to the former Labour leader’s defence after a petition to strip him of his knighthood gathered more than one million signatures. Blair was appointed by the queen as a Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter – the oldest and most senior British order of chivalry – in the New Year’s honours list.

    Following his honour, a change.org petition said:

    Tony Blair caused irreparable damage to both the constitution of the United Kingdom and to the very fabric of the nation’s society.

    He was personally responsible for causing the death of countless innocent civilian lives and servicemen in various conflicts. For this alone he should be held accountable for war crimes.

    Tony Blair is the least deserving person of any public honour, particularly anything awarded by Her Majesty the Queen.

    Tony Blair knighthood petition
    A screengrab from the Change.org website of a petition which aims to strip the former prime minister of his knighthood (Change.org/PA)

    Blair’s honour provoked shock and disbelief from many, including Belfast Telegraph journalist Suzanne Breen:

    Tories of a feather

    Involving himself in the controversy, Gove told Sky News on 10 January:

    I think we should all recognise that he served this country, he continues to serve this country, and I don’t think it’s possible for anyone to be in a position like that without attracting controversy and without inviting opposition.

    But for myself, if I look back at Tony Blair’s record, while there are aspects of it with which I can disagree, I think any fair-minded person would say that he was an outstanding statesman and performer and as a prime minister who put public service first this recognition from Her Majesty is entirely appropriate.

    Gove highlighted the introduction of academies (a terrible idea), a “crackdown on crime and antisocial behaviour” (demonising the poor while creating a police state), and Blair’s “recognition of the importance of a country like the United Kingdom being on the side of liberty internationally” (Blair being most famous for ‘liberating’ international people from existence), as policies he agreed on with the former PM.

    Gove’s love of Blair didn’t prove that surprising to many:

    Two cheeks of the same arse

    It’s noteworthy that when asked what she considered to be her greatest achievement, Margaret Thatcher replied:

    Tony Blair and New Labour.

    It’s also noteworthy that in a 2009 interview, then shadow schools minister Michael Gove said:

    We are carrying forward the Blair agenda in education.

    Current Labour leader and fellow knight of the realm ‘sir’ Keir Starmer previously said his predecessor had earned his honour, arguing he “made Britain a better country”. Starmer did not comment on whether Blair made Iraq or Afghanistan ‘better countries’. He has, however, commented on Blair and the New Labour years in favourable terms – praising the man much like Thatcher and Gove did.

    The Labour Party in general has attracted criticism for supporting Blair and the neoliberal politics he became known for:

    Gove’s endorsement likely won’t change the mind of anyone who signed the petition to strip Blair of his knighthood. It may, however, make it a little more obvious to some Blair supporters why the man is so reviled. He may not be in the Tory Party, but he’s certainly in the hearts of its politicians.

    Additional reporting by PA

    By John Shafthauer

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The government is being urged to take measures to restore fairness to workers, including having employees on boards and reforming company law.

    Wealth makers

    A report by the TUC and two think tanks said the balance between the interests of a firm’s workforce and its shareholders has “tilted” too far towards shareowners and away from the people who create the wealth.

    The report’s authors said directors’ duties should be rewritten to remove the current requirement to prioritise the interests of shareholders over those of other stakeholders. The report said:

    When making decisions, boardrooms should promote the long-term success of the company as their primary aim and be legally obliged to give as much weight to the interests of their staff and other stakeholders as they do to shareowners

    It was also suggested that boardrooms should include seats for workers who are directly elected from a firm’s workforce.

    “A fair share”

    TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady said:

    Working people deserve a fair share of the wealth they create. This should come through wages, pensions, and reinvesting profits to safeguard the future of the firm and its workforce.

    But in the last two decades, wages have stagnated. Pension schemes have been curtailed with the loss of defined benefits, and the connection between UK pensions and UK shares and dividends has been severed.

    We can restore fairness by reforming company law so that directors have duties beyond short-term profits for shareholders.

    Mat Lawrence, director of think tank Common Wealth, said:

    The economic story of the decade is clear: workers have suffered while asset-owners have surged.

    Ensuring working people share in the wealth they create is fundamental to turning ‘levelling up’ from rhetoric to reality, but critically, if companies reduce dividends and increase wages and investment, this mustn’t come at the expense of ordinary pensioners. With pension wealth inequality so high, the stock market is starkly disconnected from ordinary savers.

    Luke Hildyard, director of the High Pay Centre, added:

    The link between the fortunes of the UK’s biggest businesses and the prosperity of the country as a whole is getting weaker and weaker.

    Our research shows that a tiny and shrinking proportion of corporate Britain’s vast payouts to shareholders reaches ordinary savers, while workers are denied a voice in the running of the companies they help to succeed.

    We need economic reforms to make big business work for the benefit of everybody, not just a small number of wealthy executives and investors.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The BBC‘s replacement for the Andrew Marr Show didn’t exactly get off to a flying start. Because the biggest issue with the Andrew Marr Show‘s successor was not the guests or technical problems. It was that it was the Andrew Marr Show – just without Marr himself.

    Goodbye Marr, hello Sunday Morning

    Sunday Morning has replaced the Andrew Marr Show. The latter’s host said he was leaving the BBC last year. According to the Guardian, Marr will be focusing on “writing and presenting political and cultural shows” for the likes of LBC. He also said he was “keen to get my own voice back”. Although biting his tongue over his political and social views never seemed a problem for Marr on his show.

    From making light of the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic to allowing Tory ministers to lie, via repeating government lies and playing-down of the pandemic, Marr was always protecting the establishment. Not that him doing this was new. Because who can forget the infamous clip of him lavishing praise on Blair after the second invasion of Iraq?

    But now, Marr has gone – with Sophie Raworth replacing him.

    Spot the difference

    The BBC has kept exactly the same format: same graphics, same music, same length. Sunday Morning‘s structure is the same as the Andrew Marr Show: monologue, paper review, opposition politician, current affairs segment, arts segment – then finishing with a government politician.

    The first thing some people on Twitter noticed was that Sunday Morning had some technical issues:

    And in true Marr style, some people thought Raworth’s grilling of politicians was “biased”.

    Sophie Marr?

    For example, Jennifer thought Raworth wasn’t exactly fair with her interview style:

    And Nicholas was unimpressed with Raworth’s opening monologue (a bit like Marr’s previous downplaying of the pandemic):

    And in terms of guests, it was also ‘more of the same’. Labour’s shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves implied she wasn’t against the forthcoming National Insurance increase – just that her party wouldn’t raise it in April. This comes after uproar over shadow health secretary Wes Streeting’s comments about using private companies to clear NHS waiting lists.

    Following Reeves, education secretary Nadhim Zahawi lied about Labour calling explicitly for another lockdown at the end of last year.

    But overall, the problem with Sunday Morning was the same as with most BBC political and current affairs output.

    Part of the establishment ecosystem

    As I previously wrote for The Canary:

    [BBC] journalists are from the Marr school of bias: entrenched so deeply into the system they barely even realise the narrow, establishment-defined parameters within which they operate.

    Also:

    The BBC always has been, and always will be… part of the establishment “ecosystem” in the UK, and globally. This makes it the most noxious of media outlets.

    Given Sunday Morning is little more than a barely rebranded Marr, it appears that it’s still this business as usual at the BBC.

    Featured image via BBC iPlayer – screengrab

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Mark Drakeford, first minister for Wales, has accused England of “ignoring the science” in refusing to introduce coronavirus (Covid-19) restrictions. It comes as the UK hit 150,000 coronavirus deaths.

    Johnson was famously accused of waiting too long to introduce protective measures at multiple points during the pandemic. These claims were backed up by a parliamentary report in October 2021.

    Political paralysis

    Drakeford backed up his earlier comments that England was the “global outlier” in the fight against the Omicron variant. On 7 January, he launched a blistering attack on Boris Johnson. Drakeford accused Johnson of leading a government which was “politically paralysed”.

    Speaking on Sky’s Trevor Phillips on Sunday, Drakeford said:

    I’m asked time after time why isn’t Wales doing the same things as England? My answer was to point out that in this debate it is not Wales that is the outlier.

    Wales is following the same path of putting protections in place that is being followed by Scotland, Northern Ireland, and not just devolved governments in the UK, but governments across Europe and across the world.

    The questions as to why the UK Government has decided not to follow that course of action are for them to answer, not for me. I think they have not done what the science would have told them they should do.

    But that’s decisions for them to answer for – I’m answerable for the decisions we take here in Wales.

    Johnson and a number of Conservative MPs mocked Wales’s restrictions during a House of Commons session in parliament on 6 January. The PM called the measures “baroque eccentricities”. And former business secretary Andrea Leadsom described them as “bonkers”. Meanwhile Lichfield MP Michael Fabricant said it was “no more than political posturing”.

     

    “Different messages”

    Alert level 2 restrictions remain in Wales. They include wearing face coverings indoors, groups limited to six people in public places such as restaurants, and working from home if possible. Indoor events of more than 30 people or outdoor events for more than 50 people are not allowed.

    On 7 January, there were 994 people with coronavirus being treated in Welsh hospitals while around 40 are in critical care – the majority of whom are unvaccinated. Drakeford said that having different restrictions in both England and Wales made public health communications “more difficult”. He told Sky News:

    When we have different messages across our border that does make it more difficult for us

    We have faced this in the past and we go on doing as we see it as the right thing to protect lives and livelihoods here in Wales.

    He also said he was hopeful the restrictions could be lifted in Wales as he was expecting a steep decline in infections once the peak in the next couple of weeks was reached. He said:

    As soon as we are in a position to see the peak past and the position improving, of course we will want to revert to the far more modest level of protections we had in place only a few weeks ago

    We’re hopeful that the level of protections we currently have in place will be sufficient to mitigate the impact of Omicron to help our NHS to deal with the astonishing pressures which it’s having to deal with every day.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • NHS campaign groups are joining forces in their fight against the Tories. They’ve launched a new coalition: SOS NHS. And it’s calling for emergency funding for the NHS. But the campaign will go further, because it’s also raising the alarm over the Tories’ broader agenda for our health service.

    NHS: Tory-created chaos

    SOS NHS is a new coalition of campaign groups. Its website states that:

    In 2010, after a decade of investment, our NHS was delivering its best-ever performance: after more than a decade of austerity – despite heroic efforts by staff – it has sunk to its worst-ever. The problems were there before the pandemic but have been deepened by the continued high level of Covid infections.

    Indeed. As The Canary documented at the end of 2021, last year saw record waiting times; staff under intolerable stress; potentially catastrophic government ‘reforms’; and an insulting pay offer for workers.

    So now, SOS NHS aims to act.

    SOS NHS

    SOS NHS is made up of various campaign groups, trade unions, and workers. Some of the groups involved include:

    • Keep Our NHS Public.
    • Health Campaigns Together.
    • People’s Assembly.
    • Unite the Union.
    • GMB Union.
    • We Own It.
    • NHS Workers Say No.
    Three key demands

    SOS NHS has some basic demands. These are:

    1. Approve emergency funding of £20bn to save lives this winter
    2. Invest in a fully publicly owned NHS and guarantee free healthcare for future generations
    3. Pay staff properly: without fair pay, staffing shortages will cost lives

    These may sound broad, but SOS NHS is also quite specific with some of its demands. For example, it says the £20bn includes:

    £8bn needed now to rebuild crumbling infrastructure and reopen beds left empty since Covid-19 struck

    It added that:

    To tackle the most urgent of these issues will cost around £5bn: but an additional £3bn is needed to reorganise, rebuild and in some cases refurbish hospital buildings to enable them to reopen almost 5,000 beds that were closed in 2020

    “Tired of being silenced”

    SOS NHS’s first action is an online rally, which will take place at 7pm on Wednesday 19 January. You can register via Zoom here.

    NHS Workers Say No told The Canary it is:

    excited to be part of this important campaign, working with our allies from across the trade union and health campaign groups movement.

    It’s important that frontline workers voices remain at the heart of campaigns like this. We need to share our experiences of the reality on the ground. We’re tired of being silenced, and being told by this government that current situations are sustainable. In reality, things have never been worse for us. This is due to over a decade of neglect to our health service. So together, we are demanding that this national emergency is addressed. We need the support of the public and NHS staff. It’s time to say ‘enough is enough’.

    2022 will be a crucial year for the NHS, so seeing groups working together to try and save our health service is heartening. Now, the public needs to get behind SOS NHS and its campaign. We all need to act to rescue the NHS from Tory destruction.

    Featured image via Keep Our NHS Public – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Lateral flow tests will remain free, education secretary Nadhim Zahawi has insisted. It comes amid criticism over suggestions that tests could be scaled back despite soaring coronavirus (Covid-19) cases.

    The cabinet minister said he’s “puzzled” by a report suggesting that their universal availability could be axed as they are limited to high-risk settings and for people with symptoms.

    ‘Utterly wrongheaded’

    The Sunday Times reported that prime minister Boris Johnson would make the announcement within weeks. And the NHS Test and Trace system could also be scaled back. People have reacted with shock at the news given the skyrocketing number of daily confirmed coronavirus cases in the UK.

    HEALTH Coronavirus
    (PA Graphics)

    Scotland first minister Nicola Sturgeon warned the move would be “utterly wrongheaded”. Meanwhile Labour said it would be the “wrong decision at the wrong time” while cases are so high.

    But Zahawi told Sky’s Trevor Phillips on Sunday:

    I saw that story this morning, which I was slightly puzzled by because I don’t recognise it at all. This is absolutely not where we are at.

    For January alone 425 million lateral flow tests (are) coming in and they will continue to be available for free.

    Asked whether there are plans to stop lateral flow tests being free, he said: “Absolutely not”.

    Rapid tests were made available to everyone in England, crucially including those without symptoms, in April.

    They have been seen as a key way of suppressing the virus and have given confidence to people to safely mix with loved ones, particularly around Christmas. But the Sunday Times report suggested there are concerns in Whitehall over their cost.

    ‘Endemic’

    But the report surfaced as the government seized on suggestions from scientists that the emergence of the seemingly less deadly Omicron strain is a step towards the virus becoming endemic, or regularly occurring, but easier to live with.

    Zahawi expressed support for reducing the isolation period from seven days to five in order to reduce staffing pressures on the NHS and businesses. However, he did not acknowledge the underfunding and lack of appropriate training bursaries and pay rises which have been instrumental in causing staff shortages.

    He added:

    I hope we will be one of the first major economies to demonstrate to the world how you transition from pandemic to endemic, and then deal with this however long it remains with us, whether that’s five, six, seven, 10 years.

    While it’s possible to put mitigations in place to try and ‘live with’ the virus more safely, of course the government is nowhere near that stage:

    150,000 deaths and counting

    Zahawi’s comments came after the number of people to have died in the UK within 28 days of a positive Covid test passed 150,000.

    The country is the seventh to pass the milestone for officially recorded deaths, following the US, Brazil, India, Russia, Mexico and Peru.

    HEALTH Coronavirus Deaths
    (PA Graphics)

    Predictably, Zahawi’s remarks have received come criticism online:

    Some also pointed out that the pandemic can’t be overcome without supporting global efforts:

    Sturgeon questioned how the move in Westminster would affect funding for the “vital” tests in Scotland, adding: “Hard to imagine much that would be less helpful to trying to ‘live with’ Covid.”

    Meanwhile shadow health secretary Wes Streeting warned that charging for tests would hit families who are already facing a “cost-of-living crisis”.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • In 2020, then Labour leadership hopeful Keir Starmer vowed to “end outsourcing in our NHS”. In 2022, Starmer’s shadow health secretary didn’t just vow to carry on outsourcing, but praised the ‘effectiveness’ of such measures. To add insult to injury, he claimed private sector involvement was “popular with patients”.

    Privatisation is “popular” when Labour does it. ‘POPULAR’.

    Speaking to the BBC’s Nick Robinson, shadow health secretary Wes Streeting said that former PMs Tony Blair and Gordon Brown:

    showed using the private sector to bring down NHS waiting lists [in England] is effective [and] it’s popular with patients.

    In late 2021, openDemocracy comissioned a poll. It found that both “Tory and Labour voters are worried about the impact of more NHS privatisation” – the specific figures being “81% of Conservative voters and 88% of Labour voters”. It further found that:

    Three-quarters of those polled specifically fear that an increase in the use of private companies by the NHS would result in corners being cut (76%), the use of less-skilled staff (74%), and healthcare systems becoming more disjointed or fragmented (77%).

    It additionally discovered:

    approaching eight in ten (76%) UK adults were also concerned by the general principle of healthcare being run for profit in the UK, with half (50%) saying they were “very concerned” about this.

    People commented on Streeting’s notion that this demonstrably unpopular position is popular with voters:

    openDemocracy journalist Caroline Molloy registered her confusion on the matter:

    The position may be popular with some, however – namely Nigel Farage:

    Oh, and it’s also popular with Reform UK – a.k.a. the rebranded Brexit Party:

    “No doubt” Labour will have to use privatisation. ‘NO DOUBT’.

    In the interview with Robinson, Streeting added:

    No doubt the government will turn to the private sector, no doubt the next Labour government may have to use private sector capacity to bring down NHS waiting lists, and I won’t shirk that for a minute to get people better health outcomes.

    But I will be pretty furious at the costs involved, because it shouldn’t be the case that because Tory governments run down the NHS, we have to spend more taxpayers money than would be necessary in the private sector because we haven’t sorted out the public sector.

    In this hypothetical scenario, future health secretary Streeting (heavens forbid) is “furious” the ousted Tory government is somehow forcing him to “spend more taxpayers money than would be necessary in the private sector because we haven’t sorted out the public sector”. The problem with this is that it suggests we’ve “sorted out” the private sector. That’s the same private sector that was responsible for more scandals than you could shake a sack of PPE at over the past two years.

    Of particular note was the £37bn Test and Trace system that “failed to achieve [its objectives] despite the vast sums thrown at it”. That’s according to the committee that looked into the matter. This may be unfair, however, as everyone knows the true objective of privatisation is to make rich people even richer.

    Others have questioned Streeting’s logic (or lack thereof):

    A privatisation affair

    Of course, just because Labour is promising to continue privatisation, that doesn’t mean it will deliver. Because Starmer does say a lot of things he later abandons – like his pledge to abolish the House of Lords, or his pledge to “work shoulder to shoulder with trade unions”, or his pledge to provide “effective opposition to the Tories”.

    How can you call it “opposition” when the Tories and Labour both support privatisation in the NHS? You can’t, to put it simply. Not unless by ‘effectively oppose the Tories’ Starmer actually meant ‘effectively oppose public opinion’.

    Featured image via BBC

    By John Shafthauer

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has argued that a fourth coronavirus (Covid-19) booster vaccination is not required right now. And the Conservative government has now ruled in favour of mask-wearing by secondary school pupils in classrooms in England. This comes after the three devolved nations had implemented the same measure.

    But there’s more to those stories that’s not being told.

    Fourth booster concerns

    In June 2021, The Canary reported how the effectiveness of vaccinations begins to wane after three months. That could mean that those people who were first to receive the coronavirus booster jab may now be at greater risk of infection. This means elderly and vulnerable people, as well as frontline health workers.

    At the time, professor Christina Pagel pointed out that:

    protection from two doses of the Pfizer vaccine may wane significantly against the Delta variant after a few months and in older people.

    Indeed, one preliminary study found that “the effectiveness [of coronavirus vaccinations] against symptomatic disease started to wane from about 10 weeks”. However, it also found that “the vaccines continued to provide high levels of protection against hospital admission and death”. And importantly “the decrease in effectiveness appeared to be more common in adults over 65, and people who are immunocompromised”.

    Nevertheless, this leaves questions about whether a fourth jab should be made available and, if so, when? The JCVI argues that a fourth jab is not needed at this point in time as the booster programme “has provided high levels of protection against severe disease from COVID-19 (both Delta and Omicron variants)”.

    Even so, rising cases of Omicron mean many work absences, including NHS staff. And Pagel observed how rising cases are feeding into hospital admissions:

    Meanwhile, this graph from government data shows the huge rise in recent weeks in coronavirus cases for over 60s:

    Also, it’s reported that in London for persons aged 85 to 89, the seven day infection rate increased more than four-fold in the week to 29 December, if compared with the rate two weeks earlier. Similar figures were found for age groups below and above that grouping.

    Lagging behind

    The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) has stated that latest data suggests extra protection from symptomatic disease provided by the booster, but it:

    starts to wane more rapidly against Omicron than Delta, being about 15-25% lower from 10 weeks after the booster dose.

    The UKHSA further states:

    Among those who received an AstraZeneca primary course, vaccine effectiveness was around 60% 2 to 4 weeks after either a Pfizer or Moderna booster, then dropped to 35% with a Pfizer booster and 45% with a Moderna booster by 10 weeks after the booster. Among those who received a Pfizer primary course, vaccine effectiveness was around 70% after a Pfizer booster, dropping to 45% after 10-plus weeks and stayed around 70 to 75% after a Moderna booster up to 9 weeks after booster.

    However, UKHSA chief medical adviser Dr Susan Hopkins stressed how those who have had the booster in the last 8 to 10 weeks are not necessarily at risk from symptomatic disease. But what of those who have passed that time period?

    Meanwhile, in Israel, a fourth jab is being offered to healthcare workers, as well as people over the age of 60, who had their third jab more than four months ago.

    More protective measures needed

    There’s another area where the government is lagging behind.

    In October 2021, The Canary published arguments by clinicians promoting mask-wearing by schoolchildren in classrooms. And in an August 2021 article in the British Medical Journal, Independent SAGE member professor Christina Pagel argued that within school environments there should be:

    social distancing (e.g. smaller class sizes, staggered breaks); ventilation (e.g. CO2 monitors, HEPA [high-efficiency particulate air] filters, window policies, outdoor learning); cleaning surfaces; mask wearing; keeping children within bubbles of regular contacts; frequent testing; and isolation of contacts of cases.

    Those measures were in addition to vaccinations for all 12-17 year olds.

    But it wasn’t until January 2022 that the Department for Education (DfE) recommended all secondary school age students in England should resume wearing face masks in classroom settings. That recommendation will be subject to review on 26 January.

    Oxford professor of primary care Trisha Greenhalgh commented on children’s coronavirus case rates in schools that didn’t require masks compared to those that did:

    Multi layers of protection

    According to a paper published in January 2022 in Environmental Science & Technology, multiple “layers of protection” are required to reduce shared-room airborne transmission of a virus such as coronavirus:

    Our analysis shows that mitigation measures to limit shared-room airborne transmission are needed in most indoor spaces whenever COVID-19 is spreading in a community. Among effective measures are reducing vocalization, avoiding intense physical activities, shortening the duration of occupancy, reducing the number of occupants, wearing high-quality well-fitting masks, increasing ventilation, improving ventilation effectiveness, and applying additional virus removal measures (such as HEPA filtration and UVGI disinfection). The use of multiple “layers of protection” is needed in many situations, while a single measure (e.g., masking) may not be able to reduce risk to low levels.

    Recommendations for additional protective measures in indoor settings were published as far back as July 2020.

    According to the Times Education Supplement the DfE is telling schools they should consider combining classes because of teacher absences which may mean more crowded sessions.

    Also, the DfE has not recommended mask wearing in primary schools. As for transmission, senior lecturer in epidemiology Deepti Gurdasani points out that the part played by children should not be ignored:

    One option, if numbers of cases worsen, is to close schools and return to online learning, though that has its disadvantages.

    The government is promising that 7,000 air purifiers will be provided to schools. But that seems nowhere near enough:

    Greenhalgh sums it up:

    Primary school kids are still missing out on protections, placing them, their families, and teachers at risk:

    Meanwhile, these graphs shows the dramatic rise in recent weeks of coronavirus hospitalisation cases for children:

    Take home messages

    Based on views by clinicians and studies mentioned above, the take home messages are:

    1. Government must provide proper ventilation equipment and other protections, free of charge, to all schools.
    2. Quality masks – such as FPP2 – should be provided free to every school-age child.
    3. Further protection measures may be needed for the elderly, the vulnerable and frontline health and social care workers.

    The government needs to act on these measures swiftly in order to control the rising infection rates, protect vulnerable groups and frontline workers, and ultimately avoid further needless deaths.

    Featured image via Pixabay/geralt

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Refugees queue for food distributed by a local NGO on November 7, 2021, in Calais, France.

    There is a hill in Dover, England, that winds down from the main road through housing estates, past schools and to the town center and port. On the hill, somewhere just before Christ Church secondary school, is a section of road characterized by mini-roundabouts, each of them painted with the slightly fading white and red of the St. George cross.

    At the bottom of the hill, inside Dover’s shipping port, a red line on the floor designates the bicycle check-in route. The line weaves between trucking lanes and the port reception building, and approaches the small passport control booth, where five or six armed border officers are busy eating their breakfast.

    The officer at the window checks passports, assesses would-be travelers, and asks the necessary questions. The French city of Calais is a short ferry ride (just 21 miles) across the English Channel. It’s the most popular landing point for British tourists traveling to the continent by boat, but for those planning to spend a night in the area, serious warnings are issued: There are migrants operating in the Calais area. Travelers must be “aware of this, and very careful.”

    Dunkirk

    It’s Tuesday afternoon in Dunkirk, France, and a large van has pulled off the motorway, slowed down to a crawl, and turned a hard left onto the narrow farm service road. The van chugs on for another 100 meters, then pulls into a dusty gravel parking lot, where a number of organizations have gathered to offer services to the refugees who live nearby.

    The services on offer today will include food bags for four people, hot drinks, basic medical attention, hairdressing facilities, phone charging, and games such as Dominoes and Connect 4.

    The scene itself is not an oddity in Calais or Dunkirk. Look out the window of a passing car, and you might just see it. A small collection of vehicles, with plastic-gloved volunteers distributing basic goods to 80 or so refugees out the back.

    There are an estimated 2,000 refugees living like this in the Calais/Dunkirk region. The nationalities and cultures represented are numerous: Syrian, Iraqi, Afghan, Eritrean and Kurdish. Officially, these tent and tarpaulin settlements — often situated in forests, under bridges or on fallow farmland — are illegal. But recognized by the state or not, it’s here that the refugee communities are sleeping and gaining access to basic provisions.

    It’s 2 pm when the van pulls in, and the volunteers climb out. Two of them usher the vehicle into position and others place cones down to encourage spacing. A coordinator jumps out, unlocks the rear door and wrenches it back.

    While the bags begin to be handed down and distribution gathers pace, a huddle of people has formed to one side. This is a familiar practice, some of the community always choosing to wait apart from the others. Today the group consists of two women, a man with a crutch and a lone 10-year-old boy. Servicing this separate group is always a balancing act. Today the weather is good, and there’s plenty of food to go around, but these are desperate living conditions, and there can be complex internal relationships and hierarchies at play.

    After waiting some time, the two women receive a food bag, and the man with the crutch drifts away with another group. But 15 minutes later, when the last bag is distributed and the van door slams shut, the boy is left protesting on his own. His family is asleep at the camps, he says, and he needs the bag to take back and share with them. The story sounds believable enough, but true or not, there is an important precedent in place, and a four-person bag cannot be handed to a single individual.

    Off to the left of the car park scene, a fold-out camping table has been set up along the edges of the trees. Crouched down behind the table, an Afghan refugee and an international volunteer are filling up cups of water from two large tanks, lining them up on the tabletop above.

    “What will happen here in the winter?” the refugee says. “I think it’s getting too cold.”

    The volunteer looks up at him, “You stay here for longer?” she says. The man shakes his head.

    “I don’t know,” he says.

    “And this winter?” the volunteer asks. “What is your plan for this winter?”

    The man laughs, turning his palms over to face the sky.

    “My plan?” he repeats, grinning and shaking his head. “Yes, what is my plan?”

    The man is dehydrated, the skin on his cheeks folding like tissue paper as he smiles. Today the scene in front of them is ordered and calm, but over the next month, there will be regular nightly raids by the French police, looking to leverage the seasonal change to push the refugees from the coastal region. Zooming out further still, we see a chaotic political climate, growing international tensions over border control and the threat of hostile policy changes in 2022.

    “Hospital”

    There is a large hospital that serves the Calais area. Between the hospital building and the distant motorway fly-over, there is a system of roundabouts, fishing lakes and scrub-land, and it’s here, hidden behind the first line of bushes, that we find the largest settlement of refugees in the region. This site, named “Hospital,” is home to a highly transitory, mixed-nationality community. Distributions here are busy. The atmosphere is usually controlled and calm, but living conditions like this must be treated with respect. There are countless unseen factors that can break the balance of stability.

    It is a Friday. Distribution would usually take place at Hospital on Saturday afternoons, but other organizations and community liaisons have reported disturbing news: The previous night, the police went into the settlement with tear gas, dismantled and destroyed the tents and possessions, loaded many of the inhabitants onto buses, and transported them away from the area. According to the coordinator, the exact relocation point of the refugees in question is now unknown. If the raid had been planned, it is possible that they would have been dropped at a police station in Arras (the region’s capital). Often however, the intention of relocations like this is simply to scatter, driving the inhabitants far enough away from the hospital to deter them from returning on foot.

    As the volunteers gather for their lunchtime briefing, heavy rain reverberates off the warehouse roof. There has been a change of plan. For those refugees who avoided transportation from the Hospital settlement, or have managed to make their way back in the early hours, there will be a great need for basic provisions.

    At 7:30 pm, the van pulls into the Hospital site, loaded with 150 tarps and 150 blankets. The refugees are aware that they are coming, and have formed a line to collect the goods. They look tired and stretched in the closing light. After a baseline level of poor health, now their only possessions have been taken away from them, and many have faced long journeys on foot to get back to this location.

    The coordinator pulls on the handbrake and turns to brief the volunteers. The current position of the line is not going to work; it will need to be moved about a hundred meters across the car lot.

    While the van repositions itself, the volunteers try to communicate the message calmly. At first the rearrangement looks achievable, with the majority of community members working to maintain order. But as the van parks and the rear door opens, the line begins to march and bunch up, and a few people from the rear make a break for a better position.

    “We have enough for everyone,” the volunteers repeat. But they have said things like this before, and however hard they try to enforce fairness at distribution, the back of the van will always be closed at some point.

    As the refugees form up again, a few men argue for position. A distribution like this would usually be a place for smiles and a few cheeky jokes. But tonight, the community appears glassy-eyed and exhausted. They take the items, thank the distribution team in hushed tones, and make their way back behind the scrub.

    Old Lidl

    The following evening, at the Hospital distribution site, new signs have been erected. This area serviced the largest number of refugees in the region, but now it’s clearly prohibited to distribute here. For the volunteer coordinators, the signage changes are nothing new. Just another temporary measure, brought in by a policing network structured around short-term measures. A 15-minute walk away from Hospital is another well-used refugee site, and reports suggest that the community has moved there.

    This location used to be home to a Lidl supermarket, but now the building has been demolished, leaving an empty parking lot beside a dusty farming field. When the distribution van comes through at 2 pm, the road between Hospital and the old supermarket is a steady stream of people. The van pulls across a set of train tracks and into the lot. Across the dirt field, perhaps 200 meters away, there is a dense tree line with a string of tarpaulins running along its edge. Despite the great desire for tents, blankets, tarps and jackets, the organizations are unable to be reactive, and today’s drop will be the pre-arranged food bags.

    Forty minutes into the distribution, a heavy rain shower comes in. The charging boards are covered with plastic tarps and everyone hurries beneath the cover of the largest trees.

    A group of boys in their early teens are gathering at the rear of the parking lot. Two of them walk off into the distance, heading toward the shadow of an industrial site on the horizon. The others kick at the dust at their feet, and watch them intently.

    Toward the end of the distribution, one of the boys approaches the van, asking for shelter and winter clothing.

    “The police, they come at night and take everything warm,” he says, pointing a finger toward the road. “From the Hospital, we come here, and last night they follow us. They are OK sometimes. But sometimes they shoot gas or abuse … sometimes very bad abuse.” The boy steps back and mimics someone hitting the ground with a club repeatedly.

    After a short time, the rain stops and the organizations collect the trash and prepare to leave. It’s early evening when they climb up into the van and take their seats.

    The key is placed in the ignition, when a member of the refugee community approaches the passenger-side window. The coordinators greet this man by name.

    There is an emergency situation unfolding. The man points off toward the tree line. Last night someone was seriously injured and needs urgent medical attention. There is a protocol for emergencies like this, and the volunteer coordinator steps out of the van to address the situation.

    Ten minutes later, as the coordinator advocates for the injured man, two French riot police transporters arrive with eight officers inside. The officers approach the volunteers, requesting IDs and insurance documents for the vehicles. One of the volunteers isn’t carrying ID, and is threatened with detainment and a large fine.

    But as police retreat to discuss the matter between themselves, the atmosphere seems to have calmed. The leading officer approaches the coordinator, speaking to him authoritatively. This time the organization will be allowed to leave, he says, but next time the maximum fines will be issued.

    Passing Blame

    Following the dismantling of the Hospital settlement, police continued to increase their hostile activities, and Human Rights Watch issued a report warning of the “daily harassment and humiliation” faced by the refugee groups.

    The autumn season had seen a great surge of refugee sea crossings, and with many found dead in the English Channel, and media coverage growing, both United Kingdom Home Secretary Priti Patel and Prime Minister Boris Johnson publicly blamed the French government.

    In July 2021, Patel had promised a fresh £54 million for increased fencing and police presence in Calais, but now, following the rise of crossings, there are open threats to withhold the money, and French Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin declared that “not one euro” has yet been paid.

    As the weeks roll on, the pressure on the refugees continues to mount. In late November, 27 people were found drowned in the channel in a single day, and while U.K. Home Secretary Patel targets the French government for allowing these crossings, her counterpart, Gérald Darmanin, fires back, citing the U.K.’s illegal labor market as the main incentive for the refugee migration. It’s an international blame game that shows little understanding of the complex motivations of the refugee groups, or the shared responsibility that the U.K. and France have for managing the situation. But for Patel and the U.K. government, there is a longer-term focus here at play.

    Toward the summer of 2022, the U.K. government hopes to pass the “Nationality and Borders Bill,” a complete overhaul of the policy in respect to refugee and asylum seeker treatment. A legal review of the legislation, led by eminent human rights lawyer Raza Husain, has found the document in breach of multiple articles across the European Convention for Human Rights and the United Nations Refugee Convention. Husain’s report depicts the bill as a destructive rollback of previous legislation, reversing “a number of important decisions of the UK courts, including at the House of Lords and court of appeal level.

    If the proposed legislation does pass, refugees trying to make the crossing will be met with criminalization at the U.K. border, subsequent detainment at purpose-built offshore facilities, and the possibility of relocation back to “safe third countries” if their asylum application to the U.K. should be rejected (safe being a complex and subjective concept).

    “What’s clear from these proposals is that Priti Patel’s anti refugee bill is cruel, inhumane and deeply flawed,” concludes British human rights organization Freedom From Torture, and the effect of the new policy “will actually just lead to a greater number of vulnerable people living in limbo, in constant fear of removal to persecution and enduring unbearable hardship and exclusion.”

    But the proposed policy changes wouldn’t stop there. Along with its hard line on asylum application, the bill includes the highly controversial Clause 9, which would allow the government to strip individuals of their British citizenship without any prior warning, if the action to do so was deemed necessary by the secretary of state as within “public interest” or “the interest of national security.” The inclusion of Clause 9 has sparked a massive reaction from the British public, especially among ethnically marginalized groups, and an online petition calling for a review of Clause 9 has now been signed by over 300,000 people. “We believe these provisions should be removed,” the petition’s organizers state. They are “unacceptable, and inconsistent with international human rights obligations.”

    For critics, these sweeping policy changes look like a power grab from the British government, an attempt to establish a higher level of centralized control, with particular long-term consequences for asylum seekers, protesters, and those non-white British communities who are more likely to have their citizenship threatened and be disproportionately criminalized by increased stop and search powers. Whatever the outcomes of policy change in 2022, we can be sure this year will be a stormy one for politics in the U.K.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Headteachers are calling on the government to address pay disparities among ethnic groups, as campaigners observe Ethnicity Pay Gap Day.

    ‘Erosion’

    Headteachers’ union NAHT said teachers of Black, Asian, or minority ethnic background risked facing a “double hit” as a combination of already “eroding” pay and ethnicity wage inequality. The latest government figures show that in 2019 the median hourly pay in all industries for those in the white ethnic group was £12.40 per hour, compared with those in ethnic minority groups at £12.11 per hour – a pay gap of 2.3%.

    Paul Whiteman, general secretary of NAHT, said:

    We’ve seen school leadership pay eroded for everyone over the last decade, but for those with protected characteristics, including leaders from a black, Asian or minority ethnic background, they risk facing a ‘double hit’ as a result of inequalities in the pay system.

    Despite a broad national pay framework, education does not escape the barriers which contribute to pay gaps.

    Our report Closing the Gender Pay Gap in Education: A leadership imperative, published at the end of last year, highlights the challenges for women, including women of colour, and stresses the need for greater information on the pay penalties that people from different ethnic backgrounds working in education may face.

    He said the union was calling on the government to implement calls from the School Teachers’ Review Body, which makes recommendations on the pay, professional duties, and working time of school teachers in England and the wider sector, for a full review of the pay framework.

    Among the union’s requests is a comprehensive analysis by the Department for Education (DfE) on the equality implications of the teachers’ and leaders’ pay system and consideration of the role that performance-related pay has on any differences.

    #EthnicityPayGap

    The call comes on 8 January, declared Ethnicity Pay Gap Day by the #EthnicityPayGap Campaign. It’s an organisation founded to raise awareness of the gap and encourage the government to make ethnicity pay disparity reporting mandatory.

    Research from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) found in September that just 13 FTSE 100 companies report any ethnicity pay gap. CIPD chief executive Peter Cheese previously said mandatory reporting of ethnicity pay gap data would create “fairer workplaces and societies and kickstart real change”.

    In September, the government said it was considering an independent report on the ethnicity pay gap by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities and would “respond in due course”.

    According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), across 2012 to 2019, those of Chinese, white Irish, white and Asian, and Indian ethnicities typically made more than white British people, but many other ethnic groups – including Bangladeshi, Pakistani, and Arab – consistently earned less than those of white British ethnicity over the same time period.

    The ethnicity pay gap was largest in London, at 23.8% in 2019, and smallest in Wales at 1.4%. However, in the East of England those from an ethnic minority background made 8.6% more than white British people.

    DfE has been contacted for comment.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Dominic Cummings has made a fresh allegation of a potentially lockdown-breaking party in Downing Street’s garden. It happened in May 2020 after a “senior No 10 official” invited people to “social distanced drinks”.

    The former chief adviser to Boris Johnson said on Friday 7 October he warned at the time that it “seemed to be against the rules and should not happen”. But he was told it went ahead after he was ignored.

    Investigation

    Cummings said that he wrote the warning in an email. The email could now be discovered by senior civil servant Sue Gray as she investigates a string of allegations of rule-breaking parties in Downing Street. The parties allegedly took place as the nation social distanced to slow the spread of coronavirus (Covid-19).

    Gray replaced cabinet secretary Simon Case in leading the Whitehall investigation after allegations emerged of an event taking place within his own office.

    In a lengthy blog post on Friday, Cummings insisted there was nothing “illegal or unethical” about a gathering on 15 May 2020 that was made public after an image was leaked. It showed the prime minister, his fiance, Cummings and several other staff in the Downing Street garden during the first lockdown. The image also showed wine and a cheeseboard.

    ‘Against the rules’

    Cummings denied that this was a “party”. But the Vote Leave veteran, who left Downing Street in November 2020 amid a bitter power struggle within No 10, wrote:

    On Wednesday 20 May, the week after this photo, a senior No 10 official invited people to ‘socially distanced drinks’ in the garden.

    Cummings said he and at least one other special adviser “said that this seemed to be against the rules and should not happen”. He added that he issued the warning “in writing so Sue Gray can dig up the original email”.

    “We were ignored. I was ill and went home to bed early that afternoon but am told this event definitely happened,” he continued.

    In my opinion the official who organised this should anyway have been removed that summer because of his failures over Covid. I said this repeatedly to the PM.

    In my opinion it would not be fair for most officials who went to the garden for drinks on 20 May to be punished because, given the nature of the invitation, a junior official would be justified in thinking ‘this must somehow be within the rules or X would not have invited me’.

    Other than the 20 May, I’m not aware of events in No10 that ‘broke the rules’ while I was there.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • One million people have signed a petition to have former prime minister Tony Blair’s knighthood “rescinded”.

    The Queen appointed Blair a Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter. This is the oldest and most senior British Order of Chivalry.

    ‘Irreparable damage’

    The Change.org petition which aims to strip the former prime minister of his appointment reached one million signatures on Friday 7 January.

    A statement accompanying the petition said:

    Tony Blair caused irreparable damage to both the constitution of the United Kingdom and to the very fabric of the nation’s society.

    He was personally responsible for causing the death of countless innocent civilian lives and servicemen in various conflicts. For this alone he should be held accountable for war crimes.

    Tony Blair is the least deserving person of any public honour…

    We petition the Prime Minister to petition Her Majesty to have this honour removed.

    Chilcot Iraq inquiry
    Demonstrators in 2010 protest in London as Tony Blair was due to give evidence at the Iraq war inquiry (PA)

    Made Britain better with an illegal war

    The knighthood has provoked debate about the honours system. Labour leader Keir Starmer said Boris Johnson has not “earned the right” of a knighthood after leaving office.

    But Starmer insisted his predecessor at the top of the Labour Party had earned his knighthood. Starmer argued that Blair had “made Britain a better country”.

    Blair’s former defence secretary Geoff Hoon wrote in his recent memoir that Downing Street ordered his office to burn a secret memo saying the 2003 Iraq invasion could be illegal, according to the Daily Mail.

    Appointments to the Garter are in the Queen’s gift and made without prime ministerial advice. They’re usually announced on St George’s Day, 23 April. But the Queen can do so at any time, and chose this one to coincide with the New Year Honours.

    You can sign the petition here.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Labour published a dossier on Tory defence spending this week. It shows the Tories have wasted billions of pounds on military projects over the last ten years. But the report isn’t quite the ‘gotcha’ Labour thinks it is, because the party isn’t much better itself. This is especially true when it comes to its own military plans.

    Dossier

    There’s no doubt Labour’s Dossier of Waste makes some good points. It lists multiple, terrible examples of massive sums being wasted on defence projects. Some of the most ridiculous include:

    • £4m for an IT system which ended up being cancelled.
    • Over £5m for “Useless Ear Defenders”.
    • Scrapping a whole fleet of Hercules aircraft worth over £2bn.
    • £64m worth of wastage through “admin errors”.
    • A £325m overspend on procuring Protector drones (the programme also overran by 28 months).
    • The MOD being fined £31m by the Treasury for “granting MOD retrospective contract approvals” for 36 different contracts.
    • A £1bn overspend on Astute submarines.
    • Another £1bn overspend on a nuclear warhead storage facility.
    • A projected £333m overspend on what the report terms “Submarine Nuclear core production capability”.

    Clearly, Labour has a point. There does look like massive waste. And according to the report:

    None of its [the MOD’s] 36 major projects are rated ‘green’ – meaning that the project is on time and in budget – which makes it the worst performing department in Whitehall, with the lowest proportion of projects rated green.

    Labour is “completely missing the point”

    But there’s more to this debate than Labour = good and Tories = bad. Labour’s alternative vision also has shortcomings. For a start, it leaves out the massive cost of the wars which Labour started in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) general secretary Kate Hudson levelled her own criticisms too, telling the Morning Star: 

    Labour calling for ‘better management’ of vast and wasteful spending on increasing militarisation is just completely missing the point.

    Britain needs to spend on health, on climate change, on infrastructure – meeting the needs of the people, not ratcheting up global tensions and pouring money into military hardware.

    Stop the War Coalition convenor Lindsey German also weighed in:

    It is a travesty for Labour politicians to complain that we need nuclear warheads developed more quickly and more tanks aimed at killing working people in other countries.

    They should be arguing for less money on militarism and weapons, and more on housing, education and healthcare.

    She added that it was time to learn the lesson of recent wars:

    That would both improve the security of millions of people and show recognition that the 21st-century wars have only made the world much more dangerous.

    Not enough

    Clearly, Tory overspending on military equipment is a real problem. Yet, according to some, Labour is hardly likely to be better. What’s needed is an entirely different approach to accountability. We also need an entirely new set of spending priorities. Priorities which move away from massive military projects and towards real-life, bread-and-butter security issues like health, transport, and education.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Cpl Holt, cropped to 770 x 403.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) told a severely ill claimant to leave hospital to make his social security claim. He later died. Now, a coroner wants answers from the department. But the case is sadly just one in a long line of catastrophic failures by the DWP – ones which have repeatedly involved claimants’ deaths.

    Terence Talbot

    Disability News Service (DNS) first reported on the case of Terence Talbot. He lived with a rare disease called drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), or drug hypersensitivity syndrome. It’s where people react to certain medications. Symptoms usually first include a high temperature and skin rash. In some cases it can be life-threatening and lead to organ failure. Sadly, this happened to Talbot.

    He lived with bipolar disorder. Doctors put him on olanzapine and risperidone which are drugs to help treat the condition. This was while they detained him under the Mental Health Act. The problem is that the drugs caused Talbot to develop DRESS. As the coroner’s report stated, doctors diagnosed it in October 2019 after they gave him the drugs.  It noted that Talbot, while being an inpatient at a psychiatric hospital, also:

    had multiple discharges from acute hospital following admission for symptoms of DRESS syndrome with severe exfoliative dermatitis. Prescribed emollients [skin treatments, like cream] were recorded as self administered although Mr Talbot could not apply them effectively himself. Food, fluid and nutrition was not adequate to meet Mr. Talbot’s needs and nasogastric feeding was commenced on 26th February 2020… this feeding did not meet his needs… He was treated for aspiration pneumonia on 3rd March and suffered a left sided pneumothorax [collapsed lung] on 4th March treated with drain insertion. Mr Talbot was diagnosed with empyema [pus in the chest cavity] treated with antibiotics and his DRESS Syndrome failed to improve and he was placed on end-of-life care.

    Talbot died of multiple organ failure on 9 April 2020. This was due to the DRESS causing empyema and pneumonia. And at some point during this period, the DWP got involved.

    The DWP gets involved

    It is unclear from the coroner’s report just when or how the DWP got in touch with Talbot. But the department contacted him while he was in hospital, saying he had to attend a Jobcentre about his social security claim. The coroner’s report noted that this was instead of him making an “electronic claim”. As the coroner stated:

    I heard from all the doctors and a senior nurse in this case who have a considerable experience across a range of specialties and across several different NHS Trusts that they have never experienced nor heard of a case where a severely ill inpatient was required by the Department of Work & Pensions to leave hospital to attend its offices in person to make a claim for welfare benefits. Terence Talbot was suffering with a mental disorder and an exceptionally rare and complex disease with a risk of death and suffering severe exfoliative dermatitis that rendered him very vulnerable to infection.

    DNS editor John Pring noted on Twitter that:

    there’s no evidence DWP’s actions led to his death; the facts are still fairly scarce at this point so we also don’t know if Terence Talbot actually attended the jobcentre or was too ill.

    Answers are needed

    What’s clear is that the coroner thinks the DWP has questions to answer. She’s told work and pensions secretary Thérèse Coffey that she has to respond to the report by 28 January:

    Your response must contain details of action taken or proposed to be taken, setting out the timetable for action. Otherwise, you must explain why no action is proposed.

    A claimant’s death and the DWP’s involvement while they were severely unwell is sadly not uncommon. As The Canary previously reported, it has carried out dozens of reviews in the past few years into cases like Talbot’s. There are also countless specific cases like:

    • David Clapson. He was diabetic and died in 2013 after the DWP stopped his social security – leaving him without enough electric to run his fridge which he kept his insulin in. It also left him with barely any food.
    • Jodey Whiting. She took her own life in 2017 after the DWP stopped her social security.
    • Errol Graham. He starved to death in 2018 after the DWP stopped his social security.

    Moreover, Talbot’s case is not wholly unique. Weighing just six stone, Stephen Smith died from multiple health problems in 2019 after the DWP stopped his social security. But before that, the department left him no choice but to leave hospital to go to a tribunal to appeal it denying him social security. According the Liverpool Echo his appeal was successful “after a tribunal judge saw he could barely walk down the street let alone hold down a job”. He died shortly after this.

    We also know the DWP has already destroyed dozens of reports into claimant deaths.

    35,000 dead

    A DWP spokesperson told DNS:

    Our condolences are with Mr Talbot’s family. We are considering the report and will respond in due course.

    As The Canary previously reported, around 35,000 claimants have died across several years:

    They died either waiting for the DWP to sort their claims or after it said they were well enough to work or start moving towards work. Moreover, in 2018 alone there could have been 750 (if not more) people who took their own lives while claiming from the DWP. But across five years, the department only reviewed 69 cases of people taking their own lives.

    Yet the DWP still says the issue of claimants dying on its watch isn’t a “systemic” problem.

    The problem is systemic

    It’s unclear at this stage just what the DWP’s specific actions were in Talbot’s case. Once it has responded to the coroner, we will know more. But the very fact that it would even attempt to make a seriously ill claimant leave hospital is damning. It points to a wider problem in the department of, at best, systemic failures. At worst, it shows a culture of neglect and intransigence to the lives of the very people it’s supposed to be supporting.

    Featured image via Ann Larie Valentine – Flickr, recoloured and cropped to 770 x 403 licenced under CC BY-SA 2.0, and Wikimedia 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.