title
stringlengths 28
112
| published_date
stringlengths 10
10
| authors
stringclasses 6
values | description
stringlengths 0
239
| section
stringclasses 95
values | content
stringlengths 178
42.3k
| link
stringlengths 34
77
| top_image
stringlengths 53
143
| news_id
stringlengths 13
55
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sisterlocks struggle: Stylists want fewer restrictions to braid hair - BBC News | 2017-03-20 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | Professional hairbraiders are putting up a fight over what they say are unnecessary regulations. | US & Canada | In college, Tameka Stigers wore her hair in thin locks that looked so attractive, parents at her church wanted her to fashion their young daughters' hair.
"They said, 'Can you do it like yours?'" Stigers recalled. She wore her hair in Sisterlocks, hundreds of tiny locks that allow women with coarse, tightly-wound hair to wear almost any style - from ponytails to braids, curly or straight.
She enrolled in a short training course in order to master the technique of creating Sisterlocks - a trademarked technique - with nothing but her two hands, a comb and small elastic bands. She registered as a Sisterlock hair braider online and requests from other people in the St Louis area poured in.
To meet the demand, Stigers needed to move her business out of her home. That's where her hair braiding business hit its first snag.
Stigers knew that hair salons were regulated by the Board of Cosmetology and Barber Examiners, but she wasn't sure that her business, which doesn't use any chemicals, heat or scissors, would also fall under the board's purview.
She phoned the board to ask if she would have to pay upwards of £8,189 ($10,000) and spend thousands of hours in cosmetology school in order to open up a hair braiding shop. Initially, Stigers said she was told that the regulations wouldn't apply to her.
The board later reversed its course. In mid-2014, Stigers started pursuing a lawsuit against the board after it told her that she and any other hair braiders running businesses in Missouri would need to get a full cosmetology licence, which requires courses at a registered cosmetology school - courses that Stigers said don't teach any natural or African hair braiding skills at all.
"Hair braiding is an art really," Stigers said. "It's something that if I went to cosmetology school today, I couldn't learn how to do braiding."
Stigers joined another braider, Joba Niang, in a lawsuit against the board of cosmetology and barber examiners, seeking reprieve from the regulations.
A judge ruled against Stigers in September, 2016, but her lawyers finished filing briefs to appeal the case last week, just as Stigers settled into a new, larger storefront to accommodate a growing number of customers.
Stigers didn't get a licence to braid hair, and many of her braiders lack licences, though her business partner does have a cosmetology licence to run the spa area in her new salon.
Thus far, the Missouri Board of Cosmetology and Barber Examiners has declined to enforce its rules while Stigers lawsuit is active, allowing Stigers and other braiders to continue working until the courts resolve the case.
If she loses, Stigers and other hair braiders will face the choice of getting the expensive cosmetology licences or closing up shop.
Women who run hair braiding salons in up to 21 states face similar regulations.
Cosmetology classes mostly focus on how to cut hair, safely dye hair, and treat hair chemically to permanently curl or straighten strands. Hair braiders don't do any of that. The small amount of training that does touch on styling typically does not go into African-style hair braiding, though a few cosmetology textbooks do nod to the techniques.
Other professional hair braiders, like Pamela Ferrell, in Washington DC have won in similar cases
The Missouri Board of Cosmetology and Barber Examiners does not comment on ongoing court cases, and could not discuss the regulations surrounding hair braiding. However, board members on cosmetology boards in other states have cautioned against loosening regulations because of concerns over sanitation and safety.
Jeanne Chappell, a board member on the New Hampshire Board of Barbering, Cosmetology and Esthetics told the Associated Press that diseases can be passed through the tools used during braiding and that licensing would allow the board to monitor and enforce against salons that don't use safe practices.
Pamela Ferrell, owns a braiding salon in Washington, DC, and successfully fought licensing regulations. She thinks racial biases and gaps in cultural knowledge play a role in the debate.
"It's a constant attack against our hair, our beauty standards, all under the guise of occupational licensing," Ferrell said. "It's culturally disrespectful. They're using irrelevant occupational laws to put this bias on a particular group of people."
While Stigers and her attorneys wait on a judge to set a date for the oral arguments Missouri is working to pass a bill that would make the lawsuit moot by deregulating hair braiding and imposing a simple £20 ($25) fee to register the business.
Governor Eric Greitens, a Republican, specifically called out Stigers' case as "burdensome" in his January state-of-the-state address.
"We need to end frivolous regulations like these so that our people can start their own businesses and create jobs," he said.
Stigers may have found a political ally in new Missouri governor Eric Greitens
The conservative political powerhouse run by Charles and David Koch has also taken a stand against the licensing regulations as part of a £737,280,000 ($900m) campaign for a free market that encourages small business growth.
Former President Barack Obama issued a call to action to cut down on the state licensing regulations that require nearly one in four American workers to obtain an occupational licence - a huge increase from the 5% who had to get licences in 1950. His administration also allocated federal funds for states who reformed licensing regulations.
Stigers works a lot. She has to carve out time to testify in court and in front of the Missouri state legislators. She just expanded her salon to a new storefront that fits ten braiding booths and a full spa with manicure stations and a soon-to-come sauna.
When she's not braiding a client's hair, she's running to the bank, buying supplies, or discussing business with the eleven other women her business employs.
"It's a constant attack against our hair, our beauty standards, all under the guise of occupational licensing," says braider Pamela Farrell
Stigers said she hopes her lawsuit will help other women realise their dreams of opening a hair-braiding salon.
"I am excited because it's something that, the other native African hair braiders, they see me moving and expanding and they don't have to be afraid of being out in the public eye," Stigers said. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39261335 | news_world-us-canada-39261335 |
|
England should beat Lithuania whoever plays up front - Shearer - BBC Sport | 2017-03-20 | [] | England should beat Lithuania whoever plays up front instead of Harry Kane, says former England captain Alan Shearer. | null | Tottenham showed in Sunday's win over Southampton that they can cope without the injured Harry Kane - and England should do the same this week.
England manager Gareth Southgate has named three strikers in his squad for Wednesday's friendly against Germany and Sunday's World Cup qualifier against Lithuania - Jamie Vardy, Marcus Rashford and Jermain Defoe.
The Lithuania game is the more important one, but it should not make any difference which of them starts it. Whoever plays, we should have enough to beat them.
But I think it tells you where English football is right now that we have got to call up Rashford - a teenager who has hardly played as centre-forward this season - and Defoe - a 34-year-old who has been around for years and has not been in the squad since 2013.
Yes, Wayne Rooney and Daniel Sturridge are both injured too, but it is not exactly a position of strength.
Rashford represents the future - and Defoe deserves his place
England are top of Group F and in a strong position to reach Russia but, as long as they get there, what happens in friendly games and qualifiers does not really matter.
We have reached the finals of major tournaments before after being undefeated in qualifying - for the 2014 World Cup, for example - and been absolutely hopeless once we got there.
England will need a fit and in-form Harry Kane to make an impact on the World Cup next summer but I think they could get there without him, if they had to, even with such a shortage of options.
There are different arguments for Vardy, Rashford or Defoe to lead the attack against Lithuania.
For the vast majority of the season, Vardy has been poor. It's only in the past five games, since his goal in Sevilla, that he has found any real form. In the past three-and-a-half weeks he has been brilliant.
Rashford is playing more for Manchester United, and in a central role, at the moment because of Zlatan Ibrahimovic's suspension.
I know he didn't score for United against Middlesbrough but he played well, looked dangerous and had chances, just like he did against Chelsea in the FA Cup last week.
At 19, Rashford represents the future - a player we will look to for the next few years, not just this week.
Defoe isn't the future - but he has scored goals in a struggling side for Sunderland this season, with virtually every chance he has had.
He deserves to be in the squad on current form and I think Southgate was right to leave Theo Walcott out too.
Walcott has scored 15 goals in all competitions this season, only the second time since he has managed that since he joined Arsenal in 2006, and is on course to beat his best total of 21 goals in 2012-13.
Even if this turns out to be his best season ever, I am still not convinced by Walcott as a centre-forward. He still needs to do more, and I would not say he is the answer for England.
Spurs can keep winning without Kane
Without Kane, Tottenham can turn to either Vincent Janssen or Son Heung-min to lead their attack. I don't think Janssen is good enough, and they look a better team with Son leading the line.
Son gives them great energy and makes runs in behind defences. As we saw against Southampton, that can and will create chances for the likes of Dele Alli and Christian Eriksen.
Spurs boss Mauricio Pochettino has called on Son and Janssen to step up while Kane is out but Alli and Eriksen did that against Saints, and both found the net.
Eriksen was excellent again, and is having a really good season. In the first half in particular on Sunday, I thought he was superb.
Alli has now scored in four straight games and you can tell how hungry he is for goals. Once the referee had awarded Spurs a penalty against Southampton, I saw him go chasing after the ball.
He was the only guy who wanted it, and he tucked it away very confidently.
Their goals meant Tottenham already have one win in the bag without Kane this weekend, and I don't see his absence being a huge issue for them over the next few weeks either.
They will need him in their FA Cup semi-final against Chelsea on 22 April but, looking at their next four Premier League games - against Burnley (a), Swansea (a), Watford (h) and Bournemouth (h) - they should be able to win those without him too.
Hopefully the reports that Kane's ankle injury is not as bad as first feared are true, and he will be back in action in another month or so rather than missing any more of the season.
If that is true, it won't be an issue for them at all. The title looks beyond Tottenham now, but I still fancy them to finish inside the top four. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39273470 | rt_football_39273470 |
|
Why an American went to Cuba for cancer care - BBC News | 2017-04-21 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | Judy Ingels is defying the embargo by flying to Havana for treatment. | Magazine | Cuba has faced more than 50 years of US sanctions. Now, for the first time, a unique drug developed on the communist island is being tested in New York state. But some American cancer patients are already taking it - by defying the embargo and flying to Havana for treatment.
Judy Ingels and her family are in Cuba for just six days. They have time to go sightseeing and try out the local cuisine. Judy, a keen photographer, enjoys capturing the colonial architecture of Old Havana.
And while she is in the country, Ingels, 74, will have her first injections of Cimavax, a drug shown in Cuban trials to extend the lives of lung cancer patients by months, and sometimes years.
By travelling to Havana from her home in California, she is breaking the law.
The US embargo against Cuba has been in place for more than five decades, and though relations thawed under President Obama, seeking medical treatment in Cuba is still not allowed for US citizens.
"I'm not worried," Ingels says. "For the first time I have real hope."
She has stage four lung cancer and was diagnosed in December 2015. "My oncologist in the United States says I'm his best patient, but I have this deadly disease."
He does not know she is in Cuba. When she asked him about Cimavax, he had not heard of it.
"But we've done a lot of research - I've read good things," Ingels says. Since January, Cimavax has been tested on patients in Buffalo, New York state, but it isn't yet available in the US.
Ingels, her husband Bill and daughter Cindy are staying at the La Pradera International Health Centre, west of Havana. It treats mostly foreign, paying patients like Ingels, and with its pool complex, palm trees and open walkways, La Pradera feels more like a tropical hotel than a hospital.
This trip from their home in California, together with a supply of Cimavax to take back to the US, will cost the Ingels family more than $15,000 (£12,000).
Cimavax fights cancer by stimulating an immune response against a protein in the blood that triggers the growth of lung cancer. After an induction period, patients receive a monthly dose by injection.
It's a product of Cuba's biotechnology industry, nurtured by former President Fidel Castro since the early 1980s.
Ironically, Cuba's biotech innovations can partly be explained by the US embargo - something Castro continually railed against. It meant Cuba had to produce the drugs it could not access or afford. And medications like Cimavax - low-tech products that could be administered in a rural setting - were developed to fit the Cuban context.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Cuban cancer drug CIMAvax is bringing hope to US patients in the first collaboration of its kind
Now the industry employs around 22,000 scientists, technicians and engineers, and sells drugs in many parts of the world - but not in the US.
And although the Cubans will not reveal the cost of producing Cimavax, it is cheaper than other treatments.
For Cuba's residents, all health care is free. One beneficiary is Lucrecia de Jesus Rubillo, 65, who lives on the fifth floor of a block of flats in the east of Havana
Last September she was given two or three months to live. What began as pain in Lucrecia's leg, was diagnosed as stage-four lung cancer that had spread.
She had chemotherapy. "That was really very hard," she says. "It gave me nausea, and it hurt. But my kids asked me to fight, so I did."
After radiotherapy, Lucrecia began Cimavax injections. Now she is strong enough to walk up the five flights of stairs to her home, and her persistent cough has diminished. She feels better, more hopeful, and is thinking about what to do next.
"Perhaps I'll go to Spain to visit my kid," she says. "I feel happy, and I'm still dreaming of the future, but I also feel sadness. I've had a lot of friends who've died of cancer, and they never had the chance I'm having with these injections. I feel privileged."
Her doctor is Elia Neninger, an oncologist at the Hermanos Ameijeiras Hospital in Havana. Neninger is one of the principal clinicians to trial Cimavax on patients since the 1990s.
"Lucrecia arrived incapacitated by her disease in a wheelchair," Neninger remembers. "Now the tumour on her lung has disappeared, and the lesions on her liver aren't there either. With Cimavax, she's in a maintenance phase."
In Cuba, specialists like Neninger do not talk about curing cancer - they talk about controlling it and transforming it into a chronic disease. She has treated hundreds of patients with Cimavax.
"I never thought I'd work on something that would improve the lives of so many people," she says. "I have stage-four lung cancer patients who are still alive 10 years after their diagnosis."
But mostly Cimavax is proven to extend life for months, not years. And it does not help everyone. In trials, around 20% of patients haven't responded, Neninger says, often because the disease is very advanced, or they have associated illnesses that make treatment more difficult.
Nonetheless, Dr Kelvin Lee is impressed. He is the Chair of Immunology at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York, where the American trials of Cimavax are taking place.
It is the first time a Cuban medication has been trialled in the US, and required special permission because the embargo prohibits most collaboration and trade.
Cancer immunotherapy is getting more expensive in the US, Lee says. A cheap vaccine that can be administered at primary care level is very attractive. And he thinks it is possible that Cimavax could be used to prevent lung cancer, too.
"If we could vaccinate the high-risk smokers to prevent them from developing lung cancer, that would have an enormous public health impact both in the United States and worldwide."
This has not been proven, however, and the initial US trials of Cimavax only began in January.
There is political uncertainty, too. On the campaign trail before his election, President Trump said he would reverse the thaw with Cuba that began under the Obama administration, unless there was change on the island, which is governed as a one-party state.
"Our demands will include religious and political freedom for the Cuban people, and the freeing of political prisoners," Trump said on the campaign trail in Miami.
So far, Cuba has not made it to the top of his in-tray. There is a large constituency of Americans who believe that Cuba does not deserve the kind of recognition and status the association with the Roswell Park Cancer Institute brings.
But Lee thinks political arguments against US-Cuba collaboration are misplaced.
"The gas we put in our cars, the iPhones we tweet from, the shoes we buy our kids - all come from countries that the United States has fundamental differences with regarding women's rights, freedom of speech, personal liberties. Yet that has never stopped us from working with them in areas that benefit the people in both countries."
For now Bill Ingels, Judy's husband, isn't worried about falling foul of US authorities.
"I told them I was coming for educational purposes," he says. "And I am learning about cancer and medication! I'm basically a very honest person, but if I have to, I will lie."
Ingels will not know if the vaccine has made a difference until she has a scan in three months.
"We feel pretty positive, and we thought this would be a great experience and journey for my family to take together. It's the first time I've felt up since I was diagnosed."
Cindy Ingels, Judy's daughter, is a nurse - she will administer the Cimavax shots to her mother back home in California.
"Even if she remains stable - that it maintains the tumour size, and it doesn't worsen - we'd be happy with that," she says. "If the tumour decreases from what it is now, that would really be a miracle."
Join the conversation - find us on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and Twitter. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39640165 | news_magazine-39640165 |
|
Six Nations: Condensed tournament would 'meddle with players' health' - BBC Sport | 2017-04-07 | [] | Welsh Rugby Union chairman Gareth Davies says condensing the Six Nations would "meddle with players' health". | null | Last updated on .From the section Welsh Rugby
Condensing the Six Nations Championship by a week would "meddle with players' health", says Welsh Rugby Union (WRU) chairman Gareth Davies.
Plans by the Rugby Football Union (RFU) would remove one of the two weeks when games are not played to create space for a new global international season.
If agreed, a six-week tournament would start after the 2019 World Cup.
"To squeeze it into a shorter period is potentially damaging," Davies told BBC Radio Wales Sport.
"Yes they are professional and very well paid but the nature of rugby being such a physical game, I think we are meddling with players' health."
Last week Scottish Rugby Union chief Mark Dodson told BBC Sport that reducing the tournament from seven weeks to six would be a threat to player safety.
The plans for a condensed tournament will be discussed at April's Six Nations review meeting where Ian Ritchie, chief executive of England's RFU, will be lobbying for its implementation.
However, speaking to the BBC earlier this week England fly-half George Ford voiced concerns over a shorter Six Nations, saying it was "important" to have rest weekends.
"If we are looking at the intensity at which these guys play at international level these days, and the way they train in between, it's not just the playing of course," Davies added.
"It's the fact you're condensing the training into a far shorter period and I just can't see any argument for shortening it."
Meanwhile, Davies welcomed the news that an independent review will take place into Wales' controversial 20-18 defeat by France in the Six Nations - a game which lasted for 100 minutes.
France brought Rabah Slimani back on for fellow prop forward Uini Atonio in the 81st minute against Wales.
Wayne Barnes allowed Slimani to return to the field after France's team doctor said Atonio needed a head injury assessment.
Slimani's reappearance, which is to be investigated further, coincided with a series of scrums on the Wales line and France finally won in the 100th minute.
"There were some people who thought this could possibly be brushed under the carpet. To be fair to the executives at the Six Nations and the people who have led on the inquiry, they have come to the conclusion that it should go to a totally independent inquiry to really get to the bottom of what has happened," Davies added.
"Obviously the result of that can't be changed, we understand that but it is important because once we start manipulating the rules as it were, that is a dangerous road to go down.
"Rugby does pride itself on its level of integrity and honesty and I think this was obviously something that has threatened that." | http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/39520704 | rt_rugby-union_39520704 |
|
Romelu Lukaku: Chelsea would be a no-brainer for Everton striker - Danny Murphy - BBC Sport | 2017-04-07 | [] | Everton striker Romelu Lukaku faces a big decision about his future in the summer - one to which there is an obvious answer, says MOTD pundit Danny Murphy. | null | Everton striker Romelu Lukaku could have a big decision to make in the summer.
He is a fantastic athlete who scores lots of goals but he is still learning the game and, under the right coach and around better players, he is going to get better - the question is, where?
Everton are an ambitious club and a fantastic platform for Lukaku to continue his development but if a Champions League side come in for him and tell him he is going to be first choice, there is not much of an argument for him stay.
That is a big 'if' because he comes with a £60m price tag, but there is already plenty of speculation about Lukaku's next move.
The obvious club to splash out and throw the 23-year-old Belgian straight in the team would be his former side, Chelsea, if they were to sell Diego Costa.
Lukaku has already said he will not sign a new contract at Everton and, if he does get an offer from Chelsea at the end of the season, then it would be a no-brainer - he has to do it.
He would be Chelsea's main striker, playing in the Champions League and challenging for the title in a team which will give him lots of chances, which is exactly where he wants to be.
What he doesn't want is to be stuck on the bench somewhere. For example, if Zlatan Ibrahimovic signs for another year at Manchester United and they come in for Lukaku, then he would be thinking: why would I go there now when I won't be playing every week?
Whichever club you name, if Lukaku joins them for next season and plays 45 games, scores 25 goals and wins a trophy, then he will have made the right choice. If he doesn't, then the argument will be that he should have stayed at Everton for another year, where he will definitely play and his stock could rise even higher.
It is a case of seeing who wants him, having that conversation with them about what his role would be and making a decision. As a player it is hard to know what the right choice is sometimes, but it is not a bad situation for him to be in, really.
'He can work on his touch but goalscoring is a gift'
Lukaku is the Premier League's leading scorer with 21 goals but his hold-up play still gets criticised when people question how good he is.
I actually think his touch is OK - yes it could be better, but there are not many top-flight strikers who are brilliant at link-up play. Costa can also be a bit sloppy at times, and Tottenham's Harry Kane is probably the best at it.
In any case, it is something that Lukaku can work on, along with his awareness. He will have to - the bigger the team you play for, the more packed defences you face and the less space you have to operate in.
But he is still young - he turns 24 next month - and those are the parts of your game that you can improve.
It is not just something that comes with age either. That development comes with playing with better players, who give you better quality balls from closer range.
His main asset as a striker, though, is his ability to score goals - with his right foot, left foot and his head.
That is a gift, and he does it so well that I really don't think the other parts of his game are a weakness, or would be a worry for any club buying him.
A flat-track bully? So are most strikers
Another claim I hear about Lukaku is that he does not perform against the big teams, and it is true that most of his goals this season have come against lesser sides.
But that is true for most Premier League strikers, and there is a logical reason why.
When Everton play the top teams they do not have as much possession or create as many chances, and Lukaku is up against better defenders too.
He scored against Tottenham last month, but he is not going to go White Hart Lane and cause Jan Vertonghen and Toby Alderweireld as many problems as he does when he faces Sunderland's defence at the Stadium of Light, playing two centre-halves who are low on confidence and with Everton seeing loads of the ball.
The time when questions come is when you are a striker playing in a top team and you are not scoring against the other top teams.
But it is hard to judge Lukaku like that because he has not played against many big teams while being on an equal footing.
That is the opportunity a move to, say, Chelsea would provide him with - the step-up to play for a team that is going to give you more chances in every game, whoever the opposition.
There is nothing wrong with having that ambition. In fact, it is completely normal.
'I didn't see a Lukaku who wasn't trying for his team'
Lukaku's refusal to sign a new Everton contract has been well publicised, and it means that when he plays people are looking for evidence that he is not happy, or does not care.
I don't think that is the case, and I don't agree with the claims he did not try hard enough in Tuesday's draw with Manchester United.
The on-pitch argument that Lukaku had with Ashley Williams seemed to start with Williams asking him to chase the ball more - my understanding from watching it was that he wanted Lukaku to get across the pitch when a couple of clearances went on the opposite side to where he was standing.
What I would say in Lukaku's defence was that he was very isolated and he could not really win, especially because many of the balls up to him were generally pretty poor - there is only so much pressing you can do when you are outnumbered.
I certainly didn't see a Lukaku who wasn't trying for his team.
Yes, he lost the ball too easily sometimes, and of course that means you are going to get a volley off the players behind you, because they want a rest. "Get hold of it, man" is the kind of thing they would be shouting.
But in terms of his work ethic and his running, then it looked to me like he was giving the same physical output as I've seen from him in games where he has played well and scored.
'I had lots of rows but a handshake and a hug, and everything is fine'
Lukaku's fall-out with Williams at Old Trafford was a mountain out of a mole-hill as far as I am concerned, because that sort of thing happens all the time.
Yes, Lukaku shushing him was a little bit condescending, but I have been shushed before and I have probably shushed people myself. It is not the end of the world.
It does not mean there is a serious rift between the pair of them. Quite the opposite, probably.
As a player, I had loads of rows with my team-mates during games and you quickly forget about it. When you have calmed down you have a handshake and a hug and everything is fine.
I remember one with Steven Gerrard when I was at Liverpool in a game against Leeds. He was my room-mate at the time and we were best buddies, but I had messed up in midfield and lost the ball after dwelling on it, and he had a right good go at me.
It was along the lines of "sort yourself out and get yourself going quickly" but not in those exact words, and I responded, very defensively, along similar lines without registering that he was actually right.
Even though the way I acted was poor, the volley he gave me actually did get me going, and I realised that after the game.
I apologised for coming back at him the way I did, and told him he was right but he just said don't worry, it is done with now - and that was that.
That is the way it should be, and I would be shocked if Williams and Lukaku had not sorted things out in the dressing room after the match or, at the very latest, in training the next day.
It didn't really matter who was right, and who was wrong, but I actually saw Lukaku's reaction as a positive. He cares, and wants to do well for the team.
That sort of passion is part of the game and it would be more of a worry for Everton - or any prospective buyers - if he didn't show any. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39521532 | rt_football_39521532 |
|
Labour's Brexit plan takes shape - BBC News | 2017-04-25 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | The Labour Party are backing Brexit but setting out a very different approach to the Conservatives. | UK Politics | Dividing lines. Now, where have we heard that before?
Gordon Brown loved them. George Osborne relished them. In an era that had been dominated by centre ground politics where everyone fought over the middle, those lines were important to answer voters' claims that "they're all the same".
Today, Labour is spelling out "dividing lines" for a different reason.
For months the party has agonised over its position on Brexit. Wrangling with four seemingly incompatible truths - millions of their voters in traditional Labour areas wanted Brexit; the vast majority of the party's MPs wanted to stay, in line with its official position; the leader was Remain but not exactly in love with the idea, but an important constituency of Labour voters at the New Labour end of things were ardent Remainers.
In the end, Labour concluded it had to back the government's triggering of Article 50 with a few notable exceptions. And now it has officially backed Brexit. How, on this issue, can they show they are different to the Tories?
Enter Sir Keir Starmer's speech this morning, interestingly, well ahead of the party's manifesto.
He'll promise Labour would guarantee rights for EU nationals who live in the UK, sources say a '9am, day one' action for a Labour government.
He'll say Labour would scrap the Tories' Brexit plan and in its place put forward legislation that would more fulsomely and explicitly protect all rights currently enshrined in European legislation. He'll say the idea of walking away with no deal must not be an option, and give Parliament a say on the final deal as well as regular formal updates.
It is very different to the Tory plan and there has been a very active campaign to protect EU citizens who live in the UK.
And a second referendum will not be in the party's manifesto. Labour will hope not to get bogged down in arguments over that.
Privately senior figures say it's not possible to see how you get to a second vote, logistically or politically.
But on the fairly understandable basis that in 2017 politics it is foolish to rule absolutely anything out, they can't or won't say explicitly say that under no circumstances could there ever be a second vote, or under no circumstances could we ever stay in.
A senior source told me they would never argue to stay in the EU as it is, but IF there were significant reforms that situation could hypothetically change. It is a massive IF, even worth putting in capital letters in bold!
For some of their voters, particularly in London, that's the kind of approach they crave.
But claims from their critics that Labour could potentially seek to stay in the EU is a dividing line the party hardly needs.
• None Brexit triggered: What happens now? | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39703633 | news_uk-politics-39703633 |
|
UK music industry braced for Brexit - BBC News | 2017-04-22 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | Whether you consume music digitally or collect vinyl records, Brexit has the potential to affect you. | Business | Whether you consume music digitally or collect vinyl records, Brexit has the potential to affect you.
The UK music industry, like its counterparts in other countries, has had a tough time adapting to the technological shake-ups of recent years.
But now it also has to plan for the changes that will be ushered in by the UK's decision to leave the European Union.
Obviously there is still huge uncertainty about what the country's future relationship with the EU will be like, since its expected departure in the spring of 2019 is still subject to lengthy negotiations.
However, it is already possible to identify areas of the music business that may feel the effects.
With the industry's annual Record Store Day falling this year on Saturday, 22 April, record shops are enjoying a boom in sales of old-fashioned vinyl releases.
The format was widely expected to die a slow death with the advent of the CD, but in recent times, vinyl records have managed to outsell downloads.
However, when Record Store Day 2020 rolls around, there is a risk that those singles and albums could cost significantly more.
Will these records cost more post-Brexit?
If the UK does not manage to conclude a favourable trade deal with the EU, then tariffs may be applied on goods coming into the UK.
There are now only a couple of vinyl pressing plants left on British soil, so the majority of records sold in the UK are manufactured in factories based in other EU countries. The same goes for CDs.
If tariffs on goods return, record labels will face increased costs, which they will have to pass on to consumers.
So why buy music on physical formats anyway? This is the 21st Century, so go for streaming or downloads.
Well, even there, Brexit is likely to have consequences.
The pound has fallen in value in the wake of last June's referendum outcome. The leading music streaming services, from Sweden's Spotify to US-based Apple Music, are all multinational firms whose pricing policies are decided elsewhere.
Apple has already increased the price of its apps this year, in a move widely attributed to the Brexit vote. Apple Music subscriptions could follow suit if the pound falls any further.
In other ways, however, Brexit will have no effect at all. Many politicians and business leaders have called for the UK to preserve its access to the European single market, but in digital terms, things are more complicated.
The vast majority of Spotify's catalogue is available all over the world
While goods are covered by the single market in Europe, the market for services is still very much a work in progress.
And when it comes to the distribution of digital products, including music and e-books, consumers will still find that borders get in the way.
If you have an account with Amazon UK, you can buy a CD from Amazon's French website, but it won't allow you to buy the same music on download.
That said, streaming services are more unified. Spotify, for instance, makes practically all its catalogue accessible everywhere in the world, with some minor variations in local-language music.
But although Brussels has failed to create a digital single market for music consumers, it has done a lot for music producers.
People who make music can make money from it in various ways. As well as selling digital or physical copies of it, they are also paid royalties every time it is played in public.
There are two kinds of these:
Mechanical royalties date back to the days of piano rolls
And although there is no EU single market for digital music purchases, there is now a thriving single market for licensing music and collecting royalties on it.
In the UK, the main royalty collection society is PRS for Music. Its chief executive, Robert Ashcroft, says that the European Commission made a big difference with its Collective Rights Management Directive, which came into force in the UK in April last year.
As a result, it is now much easier to license music in many territories at once, rather than having to authorise it country by country, as was formerly the case.
PRS, for example, works in a joint venture with its counterparts in Sweden and Germany, STIM and GEMA, to operate a pan-European online music rights licensing service.
This means that songwriters and music publishing companies can get paid more quickly and accurately.
"We have already been licensing our rights on a pan-European basis," says Mr Ashcroft. "Brexit won't stop that and it's not in our business interest to stop it either."
The UK's law on music copyright has changed in recent years because of Brussels.
In November 2013, UK copyright protection on sound recordings increased from 50 years to 70 years, in line with an EU directive approved in 2011.
However, recordings that had already slipped into the public domain, such as the Beatles' first single, stayed there.
The Beatles' earliest recordings are now out of copyright
And there is a "use it or lose it" provision for hitherto unreleased recordings from 50 years ago. If record companies have ageing tracks in the vaults that they have never issued, then they have no comeback if other people get hold of them and release them.
Will all this change when the UK "takes back control"? PRS's Mr Ashcroft thinks not.
"I expect it to continue unless and until someone presents an argument that it's damaging to the economy," he says.
One area where Brexit could have a negative impact is on touring musicians. There are fears that music groups might have to scale back European tours after Brexit and fewer European acts could travel to the UK.
"We have a very healthy business in royalties that are earned when our members' works are performed overseas," says PRS's Mr Ashcroft. "If there were obstacles to British bands touring, that would be a potential challenge."
At the same time, however, he is concerned about Brexit's potential impact on his own organisation's staffing levels. "Eleven per cent of our employees come from countries other than the UK. We operate daily in 13 languages. We need the prime minister to give assurances that the people resident and working here can stay."
On that basis, he feels that the UK's music business is well integrated with the rest of Europe and hopes it will stay that way, despite Brexit: "We are so international that we think our business transcends that." | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39418829 | news_business-39418829 |
|
Man Utd v Chelsea: How Antonio Conte has taken Jose Mourinho's mantle - BBC Sport | 2017-04-14 | [] | Antonio Conte has made the kind of impact at Chelsea that MOTD pundit Chris Sutton expected Jose Mourinho to have at Manchester United. | null | You can see highlights of Manchester United v Chelsea on Match of the Day 2 at 22:30 GMT on Sunday on BBC One and the BBC Sport website.
There is pride, as well as points, at stake at Old Trafford on Sunday because Manchester United manager Jose Mourinho will not take it well if Antonio Conte beats him in his own backyard.
Conte has not just won both their previous meetings this season, his Chelsea side are 18 points above United and closing in on the Premier League title.
I did not expect the gap between the two teams to be so big but nobody could have foreseen how well Conte would do in what is a highly competitive league - I certainly didn't.
If you are looking for a comparison, you could say his impact in his first season in the Premier League has been Mourinho-esque - the same as when Jose first came to England in 2004 and blew everyone away.
'It's unacceptable for Mourinho to miss out on the top four'
In many ways, Conte is the new Mourinho - he has only been in England for eight months but has already taken over his mantle.
By that, I mean the way Conte has been the outstanding manager this season with his results and how he has implemented his style of play to build a team that is exciting to watch and a threat going forward.
Just as with Mourinho, you would not exactly say that everyone loves him, but most people admire the job he has done at Chelsea, and his enthusiasm and charisma too.
Mourinho may see a bit of himself in Conte and I would understand if he is a bit envious of the success the Italian has had. He has stolen his thunder with what is essentially Mourinho's team, and got so much more out of the group of players he was left with after Mourinho's second spell at the club.
I was one of those who thought Mourinho would quickly transform United in a similar way, but they simply have not made the same transition since he took charge.
Yes, there are signs of improvement from the Louis van Gaal era but I still think United will finish outside the top four, which is pretty unacceptable when you consider how much money they have spent.
If they do not qualify for the Champions League by winning the Europa League, then you cannot get away from the fact that this season will be a distinctly disappointing one.
I am not suggesting Mourinho is going to get the sack in that scenario - or that he should do - but, for United and for him, is winning the League Cup and finishing fifth or sixth really enough?
'United's biggest problem is their lack of goals'
Mourinho has already clashed with Conte on the touchline this season, and he will be absolutely desperate to beat him this time.
I don't think United can play an open game against Chelsea on Sunday because, if they try to go toe to toe with them, the way Conte's team counter-attack will really cause them problems.
So I am expecting a cagey affair. If you asked me to pick a winner I would go with the Blues but I just have a feeling Zlatan Ibrahimovic will play a big part in the outcome.
I would not put it past him to do something special to decide the game - but even if United do come out on top at Old Trafford, they face a huge task to break into the top four now.
Looking at their remaining fixtures, they will need to go on an unbelievable run in some difficult games. At the same time, they have to hope Liverpool or Manchester City slip up because the top two seem to be too far clear now.
You cannot rule United out of winning all of those games, simply because of who they are and the quality they have in their team.
But, on this season's form, I just cannot see it.
United are unbeaten for 21 league games, going back to their 4-0 defeat at Stamford Bridge in October, but it is their inability to score goals that has been the determining factor in where they are in the table, because they have not beaten a lot of teams you would expect them to run riot against.
They have scored one more than Bournemouth and have the lowest total in the top six by a significant amount. I don't think anyone imagined them struggling so badly in front of goal.
Van Gaal, Mourinho's predecessor at Old Trafford, was criticised heavily for his brand of football - but his United team scored more goals in his first season, and so did David Moyes' side.
United's trademark style is 'attack, attack, attack' but apart from Ibrahimovic they have been blunt when they have come forward.
Ibrahimovic has had a fantastic season and bailed them out on countless occasions but it feels like they rely solely on him to score, and that has been their biggest problem.
Jose Mourinho vs Louis van Gaal and David Moyes at Man Utd after 30 PL games
'Mourinho has become painful to watch'
Mourinho is right when he says his other attacking players need to be more consistent, but to publicly criticise the likes of Anthony Martial and Marcus Rashford is a risky tactic.
We have seen something similar with his treatment of Luke Shaw, and now there are rumours he has had a bust-up with David de Gea too.
I can understand what he is saying about Shaw being in the last-chance saloon but, for whatever reason, there is not complete harmony in the United camp at the moment.
That is the other big difference between what Conte has achieved at Chelsea, and the way he has done it - because it appears there is total harmony there, with everyone pulling in the same direction.
Whatever he is talking about, Mourinho's whole demeanour as a manager seems to have changed - he used to be witty and charming when he spoke to the media, but now he is painful to watch.
All of that sort of behaviour seems to be an attempt to deflect attention from some of the issues affecting his team.
For example, when he spoke to the BBC's Conor McNamara after United drew at home to West Brom, his emphasis was on pulling Conor up for his question, rather than concentrating on the matter in hand - which is why his team are not doing well enough in the final third of the pitch.
'United fans have been patient, but will it last?'
The buck has to stop with Mourinho at some point - he will know himself that he has to do better, and he has a lot of work to do.
This is his first season at United and, in his defence, you could argue this is not his team yet.
But that argument does not really work when you think about how quickly Conte has made a difference at Chelsea, and how far United are behind them.
United have already invested heavily in their team in the past three years - Mourinho has spent about £150m, and Van Gaal about another £250m in his time in charge, which is an astonishing amount to lay out and still be outside the top four.
To change that, it looks like they will have to do the same again this summer, but how much more money will they throw at it, and where does the spending stop?
The United fans have been exceptionally patient with Mourinho so far but I am not sure if that will last going into next season if they miss out on the Champions League again. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39595589 | rt_football_39595589 |
|
Six Supreme Court cases Justice Neil Gorsuch could rule on - BBC News | 2017-04-10 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | As Neil Gorsuch is confirmed to the Supreme Court, here are six hot-button issues he could have a say on. | US & Canada | Mr Gorsuch will be confirmed as a Supreme Court justice on Monday
Neil Gorsuch has been confirmed as a Supreme Court justice, following a bitter and partisan battle over his nomination by President Trump.
The conservative judge could be required early on to weigh in on several hot-button issues due before the court, including religious freedoms, gun rights and Mr Trump's travel ban.
Other cases which deadlocked between the eight current justices may be reheard now that there is a ninth justice in place to break the tie on America's highest court.
Here are some of the key cases he may have a hand in deciding in the coming weeks and months.
One of the first cases Justice Gorsuch will hear, with oral arguments due to begin next week, concerns separation of church and state.
A school run by Trinity Lutheran Church in Missouri sought to take part in a state programme that resurfaces playgrounds with rubber from recycled tires.
But the Missouri Department of Natural Resources denied the request, arguing that the state constitution prohibited funding of religious organisations.
Representing the church, the Alliance Defending Freedom said the denial infringed the church's First Amendment rights.
The case was accepted by the court in January last year but delayed a hearing for 15 months.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
The Supreme Court is due to decide this week whether to accept the case of a baker in Colorado who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, on religious grounds.
The lower courts found that the owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop had violated Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), and the decision was upheld by the Colorado Court of Appeals.
The case has been under consideration for acceptance by the Supreme Court since January, suggesting that Judge Gorsuch could tip the balance either way.
He has previously found in favour of religious freedoms in the workplace, including in two of his most well-known cases.
In Burwell v Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor v Burwell, Judge Gorsuch ruled that a requirement for employers to cover contraception under their health insurance plans infringed their religious freedoms.
This takes up a lower court ruling that said the second amendment alone did not grant California gun owners the right to carry a concealed weapon in public places. The ruling granted counties the right to apply additional tests before granting a permit, including whether the applicant showed "good cause" to require it.
The argument essentially boils down to whether the existing right to gun ownership for self defence at home extends to carrying a concealed weapon in public places.
"Any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry - including a requirement of 'good cause,' however defined - is necessarily allowed by the [Second] Amendment," said the lower court ruling.
The ruling led to variation across counties, with some sheriff's offices denying nearly all concealed carry applications. The restrictions are being challenged by a group of Second Amendment campaigners.
President Trump's controversial executive order banning travel from six Muslim-majority countries is probably heading to the Supreme Court later this year.
Justice Gorsuch repeatedly declined to comment on the issue during his confirmation hearings, but a Supreme Court case would provide a public test of his independence from Mr Trump, who nominated him for the court.
The order is due to go before the Fourth Circuit and Ninth Circuit court in May.
Another immigration issue which could make its way to the court at some point is Mr Trump's attempt to strip federal funding from so-called "sanctuary cities" - cities that refuse to comply with federal orders to detain immigrants.
This is the case of a 15-year-old unarmed Mexican boy who was on the Mexican side of the border when he was shot dead in 2010 by a US border patrol agent, in disputed circumstances. Sergio Hernandez's family want to sue the agent for infringing the boy's constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court has already heard oral arguments in the case but the justices did not reach any conclusion. That opens the way for the case to be reheard with Justice Gorsuch on the bench.
In July, judges on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a North Carolina voting overhaul that they said targeted African Americans "with almost surgical precision".
The case went to the Supreme Court in August but split the justices 4/4 over whether to prevent the overhaul coming into effect before November's general election.
With the case due to go before the court again, Judge Gorsuch could swing the result either way. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39556904 | news_world-us-canada-39556904 |
|
Garth Crooks' team of the week: Coutinho, Alli, Ibrahimovic, Luiz, Hazard - BBC Sport | 2017-04-10 | [] | Dele Alli's form causes contention in the BBC studio and who do England need in midfield? It's Garth's team of the week. | null | Chelsea beat Bournemouth 3-1 to stay seven points clear at the top of the Premier League, while Tottenham remain second after a 4-0 win at home to Watford.
Liverpool stay third with a 2-1 win at Stoke City, Manchester City remain fourth following a 3-1 victory over Hull City, and Manchester United climb up to fifth as they beat bottom club Sunderland 3-0.
Elsewhere, there are wins for Southampton away to West Brom, West Ham against Swansea and Everton at home to Leicester, while Middlesbrough v Burnley ended goalless.
Do you agree with my team of the week or would you go for a different team? Why not pick your own team of the week from the shortlist selected by BBC Sport journalists and share it with your friends?
Pick your Team of the Week Pick your XI from our list and share with your friends.
He's taken a fair amount of stick during his time at Liverpool but the hug from Jurgen Klopp at the end of the match seems to suggest goalkeeper Simon Mignolet was not just in good form but had done something quite special. It was the save from Saido Berahino that did it - costing Stoke a point while keeping Liverpool on course for a Champions League spot.
Moments before, Mignolet also made a point-blank save from Charlie Adam when he and Berahino practically apologised to each other for taking the strike. However, in my view, Klopp has failed to address the most obvious issue facing Liverpool since the start of the season - that is their back four.
Mignolet has recovered his season with some sparkling performances since being dropped earlier in the campaign. Yet if the German manager had got his back four right it's difficult to see how Chelsea could be 12 points clear of the Reds with six games left to play. Hugging Mignolet in sheer relief that his keeper has kept him in with a massive shout of Champions League football next season is a bit of a cop out for me. Liverpool should have been challenging for the title.
Matthew Lowton's headed clearance off the line from Stewart Downing's free-kick was absolutely sensational. For the full-back to recognise that keeper Tom Heaton was vulnerable and Downing was about to put the free-kick over the wall and into the top right-hand corner was intuitive genius.
Lowton left the wall having spotted the danger. But if that wasn't enough he almost immediately afterwards cleared off the line again - this time from Daniel Ayala's header. These two clearances were not just brilliant but game-changers. I've seen defenders panic in those positions and head the ball into the roof of their own net or get their feet in a tangle at the crucial moment.
Lowton was as steady as a rock and kept his eye on the ball - clearing his lines and the danger. It's these moments in games that define seasons for teams like Burnley. This was a fixture that produced no goals but, in the final analysis, Burnley didn't care. They have begged, borrowed and stolen points this season and Lowton - like their entire back five - did a superb job.
West Ham boss Slaven Bilic was manic throughout this affair and understandably so. The Hammers had lost five games on the bounce and rumours were rife that West Ham's directors had a contingency in place - whatever that meant - had Bilic suffered a sixth consecutive defeat.
There was so much riding on this result and Bilic did well to put his faith in an old head with a lot of experience. James Collins was that man and he did everything that needed to be done. He was magnificent in the air and needed to be, particularly when Fernando Llorente came on in the second half for Swansea.
The Spanish centre-forward raised the stakes for the Hammers and it forced Collins to put his body on the line on a number of occasions.
Swansea, on the other hand, seemed like a team who were suffering from stage fright and paralysed by fear. It would appear their 3-1 drubbing at home to Spurs in midweek had a far bigger impact on the team's confidence than they realised.
What a wonderful ball from David Luiz to Victor Moses. It resulted in Diego Costa's superb turn and Chelsea's fortuitous opening goal. I'm not in the least bit surprised by Luiz's ability to knock a 40-yard pass. This is a defender with so much ability he can do that and much more.
However, as the season draws to a close and Chelsea put a date in the diary for a trip to the Premier League engravers, I would like to commend manager Antonio Conte and technical director Michael Emenalo for having the foresight and courage to bring Luiz back to Stamford Bridge.
The Brazil international is unrecognisable from the irrational player we saw during his first period at the club. Since his return, he has played some glorious football and been a unifying figure in a new era at the Bridge.
If Chelsea are serious about winning the Champions League next season they must do whatever it takes to keep Luiz. There aren't many great centre-backs out there, and those who do exist are with the biggest clubs in Europe. With a couple of strong additions to their squad, Chelsea could be serious Champions League candidates.
I didn't know who was going to take Chelsea's free-kick - David Luiz, Victor Moses or Marcos Alonso. In the end it was Alonso who bent it past Artur Boruc with extraordinary accuracy.
The harsh truth for Bournemouth, and the rest of the Premier League, is any one of those players could have planted the free-kick past Boruc, such is the quality and confidence that exists in the Chelsea ranks at the moment. The truth is I couldn't leave Alonso out of my team of the week having scored a goal like that.
Alonso has done this sort of thing before, of course, and I have no doubt he will do it again before Chelsea lift the Premier League trophy. Which they will.
Philippe Coutinho didn't feel great on the morning of the match and arrived in the Potteries by car feeling OK before deciding to declare himself fit for the game against Stoke City. That was the beginning of the end for the Potters. From the moment Coutinho came on the pitch at the start of the second half, I knew it was a game-changer.
The Brazilian had already warned Lee Grant he was on the prowl, having forced the Stoke keeper to produce a fantastic save just after he arrived on the pitch. It was at that moment you knew whatever symptoms Coutinho had before the game had well and truly passed. However, it was his one-touch finish on the edge of the box that I thought was so impressive.
Coutinho hung around waiting for something to happen - anything that might give him an opportunity to pounce. When it came he was equal to it. All credit to Coutinho for getting to Stoke. The easy option would have been not to play and no-one would have blamed him. Instead he put himself on the line for his team-mates and his manager. I hope Jurgen Klopp remembers that in the future when Coutinho is having a bad time.
I saw Fabian Delph play against Chelsea in midweek and, considering it was his first start of the season, he looked in great shape and played like it. All credit to him. Delph has been plagued with injuries and had such little first-team game time, yet still has the presence of mind and the right attitude to keep himself in such tip-top condition.
He ran out of steam at Stamford Bridge, but not so against Hull. For Delph to retain the level of fitness at this stage of the season, and go on to have such an impact on Manchester City's victory over Hull, is a credit to his professionalism.
There will be those who will argue that professional players should keep themselves in the best shape ever - after all, it's their job. Those cynics have no idea of the mental discipline required to keep yourself at the top of your game in mind and health when you have no fixture to look forward to.
At the end of the game against Hull you could see how delighted Manchester City's backroom staff were for him. They have also played a part in the recovery. Hopefully Delph can now start to think of playing for his country again. Heaven knows we could do with him.
What a goal by Roberto Firmino. The ball from Georginio Wijnaldum was wonderful but the finish even better. It's one thing your team-mate delivering the pass of the match. It's something entirely different having received the ball at your feet and having the technical ability to put it into the back of the net. Firmino finished the move so emphatically. If the referee had decided to blow the full-time whistle there and then, no neutral observer would have complained - the quality of the finish was worthy of winning any match.
However, watching the goal in real time does not do the execution of the finish justice. The replay clearly identifies how Firmino takes a look at the ball as it arrives over his shoulder, watches it bounce in front of him, then takes a look at where Grant is positioned before deciding to hit the ball on the volley. Grant, who is slightly off his line in case Firmino decides to take him on, almost dares his opponent to take the volley due to the degree of technical difficulty required to execute the skill.
All this being played out, of course, in a couple of seconds. So imagine Grant, when the Brazilian calls his bluff and goes for the volley and smashes it into the back of the net, having left the Stoke keeper clutching fresh air. That's why the finish was so good and we all said 'wow'.
The moment Dele Alli bent his super shot around the well-beaten Heurelho Gomes in the Watford goal, former Spurs midfielder Jermaine Jenas said: "He's the player of the season for me."
Jermaine, preparing for Football Focus in the BBC green room, instigated a frightful debate prior to the programme around who deserved to win the PFA Player of the Year. Dion Dublin, Dan Walker, Martin Keown and myself immediately engaged in the argument with differing opinions but generally agreed the prize would probably go to either to Eden Hazard or N'Golo Kante.
Jermaine seemed incredulous that none of us had mentioned Alli and said that he wanted more flair from his midfield players which suggested Kante came up short in that department as far as he was concerned. A fair point and a perfectly reasonable assertion under the circumstances.
It did seem odd at the time bearing in mind Alli was having a terrific game against Watford and Spurs were second in the table largely due to Alli's contribution this season. That said, I don't think Alli will win the PFA Player of the Year even though Jermaine put together a very credible case.
There have been some notable performances this week, from strikers in particular, who would have, under normal circumstances, made my team of the week. However, this wasn't a normal week. Romelu Lukaku and Son Heung-min scored twice for Everton and Tottenham respectively, but it was Zlatan Ibrahimovic who impressed me the most.
Playing up front on your own is always a task but it never seems to bother the Manchester United striker. Against a Sunderland side sporting 11 men at the time, the Swede produced a goal out of nothing. He set up Marcus Rashford's goal and you can see how his team-mates respond to his presence.
I don't think it's a coincidence that Luke Shaw has timed his return to the team with Ibrahimovic's return. The lad has been put under immense pressure by United boss Jose Mourinho and, if the game against Sunderland is anything to go by, he has stood up to Mourinho's bully-boy tactics very well. I'm not sure Mourinho would get away with such a public condemnation of an employee in any other form of employment.
Nevertheless, this was a very important victory for United and keeps them in the hunt for a fourth-place finish. I would have liked to have seen the outcome of this game against Sunderland with a referee who recognises the difference between a tackle that looks dangerous and one that actually is dangerous. Sebastian Larsson's tackle on Ander Herrera neither looked dangerous nor was dangerous. So why the player received an automatic red card from referee Craig Pawson is a total mystery to me.
If David Luiz's presence at Chelsea is central to any future Champions League campaign, then Eden Hazard is imperative. Real Madrid will know all about Hazard's potential but will most certainly have noted his form this season. This is without doubt his best season in the Premier League. His performance against Bournemouth was wonderful to watch.
I haven't seen a player for sometime enjoy his football as much as Hazard is at the moment. He is playing with such freedom and confidence that makes me think that an audacious offer from Madrid is almost certain. There are not many players who can resist playing at the Bernabeu Stadium on a regular basis.
So it is crucial that Chelsea boss Antonio Conte removes the rumours circulating the game about his possible return to Italy and starts focusing on the Champions League with Chelsea next season. That must be the next stage in Chelsea's development. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39547967 | rt_football_39547967 |
|
Is Trump now part of the establishment? - BBC News | 2017-04-04 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | Donald Trump condemns Washington insiders, but some conservative critics say he's now the problem. | US & Canada | Donald Trump campaigned for president as the ultimate outsider, promising to unseat a corrupt and atrophied Washington establishment. Now, after two months in office, has he become the establishment? Are Trump and his team the insiders now?
One thing the recent collapse of healthcare reform efforts in the House of Representatives has revealed is just how quickly attitudes and alliances can shift in Washington, DC.
Last year Mr Trump and members of the House Freedom Caucus, a collection of 30 or so libertarian-leaning fiscal conservatives in Congress, were singing from the same anti-government hymnal.
Now, however, Mr Trump is the government - and he teamed up with congressional leadership to back a healthcare bill that conservative hard-liners believe didn't go far enough in undoing the 2009 Democratic-designed system.
The effort's failure set off back-and-forth sniping between Mr Trump and the Freedom Caucus that morphed into a classic insider-outsider faceoff, with Mr Trump cast as the new voice of the powers that be.
Congressman Justin Amash said the White House has become part of the hated status quo - the "Trumpstablishment", he called it in a Saturday tweet.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
That line drew the ire of Mr Trump's director of social media, Dan Scavino Jr, who tweeted that Mr Amash was a "big liability" and encouraged Michigan voters to unseat him in next year's Republican primary. (The tweet has since been criticised as a possible violation of a federal law preventing executive branch officials from attempting to influence election campaigns.)
If Mr Trump's conservative critics are trying to make the case that the president has become the establishment he campaigned against, their arguments have been buttressed by the financial disclosure documents released by the White House on Friday evening, which revealed exactly how well-heeled and connected many of the top White House staff are. According to the Washington Post, 27 members of Mr Trump's team have combined assets exceeding $2.3bn (£1.84bn).
Presidential daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner - both unpaid presidential advisers - are worth roughly $740m.
Senior White House strategist Steve Bannon earned as much as $2.3 million in 2017. Gary Cohn, a former Goldman Sachs executive who is one of Mr Trump's top economics advisers, has a net worth approaching $611m.
The New York Times points out that many in the inner circle of the putatively anti-establishment Mr Trump drew significant sums from the network of big-money political donors, think tanks and associated political action committees that populate the Washington insider firmament.
"The figures reveal the extent to which private political work has bolstered the financial fortunes of Trump aides, who have made millions of dollars from Republican and other conservative causes in recent years," the paper reported.
Already there are signs that conservative true-believers - some of whom were never fully sold on Mr Trump to begin with - are questioning Mr Trump's anti-establishment bona fides.
"That's the dirty little secret," writes conservative columnist Ben Shapiro. "Trump isn't anti-establishment; he's pro-establishment so long as he's the establishment."
Even conservative radio host Laura Ingraham, an early Trump supporter, is having some doubts.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump railed against the Washington establishment
"I think it is really, really unhelpful to Donald Trump's ultimate agenda to slam the very people who are going to be propping up his border wall, all the things he wants to do on immigration, on trade," she said on Fox News."I don't know where he thinks he's going to get his friends on those issues."
Perhaps of greatest concern to Mr Trump is that the failure to enact promised healthcare reform, along with his recent feud with members of his own party, have been accompanied by a softening of his core support in recent polls.
In a Rasmussen survey, the number of Americans who "strongly approve" of the president has dropped from 44% at shortly after his inauguration to 28% today. While the Republican base is largely sticking with Mr Trump so far, they may be starting to have some doubts.
For much of 2016 Donald Trump was the barbarian at the gate, threatening to rain fire on the comfortable Washington power elite. Even in his January inaugural address, he condemned an establishment that "protected itself" at the cost of average Americans.
"Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation's capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land," he said.
Now, however, Mr Trump and his team of formerly angry outsiders meet in the Oval Office. They fly on Air Force One. They host events in the White House rose garden. They issue tweets warning apostates of harsh political consequences.
They walk the halls of power and call the shots.
It doesn't get any more "insider" than that. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39483715 | news_world-us-canada-39483715 |
|
Profile: Theresa May - BBC News | 2017-04-18 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | A profile of Conservative Party leader Theresa May, who has just called a general election. | UK Politics | A look at the life and times of the UK's Prime Minister, Theresa May, who has decided to call a general election for 8 June.
Theresa May is Britain's second female prime minister but, unlike her predecessor Margaret Thatcher, she came to power without an election.
She took over as leader of the governing Conservative Party last July following the resignation of David Cameron, who had gambled everything on Britain voting to stay in the European Union.
Like Mr Cameron, Mrs May had been against Brexit but she cleverly managed to keep the Eurosceptics in her party on side during the referendum campaign by keeping a low profile.
She reaped her reward by emerging as the unchallenged successor to Mr Cameron - portraying herself as a steady, reliable pair of hands who would deliver the will of the people and take Britain out of the EU in as orderly a fashion as possible.
The plan was for there to be no election until 2020, but as the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg explains, the political logic for going to the country earlier became inescapable.
With a commanding lead in the opinion polls, the bigger gamble might well have been to wait another three years and risk Brexit negotiations turning sour or the opposition Labour Party recovering ground.
Theresa May, back row, right, in the 1999 shadow cabinet
The 60-year-old former home secretary has a reputation for a steady, unshowy approach to politics, although she was known in her early days at Westminster for her exotic taste in footwear and a fondness for high fashion (she named a lifetime subscription to Vogue as the luxury item she would take to a desert island).
She battled her way through the Westminster boy's club as one of a handful of women on the Conservative benches - she would later be joined by more female colleagues thanks, in part, to her own efforts as party chairman to get women candidates into winnable seats.
She developed a reputation as a tough, critics would say inflexible, operator, who was not afraid of delivering unpalatable home truths.
Some in the Conservative Party have never forgiven her for a 2002 conference speech in which she told members that "you know what some people call us - the nasty party".
Her lectures to Police Federation conferences as home secretary about the need for reform and to tackle corruption added to this steely reputation.
She was always ambitious but her rise through the ranks was steady, rather than meteoric.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Theresa May: We need proven leadership to negotiate the best deal
The daughter of a Church of England vicar, Hubert, who died from injuries sustained in a car crash when she was only 25, Theresa May's middle class background has more in keeping with the last female occupant of Downing Street, Margaret Thatcher, than her immediate predecessor.
Theresa May married her husband Philip in 1980
Born in Sussex but raised largely in Oxfordshire, Mrs May - both of whose grandmothers are reported to have been in domestic service - attended a state primary, an independent convent school and then a grammar school in the village of Wheatley, which became the Wheatley Park Comprehensive School during her time there.
The young Theresa Brasier, as she was then, threw herself into village life, taking part in a pantomime that was produced by her father and working in the bakery on Saturdays to earn pocket money.
Friends recall a tall, fashion-conscious young woman who from an early age spoke of her ambition to be the first woman prime minister.
The young Theresa Brasier at a function in the village hall
Like Margaret Thatcher, she went to Oxford University to study and, like so many others of her generation, found that her personal and political lives soon became closely intertwined.
In 1976, in her third year, she met her husband Philip, who was president of the Oxford Union, a well-known breeding ground for future political leaders.
The story has it that they were introduced at a Conservative Association disco by the subsequent Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto. They married in 1980.
Her university friend Pat Frankland, speaking in 2011 on a BBC Radio 4 profile of the then home secretary, said: "I cannot remember a time when she did not have political ambitions.
"I well remember, at the time, that she did want to become the first woman prime minister and she was quite irritated when Margaret Thatcher got there first."
Theresa May is seen here as a child with her parents Hubert and Zaidee
There are no tales of drunken student revelry, but Pat Frankland and other friends say May was not the austere figure she would later come to be seen as, saying she had a sense of fun and a full social life.
After graduating with a degree in Geography, May went to work in the City, initially starting work at the Bank of England and later rising to become head of the European Affairs Unit of the Association for Payment Clearing Services.
But it was already clear that she saw her future in politics. She was elected as a local councillor in Merton, south London, and served her ward for a decade, rising to become deputy leader. However, she was soon setting her sights even higher.
Mrs May, who has become a confidante as well as role model for aspiring female MPs - told prospective candidates before the 2015 election that "there is always a seat out there with your name on it".
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. A look at Theresa May's journey to the top job
In her case - like that of Margaret Thatcher - it took a bit of time for her to find hers. She first dipped her toe in the water in 1992, where she stood in the safe Labour seat of North West Durham, coming a distant second to Hilary Armstrong, who went on to become Labour's chief whip in the Blair government. Her fellow candidates in that contest also included a very youthful Tim Farron, who is now Lib Dem leader.
Two years later, she stood in Barking, east London, in a by-election where - with the Conservative government at the height of its unpopularity - she got fewer than 2,000 votes and saw her vote share dip more than 20%. But her luck was about to change.
The Conservatives' electoral fortunes may have hit a nadir in 1997, when Tony Blair came to power in a Labour landslide, but there was a silver lining for the party and for the aspiring politician when she won the seat of Maidenhead in Berkshire. It's a seat she has held ever since.
Mrs May first stood for Parliament in 1992 in North West Durham
Theresa May has described her husband Philip as her rock
Theresa May bumps into rock star Alice Cooper outside a BBC studio in 2010
An early advocate of Conservative "modernisation" in the wilderness years that followed, Mrs May quickly joined the shadow cabinet in 1999 under William Hague as shadow education secretary and in 2002 she became the party's first female chairman under Iain Duncan Smith.
She then held a range of senior posts under Michael Howard but was conspicuously not part of the "Notting Hill set" which grabbed control of the party after its third successive defeat in 2005 and laid David Cameron and George Osborne's path to power.
This was perhaps reflected in the fact that she was initially given the rather underwhelming job of shadow leader of the House of Commons. But she gradually raised her standing and by 2009 had become shadow work and pensions secretary.
Nevertheless, her promotion to the job of home secretary when the Conservatives joined with the Lib Dems to form the first coalition government in 70 years was still something of a surprise - given that Chris Grayling had been shadowing the brief in opposition.
While the Home Office turned out to be the political graveyard of many a secretary of state in previous decades, Mrs May refused to let this happen - mastering her brief with what was said to be a microscopic attention to detail and no little willingness to enter into battles with fellow ministers when she thought it necessary.
Theresa May initially fell down the pecking order under David Cameron but worked her way back up
While some in Downing Street worried that the Home Office was becoming her own personal fiefdom, she engendered loyalty among her ministers and was regarded as "unmovable" as her tough-talking style met with public approval even when the department's record did not always seem so strong.
In his memoir of his time in office, former Lib Dem minister David Laws says: "She would frequently clash with George Osborne over immigration. She rarely got on anything but badly with Michael Gove. She and Cameron seemed to view each other with mutual suspicion.
"I first met her in 2010. I was sitting in my Treasury office, overlooking St James's Park, me in one armchair and the home secretary in the other, with no officials present. She looked nervous.
"I felt she was surprised to find herself as home secretary. Frankly, I didn't expect her to last more than a couple of years."
Despite her liberal instincts in some policy areas, she frequently clashed with the then deputy prime minister and Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, particularly over her plan to increase internet surveillance to combat terrorism, dubbed the "Snooper's Charter" by the Lib Dems.
After one "difficult" meeting with Mr Clegg, he reportedly told David Laws: "You know, I've grown to rather like Theresa May... 'She's a bit of an Ice Maiden and has no small talk whatsoever - none. I have quite difficult meetings with her. Cameron once said, 'She's exactly like that with me too!'
"She is instinctively secretive and very rigid, but you can be tough with her and she'll go away and think it all through again."
Mrs May has confronted what she sees as vested interests in the police
The new prime minister is a self-declared feminist
On the plus side crime levels fell, the UK avoided a mass terrorist attack and in 2013, she successfully deported radical cleric Abu Qatada - something she lists as one of her proudest achievements, along with preventing the extradition to America of computer hacker Gary McKinnon.
She was not afraid to take on vested interests, stunning the annual conference of the Police Federation in 2014 by telling them corruption problems were not just limited to "a few bad apples" and threatening to end the federation's automatic right to enrol officers as its members.
However, the Passport Office suffered a near meltdown while she faced constant criticism over the government's failure to meet its promise to get net migration down to below 100,000 a year.
Labour MP Yvette Cooper, who went up against her in the Commons as shadow home secretary, told The Guardian: "I respect her style - it is steady and serious. She is authoritative in parliament - superficial attacks on her bounce off.
"The flip side is that she is not fleet of foot when crises build, she digs in her heels (remember the Passport Agency crisis in 2014 when the backlog caused hundreds to miss their holidays, and the Border Force crisis in 2011 when border checks were axed).
"And she hides when things go wrong. No interviews, no quotes, nothing to reassure people or to remind people she even exists. It's helped her survive as home secretary - but if you are prime minister, eventually the buck has to stop."
There was a bitter public row with cabinet colleague Michael Gove over the best way to combat Islamist extremism, which ended with Mr Gove having to apologise to the prime minister and Mrs May having to sack a long-serving special adviser - a turf war which is said to have led to a diminution in her admiration for the prime minister.
Former Conservative chancellor Ken Clarke also had run-ins with her and was recorded on camera ahead of an interview last week saying that Mrs May was good at her job but a "bloody difficult woman" - before adding as an aside, a bit like Mrs Thatcher. A reference to be Conservative leader can hardly come better than that.
Mrs May has never been one of the most clubbable of politicians and is someone who prefers not having to tour the tea rooms of the House of Commons - where tittle-tattle is freely exchanged.
She has rarely opened up about her private life although she revealed in 2013 that she had been diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes and would require insulin injections twice a day for the rest of her life - something she says she had come to terms with and which would not affect her career.
Mrs May's taste in footwear has kept photographers interested for more than a decade
Generally thought to be in the mainstream of Conservative thinking on most economic and law and order issues, she has also challenged convention by attacking police stop and search powers and calling for a probe into the application of Sharia Law in British communities.
She also expressed a personal desire to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights but later said she would not pursue this as PM due to a lack of parliamentary support - an example of what many believe will be pragmatism in office.
Her social attitudes are slightly harder to pin down. She backed same sex marriage. She expressed a personal view in 2012 that the legal limit on abortion should be lowered from 24 to 20 weeks. Along with most Conservative MPs she voted against an outright ban on foxhunting.
What is undisputable is that at 59, Mrs May was the oldest leader to enter Downing Street since James Callaghan in 1976 and is the first prime minister since Ted Heath who does not have children.
Mrs May has worked closely with David Cameron and will now succeed him
Mrs May has been the most senior female Cabinet minister for the past six years
One of Westminster's shrewdest as well as toughest operators, Mrs May's decision to campaign for the UK to remain in the EU but to do so in an understated way and to frame her argument in relatively narrow security terms reaped dividends after the divisive campaign.
During what turned out to be a short-lived leadership campaign, Mrs May played strongly on her weight of experience, judgement and reliability in a time of crisis.
The first months of Mrs May's time in Downing Street have been dominated by the process of divorcing the UK from the EU - but there have been signs that she won't be content with the "safe pair of hands" tag that is often attached to her.
Brexit, she has said, won't be allowed purely to define her time in office and she has promised a radical programme of social reform, underpinned by values of One Nation Toryism, to promote social mobility and opportunity for the more disadvantaged in society.
Policies such as new grammar schools or more selection have been put forward - but with a slender parliamentary majority of 17 her government had little breathing room on bringing forward tightly contested legislation.
So, despite promising not to hold a general election before she had to, in 2020, she has now decided to seek a mandate for her own particular brand of Conservatism to, as she put it, to "guarantee certainty and security for the years ahead". | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39630534 | news_uk-politics-39630534 |
|
Britain's 'big bang' in Heligoland, 70 years on - BBC News | 2017-04-18 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | Remembering one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history, on the German island of Heligoland. | Europe | This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Heligoland: When Britain blew up an island
Brexit may have triggered a political earthquake in Europe, but 70 years ago the UK sent real shockwaves across the seas with the largest non-nuclear explosion of that era.
As one of the four victorious allied powers after World War Two, Britain was governing a large area of occupied Germany.
The British sector included the tiny island of Heligoland, which had long been a source of diplomatic tension between the two countries.
So, when in 1947 the British needed a safe place to dispose of thousands of tonnes of unexploded ammunition, Heligoland must have seemed an obvious choice.
The code-name for the plan combined the British flair for understatement with the military taste for the literal-minded; it was to be called Operation Big Bang.
The Heligoland Big Bang was the largest non-nuclear detonation to date
Heligoland had been a German naval fortress, and historian Jan Rüger, author of Heligoland: Britain, Germany, and the Struggle for the North Sea, says Operation Big Bang was designed by the British to make a big point.
"They're very clear that there's a symbolic side to this [operation] and that is the German tradition of militarism," he explains.
"There's a sense that Prussian militarism and its threat to Britain has to end and that's very much how Operation Big Bang is received in Britain."
The operation was carefully stage-managed - the old black and white pictures even include a close-up of a Royal Navy officer's finger triggering the blast. Aerial footage shows the entire horizon erupting in a huge grey curtain of mud, sand and rock.
For the Royal Navy and the British Army of Occupation it was mission accomplished.
Heligoland was evacuated during World War Two
For the people of Heligoland it felt very different.
Europe in 1946 and 1947 was in chaos, with millions of displaced and dispossessed families drifting between camps or sheltering in ruined buildings.
The island had been evacuated during the war and many Heligolanders were living in exile in the coastal city of Cuxhaven about 60km (37 miles) to the south.
Olaf Ohlsen, who was 11 years old in 1947, gathered with the rest of the exiled population on the cliffs to listen for the sound of the explosion.
Few people in history can have lived through such a moment, standing at the edge of sea knowing that they would hear but not see an explosion that they knew would destroy their homes.
Heligolander Olaf Ohlsen was 11 years old when the detonation took place
Olaf says everyone knew that the explosion would be shattering.
"Even in Hamburg, which is more than 150 km (93 miles) from the island," he told me, "a schoolteacher kept a document which said the British had warned everyone to leave doors and windows open to help the buildings withstand the blast."
Olaf's father was among the pessimists who believed that Britain's real intention was to blow up the island behind a literal smokescreen created by the destruction of the captured ammunition.
He still recalls the first time his father brought news of what had happened after the blast, shouting with excitement: "Heligoland is still here, it's still here."
In the middle of the 20th Century Heligoland still mattered to its people, fiercely independent speakers of a Friesian dialect who are neither British nor German.
Heligoland was a German military base in both world wars
But it had lost the strategic importance that made it a crucial bone of contention between the great powers of Europe a hundred years earlier.
Britain occupied Heligoland in the Napoleonic period as part of its complex manoeuvrings to deny the French leader the support of the navies of Scandinavia as he took over huge parts of Europe.
Thus the British found themselves with a handy naval base that guarded the entrance to the port of Hamburg and allowed it to slip secret agents freely into Napoleonic Europe. By the time they gifted it to the Kaiser in 1890, though, its usefulness appeared to be at an end.
Detlev Rickmers, a local hotel owner whose family have been Heligolanders for 500 years, says that even though it's more than a century since the link was broken, a sense of Britishness ran through the population for a long time after 1890.
"Of course there was a British governor, there was a sense of being British," he says. "There were connections to Britain. My grandfather told me that he always remembered the excitement of the days when the salesman would call from Huntley and Palmer."
In the wake of the Big Bang, of course, things are very different.
70 years on, the crater from the explosion is still a feature of the island
The British bombing operation acted as a kind of catalyst for a new form of post-war German nationalism. There were campaigns for the island to be returned to German sovereignty and for a rebuilding programme to allow the Heligolanders to go home.
Historian Jan Rüger says that perhaps for the last time Operation Big Bang had made Heligoland part of a larger historical argument.
"As always in history there's a paradoxical side to these events," he says. "In this case it lies in the way that all over Germany this is seen as a moment that victimises the Germans and allows them to see themselves as victims after a war in which the rest of Europe has been the victim of German aggression."
The British bombing left Heligoland's landscape pock-marked and cratered. But the island endured: a stubborn lump of rock in the North Sea.
And while most visitors are drawn these days by the lure of duty-free shopping, Heligoland has a fascinating story to tell to anyone who'll listen. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39590752 | news_world-europe-39590752 |
|
Is Trump now part of the establishment? - BBC News | 2017-04-05 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | Donald Trump condemns Washington insiders, but some conservative critics say he's now the problem. | US & Canada | Donald Trump campaigned for president as the ultimate outsider, promising to unseat a corrupt and atrophied Washington establishment. Now, after two months in office, has he become the establishment? Are Trump and his team the insiders now?
One thing the recent collapse of healthcare reform efforts in the House of Representatives has revealed is just how quickly attitudes and alliances can shift in Washington, DC.
Last year Mr Trump and members of the House Freedom Caucus, a collection of 30 or so libertarian-leaning fiscal conservatives in Congress, were singing from the same anti-government hymnal.
Now, however, Mr Trump is the government - and he teamed up with congressional leadership to back a healthcare bill that conservative hard-liners believe didn't go far enough in undoing the 2009 Democratic-designed system.
The effort's failure set off back-and-forth sniping between Mr Trump and the Freedom Caucus that morphed into a classic insider-outsider faceoff, with Mr Trump cast as the new voice of the powers that be.
Congressman Justin Amash said the White House has become part of the hated status quo - the "Trumpstablishment", he called it in a Saturday tweet.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
That line drew the ire of Mr Trump's director of social media, Dan Scavino Jr, who tweeted that Mr Amash was a "big liability" and encouraged Michigan voters to unseat him in next year's Republican primary. (The tweet has since been criticised as a possible violation of a federal law preventing executive branch officials from attempting to influence election campaigns.)
If Mr Trump's conservative critics are trying to make the case that the president has become the establishment he campaigned against, their arguments have been buttressed by the financial disclosure documents released by the White House on Friday evening, which revealed exactly how well-heeled and connected many of the top White House staff are. According to the Washington Post, 27 members of Mr Trump's team have combined assets exceeding $2.3bn (£1.84bn).
Presidential daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner - both unpaid presidential advisers - are worth roughly $740m.
Senior White House strategist Steve Bannon earned as much as $2.3 million in 2017. Gary Cohn, a former Goldman Sachs executive who is one of Mr Trump's top economics advisers, has a net worth approaching $611m.
The New York Times points out that many in the inner circle of the putatively anti-establishment Mr Trump drew significant sums from the network of big-money political donors, think tanks and associated political action committees that populate the Washington insider firmament.
"The figures reveal the extent to which private political work has bolstered the financial fortunes of Trump aides, who have made millions of dollars from Republican and other conservative causes in recent years," the paper reported.
Already there are signs that conservative true-believers - some of whom were never fully sold on Mr Trump to begin with - are questioning Mr Trump's anti-establishment bona fides.
"That's the dirty little secret," writes conservative columnist Ben Shapiro. "Trump isn't anti-establishment; he's pro-establishment so long as he's the establishment."
Even conservative radio host Laura Ingraham, an early Trump supporter, is having some doubts.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump railed against the Washington establishment
"I think it is really, really unhelpful to Donald Trump's ultimate agenda to slam the very people who are going to be propping up his border wall, all the things he wants to do on immigration, on trade," she said on Fox News."I don't know where he thinks he's going to get his friends on those issues."
Perhaps of greatest concern to Mr Trump is that the failure to enact promised healthcare reform, along with his recent feud with members of his own party, have been accompanied by a softening of his core support in recent polls.
In a Rasmussen survey, the number of Americans who "strongly approve" of the president has dropped from 44% at shortly after his inauguration to 28% today. While the Republican base is largely sticking with Mr Trump so far, they may be starting to have some doubts.
For much of 2016 Donald Trump was the barbarian at the gate, threatening to rain fire on the comfortable Washington power elite. Even in his January inaugural address, he condemned an establishment that "protected itself" at the cost of average Americans.
"Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation's capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land," he said.
Now, however, Mr Trump and his team of formerly angry outsiders meet in the Oval Office. They fly on Air Force One. They host events in the White House rose garden. They issue tweets warning apostates of harsh political consequences.
They walk the halls of power and call the shots.
It doesn't get any more "insider" than that. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39483715 | news_world-us-canada-39483715 |
|
General Election 2017: Would you support a burka ban? - BBC News | 2017-04-23 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | UKIP's manifesto will include plans to ban the burka, sparking strong reactions on both sides of the debate. | UK | This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
UKIP's manifesto will include proposals to ban full veils, the party's leader Paul Nuttall has told the BBC.
The announcement has sparked strong reaction on both sides of the debate.
Nazif, 37, is Muslim. Originally from Afghanistan, he has lived in the UK since 2002.
While his relatives do not regularly wear either the burka or the niqab, he is not in favour of an outright ban.
"If it came about voluntarily I would welcome it," he said.
"I'm not in favour of the burka.
"But if women want to wear it or they don't, it should be up to the women themselves."
Mr Nuttall has cited security concerns as one of the motivations behind the proposed ban.
But for Nazif and his family, back in Afghanistan it was the burka which offered security on otherwise dangerous journeys across the country.
Travelling to Pakistan, he says they were forced to go through checkpoints controlled by non-government forces.
"Having your face revealed was a sign that you are part of the government," he said.
"My sisters wore the veil in order not to arouse suspicion."
When they were safe, they would remove the veil again.
"If they want to ban the veil it must not be banned under the pretext of security," he said.
"Paul Nuttall sees it as an election chip but he doesn't know the full reason.
"In my own family's experience it was a way of getting from point A to point B.
"I am 100% behind a move towards phasing out the veil. But encourage those who wear it to feel safe."
Writing on Twitter, social media user Rachel Robbins was equally sceptical of the security pretext for UKIP's proposed ban.
But others disagree. Brian, from Lichfield, reflected the mood of much of the correspondence the BBC received.
"You can't go into a bank or building society wearing a crash helmet or other 'western' headgear that covers the face.
"The same should apply to the burka and the veil."
Mr Nuttall also highlighted concerns about integration as a key reason for proposing the ban.
"I don't believe you can integrate fully and enjoy the fruits of British society if you can't see people's faces," he said on the BBC's Andrew Marr programme.
Jennifer, who works in Bradford, agreed that full-face veils could be a barrier to integration.
"I've worked in Bradford for a long time," she said.
"I'm increasingly seeing more women with their faces covered.
"I see the increase in women wearing it as evidence of the polarisation of these communities and the isolation of these women from mainstream society.
"It seems like a deliberate barrier to separate them."
Marwa, from London, disagrees. Two years ago she decided to start wearing a hijab - a headscarf worn by many Muslim women. The hijab would not be included in the proposed ban.
"A lot of my family don't wear the hijab," she said, "but it was my individual choice.
"I liked the way I felt when I wore it.
"I'm not sure that banning religious expressions and beliefs will help Muslims feel like they're part of Britain.
"It's this kind of barely tolerant attitude that makes Muslims feel further excluded and alienated.
"It seems to me that Mr Nuttall believes that in order to allow women to be free and to be 'integrated' they must first be told how to dress.
"The hypocrisy of his argument is baffling. What is it that he really wants?"
Others have also questioned the motivation behind Mr Nuttall's announcement.
Writing on Twitter, Brendan Cox, the activist and husband of murdered MP Jo Cox, suggested the move had more to do with UKIP's poll numbers.
Some European countries, including France, already enforce a public ban on full-face veils, while in December 2016 German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that wearing full-faced veils should be prohibited in Germany "wherever it is legally possible". | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39684530 | news_uk-39684530 |
|
UK music industry braced for Brexit - BBC News | 2017-04-23 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | Whether you consume music digitally or collect vinyl records, Brexit has the potential to affect you. | Business | Whether you consume music digitally or collect vinyl records, Brexit has the potential to affect you.
The UK music industry, like its counterparts in other countries, has had a tough time adapting to the technological shake-ups of recent years.
But now it also has to plan for the changes that will be ushered in by the UK's decision to leave the European Union.
Obviously there is still huge uncertainty about what the country's future relationship with the EU will be like, since its expected departure in the spring of 2019 is still subject to lengthy negotiations.
However, it is already possible to identify areas of the music business that may feel the effects.
With the industry's annual Record Store Day falling this year on Saturday, 22 April, record shops are enjoying a boom in sales of old-fashioned vinyl releases.
The format was widely expected to die a slow death with the advent of the CD, but in recent times, vinyl records have managed to outsell downloads.
However, when Record Store Day 2020 rolls around, there is a risk that those singles and albums could cost significantly more.
Will these records cost more post-Brexit?
If the UK does not manage to conclude a favourable trade deal with the EU, then tariffs may be applied on goods coming into the UK.
There are now only a couple of vinyl pressing plants left on British soil, so the majority of records sold in the UK are manufactured in factories based in other EU countries. The same goes for CDs.
If tariffs on goods return, record labels will face increased costs, which they will have to pass on to consumers.
So why buy music on physical formats anyway? This is the 21st Century, so go for streaming or downloads.
Well, even there, Brexit is likely to have consequences.
The pound has fallen in value in the wake of last June's referendum outcome. The leading music streaming services, from Sweden's Spotify to US-based Apple Music, are all multinational firms whose pricing policies are decided elsewhere.
Apple has already increased the price of its apps this year, in a move widely attributed to the Brexit vote. Apple Music subscriptions could follow suit if the pound falls any further.
In other ways, however, Brexit will have no effect at all. Many politicians and business leaders have called for the UK to preserve its access to the European single market, but in digital terms, things are more complicated.
The vast majority of Spotify's catalogue is available all over the world
While goods are covered by the single market in Europe, the market for services is still very much a work in progress.
And when it comes to the distribution of digital products, including music and e-books, consumers will still find that borders get in the way.
If you have an account with Amazon UK, you can buy a CD from Amazon's French website, but it won't allow you to buy the same music on download.
That said, streaming services are more unified. Spotify, for instance, makes practically all its catalogue accessible everywhere in the world, with some minor variations in local-language music.
But although Brussels has failed to create a digital single market for music consumers, it has done a lot for music producers.
People who make music can make money from it in various ways. As well as selling digital or physical copies of it, they are also paid royalties every time it is played in public.
There are two kinds of these:
Mechanical royalties date back to the days of piano rolls
And although there is no EU single market for digital music purchases, there is now a thriving single market for licensing music and collecting royalties on it.
In the UK, the main royalty collection society is PRS for Music. Its chief executive, Robert Ashcroft, says that the European Commission made a big difference with its Collective Rights Management Directive, which came into force in the UK in April last year.
As a result, it is now much easier to license music in many territories at once, rather than having to authorise it country by country, as was formerly the case.
PRS, for example, works in a joint venture with its counterparts in Sweden and Germany, STIM and GEMA, to operate a pan-European online music rights licensing service.
This means that songwriters and music publishing companies can get paid more quickly and accurately.
"We have already been licensing our rights on a pan-European basis," says Mr Ashcroft. "Brexit won't stop that and it's not in our business interest to stop it either."
The UK's law on music copyright has changed in recent years because of Brussels.
In November 2013, UK copyright protection on sound recordings increased from 50 years to 70 years, in line with an EU directive approved in 2011.
However, recordings that had already slipped into the public domain, such as the Beatles' first single, stayed there.
The Beatles' earliest recordings are now out of copyright
And there is a "use it or lose it" provision for hitherto unreleased recordings from 50 years ago. If record companies have ageing tracks in the vaults that they have never issued, then they have no comeback if other people get hold of them and release them.
Will all this change when the UK "takes back control"? PRS's Mr Ashcroft thinks not.
"I expect it to continue unless and until someone presents an argument that it's damaging to the economy," he says.
One area where Brexit could have a negative impact is on touring musicians. There are fears that music groups might have to scale back European tours after Brexit and fewer European acts could travel to the UK.
"We have a very healthy business in royalties that are earned when our members' works are performed overseas," says PRS's Mr Ashcroft. "If there were obstacles to British bands touring, that would be a potential challenge."
At the same time, however, he is concerned about Brexit's potential impact on his own organisation's staffing levels. "Eleven per cent of our employees come from countries other than the UK. We operate daily in 13 languages. We need the prime minister to give assurances that the people resident and working here can stay."
On that basis, he feels that the UK's music business is well integrated with the rest of Europe and hopes it will stay that way, despite Brexit: "We are so international that we think our business transcends that." | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39418829 | news_business-39418829 |
|
Profile: Theresa May - BBC News | 2017-04-19 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | A profile of Conservative Party leader Theresa May, who has just called a general election. | UK Politics | A look at the life and times of the UK's Prime Minister, Theresa May, who has decided to call a general election for 8 June.
Theresa May is Britain's second female prime minister but, unlike her predecessor Margaret Thatcher, she came to power without an election.
She took over as leader of the governing Conservative Party last July following the resignation of David Cameron, who had gambled everything on Britain voting to stay in the European Union.
Like Mr Cameron, Mrs May had been against Brexit but she cleverly managed to keep the Eurosceptics in her party on side during the referendum campaign by keeping a low profile.
She reaped her reward by emerging as the unchallenged successor to Mr Cameron - portraying herself as a steady, reliable pair of hands who would deliver the will of the people and take Britain out of the EU in as orderly a fashion as possible.
The plan was for there to be no election until 2020, but as the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg explains, the political logic for going to the country earlier became inescapable.
With a commanding lead in the opinion polls, the bigger gamble might well have been to wait another three years and risk Brexit negotiations turning sour or the opposition Labour Party recovering ground.
Theresa May, back row, right, in the 1999 shadow cabinet
The 60-year-old former home secretary has a reputation for a steady, unshowy approach to politics, although she was known in her early days at Westminster for her exotic taste in footwear and a fondness for high fashion (she named a lifetime subscription to Vogue as the luxury item she would take to a desert island).
She battled her way through the Westminster boy's club as one of a handful of women on the Conservative benches - she would later be joined by more female colleagues thanks, in part, to her own efforts as party chairman to get women candidates into winnable seats.
She developed a reputation as a tough, critics would say inflexible, operator, who was not afraid of delivering unpalatable home truths.
Some in the Conservative Party have never forgiven her for a 2002 conference speech in which she told members that "you know what some people call us - the nasty party".
Her lectures to Police Federation conferences as home secretary about the need for reform and to tackle corruption added to this steely reputation.
She was always ambitious but her rise through the ranks was steady, rather than meteoric.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Theresa May: We need proven leadership to negotiate the best deal
The daughter of a Church of England vicar, Hubert, who died from injuries sustained in a car crash when she was only 25, Theresa May's middle class background has more in keeping with the last female occupant of Downing Street, Margaret Thatcher, than her immediate predecessor.
Theresa May married her husband Philip in 1980
Born in Sussex but raised largely in Oxfordshire, Mrs May - both of whose grandmothers are reported to have been in domestic service - attended a state primary, an independent convent school and then a grammar school in the village of Wheatley, which became the Wheatley Park Comprehensive School during her time there.
The young Theresa Brasier, as she was then, threw herself into village life, taking part in a pantomime that was produced by her father and working in the bakery on Saturdays to earn pocket money.
Friends recall a tall, fashion-conscious young woman who from an early age spoke of her ambition to be the first woman prime minister.
The young Theresa Brasier at a function in the village hall
Like Margaret Thatcher, she went to Oxford University to study and, like so many others of her generation, found that her personal and political lives soon became closely intertwined.
In 1976, in her third year, she met her husband Philip, who was president of the Oxford Union, a well-known breeding ground for future political leaders.
The story has it that they were introduced at a Conservative Association disco by the subsequent Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto. They married in 1980.
Her university friend Pat Frankland, speaking in 2011 on a BBC Radio 4 profile of the then home secretary, said: "I cannot remember a time when she did not have political ambitions.
"I well remember, at the time, that she did want to become the first woman prime minister and she was quite irritated when Margaret Thatcher got there first."
Theresa May is seen here as a child with her parents Hubert and Zaidee
There are no tales of drunken student revelry, but Pat Frankland and other friends say May was not the austere figure she would later come to be seen as, saying she had a sense of fun and a full social life.
After graduating with a degree in Geography, May went to work in the City, initially starting work at the Bank of England and later rising to become head of the European Affairs Unit of the Association for Payment Clearing Services.
But it was already clear that she saw her future in politics. She was elected as a local councillor in Merton, south London, and served her ward for a decade, rising to become deputy leader. However, she was soon setting her sights even higher.
Mrs May, who has become a confidante as well as role model for aspiring female MPs - told prospective candidates before the 2015 election that "there is always a seat out there with your name on it".
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. A look at Theresa May's journey to the top job
In her case - like that of Margaret Thatcher - it took a bit of time for her to find hers. She first dipped her toe in the water in 1992, where she stood in the safe Labour seat of North West Durham, coming a distant second to Hilary Armstrong, who went on to become Labour's chief whip in the Blair government. Her fellow candidates in that contest also included a very youthful Tim Farron, who is now Lib Dem leader.
Two years later, she stood in Barking, east London, in a by-election where - with the Conservative government at the height of its unpopularity - she got fewer than 2,000 votes and saw her vote share dip more than 20%. But her luck was about to change.
The Conservatives' electoral fortunes may have hit a nadir in 1997, when Tony Blair came to power in a Labour landslide, but there was a silver lining for the party and for the aspiring politician when she won the seat of Maidenhead in Berkshire. It's a seat she has held ever since.
Mrs May first stood for Parliament in 1992 in North West Durham
Theresa May has described her husband Philip as her rock
Theresa May bumps into rock star Alice Cooper outside a BBC studio in 2010
An early advocate of Conservative "modernisation" in the wilderness years that followed, Mrs May quickly joined the shadow cabinet in 1999 under William Hague as shadow education secretary and in 2002 she became the party's first female chairman under Iain Duncan Smith.
She then held a range of senior posts under Michael Howard but was conspicuously not part of the "Notting Hill set" which grabbed control of the party after its third successive defeat in 2005 and laid David Cameron and George Osborne's path to power.
This was perhaps reflected in the fact that she was initially given the rather underwhelming job of shadow leader of the House of Commons. But she gradually raised her standing and by 2009 had become shadow work and pensions secretary.
Nevertheless, her promotion to the job of home secretary when the Conservatives joined with the Lib Dems to form the first coalition government in 70 years was still something of a surprise - given that Chris Grayling had been shadowing the brief in opposition.
While the Home Office turned out to be the political graveyard of many a secretary of state in previous decades, Mrs May refused to let this happen - mastering her brief with what was said to be a microscopic attention to detail and no little willingness to enter into battles with fellow ministers when she thought it necessary.
Theresa May initially fell down the pecking order under David Cameron but worked her way back up
While some in Downing Street worried that the Home Office was becoming her own personal fiefdom, she engendered loyalty among her ministers and was regarded as "unmovable" as her tough-talking style met with public approval even when the department's record did not always seem so strong.
In his memoir of his time in office, former Lib Dem minister David Laws says: "She would frequently clash with George Osborne over immigration. She rarely got on anything but badly with Michael Gove. She and Cameron seemed to view each other with mutual suspicion.
"I first met her in 2010. I was sitting in my Treasury office, overlooking St James's Park, me in one armchair and the home secretary in the other, with no officials present. She looked nervous.
"I felt she was surprised to find herself as home secretary. Frankly, I didn't expect her to last more than a couple of years."
Despite her liberal instincts in some policy areas, she frequently clashed with the then deputy prime minister and Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, particularly over her plan to increase internet surveillance to combat terrorism, dubbed the "Snooper's Charter" by the Lib Dems.
After one "difficult" meeting with Mr Clegg, he reportedly told David Laws: "You know, I've grown to rather like Theresa May... 'She's a bit of an Ice Maiden and has no small talk whatsoever - none. I have quite difficult meetings with her. Cameron once said, 'She's exactly like that with me too!'
"She is instinctively secretive and very rigid, but you can be tough with her and she'll go away and think it all through again."
Mrs May has confronted what she sees as vested interests in the police
The new prime minister is a self-declared feminist
On the plus side crime levels fell, the UK avoided a mass terrorist attack and in 2013, she successfully deported radical cleric Abu Qatada - something she lists as one of her proudest achievements, along with preventing the extradition to America of computer hacker Gary McKinnon.
She was not afraid to take on vested interests, stunning the annual conference of the Police Federation in 2014 by telling them corruption problems were not just limited to "a few bad apples" and threatening to end the federation's automatic right to enrol officers as its members.
However, the Passport Office suffered a near meltdown while she faced constant criticism over the government's failure to meet its promise to get net migration down to below 100,000 a year.
Labour MP Yvette Cooper, who went up against her in the Commons as shadow home secretary, told The Guardian: "I respect her style - it is steady and serious. She is authoritative in parliament - superficial attacks on her bounce off.
"The flip side is that she is not fleet of foot when crises build, she digs in her heels (remember the Passport Agency crisis in 2014 when the backlog caused hundreds to miss their holidays, and the Border Force crisis in 2011 when border checks were axed).
"And she hides when things go wrong. No interviews, no quotes, nothing to reassure people or to remind people she even exists. It's helped her survive as home secretary - but if you are prime minister, eventually the buck has to stop."
There was a bitter public row with cabinet colleague Michael Gove over the best way to combat Islamist extremism, which ended with Mr Gove having to apologise to the prime minister and Mrs May having to sack a long-serving special adviser - a turf war which is said to have led to a diminution in her admiration for the prime minister.
Former Conservative chancellor Ken Clarke also had run-ins with her and was recorded on camera ahead of an interview last week saying that Mrs May was good at her job but a "bloody difficult woman" - before adding as an aside, a bit like Mrs Thatcher. A reference to be Conservative leader can hardly come better than that.
Mrs May has never been one of the most clubbable of politicians and is someone who prefers not having to tour the tea rooms of the House of Commons - where tittle-tattle is freely exchanged.
She has rarely opened up about her private life although she revealed in 2013 that she had been diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes and would require insulin injections twice a day for the rest of her life - something she says she had come to terms with and which would not affect her career.
Mrs May's taste in footwear has kept photographers interested for more than a decade
Generally thought to be in the mainstream of Conservative thinking on most economic and law and order issues, she has also challenged convention by attacking police stop and search powers and calling for a probe into the application of Sharia Law in British communities.
She also expressed a personal desire to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights but later said she would not pursue this as PM due to a lack of parliamentary support - an example of what many believe will be pragmatism in office.
Her social attitudes are slightly harder to pin down. She backed same sex marriage. She expressed a personal view in 2012 that the legal limit on abortion should be lowered from 24 to 20 weeks. Along with most Conservative MPs she voted against an outright ban on foxhunting.
What is undisputable is that at 59, Mrs May was the oldest leader to enter Downing Street since James Callaghan in 1976 and is the first prime minister since Ted Heath who does not have children.
Mrs May has worked closely with David Cameron and will now succeed him
Mrs May has been the most senior female Cabinet minister for the past six years
One of Westminster's shrewdest as well as toughest operators, Mrs May's decision to campaign for the UK to remain in the EU but to do so in an understated way and to frame her argument in relatively narrow security terms reaped dividends after the divisive campaign.
During what turned out to be a short-lived leadership campaign, Mrs May played strongly on her weight of experience, judgement and reliability in a time of crisis.
The first months of Mrs May's time in Downing Street have been dominated by the process of divorcing the UK from the EU - but there have been signs that she won't be content with the "safe pair of hands" tag that is often attached to her.
Brexit, she has said, won't be allowed purely to define her time in office and she has promised a radical programme of social reform, underpinned by values of One Nation Toryism, to promote social mobility and opportunity for the more disadvantaged in society.
Policies such as new grammar schools or more selection have been put forward - but with a slender parliamentary majority of 17 her government had little breathing room on bringing forward tightly contested legislation.
So, despite promising not to hold a general election before she had to, in 2020, she has now decided to seek a mandate for her own particular brand of Conservatism to, as she put it, to "guarantee certainty and security for the years ahead". | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39630534 | news_uk-politics-39630534 |
|
Britain's 'big bang' in Heligoland, 70 years on - BBC News | 2017-04-19 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | Remembering one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history, on the German island of Heligoland. | Europe | This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Heligoland: When Britain blew up an island
Brexit may have triggered a political earthquake in Europe, but 70 years ago the UK sent real shockwaves across the seas with the largest non-nuclear explosion of that era.
As one of the four victorious allied powers after World War Two, Britain was governing a large area of occupied Germany.
The British sector included the tiny island of Heligoland, which had long been a source of diplomatic tension between the two countries.
So, when in 1947 the British needed a safe place to dispose of thousands of tonnes of unexploded ammunition, Heligoland must have seemed an obvious choice.
The code-name for the plan combined the British flair for understatement with the military taste for the literal-minded; it was to be called Operation Big Bang.
The Heligoland Big Bang was the largest non-nuclear detonation to date
Heligoland had been a German naval fortress, and historian Jan Rüger, author of Heligoland: Britain, Germany, and the Struggle for the North Sea, says Operation Big Bang was designed by the British to make a big point.
"They're very clear that there's a symbolic side to this [operation] and that is the German tradition of militarism," he explains.
"There's a sense that Prussian militarism and its threat to Britain has to end and that's very much how Operation Big Bang is received in Britain."
The operation was carefully stage-managed - the old black and white pictures even include a close-up of a Royal Navy officer's finger triggering the blast. Aerial footage shows the entire horizon erupting in a huge grey curtain of mud, sand and rock.
For the Royal Navy and the British Army of Occupation it was mission accomplished.
Heligoland was evacuated during World War Two
For the people of Heligoland it felt very different.
Europe in 1946 and 1947 was in chaos, with millions of displaced and dispossessed families drifting between camps or sheltering in ruined buildings.
The island had been evacuated during the war and many Heligolanders were living in exile in the coastal city of Cuxhaven about 60km (37 miles) to the south.
Olaf Ohlsen, who was 11 years old in 1947, gathered with the rest of the exiled population on the cliffs to listen for the sound of the explosion.
Few people in history can have lived through such a moment, standing at the edge of sea knowing that they would hear but not see an explosion that they knew would destroy their homes.
Heligolander Olaf Ohlsen was 11 years old when the detonation took place
Olaf says everyone knew that the explosion would be shattering.
"Even in Hamburg, which is more than 150 km (93 miles) from the island," he told me, "a schoolteacher kept a document which said the British had warned everyone to leave doors and windows open to help the buildings withstand the blast."
Olaf's father was among the pessimists who believed that Britain's real intention was to blow up the island behind a literal smokescreen created by the destruction of the captured ammunition.
He still recalls the first time his father brought news of what had happened after the blast, shouting with excitement: "Heligoland is still here, it's still here."
In the middle of the 20th Century Heligoland still mattered to its people, fiercely independent speakers of a Friesian dialect who are neither British nor German.
Heligoland was a German military base in both world wars
But it had lost the strategic importance that made it a crucial bone of contention between the great powers of Europe a hundred years earlier.
Britain occupied Heligoland in the Napoleonic period as part of its complex manoeuvrings to deny the French leader the support of the navies of Scandinavia as he took over huge parts of Europe.
Thus the British found themselves with a handy naval base that guarded the entrance to the port of Hamburg and allowed it to slip secret agents freely into Napoleonic Europe. By the time they gifted it to the Kaiser in 1890, though, its usefulness appeared to be at an end.
Detlev Rickmers, a local hotel owner whose family have been Heligolanders for 500 years, says that even though it's more than a century since the link was broken, a sense of Britishness ran through the population for a long time after 1890.
"Of course there was a British governor, there was a sense of being British," he says. "There were connections to Britain. My grandfather told me that he always remembered the excitement of the days when the salesman would call from Huntley and Palmer."
In the wake of the Big Bang, of course, things are very different.
70 years on, the crater from the explosion is still a feature of the island
The British bombing operation acted as a kind of catalyst for a new form of post-war German nationalism. There were campaigns for the island to be returned to German sovereignty and for a rebuilding programme to allow the Heligolanders to go home.
Historian Jan Rüger says that perhaps for the last time Operation Big Bang had made Heligoland part of a larger historical argument.
"As always in history there's a paradoxical side to these events," he says. "In this case it lies in the way that all over Germany this is seen as a moment that victimises the Germans and allows them to see themselves as victims after a war in which the rest of Europe has been the victim of German aggression."
The British bombing left Heligoland's landscape pock-marked and cratered. But the island endured: a stubborn lump of rock in the North Sea.
And while most visitors are drawn these days by the lure of duty-free shopping, Heligoland has a fascinating story to tell to anyone who'll listen. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39590752 | news_world-europe-39590752 |
|
Two visions for the future of media - BBC News | 2017-04-06 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | Paying customers are a more reliable source of income for journalists than rich donors | Entertainment & Arts | A multi-billionaire donates $100m to investigative journalism and hacks everywhere ask "where do I apply?".
Is this what the future of media looks like?
I hope not. As modern entrepreneurs go, Pierre Omidyar is among the most innovative and successful. With a net worth, according to Forbes, of just over $8bn (£6.3bn), the founder of eBay and First Look Media has used his Omidyar Network to plough huge sums into philanthropy. At the Skoll World Forum in Oxford this week, he said his latest pledge would be distributed over three years, with the aim of fighting the "root causes of the global trust deficit".
Ebay founder Pierre Omidyar donating to fight the "root causes of the global trust deficit"
He went on: "A free and independent media is key to providing trusted information and critical checks and balances on those in positions of power".
The first $4.5m (£3.6m) will go to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), which produced the revelatory Panama Papers in 2016.
This is hugely admirable. I wish I had made $8bn, so that I could put one pound in every 80 of my fortune toward uncovering great scoops. And, together with a couple of other developments this week, it shows who is making the running in modern news: Very rich tech industrialists.
On Monday, Facebook announced the launch of the News Integrity Initiative, a $14m project to improve news literacy around the world. This afternoon, Adam Mosseri, Facebook's Vice-President for News Feed, also announced the launch of a new educational tool to help users spot fake news.
And Full Fact, the British fact-checking organisation, is re-publishing its top tips for spotting fake news. These will appear in users' news feeds tomorrow and over the weekend.
All this follows a raft of measures in recent months to show that the social media giant - and specifically its founder, Mark Zuckerberg - take the spread of misinformation online very seriously.
But look more closely at that News Integrity Initiative: It's a collaboration with other international partners, including the Craig Newmark Philanthropic Fund, the Ford Foundation, John S and James L Knight Foundation, and Tow Foundation. That's a lot of charities right there.
In other words, the two biggest announcements in the world of media this week - involving the long-term funding of investigative journalism, and the attempt to protect citizens from the ill-effects of fake news - both stem from charity.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg: joining with other charities to improve news literacy around the world
Journalism has always depended on charity. In fact, it has always relied on the whims, fancies and vanity of rich men (it has tended to be men) in particular, who are prepared to lose huge sums of money in return for political and commercial influence. Sometimes they are prepared to lose huge sums of money because they believe deeply in the intrinsic value of journalism, but this is rare.
So, in a sense, the likes of Omidyar and Zuckerberg putting up cash to create a more informed citizenry is nothing new: They're just a digital update of the press barons of the past.
Except for the context, that is. Today, the business model for sustaining high-quality journalism has been undermined by the internet, which has turned general news into a widely available commodity. Consequently, there is a real danger that journalism becomes ever more dependent on charity, especially from the very rich.
But charity is a poor basis for high-quality journalism, because it cannot be relied upon. The whim of donors might be fragile; and excessive dependence on the favour of individuals can leave you exposed. One virtue of The Guardian's current business model, in which it asks digital readers for donations, is that it will help create a broad base of supporters who can be tapped up regularly. (Whether these contributions can meaningfully contribute to eradicating losses currently in the tens of millions of pounds is a more open question).
The news that Omidyar is giving so generously to support journalism is, then, both welcome and a warning. Welcome, because $100m going into scrutiny of the rich and powerful is a great service to democracy. But a warning, because Omidyar knows that his $100m is especially welcome specifically because conventional sources of funding for investigative journalism - that is, paying readers, viewers and listeners - are thought to be in short supply.
In a February blog post, I argued that recent evidence suggests many readers are willing to pay for quality, as shown by the growing circulations of The Spectator, New Statesman, and Private Eye.
Fresh evidence arrived this week, in the shape of the Financial Times' annual results. Across digital and print, the pink'un has a circulation that's nudging 850,000. That's up eight per cent year on year. Digital subscriptions - that is, people paying for journalism online, across multiple platforms - accounts for 650,000 of the total: more than three quarters, and up 14 per cent year on year.
The FT has three big advantages over some of its rivals. First, it is both a specialist and general publication, because it has financial information that some companies prize. And, of course, one viable future for journalism is specialism: Just think of all those guest publications in the final round of Have I Got News For You.
Second, it has a clientele who are generally wealthier than those of, say, most tabloids. And third, a combination of these two factors mean many of their customers can get their companies to pay for those subscriptions.
Nevertheless, it has deployed these advantages effectively. You can't argue with the success of Chief Executive John Ridding's strategy of the "march to a million" - the aim to get to a million subscribers by 2020.
John Ridding, chief executive officer of the Financial Times, is on a "march to a million"
Years ago, I made - and comprehensively lost - an internal argument at The Independent that that paper (which I was not yet Editor of) should go radically upmarket, and become a kind of white FT that had the confidence to charge.
My thinking was that profit is the ultimate and best guarantee of independence; that if you're reliant on advertising alone, your ultimate fidelity is to advertisers rather than readers; and that being paid by your readers has the double advantage of reducing your exposure to the ad market and deepening your relationship with the audience.
There's not much I've seen in the past few years to persuade me that's wrong. We know that The Economist believes print display advertising will completely disappear in the next few years. Media organisations wholly or solely dependent on advertising will find they are susceptible to the vagaries of an ad market which is anyway being gobbled up by Facebook and Google; and their editorial values under pressure from the need to drive traffic.
Of course, you might argue all this is easy for me to say, writing as I am in the offices of a licence-fee funded public broadcaster. That's another model for funding journalism, the long-term viability of which is a subject for another day.
For students with ambitions to enter journalism, this week provided two visions of what the future of this trade looks like: Dependence on charity, and dependence on committed customers, also known as viable business.
For all that Omidyar's largesse is to be applauded, the latter is a much safer bet. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-39516779 | news_entertainment-arts-39516779 |
|
General Election 2017: Would you support a burka ban? - BBC News | 2017-04-24 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | UKIP's manifesto will include plans to ban the burka, sparking strong reactions on both sides of the debate. | UK | This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
UKIP's manifesto will include proposals to ban full veils, the party's leader Paul Nuttall has told the BBC.
The announcement has sparked strong reaction on both sides of the debate.
Nazif, 37, is Muslim. Originally from Afghanistan, he has lived in the UK since 2002.
While his relatives do not regularly wear either the burka or the niqab, he is not in favour of an outright ban.
"If it came about voluntarily I would welcome it," he said.
"I'm not in favour of the burka.
"But if women want to wear it or they don't, it should be up to the women themselves."
Mr Nuttall has cited security concerns as one of the motivations behind the proposed ban.
But for Nazif and his family, back in Afghanistan it was the burka which offered security on otherwise dangerous journeys across the country.
Travelling to Pakistan, he says they were forced to go through checkpoints controlled by non-government forces.
"Having your face revealed was a sign that you are part of the government," he said.
"My sisters wore the veil in order not to arouse suspicion."
When they were safe, they would remove the veil again.
"If they want to ban the veil it must not be banned under the pretext of security," he said.
"Paul Nuttall sees it as an election chip but he doesn't know the full reason.
"In my own family's experience it was a way of getting from point A to point B.
"I am 100% behind a move towards phasing out the veil. But encourage those who wear it to feel safe."
Writing on Twitter, social media user Rachel Robbins was equally sceptical of the security pretext for UKIP's proposed ban.
But others disagree. Brian, from Lichfield, reflected the mood of much of the correspondence the BBC received.
"You can't go into a bank or building society wearing a crash helmet or other 'western' headgear that covers the face.
"The same should apply to the burka and the veil."
Mr Nuttall also highlighted concerns about integration as a key reason for proposing the ban.
"I don't believe you can integrate fully and enjoy the fruits of British society if you can't see people's faces," he said on the BBC's Andrew Marr programme.
Jennifer, who works in Bradford, agreed that full-face veils could be a barrier to integration.
"I've worked in Bradford for a long time," she said.
"I'm increasingly seeing more women with their faces covered.
"I see the increase in women wearing it as evidence of the polarisation of these communities and the isolation of these women from mainstream society.
"It seems like a deliberate barrier to separate them."
Marwa, from London, disagrees. Two years ago she decided to start wearing a hijab - a headscarf worn by many Muslim women. The hijab would not be included in the proposed ban.
"A lot of my family don't wear the hijab," she said, "but it was my individual choice.
"I liked the way I felt when I wore it.
"I'm not sure that banning religious expressions and beliefs will help Muslims feel like they're part of Britain.
"It's this kind of barely tolerant attitude that makes Muslims feel further excluded and alienated.
"It seems to me that Mr Nuttall believes that in order to allow women to be free and to be 'integrated' they must first be told how to dress.
"The hypocrisy of his argument is baffling. What is it that he really wants?"
Others have also questioned the motivation behind Mr Nuttall's announcement.
Writing on Twitter, Brendan Cox, the activist and husband of murdered MP Jo Cox, suggested the move had more to do with UKIP's poll numbers.
Some European countries, including France, already enforce a public ban on full-face veils, while in December 2016 German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that wearing full-faced veils should be prohibited in Germany "wherever it is legally possible". | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39684530 | news_uk-39684530 |
|
Why is Harvard ditching the puritans? - BBC News | 2017-04-12 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | Harvard wants to change the words of its university song to make it more inclusive. | Business | Harvard University has defended plans to remove a reference to "puritans" from its ceremonial song, as part of a project promoting "inclusion and belonging".
The proposal to change the fusty lyrics of a 19th Century song, "Fair Harvard", has started a very contemporary argument about identity and how universities represent their own past.
Harvard's "presidential task force on inclusion and belonging" has announced a competition to find a replacement for the song's ending, which praises the university's puritan heritage: "Be the herald of Light, and the bearer of Love, Till the stock of the Puritans die."
They want this symbol of Harvard's identity, sung at university ceremonies, to refer to something broader and more inclusive than the starchy New England colonialists.
But according to the Harvard Crimson university newspaper, the decision to ditch the reference to puritan founders seems to have had a lukewarm response among students.
There were questions raised about the relevance of changing a song from the 1830s that has never really been a source of contention.
On Twitter, there were complaints about "editing history" and censorship.
Academic and social commentator Frank Furedi described it as "morally disoriented".
How open are the gates to Harvard University? And will song lyrics change that?
Even if puritans had once been a dominant force, there was no suggestion that the frugal religious reformers were still getting an unfair advantage in what is now the world's wealthiest university.
About half the most recent intake is from an ethnic minority with close to equal proportions of male and female students.
But Professor Danielle Allen, co-chair of the university's inclusion task force, said in a statement that the symbols and mottos had to be appropriate for everyone "regardless of background, identity, religious affiliation or viewpoint".
She said the current university song lyrics suggested that "the commitment to truth, and to being the bearer of its light, is the special province of those of puritan stock. This is false".
More stories from the BBC's Global education series looking at education from an international perspective, and how to get in touch.
You can join the debate at the BBC's Family & Education News Facebook page.
Prof Allen also pointed out that the song had been changed before, with a reference to "sons" being changed to something more gender neutral in 1998.
And as well as looking for different words, the university is considering an alternative tune or style for the song, with the suggestion of a hip-hop version.
This is the latest university battle over emblems and language, with arguments over how institutions should balance their historic roots with the need to appeal to a modern, diverse range of students.
These come alongside strongly-contested debates about "safe spaces" and "no-platforming", with arguments over whether students have a right to block views they find offensive.
What does a Harvard student look like? And how should the university reflect its past?
But some student campaigners have brought about changes.
After a long-running protest, Yale University announced earlier this year that it would re-name Calhoun College, named after a 19th Century advocate of slavery.
It is now to be named after a female computer scientist, Grace Murray Hopper.
Harvard is dropping the title of "house master" because of connotations of slavery, and ending the use of a seal that includes the family crest of a notoriously brutal slave trader.
The university was once an owner of slaves and has held a series of events and commemorations to examine its own connections to the slave trade.
Oxford University has a project to create more diversity in the paintings on display
Georgetown University, in a bid to come to terms with its own legacy of slave owning, has promised extra support in the admissions process for any descendants of slaves sold by the university in the 1830s.
In the UK, there have also been questions about public symbols and memorials.
Students at the University of Bristol have called for the re-naming of a building because of claims of historic links with wealth derived from slavery.
Oxford University's Oriel College had a high-profile controversy over whether a statue of the Cecil Rhodes should be removed, with protestors arguing that the Victorian magnate's views on race made him an unsuitable figure to be commemorated.
But the call for the statue's removal was rejected.
Oxford University last month announced that it was putting up more than 20 portraits to ensure more images of women and people from ethnic minorities were represented on its walls.
The competition at Harvard to find new words for the university song is open until September.
But the debate about university symbols is going to last much longer. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39559232 | news_business-39559232 |
|
Salvador: The city where children fend for themselves on the streets - BBC News | 2017-04-16 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | In 1937, Jorge Amado published Captains of the Sands, a novel about a gang of orphans living in Salvador, Brazil. Eighty years on, little has changed. | Magazine | Joao Vitor ended up on the streets aged 14
In 1937, Jorge Amado published Captains of the Sands, a novel about a gang of orphaned children living on the streets of Salvador, north-east Brazil. Eighty years on, little has changed - thousands of children and adolescents still roam the city and sleep rough. David Baker hears some of their stories.
Zeca (not his real name) isn't proud of his past. A tall, skinny, slightly shy black teenager, he mumbles and looks down at his feet when he speaks about the years he spent living on the streets of Salvador.
He's 17, though he has the weary, cracked voice of an old man who has seen too much of life, and he talks about his time in the city's drugs gangs with regret.
"I found many types of job [with the gangs]", he says, "trafficking, packing, stealing…" And then, after a long pause, he adds: "killing."
He won't be drawn on the details but he says gang life was a case of kill or be killed.
I have come to Salvador to meet people like Zeca because of a book published here 80 years ago that became a classic of Brazilian literature.
Jorge Amado's Captains of the Sands tells the story of a gang of orphaned children and adolescents living in an abandoned warehouse in Salvador's docks area who live by begging, stealing and hustling.
"Dressed in rags, dirty, half-starved, aggressive, cursing, and smoking cigarette butts, they were, in truth, the masters of the city," Amado wrote.
He wanted to show the freedom and fun these children could have looking after each other and having adventures through the city's streets.
But he also wanted to show the misery of their lives and to shame Brazil into doing something about the thousands of homeless children in the country that richer Brazilians at the time viewed as little more than pests.
That was then, but there are still gangs of children, like the Captains of the Sands, living on the city's streets.
I met Zeca in a government-run shelter that takes children and adolescents off Salvador's streets and helps them reintegrate into mainstream life.
Like him, many come from broken homes. And, almost the moment they arrive on the streets, they run the risk of being picked up by one of the many drugs gangs that run great swathes of this, Brazil's third-largest, city.
Brazil's Modern-day Captains of the Sands was broadcast on BBC World Service's Assignment programme. Listen again on iPlayer.
When Zeca talks of his own time with them his eyes develop a far-off look, as if something has died inside him.
"It was very violent," he says. "If you live on the streets you have to be evil."
Zeca's story is so shocking that it's easy to forget he is still just a child.
"When I was 10 I used cocaine and smoked weed," says Zeca.
"I used to snort a lot of cocaine. And one day there was no coke for me to snort so I went on to the streets and started smoking crack."
Immediately he discovered how violent life on Brazil's streets can be.
"I had a knife, a gun, all these sorts of things, to defend myself," he says.
"I could only sleep in the morning because during the night I had to stay awake. There were many dangers, someone could come and kill me."
NGOs working in the city reckon there are as many as 3,500 people under 25 living on Salvador's streets still.
And among them is a friendly, intelligent and curious young man I met one day in a square down by the city's docks - Joao Vitor.
Joao Vitor is 20, black and very much at ease with his life on the streets. He's thrilled to talk and clears some space on the foam mattress he sleeps on for me to sit down and join him.
He grew up, he says, being looked after by his grandmother and, from the age of eight, he helped her cook and sell acaraje, deep-fried dumplings that are a classic Salvador street food. But when he was 14, she fell ill and had to move back to the countryside and Joao Vito ended up on the streets.
It was tough, he says, "having to sleep in the streets, having to eat food that I didn't like, worrying about other people trying to attack you, but as time went by you get used to it".
And, he says, like the teenagers in Captains of the Sands, you quickly find yourself part of a gang who look out for each other.
"I've got nothing of value here," he says, showing me the few possessions he keeps next to his mattress. "The things I really value are my friends here. They are my family."
Joao Vitor has kept clear of the drugs gangs and he's pleased about that. "Drugs diminish you as a person," he says.
But he has certainly experienced violence. He has scars on his arm and the side of his neck from when someone attacked him with a machete. And he has seen police attack people sleeping in the streets.
There is also, he says, the problem of poor people on the streets attacking each other.
"You will see many zombies on crack," he says. "When they have money, they're happy because everyone is their friend. But when they have no money, if you touch them there will be a fight."
His experience, though, is very different from Zeca's. He says he prefers to deal with arguments through talking rather than a fight. And, when it comes to enjoying the freedom of Salvador's streets, he absolutely sees himself as like the children in Captains of the Sands.
"I am a Captain of the Sands," he says with a big smile. "Because look at the life we live, bro. The only part I'm not is when it comes to stealing. But it's true as far as living adventures, always exploring the day that we're living, for sure I am."
He picks up his stuff and says he's off soon to have a dip in the sea and to catch up with some other people he knows who live on the city's streets.
"There'll be other friends of mine there too. If I need anything they'll sort me out," he says. "This is what friendship is. It's a family."
Neither Joao Vitor nor Zeca are certain about what the future holds for them - though Zeca, in the shelter, has at least taken a first step in getting off the streets. Both boys say they take life one day at a time.
But, however their lives turn out, there are thousands of young people like them living on Salvador's streets today and the Brazilian state has very few resources (and, some would say, very little political will) to help them.
If he returned to his city today, Jorge Amado would still feel the need to shame his country into action.
Join the conversation - find us on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and Twitter. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39528473 | news_magazine-39528473 |
|
May sets out her stall - BBC News | 2017-04-20 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | If the PM's first campaign visit is anything to go by, "long-term economic plan" will be replaced by "strong and stable". | UK Politics | At the moment (although we know Theresa May is very capable of changing her mind) there won't be head to head TV clashes between the PM and Jeremy Corbyn - or the PM and Nicola Sturgeon, or the PM with anyone else for that matter.
One, the Tory leader is no fan of the glitz of the TV studio. That's one reason why Number 10 is adamant that she will not take part in TV debates. But two - it's not just down to her very different style, but also, as David Cameron learnt very quickly, front runners in any campaign have everything to lose in those debates, and the underdogs have everything to gain.
Downing Street knows they will take a certain amount of flak for the decision not to play ball, and the opposition parties are of course relishing every opportunity to say that the PM is too frightened to defend her record.
But right now Mrs May's allies are willing to wear it, rather than broker the risk of taking part, even if the broadcasters go ahead with the programmes without her.
What will you hear a lot of from the Tory leader? Well if her very first campaign visit is anything to go by, David Cameron and George Osborne's "long-term economic plan" mantra will be replaced by the phrase "strong and stable".
On the stump you'd be forgiven for losing count of the number of times she used the phrase. One totting-up puts it at 13 mentions.
Brexit has undoubtedly set the backdrop for this election, and provided the catalyst for its timing. But the Conservatives plan to win to deliver their version of Brexit by again and again comparing what they claim is the "strong and stable" leadership provided by the sitting prime minister, and the alternative put forward by Jeremy Corbyn.
Tomorrow he'll make his first big election speech, his first big chance to recast that argument.
• None Brexit triggered: What happens now? | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39648464 | news_uk-politics-39648464 |
|
UK's aid budget: Decision time for Theresa May - BBC News | 2017-04-20 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | Will the prime minister choose to retain Britain's commitment to spend 0.7% of GDP on international aid? | UK Politics | A few weeks ago, Theresa May did something rather unusual. The prime minister went to Scotland and delivered a speech in praise of Britain's aid budget. As far as I can determine, this was a first. She praised the Department for International Development (DfID) that delivers that budget.
In an unexpected flurry of alliteration, she praised the aid money being spent in Somalia, South Sudan and Syria. She said UK aid "helps millions around the world and speaks strongly to the values that we share as a country".
But here's the thing: at no point did she mention the government's commitment - set out in law - to spend 0.7% of Britain's national income on foreign aid.
As ever, Mrs May was hedging her bets. For she is torn between competing pressures. On the one hand, she is under political pressure from supportive newspapers such as the Daily Mail to scrap the commitment. Some of her MPs are joining in, publicly attacking a £13bn budget they see as too large and too wasteful.
In a time of austerity and rising deficits, there are genuine questions about whether the aid budget should continue to be protected when others are facing cuts.
In these circumstances, it might seem tempting for the prime minister to ditch yet another of her predecessor's legacy policies.
In a speech in Scotland, Theresa May praised the UK's international aid budget and DfID
Yet Mrs May has also found it rather useful in recent months to praise the aid budget.
When she argues that Brexit does not mean Britain turning in on itself, she recites a list that includes the UK's seat on the UN Security Council, its membership of Nato, and its commitment to spend 2% of national income on defence and 0.7% on international aid.
In Scotland, she used Britain's aid budget - and the soft power that it provided - to show what she thought the UK could deliver if the union continued.
She also likes the argument that Britain's aid budget gives it global diplomatic clout.
Until recently, there was an assumption at Westminster that the aid commitment would be up for grabs towards the end of the Parliament, ahead of an election in 2020.
One scenario was that Mrs May might have offered to drop the aid target to mollify Tory MPs unhappy with whatever compromise deal she negotiates on Brexit.
But the decision to go for an early election has accelerated that debate.
Its critics say that the UK's £13bn aid budget is too large and too wasteful
And right now there is a vacuum of uncertainty.
The Conservatives are refusing to say whether they will renew the 0.7% target in their election manifesto.
At Prime Minister's Questions this week, Mrs May gave an ambiguous, non-committal answer when asked to reaffirm the pledge.
Her party spokesman said simply that the government would continue to support the poorest people around the world.
As for the manifesto and the aid commitment, he said only that "we will set out our plans in due course".
It is into this debate that the global philanthropist Bill Gates is making his pitch, warning the prime minister that dropping the aid target would "cost lives".
The uncertainty about Mrs May's intentions has prompted much speculation.
Some Tories say the aid target should be merged into a new defence spending target.
Others say it should be redefined to include more security related needs.
Others again say the target should be kept but with different definitions, so that it has to be met not every 12 months but over an entire five-year Parliament.
This would mean that DfID would not have to spend money rashly at the end of the financial year simply to meet what is an artificial target.
So it is decision time for Theresa May on aid.
She could keep the 0.7% in her election manifesto.
This would incur the wrath of some Conservative MPs and voters who think the bloated aid budget would be better spent on schools and hospitals at home.
But it would also avoid a distracting row that might bleed into the election campaign.
The last thing the prime minister wants to do right now is upset potential Tory voters on the liberal left who are disillusioned with the Labour leadership.
Nor does she want to give the Liberal Democrats an early election gift.
Or the prime minister could drop or amend the aid target.
This would please her political base, but it would also make it harder to argue that Britain was showing global leadership.
Spending less on aid would reduce Britain's soft power, making it less easy for ministers to open doors in foreign capitals.
It would also undermine all those arguments that she and other ministers - such as the Development Secretary Priti Patel - have been making in defence of UK aid: namely that it promotes Britain's national interests by deterring refugees from Europe and turning fragile states into potential trading partners.
In that speech in Scotland, Theresa May said: "We are a kind and generous country... a big country that will never let down - or turn our back on - those in need.
"We are a country that does, and will always, meet our commitments to the world - and particularly to those who so desperately need our support."
We are about to find out what those words mean.
• None UK foreign aid- Where does it go and why?
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39660866 | news_uk-politics-39660866 |
|
Why an American went to Cuba for cancer care - BBC News | 2017-04-20 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | Judy Ingels is defying the embargo by flying to Havana for treatment. | Magazine | Cuba has faced more than 50 years of US sanctions. Now, for the first time, a unique drug developed on the communist island is being tested in New York state. But some American cancer patients are already taking it - by defying the embargo and flying to Havana for treatment.
Judy Ingels and her family are in Cuba for just six days. They have time to go sightseeing and try out the local cuisine. Judy, a keen photographer, enjoys capturing the colonial architecture of Old Havana.
And while she is in the country, Ingels, 74, will have her first injections of Cimavax, a drug shown in Cuban trials to extend the lives of lung cancer patients by months, and sometimes years.
By travelling to Havana from her home in California, she is breaking the law.
The US embargo against Cuba has been in place for more than five decades, and though relations thawed under President Obama, seeking medical treatment in Cuba is still not allowed for US citizens.
"I'm not worried," Ingels says. "For the first time I have real hope."
She has stage four lung cancer and was diagnosed in December 2015. "My oncologist in the United States says I'm his best patient, but I have this deadly disease."
He does not know she is in Cuba. When she asked him about Cimavax, he had not heard of it.
"But we've done a lot of research - I've read good things," Ingels says. Since January, Cimavax has been tested on patients in Buffalo, New York state, but it isn't yet available in the US.
Ingels, her husband Bill and daughter Cindy are staying at the La Pradera International Health Centre, west of Havana. It treats mostly foreign, paying patients like Ingels, and with its pool complex, palm trees and open walkways, La Pradera feels more like a tropical hotel than a hospital.
This trip from their home in California, together with a supply of Cimavax to take back to the US, will cost the Ingels family more than $15,000 (£12,000).
Cimavax fights cancer by stimulating an immune response against a protein in the blood that triggers the growth of lung cancer. After an induction period, patients receive a monthly dose by injection.
It's a product of Cuba's biotechnology industry, nurtured by former President Fidel Castro since the early 1980s.
Ironically, Cuba's biotech innovations can partly be explained by the US embargo - something Castro continually railed against. It meant Cuba had to produce the drugs it could not access or afford. And medications like Cimavax - low-tech products that could be administered in a rural setting - were developed to fit the Cuban context.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Cuban cancer drug CIMAvax is bringing hope to US patients in the first collaboration of its kind
Now the industry employs around 22,000 scientists, technicians and engineers, and sells drugs in many parts of the world - but not in the US.
And although the Cubans will not reveal the cost of producing Cimavax, it is cheaper than other treatments.
For Cuba's residents, all health care is free. One beneficiary is Lucrecia de Jesus Rubillo, 65, who lives on the fifth floor of a block of flats in the east of Havana
Last September she was given two or three months to live. What began as pain in Lucrecia's leg, was diagnosed as stage-four lung cancer that had spread.
She had chemotherapy. "That was really very hard," she says. "It gave me nausea, and it hurt. But my kids asked me to fight, so I did."
After radiotherapy, Lucrecia began Cimavax injections. Now she is strong enough to walk up the five flights of stairs to her home, and her persistent cough has diminished. She feels better, more hopeful, and is thinking about what to do next.
"Perhaps I'll go to Spain to visit my kid," she says. "I feel happy, and I'm still dreaming of the future, but I also feel sadness. I've had a lot of friends who've died of cancer, and they never had the chance I'm having with these injections. I feel privileged."
Her doctor is Elia Neninger, an oncologist at the Hermanos Ameijeiras Hospital in Havana. Neninger is one of the principal clinicians to trial Cimavax on patients since the 1990s.
"Lucrecia arrived incapacitated by her disease in a wheelchair," Neninger remembers. "Now the tumour on her lung has disappeared, and the lesions on her liver aren't there either. With Cimavax, she's in a maintenance phase."
In Cuba, specialists like Neninger do not talk about curing cancer - they talk about controlling it and transforming it into a chronic disease. She has treated hundreds of patients with Cimavax.
"I never thought I'd work on something that would improve the lives of so many people," she says. "I have stage-four lung cancer patients who are still alive 10 years after their diagnosis."
But mostly Cimavax is proven to extend life for months, not years. And it does not help everyone. In trials, around 20% of patients haven't responded, Neninger says, often because the disease is very advanced, or they have associated illnesses that make treatment more difficult.
Nonetheless, Dr Kelvin Lee is impressed. He is the Chair of Immunology at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York, where the American trials of Cimavax are taking place.
It is the first time a Cuban medication has been trialled in the US, and required special permission because the embargo prohibits most collaboration and trade.
Cancer immunotherapy is getting more expensive in the US, Lee says. A cheap vaccine that can be administered at primary care level is very attractive. And he thinks it is possible that Cimavax could be used to prevent lung cancer, too.
"If we could vaccinate the high-risk smokers to prevent them from developing lung cancer, that would have an enormous public health impact both in the United States and worldwide."
This has not been proven, however, and the initial US trials of Cimavax only began in January.
There is political uncertainty, too. On the campaign trail before his election, President Trump said he would reverse the thaw with Cuba that began under the Obama administration, unless there was change on the island, which is governed as a one-party state.
"Our demands will include religious and political freedom for the Cuban people, and the freeing of political prisoners," Trump said on the campaign trail in Miami.
So far, Cuba has not made it to the top of his in-tray. There is a large constituency of Americans who believe that Cuba does not deserve the kind of recognition and status the association with the Roswell Park Cancer Institute brings.
But Lee thinks political arguments against US-Cuba collaboration are misplaced.
"The gas we put in our cars, the iPhones we tweet from, the shoes we buy our kids - all come from countries that the United States has fundamental differences with regarding women's rights, freedom of speech, personal liberties. Yet that has never stopped us from working with them in areas that benefit the people in both countries."
For now Bill Ingels, Judy's husband, isn't worried about falling foul of US authorities.
"I told them I was coming for educational purposes," he says. "And I am learning about cancer and medication! I'm basically a very honest person, but if I have to, I will lie."
Ingels will not know if the vaccine has made a difference until she has a scan in three months.
"We feel pretty positive, and we thought this would be a great experience and journey for my family to take together. It's the first time I've felt up since I was diagnosed."
Cindy Ingels, Judy's daughter, is a nurse - she will administer the Cimavax shots to her mother back home in California.
"Even if she remains stable - that it maintains the tumour size, and it doesn't worsen - we'd be happy with that," she says. "If the tumour decreases from what it is now, that would really be a miracle."
Join the conversation - find us on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and Twitter. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39640165 | news_magazine-39640165 |
|
The struggles of war babies fathered by black GIs - BBC News | 2017-05-21 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | Many GIs had children with British women but under US laws black servicemen were usually refused permission to marry. So what happened to the children? | Magazine | About 100,000 black GIs were stationed in the UK during the war. Inevitably there were love affairs, but US laws usually prevented black servicemen from marrying. So what happened to the children they fathered? Fiona Clampin met two such children in Dorset, now in their seventies, who have not given up hope of tracing their fathers.
A bottle of champagne has sat on a shelf in Carole Travers's wardrobe for the past 20 years. Wedged between boxes and covered with clothes, it'll be opened only when Carole finds her father. "There's an outside chance he might still be alive," she reflects. "I've got so many bits of information, but to know the real truth would mean the world to me - to know that I did belong to somebody."
The possibility of Carole tracking down her father becomes more and more remote by the day. Born towards the end of World War Two, Carole, now 72, was the result of a relationship between her white mother and a married African-American or mixed-race soldier stationed in Poole, in Dorset.
Whereas some "brown babies" (as the children of black GIs were known in the press) were put up for adoption, Carole's mother, Eleanor Reid, decided to keep her child. The only problem was, she was already married, with a daughter, to a Scot with pale skin and red hair.
"I had black hair and dark skin," says Carole. "Something obviously wasn't right."
The difference between Carole and her half-siblings only dawned on the young girl at the age of six, when she overheard her parents having an argument. "Does she know? Well, it's about time she did," said her stepfather, in Carole's retelling of the story. She remembers how her mother sat her down at the kitchen table and told Carole the truth about her background.
"I was chuffed I was different," she says. "I used to tell my friends, 'My dad's an America,' without really knowing what that meant."
In 1950s Dorset there were very few mixed-race or black children, and having one out of wedlock carried a huge stigma. Although Carole doesn't remember any specific racist remarks, she recalls the stares. Parents would shush their children when she and her family got on the bus.
Carole says her "blackness" was considered cute when she was a child, but as she grew up she became more aware of her difference. "I remember once being in a club and there was a comedian who started making jokes about black people. I'm stood there and I'm thinking: 'Everyone's looking at me,'" she says.
"I always felt inferior. As a teenager, I would stand back, I thought that nobody would ever want to know me because of my colour.
"I was going out with one boy, and his mother found out about me. She put a stop to it because she remarked that if we had kids, they would be 'coloured'."
Seventy-two-year-old John Stockley, another child of an African-American GI stationed further down the Dorset coast in Weymouth, does remember the racial abuse in striking detail.
John was called names to such an extent that at the age of seven he decided he would try to turn his skin pale to be like his classmates.
"I worked out that if I drank milk of magnesia [a laxative] and ate chalk I would make myself go white," he chuckles. "I think I drank over half the bottle! You can imagine the effect. It wasn't good and it tasted disgusting."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. John Stockley spoke to Woman's Hour about trying to fit in
In one playground incident a boy insulted him with the N-word and called him "dirty", but when John thrashed him he found himself summoned to the school office.
"It was a winter's day in the early 1950s," John explains.
"I was playing football and I collided with another guy. By this time I was quite fiery, I wouldn't take it, and a blow was struck. I made his nose bleed. To this day I can see the blood on the snow.
"My mother lived less than 100 yards from the school, and she was summoned to the office with me. I remember her shaking next to me, holding my hand. The secretary told her what had happened and he said to my mother: 'You have to remember, Mrs Stockley, these people cannot be educated.' That puts my hackles up now."
Shocking though the racism seems to us today, it was arguably family life which had a more pernicious effect on these mixed-race children. "Your mum made a mistake," one of his aunts once told John Stockley.
"The 'mistake' is me," he says.
John's description of his childhood spent living with his grandparents in a village behind Chesil Beach sounds idyllic. But that's to ignore the reason why he went there in the first place. Determined to punish his wife for her double transgression, John's stepfather did not allow him to live in the family home except from Monday to Friday during school term.
Even then, John was not permitted to enter the house by the front door. At weekends he was packed off to his maternal grandparents, who provided him with the stable and loving family life he craved - and a refuge from his stepfather.
"Of course, coming back from the war and finding his wife with a black child must have been a great shock," John acknowledges.
"And they never had any children together. But there was no love at all for him from me, because of what he did to my mother. She was effectively kept in a position of restraint, and I'd see her go through depression because she wanted to do things she couldn't."
John says his stepfather - a gambler and philanderer - exercised control over his mother despite the fact that she ran a successful guesthouse. He decided who John's mother could or could not be friends with, John says.
"And he didn't like us to be too close. If some music came on the radio when he wasn't there, I would dance with her because she loved to jitterbug. But not when he was around. We were told to stop."
Carole Travers's stepfather began divorce proceedings when he found out what his wife had done in his absence. However, when it appeared that he wouldn't get custody of their daughter (Carole's half-sister), he returned to the family home and Carole took his surname.
He appeared to accept Carole on the surface, but towards the end of his life he telephoned her and dropped a bombshell. He wouldn't be leaving her anything in his will, he told her, "because you're nothing to do with me".
"The money didn't matter," says Carole. "But what he said really hurt me. I told him, 'You're my dad, you've always been my dad, and you're the only dad I've ever known'."
Married and with children of her own by this time, Carole started trying to trace her biological father, based on the scraps of information her mother had given her in the weeks before she died. "It just didn't occur to me to ask questions when I was younger," she says, the tone of regret in her voice clear.
"My stepfather would always bring me up in any argument with my mother, referring to me as 'your bastard', and I learned not to rock the boat. I just got on with my life."
Deborah Prior, front row, in the light dress, lived in Holnicote House in Somerset along with other mixed-race children - the photograph was used to attract potential adoptive parents
Not all GI babies were able to stay with their mothers. Dr Deborah Prior was born in 1945, to a widow in Somerset and a black American serviceman. Her mother was persuaded to give her up, and for five years Deborah lived in Holnicote House, a special home for mixed-race children. Deborah spoke to Woman's Hour along with Prof Lucy Bland, who is researching this under-reported chapter of social history.
Like Carole, John Stockley wanted to protect his mother by keeping quiet. "I could see it was going to upset her if I asked too many questions, and upset her was the last thing I was going to do," he says. He would take his chance occasionally, although his mother would always evade his enquiries. But John remembers with characteristic clarity the last time he brought up the subject of his real father.
"I remember her saying to me in the course of a minor argument between us: 'You don't know what I've been through because of you.'
"And I said to her: 'You don't know what I've been through because of you!' She went pale, and realised what she'd said and how she'd put her foot in it. But we never went any further than that. She just looked at me in a sad sort of way, and I said, 'Have I ever done anything to make you ashamed of me?' And she said no. And that was the last we ever spoke about it."
It was turning 70 that prompted John to start looking for information about his father, whereas Carole has spent almost half her life searching for a man she knows only as "Burt". Neither of them has many facts to go on - Carole believes her stepfather destroyed the only photos and letters that could have helped her identify Burt. But while their searches may come to nothing, they both take solace from the fact that their mothers loved them against all the odds, and that they were born of loving relationships, not one-night stands.
"My mother told me my father was the only man she ever really loved," says Carole. "And I've had Mum's friends say to me since her death: 'Don't ever feel ashamed of your background, because you were born out of love and your mum wanted you.' She knew he was going back to America and she wanted something of him, something to hold on to."
Join the conversation - find us on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and Twitter.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39927255 | news_magazine-39927255 |
|
Ian Brady: How the Moors Murderer came to symbolise pure evil - BBC News | 2017-05-21 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | Brady and his crimes were held up as the consequences of moral decay in 1960s Britain. | UK | Ian Brady's notoriety and significance goes beyond the criminal to the political and the cultural
Ian Brady's mug shot has become visual shorthand for psychopathic evil. With his accomplice Myra Hindley, he occupies an especially ignominious place in our national folklore.
Margaret Thatcher described their crimes as "the most hideous and evil in modern times". A BBC News article in 2002 suggested the so-called "Moors Murderers" had set "the benchmark by which other acts of evil are measured".
But Brady's notoriety goes beyond the criminal to the political and the cultural.
He became an important figure in 20th Century British history as a focus for debate about crime and punishment, good and evil, and the permissive society.
Brady and Hindley were charged with their crimes 11 days after the Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act had received royal assent in 1965.
They "cheated the gallows by a year" according to some, and were placed at the heart of a debate over capital punishment that would rumble on for more than a decade.
The horrific detail of their apparently motiveless crimes - the abduction, torture and murder of children and young people and the burying of the bodies on what the tabloids called "fog-shrouded wild moorlands" - was a horror story in the Gothic tradition that provided the perfect test of public opinion on ending the death penalty.
Police searches of Saddleworth moor began in the 1960s, including this area where the body of Lesley Downey was found
Successive home secretaries sought to reassure the public that, for the most heinous crimes, life imprisonment meant just that.
But Brady was more than just a debating chip in the argument over the hangman.
For many, he became a terrifying symbol of social upheaval.
His slicked back rocker-style hair and sociopathic stare chimed with the moral panic over youth culture.
Mod and rocker clashes in the mid-60s were described by one newspaper as a symptom of the "disintegration of a nation's character".
Brady and his crimes were held up as the consequences of moral decay.
Writing about the murders, the novelist CP Snow argued that "permissive attitudes" were the "earth out of which the poisonous flower grew".
Brady's depravity was linked to fears about changing morality in the so-called Swinging 60s
The novelist Pamela Hansford Johnson - who was married to Snow - made a similar point in her book On Iniquity in 1967.
She suggested that Brady and Hindley's crimes had been an indictment of 1960s Britain.
"A wound in the flesh of our society had cracked open," she wrote. "We looked into it, and we smelled the sepsis."
Brady helped shape the age-old argument that permissiveness leads to violent crime.
Commentators noted how he had been born "out of wedlock" and had begun a life of criminality as a juvenile.
In the mid-60s, crime was rising rapidly and the face of the bastard Ian Brady was the backdrop.
He personified "pure evil" just as his innocent young victims personified "pure good".
For the press and politicians, the Moors Murderers were powerful examples of the clear but simplistic divide between the criminal underclass and the law-abiding majority, at a time when anxiety about law and order was rising.
Brady's fascination with Adolf Hitler and the Nazis confirmed the sense that he was the epitome of social depravity.
From his arrest until the day he died more than 50 years later, his haunting visage - along with that of Myra Hindley - have been routinely deployed as images of the threat.
He is the child snatcher, the bogeyman, the beast. He is the monster. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39938520 | news_uk-39938520 |
|
EU and UK: Galaxies apart over Brexit? - BBC News | 2017-05-03 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | Two completely different versions of a London dinner - when it comes to Brexit, spin is everywhere. | Europe | Two entirely different tales emerged from dinner at Downing Street
Welcome to the EU/UK dominated Brexit Galaxy of Spin and Counter-Spin. A crazy old place. The galactic atmosphere is such these days that the dimensions of truth are elastic; at times, distorted.
Take the arguments this weekend over whether the Downing Street dinner last Wednesday at which Theresa May hosted European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker was a complete disaster or not.
Not at all, insists Downing Street.
But it was a fiasco, according to Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and thereafter hitting Twitter and headlines across the UK.
In Brussels, Politico quotes an EU diplomat saying the dinner went "badly, really badly". He reportedly went as far as to claim the British government was now "living in a different galaxy" to the EU when it came to Brexit expectations.
This all seems rather inflammatory, so who's right and who's stretching the truth?
Even French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron has been talking Brexit
Well, in this politically volatile pre-Brexit negotiations time, ahead of elections in biggest players UK, Germany and France and with the EU as a whole fighting to appear united, relevant and strong, one has to be extremely spin-aware.
For example, German Chancellor Angela Merkel talked last week about the UK harbouring Brexit "illusions". And French presidential favourite Emmanuel Macron announced he would, post-Brexit, end the bilateral deal by which France keeps in Calais so-called "illegal migrants" attempting to cross to Dover.
But these tough-sounding comments are at least as much aimed at their domestic audience as at the British government.
That said, a high-level EU source has confirmed to me that feelings were running pretty high following the Downing Street dinner due to what he described as a huge "asymmetry of expectations" and a "completely different reading" of the Brexit situation at No 10.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Theresa May said the report was "Brussels gossip"
He said the British government, from their comments about negotiations, clearly had "no good understanding of the fundamentals" around which he said the EU was united, and which would now not be undone.
There are certainly obvious sticking points where the EU and UK do seem a galaxy or two apart:
Poppycock, says a frustrated EU, to all of the above.
My source told me Mr Juncker was already vexed when he arrived at No 10 on Wednesday having only just been informed of the UK's (legally justified, but awkward) decision not sign the mid-term review of the EU's multi-annual budget until after the June elections.
The review needs unanimous approval to go ahead. It doesn't call for more cash but rather its redistribution. The EU is anxious to send money Africa-wards, for example, to halt the flow of migrants coming from there.
But the review is frozen until the UK signs it.
"They gave Juncker no warning at all and told him the night before he came to dinner," my source told me. "They have no idea how Brussels works."
Another high-level source I spoke to attended a meeting with all the EU team present at the Downing Street dinner.
"The word 'échec' (French for 'failure') came up several times," he told me.
"Before that the word wasn't used very often in connection with Brexit but now we're told we have to prepare for the possibility of a failure scenario."
What percentage chance of a successful outcome was being projected in EU leadership circles at the moment?
"50/50 with hopes for more clarity after the British elections are over," I was told.
Over and again, EU diplomats insist this is no "us against them" situation; that there's no desire to punish Britain and that a good Brexit is in everyone's interest.
"It's in our mutual interest to correct all the misunderstandings," I was told today. My source was confident that Downing Street was beginning to realise that now too.
Or are we still in the galaxy of spin? | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39775102 | news_world-europe-39775102 |
|
Ian Brady letters: Inside the mind of the Moors Murderer - BBC News | 2017-05-17 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | What was Ian Brady really like? Journalist Peter Gould gained a unique insight into the Moors Murder's mind through an extraordinary exchange of letters that lasted almost 30 years. | UK | My correspondence with Ian Brady began with a simple question: are you going to apply for parole?
Given that he and Myra Hindley had committed the most shocking crimes of modern times, it was hard to imagine either of them would ever be released.
The public would surely never accept that they were reformed characters who had paid their debt to society.
Yet by 1985, the Moors Murderers had been behind bars for almost 20 years. Time was passing, and perhaps memories would start to fade.
So the question of parole was not an idle enquiry. The families of the children they killed were becoming anxious about the possibility that one day they might be free to walk the streets again.
Myra Hindley had already begun a long and ultimately futile attempt to win her freedom. She tried in vain to persuade a disbelieving world that she had been coerced into the crimes by Brady.
The sullen face of the peroxide blonde, captured in the famous police photograph, continued to stare out from the pages of the tabloid newspapers as each twist of the story was reported.
"She is a good woman," Lord Longford told me more than once, as he tried to advance her case for release. A more unpopular cause to champion, it would be hard to imagine.
She was without doubt the most hated woman in Britain. Hindley died in prison in 2002, still dreaming of freedom. But back in 1985, little had been heard from Brady, and we could only guess at his intentions. Intrigued, I wrote to him and asked him if he was planning to apply for parole.
I did not expect a reply, so the arrival of a letter from Gartree Prison, from prisoner number 605217, came as a shock. As I held it in my hands, unopened, all my memories of the Moors Murders came flooding back.
Merely to mention Brady's name was enough to make anyone alive in the 1960s shudder with horror. He and Hindley abducted and killed their young victims and buried four of them on the bleak moors, high above Manchester.
I began my career as a journalist in the North West around that time, and needed no reminding of the story.
The sight of police officers digging, searching for bodies, became an indelible memory for my generation. Along with the smiling faces of the children, captured in family snapshots, and the black and white police photographs of their killers - these images were burned into our minds.
Few crimes have caused such revulsion, or cast such a long shadow. To many people, Ian Brady was the epitome of evil, a sadist who killed without conscience. If anything, his accomplice Myra Hindley was judged even more harshly, simply because she was a woman.
So with all this in my mind, I felt uneasy as I opened the letter. It was short and came straight to the point:
"My position on parole has not altered. I take no part in the annual circus and never shall. It has always been my intention to choose the time and manner of my own death in prison. All I have sought in my twenty years in prison is an active, positive life - unsuccessfully."
Brady later told me he had been given a form to apply for parole, but had refused to sign it. When members of the parole review committee asked to see him, he said he would not talk to them. Brady thought the process was "a political farce", but it showed that parole was indeed a possibility.
My story appeared on the BBC, and was followed up by the newspapers. And that was the end of it... or so I thought. Little did I know that Brady's brief note was to be the start of a correspondence that was to last more than 30 years.
Every few weeks, a new letter would arrive. As the pile grew, they started to give me an insight into the mind of the writer. But ultimately they prompted more questions than answers. From beginning to end, Ian Brady told me only what he wanted me to know.
I have often been asked how I could write to such a man. I had vivid memories of the crimes and I suppose I was curious to know more about Brady and what had driven him to kill.
As a journalist, I was able to approach the correspondence with a degree of detachment, but at the same time, I could not forget who he was, or what he had done.
I was clear in my own mind that he and Hindley should never be released. After Brady's initial letter, I assumed the correspondence would quickly come to an end.
But he continued to write to me from his prison cell, letters that were sometimes written in a shaky hand. He seemed under stress, mentally and physically. Despite being a man who was 6ft (1.83m) tall, his weight had fallen to around 8st (50kg).
That year, doctors concluded Brady was mentally ill and he was transferred from Gartree Prison - "the garbage can" as he described it - to Ashworth high security hospital on Merseyside, where he remained until his death.
He was soon receiving drugs as part of his treatment, and his letters became more lucid and more legible.
Ian Brady was jailed for three murders in 1966
They ran to many pages, initially on prison notepaper, then sheets of lined A4, the kind with very narrow spacing. They were always written with a ballpoint pen in a very neat hand, words precisely on the lines, with good grammar and correct spelling.
He did at least have the benefit of going through the Scottish education system at a time when mastering the three Rs mattered.
As I discovered, he was an avid letter-writer, with a wide circle of correspondents, although he wrote to few journalists on a regular basis.
I think it helped that I worked for the BBC, rather than one of the tabloid newspapers that wrote endless accounts of his life behind bars. Brady catalogued their inventive efforts:
"The national media allege I organised a Christmas party for the ward. I organised no such party. I ate nothing whatsoever on Christmas Day. There was a ward barbecue this afternoon, hordes of strangers waiting to gawp at the performing monkey, but I didn't take the stage. Several national newspapers allege I invited the Yorkshire Ripper, who is even not in this hospital but Broadmoor. A newspaper falsely states that I go on trips outside. I am in my cell night and day and go nowhere at all."
Yet for all his hatred of the media, it was clear that he was very aware of his status as a high-profile prisoner, and I think he enjoyed the notoriety, and being the centre of attention.
So while he railed against the stories about him that appeared on a regular basis in the tabloids, it became part of his wider battle against all those with power over his life.
In writing his letters, he certainly knew that what he said was liable to be reported, and he chose his words carefully, with an eye to publication. His relentless character assassination of Myra Hindley undoubtedly caused her great damage as she campaigned for parole.
What else did he write about? In large part his letters were a litany of complaints about his treatment at Ashworth - Trashworth in Brady's lexicon. It would not be fair on the staff to repeat his splenetic observations and unsubstantiated allegations, which covered page after page of A4.
Writing about life behind bars, he displayed a deep anger, but also an acerbic humour. It was as if he had a special dictionary in his head, reserved for pouring scorn on all those in authority whom he hated.
Peter Gould with some of Brady's letters
I soon got the impression that battling against the authorities - whoever they happened to be - was an important part of his mechanism for coping with his loss of freedom and life within a highly-regulated institution.
But the letters were more than just the paranoid rantings of a madman. I quickly discovered that he did not fit the popular stereotype of the sub-human monster, an image that most of us recognise instantly from crime thrillers on TV, and find strangely reassuring.
We do not expect serial killers to live anything approaching normal lives when they are not committing their crimes. They are certainly not supposed to display intelligence or humour.
So it was more than a little unsettling to discover that Brady was articulate and surprisingly well read, with a preference for classic literature rather than popular fiction.
The Russian writer Dostoevsky, with his explorations of human psychology, was a particular favourite.
Brady's letters were sprinkled with literary references that would send me searching through my bookshelves. His knowledge was nothing if not a testament to the education provided by prison libraries.
He made sharp observations about politics and current affairs, revealing a close interest in the world outside, a world he knew he would never see again.
He had nothing but contempt for the establishment in general, and politicians in particular:
"The Gulf - the Bore War. Thirty countries, including the most powerful in the world, against a third world Arab state, and they call it a victory. Politically, the UK is now to America what Italy was to the Germans; a servile lackey willing to bomb any country the Americans choose. The election... a non-event only of synthetic interest to the media in generating an appearance of democracy and choice, between two Tory parties."
He claimed not to be interested in reading newspapers, but little that was written about him escaped his notice. He also listened to radio news bulletins, and watched television. Several times he told me he had seen me reporting for TV news. Once, I was even talking about him.
Fortunately, perhaps, he did not have access to the internet, as he would undoubtedly have seen it as a platform. A lot of the time, he just stayed in his room, read books, and continued his writing. Somewhere, waiting to surface, there is a memoir of his life.
He once wrote a book, published in the US, intended to take the reader inside the mind of a serial killer. But significantly, it did not include any discussion of his own crimes. And in his letters to me, he was always reluctant to delve too deeply into the past, unless it was to confirm Hindley's active involvement in the murders.
It was as if he was hiding behind a mask that prevented you getting into his head. But there were times when the mask slipped, and you saw hints of an inner turmoil.
The Moors Murders victims were left to right, Keith Bennett, Lesley Ann Downey, Edward Evans, John Kilbride and Pauline Reade
In 1986, following my correspondence with Brady, the mothers of two of his victims wrote to him. His reaction on receiving their letters was revealing:
"Although I've been given them, I've not been able to bring myself to read them yet. I'm afraid to read them, understand? I have to keep the mental blocks tightly shut and keep control."
The mother of Lesley Ann Downey wanted to visit him in prison. Her request was refused by the authorities, so Brady suggested I pass on a personal message.
I was uncomfortably aware that I was becoming a go-between, a part of the story I was reporting:
"You can inform her of what I've told you. Remorse in this and other matters is axiomatic and painfully deep but I despise useless empty words and prefer positive action to balance part of the past."
To my knowledge, it was the only time he ever publicly expressed any regret for what he had done.
Perhaps, as he suggests, it was just too difficult for him to confront the reality of his crimes. But he seemed to resent being put in a position where he was expected to express remorse. He was not going to jump through any hoops for the press.
The "positive action" he refers to was his work in transcribing books into Braille for a school for the blind, something he did for many years.
A small act of contrition, perhaps, but one you may not have read about in the papers.
Brady and Hindley belatedly confessed to killing two additional children who disappeared in the 60s, and whose bodies had never been found.
In 1987, the two killers were taken back to the moors, separately, to help the police to try to find their bodies. Brady found himself back in the media spotlight.
"We stepped onto the moor at dawn. Helicopters and private planes kept circling us and the police seemed determined they would not get any photos. Police kept surrounding me when a low-flying helicopter came at us. Of all hated papers, the Sun got a full-length one, sharp and clear! The moors had changed a lot in my eyes over the 20-odd years that had passed. Many of the changes were real, some imaginary. It was weird seeing the place again, all that space and vastness."
Eventually, the police managed to find the remains of Pauline Reade but, despite many hours of searching, the body of Keith Bennett is still lost on the moors.
Was Brady genuine in his desire to help Winnie Johnson find her son? In his letters to me at the time, he seemed anxious for another chance to go back to Saddleworth and complete the search.
After a second visit to the moors, in the depths of winter, he insisted that he could have found the boy's grave, given more time:
"The convoy reached the moor around 9am. It was five degrees below zero and covered in frost and ice. The police let me lead the way and go to any spots I wished. After an hour, I discovered the junction of streams I had been searching for. I felt relief and exhilaration, and we all stopped for another hot drink and a smoke. As daylight began to fade, I felt a deep instinct that I was close to something important, some aspect I had overlooked. The search area has now been greatly reduced to an area between a sheep pen and a junction of two streams. I felt a great relief and vindication that I had rectified the crucial mistake. I kept underlining that I know beyond doubt that I've found the area. I'd like to see 40 or 50 police searching the area I've pinpointed. Within 48 hours, the instinctive feeling experienced on the moor in fading light became concrete. I was lying on top of the bed in the dark. An image came into my mind. All along I had been searching purely for a triangular site. But now I was seeing something I had forgotten. I saw Myra walking out of the triangle, but when she reached the apex, she did not climb over it but turned to the right into a curved horn of earth which led upwards. I now have the full image of the site vividly in my head. I do not enjoy struggling through sub-zero wasteland, nor being made a spectacle for the media. The police owe me one last visit there. I owe it to the family involved; it is a debt. I have nothing to gain except inner peace, for the media will crucify me whether I succeed or fail."
Keith Bennett's mother, Winnie Johnson, travelled to the moors many times before her death in 2012, enjoying the peace and solitude.
I went with her on one occasion. Looking out across the bleak moorland, she told me that to be there made her feel close to her lost son.
It was heartbreaking to watch as she waited, year after year, hoping he would be found.
But in the end, the details provided by Brady had not been sufficiently precise to locate the burial place.
Did he really know? Winnie Johnson was convinced that he did. Hindley was clearly hoping the search would advance her campaign for parole, by demonstrating her contrition. Her lawyers would later go to the High Court to challenge the power of the home secretary to keep her locked up indefinitely.
She did all she could to distance herself from the killings, claiming that she had been forced by Brady into becoming his accomplice.
Few people were convinced. The truth is, she had ample opportunity to go to the police and inform on Brady back in the 60s but failed to do so.
The case against her was always damning. She drove the car that she and Brady used to abduct children from the streets, and the vehicle was used to transport them to the moors for burial.
Even back in the 60s, children were warned by their parents not to go off with strangers. But the presence of Hindley in the car with Brady when they stopped to offer the youngsters a lift must have seemed reassuring. A nice young couple, smiling and joking. Nothing to worry about.
Myra Hindley on the Moors in a photograph taken by Ian Brady
Criminologists have always been fascinated by the dynamics of the relationship between Brady and Hindley. If they had not met would the crimes have happened, committed by Brady alone?
Some have suggested their relationship was a classic folie a deux, a shared psychosis in which a delusional belief is transferred from one person to another.
What is clear is that there was some terrible chemistry, involving sex and sadism, that made it work.
At their trial in 1966, Brady had seemed to be trying to protect Hindley from the full weight of the law. For several years, they wrote to each other from their prison cells. But the more Hindley tried to minimise her role in the killings in an effort to win her freedom, the more resentful he became.
He challenged her claim that she had only taken part in the murders because she was afraid of him. His analysis of their partnership was devastating:
"Myra Hindley and I once loved each other. We were a unified force, not two conflicting entities. The relationship was not based on the delusional concept of folie a deux but on a conscious/subconscious emotional and psychological affinity. She regarded periodic homicides as rituals of reciprocal innervation, marriage ceremonies theoretically binding us ever closer. We experimented with the concept of total possibility. Instead of the requisite Lady Macbeth, I got Messalina. Apart, our futures would have taken radically divergent courses."
For those unfamiliar with ancient history, Messalina became the most powerful woman in the Roman Empire, notorious for her promiscuity, who plotted against her husband, the emperor Claudius.
By casting Hindley in this role, Brady gives a clue to the bitterness he came to feel towards his former lover. He regarded himself and Hindley as equal partners in the murders, but she betrayed him and the secret life they had shared.
He ridiculed her claims that she was an unwilling accomplice:
"Hindley has crafted a Victorian melodrama in which she portrays herself as being forced to murder serially. We both habitually carried revolvers and went for target practice on the moors. If I were mistreating her, she could have shot me dead at any time. For 30 years she said she was acting out of love for me; now she maintains she killed because she hated me - a completely irrational hypothesis. In character, she is essentially a chameleon, adopting whatever camouflage will suit and voicing whatever she believes the individual wishes to hear. She can kill, both in cold blood or in a rage."
Despite my contact with Brady, the families of the murdered children always received me with courtesy and kindness.
Encouraged by my correspondence, some had begun writing to Brady themselves. They saw him as a means of keeping Hindley behind bars.
Like so many others, they could not understand how a woman could have helped to abduct and murder children. And in fact, female serial killers are extremely rare.
So the families of the children, and the man who killed them, came to form a strange alliance. The families also wanted Brady's help in finding the bodies of the children still missing.
I urged him to help the police locate the graves, to allow the families the comfort of a proper burial. The police knew Brady was writing to me but did nothing to hinder the correspondence, perhaps hoping that the letters would reveal useful information.
The detective in charge of the case told me: "He trusts you." Brady himself said he appreciated reporting that was "balanced and unsensational", although I must admit it was sometimes difficult to remain dispassionate.
At around the time he was being taken back to the moors by the police, Brady told me that he was responsible for another five murders, or "happenings" as he called them.
This was tantamount to a confession to a series of hitherto unknown crimes, so I passed the information to the police. With only sketchy details to go on, they were unable to confirm his claims. Did they really happen? Or were they just part of his fantasy world? It was yet another part of the story where the truth would never be known.
The trips back to the moors were the only break from the monotony of Brady's daily life in Ashworth Hospital. But there was always something for him to complain about. In 1999, when he was moved to a new ward, he went on hunger strike.
"I've sat in my room, going nowhere, never having exercised in the open air for 25 years, using every available "normal channel" to right matters here these past 15 years, and throughout my 35 years of captivity. I've been taking only sugarless, milk-less tea or coffee, no food. I have no TV or radio and don't read newspapers, though I've been told of some reports. I simply sit writing or reading books most of the time."
When he continued to refuse food, the doctors fed him against his wishes, through a nasal tube. So he went to court, hoping to establish a legal right to end his life.
In 2000, a hearing was held in Liverpool, behind closed doors. The tight security meant that the waiting media did not even get a glimpse of him as he enjoyed his day in court. But he got his story out.
Brady was taken to Liverpool Crown Court for his 2000 right-to-die hearing
Knowing the hearing would be held in private, he had sent me a 5,000-word document, setting out his case.
Once again, Brady was the centre of attention, taking on the system. But his arguments failed to convince the judge, and the hospital was told it could continue to feed him, to keep him alive.
Then in 2013, Brady finally got the public platform he craved. The media were able to observe him via a television relay as he gave evidence to a mental health tribunal at Ashworth.
The picture that emerged was of a man who was paranoid and narcissistic. He wanted to be sent back to prison, where he might have been able to complete his hunger strike without medical intervention.
Brady seemed to relish the occasion. He was back in the spotlight, back in the headlines. But once again the decision went against him. The panel ruled that he was mentally ill, and would have to remain in a secure hospital where his condition could be treated.
Court sketch of Brady appearing at a mental health tribunal in 2013
During the hearing, Brady refused to answer a direct question about whether he would in fact kill himself if was sent back to prison.
In his letters to me, however, he said his life had become meaningless and all he wanted was the opportunity to bring it to an end:
"I have had enough. My objective is to die and release myself from this once and for all. I am not interested in being kept alive artificially by force feeding. My death strike is rational and pragmatic. I am eager to leave this cesspit in a coffin."
Brady considered himself to possess superior intelligence. He found it difficult being surrounded by other patients who were all mentally ill, rather than being able to mix with the diverse characters he had encountered in the penal system:
"In prison I had intelligent company - train robbers, IRA and Arab terrorists, financiers, counterfeiters, gun-runners, drug lords, East End gangsters, ex-government ministers. I played John Stonehouse in the chess final at Wormwood Scrubs. Having spent the past years in the company of criminals and madmen, I have a very unusual circle of friends out there in the free world."
Did Brady ever look back over his life and contemplate how things might have been different?
A few years ago, he let me see a letter he had written to his mother. To my surprise, it was a wistful memoir of the happy times they had spent together in his youth.
It described in lyrical terms holidays spent in the Scottish Highlands, the sentiments quite at odds with his reputation as a tough kid from the Gorbals:
"When I close my eyes, I re-live childhood holidays in fascinating detail, many forgotten memories surfacing. Remember the low ceilings and oil lamps in the whitewashed Dunning cottage and the late-night cups of Oxo? The honking geese in the courtyard of the farm we stayed at in Tobermory? The red deer standing in the deep green gloom of the deciduous forest; the wildcat I surprised in the high heather hills behind the farm; the wooden bridge in the meadow beside the farm? Naturally I also bring to mind all the other holidays. The many tours up to Scotland by car, the vast spaces and bracing air of the Highlands... enough."
Enough, says Brady. After giving us a tantalising glimpse of happy days during his childhood, he firmly closes the door to the past. He ends the letter with a request to his mother to send me a copy.
She was then aged about 90 and living in relative anonymity in Longsight, near the centre of Manchester. Surprisingly, perhaps, she never moved away from the city where her son committed his dreadful crimes.
This unexpected glimpse into their life together was startling. Stories about Brady's childhood had painted a picture of a troubled boy who had grown up in a single-parent home, never knowing his real father.
As Brady acknowledged himself, the reality of his childhood years seemed to contradict a widely-held view about the roots of violent crime, especially sexual crime:
"It is fashionable nowadays to blame one's faults on abuse as a child. I had a happy childhood."
Why had Brady wanted me to see the letter to his mother? Was he trying to show he was a man with human emotions like everyone else? It inevitably prompts the question of how someone capable of such feelings could become a cold-blooded predator who enticed children away from their homes and families, and then killed them with his bare hands.
The happy childhood did not last. As a delinquent youth, Brady got into scrapes with the law, before finding a job as an office clerk. It appeared to offer reasonable prospects, and perhaps the hope of a decent life. But fate took a hand.
Working in the same office was a young typist called Myra Hindley. We will never know if things might have been different had they not met, but together they were deadly.
Perhaps it was memories of his childhood holidays that drew him to the bleak moorland above Manchester. Just as the Scottish Highlands may have been a welcome relief from the tenements of Glasgow, so the empty landscape of Saddleworth may have offered an escape from the terraced houses and factories of industrial Manchester.
Judging by the snapshots Brady took of himself and Hindley on the moors, it was somewhere that he felt happy.
But it was also a place made special by the terrible secrets it held, secrets that bound the two of them together.
Seeing them posing for the camera, they look like any other young couple who are in love. Until you realise that they include a shot of Hindley standing on the grave of one of their victims.
This was the woman who would later claim that she was Brady's unwilling accomplice. The photographs, and a horrific tape recording of their victim Lesley Ann Downey, tell a different story.
Given his love of open spaces, how much of a punishment was it for Brady to be confined within the walls of a prison or a high security hospital for so many years?
At Ashworth, he refused his right to take exercise in the open air for many years. Another contradiction.
Our lengthy correspondence has finally been ended by his death. It is easy to dismiss Brady as an evil monster, who does not deserve an ounce of pity.
I have met the families of the children he killed, and seen how he shattered so many lives. They spent years living with the consequences of his crimes. As the mother of Lesley Ann Downey once told me, the families are the ones serving a life sentence.
For nearly 50 years, Brady tormented them. His own life was effectively over when he was convicted at the age of just 28.
It was only the abolition of the death penalty just before his trial that saved him from the hangman's noose. He survived, but it turned out to be a living death.
I am left with a box full of letters, but I am still little the wiser about what drove him to kill.
Ian Brady has finally gone to his grave, having found the death he craved for so long. Many of his secrets have gone with him. He remains the personification of dark forces that we struggle to understand. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39925965 | news_uk-39925965 |
|
Maria Sharapova: French Open wildcard reasoning wrong, say WTA - BBC Sport | 2017-05-17 | [] | The basis for the decision not to give Maria Sharapova a French Open wildcard is wrong, says the chief executive of the WTA. | null | Last updated on .From the section Tennis
French Open organisers had "no grounds to penalise" Maria Sharapova by denying her a wildcard entry to the tournament, says the Women's Tennis Association.
The Russian, 30, was ranked too low to gain direct entry as she continues her return from a 15-month drugs ban.
The French Tennis Federation (FFT) chose not to hand Sharapova a wildcard to "protect" the sport's standards.
"I don't agree with the basis for their decision. She has complied with the sanction," said WTA chief Steve Simon.
"There are no grounds to penalise any player beyond the sanctions set forth in the final decisions resolving these matters."
Two-time French Open winner Sharapova needed a wildcard, which are awarded at the discretion of tournament organisers, to play in either the main draw or the qualifying tournament.
But on Monday, FFT chief Bernard Giudicelli Ferrandini said: "There can be a wildcard for the return from injuries - there cannot be a wildcard for the return from doping.
"I'm very sorry for Maria, very sorry for her fans. They might be very disappointed, she might be very disappointed, but it's my responsibility, my mission, to protect the high standards of the game played without any doubt on the result."
Shortly after learning of her Roland Garros snub, Sharapova withdrew injured from her second-round Italian Open match against Mirjana Lucic-Baroni.
The French Open begins on 28 May.
If you are viewing this page on the BBC News app please click here to vote.
Sharapova returned to action without a ranking last month and has since risen to 211 in the world after receiving wildcards in Stuttgart, Madrid and Rome.
That will be enough to at least earn a qualifying spot at Wimbledon next month.
Sharapova needed to reach the semi-finals of the Italian Open to qualify for Wimbledon's main draw but retired in the second round on Tuesday when leading Lucic-Baroni 4-6 6-3 2-1.
"I apologise for having to withdraw from my match with a left thigh injury," she said. "I will be getting all the necessary examinations to make sure it is not serious."
Sharapova will now have to wait until 20 June to discover whether she is among the wildcards at the All England Club.
The former world number one has not played a Grand Slam since she tested positive for heart disease drug meldonium at the 2016 Australian Open.
That brought an initial two-year ban, later reduced to 15 months after the Court of Arbitration for Sport found she was not an "intentional doper".
Former Wimbledon champion Pat Cash hopes the All England Club will not offer her a Wimbledon wildcard.
"She certainly should not be getting benefits from the fact that she got caught using an illegal drug," he told BBC Radio 5 live.
"I would hope they [Wimbledon] would stay strong and say 'no sorry, you have got to go through and play qualifying'."
The ongoing fight against doping is more important than the line-up for the French Open - that was the message from the French Federation's president.
It is a brave and principled decision, which will upset some fans and broadcasters. Ratings may suffer, but Roland Garros will ultimately be stronger for it.
How could the public take the sport's anti-doping message seriously if one of the Grand Slams had invited a player who was not ranked high enough because of time served for a doping offence?
It is worth noting, though, that the FFT have awarded a qualifying wildcard to Constant Lestienne, a French player who was banned for seven months last autumn for betting on matches.
Guidicelli's argument is that he has "paid his debt" - as his wildcard for Roland Garros was rescinded at the last moment last year when he first came under investigation.
Sharapova has, in contrast, earned her place in qualifying for Wimbledon, even though injury has now deprived her of the chance to play herself into the main draw.
And assuming she is fit, she is likely to want to play at least two warm-up events. The Lawn Tennis Association has already offered her a wildcard into the WTA event in Birmingham. If Sharapova also wants to play the week before, she has Nottingham and the Dutch town of Rosmalen to choose between.
Nicole Gibbs, women's world number 117: Not granting a wildcard is not penalising. To suggest it is is disrespectful to anyone respecting the rules and not receiving wildcards to every event.
Nicolas Mahut, men's world number 48: Excuse me Mr Simon [WTA chief], but Maria Sharapova is not penalised or sanctioned by the FFT, she is simply not guest.
Ben Rothenberg, New York Times: Sharapova's Tuesday: 1) Denied French Open wild card; 2) Injured vs Lucic, retires; 3) Misses out on direct entry to Wimbledon main draw.
Jose Morais, GQ Portugal: Roland Garros will have neither Roger Federer, nor Maria Sharapova nor Serena Williams competing for the first time since 1997. Whoa.
David James, AFP: Roland Garros double standards? Frenchman Constant Lestienne gets wild card in qualifying despite serving ban for illegal betting.
Stuart Fraser, The Times: Sharapova will require around 290 points from grass season (likely Birmingham/Wimbledon) to make US Open main draw (cut on July 17). | http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/39946833 | rt_tennis_39946833 |
|
Venezuela's irreconcilable visions for the future - BBC News | 2017-05-22 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | With the opposition and the government at loggerheads, the crisis in Venezuela looks set to get worse. | Latin America & Caribbean | Signs reading "No more dictatorship" are a common sight at anti-government protests
"Venezuela is now a dictatorship," says Luis Ugalde, a Spanish-born Jesuit priest who during his 60 years living in Venezuela has become one of the South American nation's most well-known political scientists.
A former rector of the Andres Bello Catholic University in Caracas, Mr Ugalde does not mince his words.
He compares Venezuela to an ailing patient who is on the brink of being killed off by well-meaning but incompetent doctors.
Venezuela's problems are not new, he says. At their heart is the mistaken belief that it is a rich country.
He argues that while it may have the world's largest proven oil reserves, Venezuela should be considered overwhelmingly poor because it hardly produces anything except oil.
A lack of investment in anything but the booming oil industry in the 20th Century meant that its human talent was never really fostered and its economy never diversified, resulting in an absolute reliance on imports.
Venezuela's late leader, Hugo Chávez, further compounded the illusion of Venezuela's wealth to the detriment of the country, Mr Ugalde argues.
While oil prices were high, Hugo Chavez could afford to fund social programmes
"He told the Venezuelan people that there were three things standing between them and prosperity: the US empire, the rich and the entrenched political elite, and that he would deal with all three so that the people could enjoy Venezuela's wealth."
Investing Venezuela's oil revenue in generous social programmes, building homes and health care centres, expanding educational opportunities and providing the poorest with benefits they did not previously have, gave the government of President Chavez a wide support base.
But with falling global oil prices, government coffers soon emptied and investment in social programmes dwindled.
The death from cancer of President Chávez in 2013 further hit the governing socialist PSUV party hard.
His successor in office, Nicolas Maduro, lacked not only the charisma of President Chávez but also his unifying presence at the top of the party and the country.
Mr Ugalde does not doubt that President Maduro came to power democratically in 2013.
Luis Ugalde says that Venezuela has become a dictatorship
But he argues that what he has done since - such as undermining Venezuela's separation of powers - has turned him into a dictator.
The Democratic Unity Roundtable opposition coalition won a landslide in the December 2015 election and yet it has seen almost all of its decisions overturned by the Supreme Court, a body which opposition politicians say is stacked with government loyalists.
An attempt by opposition politicians to organise a recall referendum to oust President Maduro from power was thwarted at every step by Venezuela's electoral council, another body opposition politicians say is dominated by supporters of Mr Maduro.
But for many the final straw came on 29 March 2017, when Supreme Court judges issued a ruling stripping the National Assembly of its powers and transferring those powers to the court.
The opposition-controlled National Assembly is overlooked by a poster of Hugo Chávez
While the Supreme Court suspended the most controversial paragraphs just three days later, the ruling managed to unite the hitherto divided opposition and spur them into action.
There have been almost daily protests and more than 45 people have been killed in protest-related violence.
While many of those protesting against the government share Mr Ugalde's view, the government is adamant it is defending democracy in Venezuela.
It argues that the National Assembly was in contempt when it swore in three lawmakers suspected of having been elected fraudulently and that all of the decisions made by the legislative body since then are therefore invalid.
The government has responded to the most recent wave of protests by calling for a constituent assembly.
Drawing up a new constitution will bring together the people of Venezuela and create peace where there is now unrest, President Maduro argues.
He also says he wants to enshrine some of the social programmes created by the socialist government in the new constitution.
At a pro-government rally, a sergeant in the National Bolivarian Militia, a body created by the late President Hugo Chavez, says he whole-heartedly backs the idea.
Gerardo Barahona says he supports President Maduro's plans for a constituent assembly
"We're against terrorism, those people protesting violently who're burning buses, we support the constituent assembly," Gerardo Barahona says.
Marta Elena Flores, 60, says the opposition is "out to wreck everything" achieved under the socialist government.
"We need to protect all the benefits the government has given to the people," she says.
"We need to enshrine them in the constitution so that the opposition doesn't even have the chance to rob us of them."
Marta Elena Flores says the government's social programmes have made a difference to her life
"I personally have been able to have two operations thanks to the government's medical programmes. The opposition begrudges us those benefits."
Opposition politicians have been dismissive of the president's call for a constituent assembly, saying it is a ruse to delay overdue regional elections and further strengthen the power of President Maduro.
Representatives of the major opposition parties declined a government invitation to discuss the creation of the assembly and, three weeks after the idea was first mooted by President Maduro, little progress has been made.
Government critics say the constituent assembly is "a fraud"
Previous attempts at dialogue backed by former international leaders and even the Vatican have failed.
Anti-government marches meanwhile have been spreading throughout the country and clashes between protesters and the security forces have become more frequent and the number of dead has been on the rise.
Those opposed to the government say they are determined to keep the protests going until fresh general elections are called and the government is ousted.
Some analysts have said that what it will take for the government to fall is for the protests to spread to the "barrios", the poor neighbourhoods which have been the support base of the governing socialist party.
Miguel Pizarro, an opposition lawmaker who represents the barrio of Petare, one of the poorest in Caracas, dismisses that argument.
"The only contact people who make that argument have with the barrio is through their cleaning lady," he says.
"There has been resistance to the government in the barrios for a long time, that is how I got elected!"
Others think that it will take the military to switch sides for the government to be ousted.
But with Defence Minister Vladimir Padrino taking to Twitter on 20 May to accuse protesters of fomenting anarchy and international organisations of being "immoral accomplices who don't denounce the violence" there is little sign of that happening any time soon, at least within the highest ranks.
In the short term at least, there seems little chance of the current deadlock in Venezuela being broken and every likelihood that the crisis will worsen. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-39980403 | news_world-latin-america-39980403 |
|
The struggles of war babies fathered by black GIs - BBC News | 2017-05-22 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | Many GIs had children with British women but under US laws black servicemen were usually refused permission to marry. So what happened to the children? | Magazine | About 100,000 black GIs were stationed in the UK during the war. Inevitably there were love affairs, but US laws usually prevented black servicemen from marrying. So what happened to the children they fathered? Fiona Clampin met two such children in Dorset, now in their seventies, who have not given up hope of tracing their fathers.
A bottle of champagne has sat on a shelf in Carole Travers's wardrobe for the past 20 years. Wedged between boxes and covered with clothes, it'll be opened only when Carole finds her father. "There's an outside chance he might still be alive," she reflects. "I've got so many bits of information, but to know the real truth would mean the world to me - to know that I did belong to somebody."
The possibility of Carole tracking down her father becomes more and more remote by the day. Born towards the end of World War Two, Carole, now 72, was the result of a relationship between her white mother and a married African-American or mixed-race soldier stationed in Poole, in Dorset.
Whereas some "brown babies" (as the children of black GIs were known in the press) were put up for adoption, Carole's mother, Eleanor Reid, decided to keep her child. The only problem was, she was already married, with a daughter, to a Scot with pale skin and red hair.
"I had black hair and dark skin," says Carole. "Something obviously wasn't right."
The difference between Carole and her half-siblings only dawned on the young girl at the age of six, when she overheard her parents having an argument. "Does she know? Well, it's about time she did," said her stepfather, in Carole's retelling of the story. She remembers how her mother sat her down at the kitchen table and told Carole the truth about her background.
"I was chuffed I was different," she says. "I used to tell my friends, 'My dad's an America,' without really knowing what that meant."
In 1950s Dorset there were very few mixed-race or black children, and having one out of wedlock carried a huge stigma. Although Carole doesn't remember any specific racist remarks, she recalls the stares. Parents would shush their children when she and her family got on the bus.
Carole says her "blackness" was considered cute when she was a child, but as she grew up she became more aware of her difference. "I remember once being in a club and there was a comedian who started making jokes about black people. I'm stood there and I'm thinking: 'Everyone's looking at me,'" she says.
"I always felt inferior. As a teenager, I would stand back, I thought that nobody would ever want to know me because of my colour.
"I was going out with one boy, and his mother found out about me. She put a stop to it because she remarked that if we had kids, they would be 'coloured'."
Seventy-two-year-old John Stockley, another child of an African-American GI stationed further down the Dorset coast in Weymouth, does remember the racial abuse in striking detail.
John was called names to such an extent that at the age of seven he decided he would try to turn his skin pale to be like his classmates.
"I worked out that if I drank milk of magnesia [a laxative] and ate chalk I would make myself go white," he chuckles. "I think I drank over half the bottle! You can imagine the effect. It wasn't good and it tasted disgusting."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. John Stockley spoke to Woman's Hour about trying to fit in
In one playground incident a boy insulted him with the N-word and called him "dirty", but when John thrashed him he found himself summoned to the school office.
"It was a winter's day in the early 1950s," John explains.
"I was playing football and I collided with another guy. By this time I was quite fiery, I wouldn't take it, and a blow was struck. I made his nose bleed. To this day I can see the blood on the snow.
"My mother lived less than 100 yards from the school, and she was summoned to the office with me. I remember her shaking next to me, holding my hand. The secretary told her what had happened and he said to my mother: 'You have to remember, Mrs Stockley, these people cannot be educated.' That puts my hackles up now."
Shocking though the racism seems to us today, it was arguably family life which had a more pernicious effect on these mixed-race children. "Your mum made a mistake," one of his aunts once told John Stockley.
"The 'mistake' is me," he says.
John's description of his childhood spent living with his grandparents in a village behind Chesil Beach sounds idyllic. But that's to ignore the reason why he went there in the first place. Determined to punish his wife for her double transgression, John's stepfather did not allow him to live in the family home except from Monday to Friday during school term.
Even then, John was not permitted to enter the house by the front door. At weekends he was packed off to his maternal grandparents, who provided him with the stable and loving family life he craved - and a refuge from his stepfather.
"Of course, coming back from the war and finding his wife with a black child must have been a great shock," John acknowledges.
"And they never had any children together. But there was no love at all for him from me, because of what he did to my mother. She was effectively kept in a position of restraint, and I'd see her go through depression because she wanted to do things she couldn't."
John says his stepfather - a gambler and philanderer - exercised control over his mother despite the fact that she ran a successful guesthouse. He decided who John's mother could or could not be friends with, John says.
"And he didn't like us to be too close. If some music came on the radio when he wasn't there, I would dance with her because she loved to jitterbug. But not when he was around. We were told to stop."
Carole Travers's stepfather began divorce proceedings when he found out what his wife had done in his absence. However, when it appeared that he wouldn't get custody of their daughter (Carole's half-sister), he returned to the family home and Carole took his surname.
He appeared to accept Carole on the surface, but towards the end of his life he telephoned her and dropped a bombshell. He wouldn't be leaving her anything in his will, he told her, "because you're nothing to do with me".
"The money didn't matter," says Carole. "But what he said really hurt me. I told him, 'You're my dad, you've always been my dad, and you're the only dad I've ever known'."
Married and with children of her own by this time, Carole started trying to trace her biological father, based on the scraps of information her mother had given her in the weeks before she died. "It just didn't occur to me to ask questions when I was younger," she says, the tone of regret in her voice clear.
"My stepfather would always bring me up in any argument with my mother, referring to me as 'your bastard', and I learned not to rock the boat. I just got on with my life."
Deborah Prior, front row, in the light dress, lived in Holnicote House in Somerset along with other mixed-race children - the photograph was used to attract potential adoptive parents
Not all GI babies were able to stay with their mothers. Dr Deborah Prior was born in 1945, to a widow in Somerset and a black American serviceman. Her mother was persuaded to give her up, and for five years Deborah lived in Holnicote House, a special home for mixed-race children. Deborah spoke to Woman's Hour along with Prof Lucy Bland, who is researching this under-reported chapter of social history.
Like Carole, John Stockley wanted to protect his mother by keeping quiet. "I could see it was going to upset her if I asked too many questions, and upset her was the last thing I was going to do," he says. He would take his chance occasionally, although his mother would always evade his enquiries. But John remembers with characteristic clarity the last time he brought up the subject of his real father.
"I remember her saying to me in the course of a minor argument between us: 'You don't know what I've been through because of you.'
"And I said to her: 'You don't know what I've been through because of you!' She went pale, and realised what she'd said and how she'd put her foot in it. But we never went any further than that. She just looked at me in a sad sort of way, and I said, 'Have I ever done anything to make you ashamed of me?' And she said no. And that was the last we ever spoke about it."
It was turning 70 that prompted John to start looking for information about his father, whereas Carole has spent almost half her life searching for a man she knows only as "Burt". Neither of them has many facts to go on - Carole believes her stepfather destroyed the only photos and letters that could have helped her identify Burt. But while their searches may come to nothing, they both take solace from the fact that their mothers loved them against all the odds, and that they were born of loving relationships, not one-night stands.
"My mother told me my father was the only man she ever really loved," says Carole. "And I've had Mum's friends say to me since her death: 'Don't ever feel ashamed of your background, because you were born out of love and your mum wanted you.' She knew he was going back to America and she wanted something of him, something to hold on to."
Join the conversation - find us on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and Twitter.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39927255 | news_magazine-39927255 |
|
French election: 'Unworthy' debate was still great viewing - BBC News | 2017-05-04 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | Our Paris correspondent evaluates the heated final debate in France's presidential race. | Europe | Supporters of Mr Macron watch the debate in a Paris bar
After the debate was over, some of the French media commentariat was saying it had been a disgrace.
Nothing had been elucidated. It was all mud-slinging. It was unworthy of a presidential election.
Maybe. But it didn't half make for riveting viewing. And at the end of the day, the debate did its job.
For the millions sitting through those two hours of insults, interruptions and (just occasionally) ideas, the differences between Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron could hardly have been made any plainer.
The National Front leader set the tone with her opening remarks, which were clearly intended to cause personal hurt. Macron's smile had become a grimace, she said. The mask had fallen - behind the personable front lay the coldness of a banker.
Insults like that can only have been intended to rattle her adversary, to provoke him into saying something he would regret. And that was her tactic throughout: constantly needling Emmanuel Macron with jibes and vaguely-worded accusations.
There had been a big argument in advance about whether the producers of the debate would be allowed to use cutaways. These are images of the person who is not talking, when he or she reacts to the one who is.
Finally it was agreed that they could be broadcast - and thus we were able to watch Marine Le Pen doing something unusual. Throughout much of the debate she was smiling, sometimes even chuckling.
It seemed to be part of a rehearsed psychological ploy to unnerve her opponent, by appearing to find his answers so ludicrous as to be amusing.
Showing candidates' reactions was a sticking point before the event
Except none of this tactic worked. Emmanuel Macron did not rise to the bait. Say what you will of him, Macron is an extraordinarily composed and accomplished performer. Throughout the debate he remained master of himself and his argument.
At only one point did she score. In the section on terrorism, she launched a attack on Macron's supposed feebleness in face of the jihadist threat, and explained that she would make France safer by expelling foreign suspects.
Macron responded with a long-winded explanation of how so many terrorists were in fact French, and how therefore France needed to examine its own conscience for letting that happen.
The argument misfired badly because it made it look as if Macron blamed France as much as the terrorists.
But for the rest, it was Marine Le Pen who betrayed weakness and confusion on a range of issues - especially economic. On the question of leaving the euro, far from clearing up the uncertainty about what she actually wants, she made matters worse by exposing her ignorance of the old European Currency Unit.
She was constantly playing with documents in front of her, searching for points and remarks to quote back at him. But it made her look unsure of her brief, and too often her attacks were reduced to the same old slogans.
These face-to-face debates are a traditional part of the election process, and for 40 years the French have tuned in to see which candidate is more likely to faire président.
They want to know who has the look, who has the feel of a head of state.
Emmanuel Macron is an unknown quantity. Many loathe his ideas. Many fear his inexperience.
But last night - against Marine le Pen - there was little doubt who was the more presidentiable. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39801104 | news_world-europe-39801104 |
|
The man who helped prevent a nuclear crisis - BBC News | 2017-05-18 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | In 1988 a military scientist from Taiwan sent his wife to Tokyo Disneyland and then defected to the US. | Asia | Mr Chang arrived in the US in January 1988 after a lifetime in Taiwan, to inform on his government's nuclear ambitions
In 1988 Taiwan was racing to build its first nuclear bomb, but one military scientist put a stop to that when he defected to the United States and exposed those plans. This is the story of a man who insists he had to betray his country in order to save it.
To this day, critics consider Chang Hsien-yi a traitor - but he has no regrets.
"If I can ever do it all over again, I will do it," says the calmly defiant 73-year-old, speaking from his home in the US state of Idaho.
The former military colonel has been living there since 1988 when he fled to the US, a close ally of the island, and this is his first substantial interview about that time.
It might seem a perplexing turn of events given the close relationship the US has with Taiwan, but Washington had found out that Taiwan's government had secretly ordered scientists to develop nuclear weapons.
Taiwan's enemy, the Communist government of China, had been building up its nuclear arsenal since the 1960s, and the Taiwanese were terrified this would be unleashed on the island.
Taiwan separated from China after the Chinese Civil War in 1949. To this day China considers Taiwan a breakaway province and has vowed to reunify with the island, by force if necessary.
The leadership of the island was also in an uncertain phase - its president, Chiang Ching-kuo, was dying, and the US thought that General Hau Pei-tsun, whom they saw as a hawkish figure, would become his successor.
Mr Chang, seen here with one of his children in Taiwan before his defection, enjoyed a comfortable life at that time
They were worried about a nuclearisation of the Taiwan Strait and bent on stopping Taiwan's nuclear ambition in its tracks and preventing a regional arms race.
So they secretly enlisted Mr Chang to halt Taiwan's programme.
When Mr Chang was recruited by the CIA in the early 1980s, he was the deputy director at Taiwan's Institute of Nuclear Energy Research, which was responsible for the nuclear weapons programme.
As one of Taiwan's key nuclear scientists, he enjoyed a life of privilege and a lucrative salary.
But he says he began questioning whether the island should have nuclear weapons after the catastrophic Chernobyl accident in 1986 in the former Soviet Union.
He was convinced by the Americans' argument that stopping the programme would be "good for peace, and was for the benefit of mainland China and Taiwan".
Factory 221 witnessed the research and test of China's first nuclear bomb
"This fit into my mindset very much," says Mr Chang. "But the most important reason why I agreed is that they went to great efforts to assure me they would ensure my safety."
The next task was getting him and his family out.
At that time, military officials could not leave Taiwan without permission.
So, Mr Chang first ensured his wife and three young children's safety by sending them to Japan for a holiday.
His wife, Betty, says she had no clue about her husband's double life. They had only talked about the possibility of him accepting a job in the US.
The Changs were put in a safe house shortly after their arrival in the US
"He told me this was a trial to test how easy I could get out from Taiwan and to see how much luggage I could pack," she says.
Mrs Chang left on 8 January 1988 with their children, excited to visit Tokyo Disneyland.
The very next day, Mr Chang took a flight to the US using a fake passport provided by the CIA. All he had with him was some cash and a few personal possessions.
Contrary to previous reports, he says he did not take a single document with him when he left Taiwan.
"The American government had all the evidence, they just needed someone - me - to corroborate it."
Meanwhile in Tokyo, Betty Chang was approached by a woman who handed her a letter from Mr Chang. That was the moment she discovered her husband was a CIA spy and had defected.
"It said 'You will never go back to Taiwan and from Japan you will go to USA'... that was a surprise for me.
"I just cried when I knew I could no longer go back to Taiwan," says Mrs Chang.
The family was bundled into a plane headed for Seattle, where they were met by Mr Chang at the airport.
The Changs were later put in a safe house in Virginia, due to fears he would be assassinated by Taiwanese agents or patriotic extremists.
Within a month, the US succeeded in pressuring Taiwan to end the programme, using the intelligence it had collected and Mr Chang's testimony.
Taiwan was believed to be just one or two years from completing a nuclear bomb.
Mr Chang has remained silent for decades. But with his recent retirement he now wants to set the record straight with a memoir, titled Nuclear! Spy? CIA: Record of an Interview with Chang Hsien-yi.
The book, written with academic Chen Yi-shen and published in December, has reignited a debate about whether Mr Chang did the right thing for Taiwan.
Mr Chang recently wrote a book about his side of the story
Some praise him for preventing a potential nuclear war. Others see his actions as denying Taiwan the weapons it needed for self-defence and survival.
Even those in Taiwan's ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which officially opposes the development of nuclear energy and weapons, take a dim view of Mr Chang's actions.
"Regardless of what your political views are, when you betray your country, it's not acceptable... it cannot be forgiven," said the DPP's Wang Ting-yu, chairman of the parliament's foreign affairs and defence committee.
But Mr Chang insists he feared then that ambitious Taiwanese politicians would use nuclear weapons to try to take back mainland China.
He claims Madame Chiang Kai Shek, the stepmother of dying President Chiang Ching-kuo, and a group of generals loyal to her had even gone so far as to set up a separate chain of command to expedite the development of nuclear weapons.
Taiwan's programme was developed in response to China's stockpile of missiles, several of which are now on display at Beijing's Military Museum
"They said they wouldn't use it, but nobody believed it," says Mr Chang, adding that the US certainly did not.
Nowadays, there may still be politicians who could be tempted to use such weapons, this time to pursue Taiwan's formal independence from China at whatever cost, he says.
But the DPP's Mr Wang dismisses this notion. "We absolutely don't consider this, we don't even think about it," he said.
Taiwan has nuclear power plants, which some have protested against
Over the years some Taiwanese presidents have hinted at a desire to reactivate the island's nuclear weapons programme, but these suggestions have been quickly quashed by Washington's objections.
Still, the island is widely considered to have the ability to make nuclear weapons quickly if needed. China has in recent years threatened to attack if Taiwan ever deployed nuclear weapons.
Following his defection, Taiwan's military listed Mr Chang as a fugitive. But even after his arrest warrant expired in 2000, he has not returned to Taiwan and does not plan to.
He does not want to deal with criticism he is sure he would face, and the negative impact that would have on his family there.
The Chang family is pictured here in this 1995 photo, a few years after their defection to the US
In 1990, they were permanently resettled in Idaho, where Mr Chang worked as a consulting engineer and scientist at the US government's Idaho National Laboratories until he retired in 2013.
He says his only regret is that he was not able to see his parents before they passed away.
"You don't have to be in Taiwan to love Taiwan; I love Taiwan," says Mr Chang.
"I am Taiwanese, I am Chinese. I don't want to see Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait killing each other." | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39252502 | news_world-asia-39252502 |
|
Will Macron mean the blues or a boost for Brexit? - BBC News | 2017-05-08 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | Emmanuel Macron's role as president of France may not necessarily mean bad news for Brexit. | UK Politics | The received wisdom is that the election of Emmanuel Macron as president of France is bad for Britain's Brexit negotiations.
Like much received wisdom, it may just be wrong. For the arrival of this young financier-turned politician in the Elysee could actually make a deal between Britain and the European Union easier.
Yes, President Macron is a devoted pro-European. His belief in the idea and the institutions of the EU is part of his core.
In his election manifesto, he described Brexit as a "crime" that will plunge Britain into "servitude".
As such, he will brook no Brexit-induced dilution of the single market and all its works.
After he met the prime minister in February, he told reporters in Downing Street: "Brexit cannot lead to a kind of optimisation of Britain's relationship with the rest of Europe. I am very determined that there will be no undue advantages."
Macron will thus, so the argument goes, stiffen sinews in Brussels and re-invigorate the Franco-German motor that has lain dormant in recent years. He has made utterly clear that he wants Britain to pay top whack when it exits the EU.
He has spoken of reforming the Le Touquet agreement that allows British immigration officers to check passports in Calais. And he has been shameless in his ambition to lure French workers and money back to France.
So Macron on paper could look like no friend of Britain in the Brexit stakes.
And yet his election is actually better news for Theresa May than she might imagine.
Theresa May will face tough Brexit negotiations with France's new president
Some Conservative ministers had been quite open in their preference for Francois Fillon, the former centre-right candidate with whom they had more natural, partisan commonalities. But they know they can live with Macron.
The new president is not going to be as Brexit obsessed as some imagine. He has other fish to fry.
He has to build support and coalitions in the National Assembly where polls suggest his new party may struggle to form a majority in next month's elections.
He has huge economic problems to deal with at home. And his efforts in Brussels will be focused on gaining support for his own proposals to reform the EU and the eurozone.
Brexit is just one issue on his to-do list. His priority is dealing with France's difficulties and stopping Marine Le Pen winning in 2022.
Now, of course, when President Macron does focus on Brexit, he will naturally be tough on Britain. But that is already the position of the French government. Whitehall has long ruled out any favours from Paris. In many ways, Macron represents continuity.
And just think of the alternative. If Marine Le Pen had won, the EU would be in chaos.
The EU's focus may have shifted from Brexit had Marine Le Pen won the French presidency
Her election would have been seen by some as an existential threat to the EU. Brexit would have become a second order issue.
EU politicians would have had less bandwidth to spend on Brexit. And as such, a deal would have been less likely, or at the very least much harder. Compare that to the stability that a Macron presidency may provide.
For here is the real point. The election of Macron may just make the EU a little more confident or perhaps a little less defensive. Many in the EU will conclude - maybe over-optimistically - that the global populist surge has now peaked with Trump and Brexit.
The electoral failure of anti-establishment politicians in Austria, the Netherlands and now France will give them hope that the troubled EU project is not quite so threatened as they had imagined.
They may feel a little less fearful that Brexit could presage the breakup of the EU. And a less vulnerable EU may feel less determined to make an example of Britain in the negotiations. And that can only be good for Brexit, however hard or soft you want it.
So the election of President Macron will of course send shivers of relief through the corridors of Brussels. But it won't make the challenge of Brexit any more enormous than it already is.
And just perhaps, it might make the task a little easier.
• None Five reasons why Macron won the French election | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39842424 | news_uk-politics-39842424 |
|
Players Championship: Will Sawgrass event become a major? - BBC Sport | 2017-05-08 | [] | It is becoming harder to find reasons why this week's Players Championship will not eventually evolve to being a major, writes Iain Carter. | null | Coverage: Live text commentary on the BBC Sport website on Saturday and Sunday.
What makes a major? The question arises because it is becoming harder to find reasons why this week's Players Championship will not eventually evolve to that elevated level.
The four men's majors are the benchmark of the game.
The Open Championship is the world's oldest and most prestigious event, the Masters has become the game's most glamorous tournament, the US Open is America's national championship and the PGA? Well, it is the PGA.
Chronologically it is last of the big four and is regarded as such in significance - this despite always boasting the top 100 players in the world, which is more than the other three majors are able to do.
Gaining major status only genuinely happens when there is universal agreement that a tournament deserves such status.
The stature of the US Open has never been in doubt while on these shores, The Open's lustre only wobbled when American professionals became reluctant to travel in the 1950s.
Arnold Palmer's continued support of The Open ensured its elite status was preserved and never again ignored by any of the world's leading stars.
The Masters only truly acquired its major standing in the post-Second World War years and the US PGA Championship needed to switch from its original matchplay format in 1958 to maintain its relevance.
It is also the preserve of the PGA of America, one of the most powerful bodies in the sport and the organisation that runs the US Ryder Cup team.
All majors have in common a place in sporting history, large prize funds, deep fields populated with players desperate to win, a resonance that stretches beyond the golfing village and the ability to identify the best players in the world.
And this neatly brings us to the 44th Players Championship, which will be played at TPC Sawgrass, Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida from Thursday.
Which of those boxes is not ticked by the Players?
Its history has built year on year. This is the 36th time it will be played on Pete Dye's famous Stadium Course, relaid and refined this year, and the closing stretch of holes including the famous island-green 17th have become as familiar as any on the golf calendar.
In financial terms it is every bit as lucrative as any other tournament on the planet. This year it is worth $10.5m (£8.1m) and it is little surprise that it attracts the PGA Tour's strongest field of the season.
And it resonates. The fact that it returns to the same course every year helps and it generates memories that stick with us.
Remember Hal Sutton's "be the right club, be the right club, today" as he fired his tournament-winning approach to the 72nd green to hold off Tiger Woods in 2000? Or Fred Funk slamming his cap into the green upon completing his 2005 victory?
Sandy Lyle has been Britain's only winner, and his victory is still fondly remembered even though it was achieved 30 years ago. More recently the nerveless play-off wins by Sergio Garcia (2008) and Rickie Fowler (2015) are easier to recall than many a decisive moment in, say, the PGA Championship.
And there can be little argument over the pedigree of its champions. The Players is rarely won by anyone other than the highest calibre of golfer.
Jack Nicklaus triumphed three times, including the inaugural tournament in 1974, and the roster of champions includes; Woods, Greg Norman, Nick Price, Fred Couples, David Duval, Adam Scott, Martin Kaymer and last year's winner Jason Day - all world number ones.
Sawgrass messes with golfers heads. It demands precision and the correct angles of attack. "It tests basically everything from a mechanical and hitting standpoint, as well as to a mental approach," said Duval, the champion in 1999.
For this year's event the course has been relaid with new grasses and several greens have been altered.
The 12th hole now becomes a driveable par-four to provide a kickstart to the fireworks that inevitably occur on the water dominated par-five 16th, short 17th and dramatic par-four closing hole.
Until 2007, the tournament occupied a March date and was recognised as the first genuine gathering of the world's best golfers before the Masters. Then came the move to its current timing in May.
Many have debated the wisdom of the schedule change. "I don't believe the golf course has quite lived up to how they have wanted it since the move to May, with the condition of it," Duval said.
"It should go back to March," he added, saying such a move is more likely to yield firmer and faster playing conditions. "It's been a bit of struggle and so I hope it does go back."
Duval may well get his wish. The proposed restructuring of the golfing calendar would see the PGA shift from its August date to take the Players Championship slot in May, as it moves back to the original pre-Masters timing.
Tellingly, the Players is at the heart of the conversation on finding the most attractive schedule for the men's game. It, therefore, is already sitting at golf's top table.
And, while the sport might not need another major - and certainly not another in the United States - it feels more and more as though we are arriving at a tipping point.
Right now it is "the four majors and the Players" when we discuss the most prized events in the game, but for how much longer might this distinction be drawn? | http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/golf/39839666 | rt_golf_39839666 |
|
UKIP will survive, says Nigel Farage - BBC News | 2017-05-08 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | UKIP figures rally around leader Paul Nuttall after the party lost 145 seats in local elections. | UK Politics | UKIP "will survive" as an electoral force despite a drubbing at last week's local elections, former leader Nigel Farage has said.
He told ITV's Peston on Sunday that his successor Paul Nuttall was "doing fine" and said UKIP was still needed, to prevent any "back sliding" on Brexit.
Neil Hamilton, UKIP leader in the Welsh Assembly, told the BBC "cosmic forces", not Mr Nuttall were to blame.
Mr Nuttall says UKIP voters who backed the Tories will come back to his party.
UKIP won 3.8 million votes at the last general election in 2015 but, after the UK voted to leave the EU in last year's referendum, many believe that its vote will be badly squeezed on 8 June, with the Conservatives being the main beneficiary.
All the 145 UKIP councillors defending their seats in local elections last week were beaten, although the party did pick up one seat in Burnley.
In Lincolnshire, where Mr Nuttall is standing in the general election in Boston and Skegness, UKIP went from being the official opposition to having no seats at all as the Tories gained 23 seats.
The results prompted the party's former donor Arron Banks - who is no longer a party member - to say it was "finished as an electoral force" under its current leadership.
Sorry, your browser cannot display this map
But former leader Mr Farage told the ITV show that while Prime Minister Theresa May had adopted many of the arguments he had been making for years - she had failed to deliver on immigration targets in her previous job as home secretary.
"UKIP is going to survive, it has to survive, " he said.
"It's all well and good for Mrs May who gives wonderful speeches and sounds very reassuring, but... UKIP needs to be there in case there is back sliding on Brexit.
"If, in two and a half years' time Mrs May has delivered the kind of Brexit that voters wanted, then I think you can ask the question: What is UKIP's future, where does it go from here?
He said Mr Nuttall, who was elected party leader in November 2016, had been "strong and reassuring" after a "tough" 24 hours following last week's local elections.
"It's difficult for him... because the Conservative Party have taken our agenda, for now. It's also difficult because when you follow on from someone - and I was a dominant, some of my critics would say domineering leader of UKIP - it's always difficult to step into someone else's shoes - he's doing fine."
On BBC One's Sunday Politics, Mr Hamilton said the prime minister was a "very acute tactician" by calling the election now, but said once Brexit negotiations had been concluded "the focus will be on bread and butter issues" and UKIP had domestic policies which "will be popular with ordinary working people".
He said "cosmic forces beyond the control of any individual" were to blame and it was "certainly" not Mr Nuttall's fault: "I think our prospects in the future will be very rosy because I don't believe the Tories will deliver on many of the promises they are now making." | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39836196 | news_uk-politics-39836196 |
|
Tax is only one part of the deal for those in work - BBC News | 2017-05-08 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | Other issues, such as fair pay and quality of work, are moving up the agenda. | Business | Shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, wants to talk about "real" pay.
How much tax you pay, and what for, is one of the most fundamental relationships between the state and the citizen.
It was John Locke who said that "governments cannot be supported without great charge".
This weekend Labour pledged that people earning under £80,000 would not face increases in income tax and national insurance.
And that there would be no rises in the standard rate of VAT.
The Liberal Democrats said that they would increase income and dividend taxes by 1p in every pound, and that the money raised would be used to support the NHS in England, with the devolved assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland left to choose where any extra funding is spent.
As I have written before, the Tories are looking to "reduce the tax burden" although it is not yet clear if the aspiration will fit into a neat manifesto promise.
But a more complicated debate - which could well be as important for voters - is taking shape.
And it is not just about the income you receive from work - and the tax you pay on it.
It is about the quality of that work.
Last week, the Conservative peer and trade minister, Lord Price, published a book called Fairness For All.
In itself, not that headline grabbing. But the fact that the book has the full blessing of Number 10, and was published in the middle of an election campaign, ups its significance.
And once again reveals that government and business have - since the financial crisis - become uneasy bedfellows.
The Prime Minister has said ordinary working class families have borne the brunt of sacrifices
In his book, Lord Price, the former head of Waitrose, argues that firms need to shape up and look at how they treat their workforces.
He admits that trust has broken down and that issues such as mega-high pay have poisoned the debate about profit-making firms.
This is an issue central to the "offer" Theresa May has made to the electorate.
And therefore one the Prime Minister is presumably happy to be tested on.
Mrs May has spoken about stagnating pay and said that the economic "sacrifices" made since the financial crisis have not been borne by "the wealthy" but by "ordinary working class families".
On Tuesday, Matthew Taylor, the former special advisor to Tony Blair and the person tasked by Number 10 to look at the changing world of work from zero-hours contracts onwards, will make a speech in which he will argue for a fundamental change in the attitude to employment.
Yes, Britain has been good at creating jobs.
But has quality been sacrificed for quantity?
And what rights do we have to a "good" job - however elastic such a definition may be?
Lord Price told me this was not a "party political" argument.
And to an extent he is right.
All the major parties have spoken about the need to reform work, whether its banning zero hours contracts (Labour) or "transparency over pay" (the Liberal Democrats).
On Sunday John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, said that "families across the country" have seen real pay (adjusted for inflation) fall by more than at any time since the industrial revolution.
And he said that it's all very well for Mrs May to talk about a "fairer Britain" and a strong economy, but it is the Conservative government which has allowed the problem to fester.
Lord Price admitted to me that there needed to be change - but said that persuasion rather than compulsion was the best way forward.
He argues that the "happiness" and satisfaction of employees is the key to increasing productivity, profitability and economic wealth.
"Business has to recognise that instead of taking a short term view or quarterly profits and rewarding shareholders, a long term view needs to be taken of what we need as we move from an industrial era to the digital era," he said.
"What I don't want to do - what I think would be wrong for the economy - is for any government to go to war with business, to make business afraid of them," said Lord Price.
"We have got to embrace business now - working collaboratively with business as a force for good."
Vince Cable says the Liberal Democrats want more employee engagement, fair contracts and transparency over pay.
This is not necessarily about being "anti" or "pro" business, Lord Price insisted.
And he strongly denied the claim by Iain Conn, the chief executive of Centrica which owns British Gas, that some people at the heart of government "just don't believe in free markets".
Although, privately, Lord Price knows that there are those with the ear of the PM who think that some markets - such as the one that governs energy bills - deserves the firm smack of state action.
In an election campaign dominated by Brexit and "tax bombshells", it is sometimes easy to forget that for many voters, incomes (being squeezed) and the world of work (often stressful and uncertain), is what actually matters day-to-day.
And it will be interesting to see how much is made of this major economic theme in each of the parties' manifestos.
"Under this Conservative government, the input and well-being of employees has been pushed aside too often," said Sir Vince Cable, who is standing to try to win back his former seat of Twickenham for the Liberal Democrats.
"The prime minister claims to be for the 'just about managings', but has done nothing to protect their rights and incomes, even in the face of major scandals about working practices.
"The Liberal Democrats are calling for more employee engagement, fair contracts and transparency over pay. When we get the balance right, everybody wins."
For Labour, the minority of poorly behaving businesses is the issue.
Rebecca Long-Bailey, the shadow business secretary, said: "Labour is a proud supporter of British business, but we also realise that the decisions made by a small minority of British boardrooms have undermined Britain's ability to become a nation of world-leading, successful, long-term businesses.
"Scandals like BHS show how the long-term growth of a company, and the welfare of its workers, can be sacrificed for short-term gain.
"Labour will tackle the short-termism of some by reforming corporate governance.
"We will support long-term investment and productivity growth to ensure that businesses work for the many, rather than the short-term interests of the few."
Corporation taxes on businesses are set to rise if Labour wins on 8 June.
An economy "that works for everyone" or "the many" are certainly bold ambitions.
And who is responsible for delivery?
Or politicians, whose frustrations on this most vital matter are clear for all to see and hear? | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39839374 | news_business-39839374 |
|
South Korea's 'life or death' presidential election - BBC News | 2017-05-05 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | Stephen Evans on how South Korea's presidential election could change its policy towards Pyongyang. | Asia | Moon Jae-in is the front-runner in the South Korean presidential election
In a room in the National Assembly in Seoul on Wednesday, a group of defectors from North Korea made an impassioned plea to voters: Don't elect the man who has led the opinion polls.
The fugitives from the North said the front-runner, Moon Jae-in, might put their lives at risk if he won the only true opinion poll - the actual election.
The defectors' argument was that Mr Moon was closely involved in a previous left-of-centre government in Seoul which had closer ties with Pyongyang under what was known as the Sunshine Policy.
In a joint statement, the defectors said they had "escaped the slave-like life" under the North Korean regime, and that the re-establishment of more contact with North Korea might mean a return of freer movement between the two halves of the peninsula - with dire consequences for them.
"If candidate Moon Jae-in is elected," their statement said, "a team of North Korean assassins could frequently come to South Korea to kidnap or murder defectors. This poses a life-threatening risk to us."
Their fears show that the election on 9 May is about much more than the mundane matters of economic policy which often dominate elections in democratic countries.
In South Korea, elections are about bread and butter, but also about life and death, peace and war. There is a bigger, global picture with consequences far beyond the divided peninsula.
For many South Koreans, the economy remains the dominant issue but, outside the country, relations - or the lack of them - with Pyongyang dominate, particularly when the North Korean nuclear programme is advanced and there's a new brash president in the White House in Washington DC.
Not that Mr Moon says he wants closer ties with Pyongyang.
Rather, he is emphasising close ties with Washington, saying recently: "I believe President [Donald] Trump is more reasonable than he is generally perceived.
"President Trump uses strong rhetoric towards North Korea but, during the election campaign, he also said he could talk over a burger with Kim Jong-un. I am for that kind of pragmatic approach to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue."
Early voting for the election began this week
A president Moon would be unlikely to open direct talks with Kim Jong-un, but he would want a strong and equal role in policy rather than letting Washington call the shots.
He is more likely to favour contact with North Korea rather than the severing of relations undertaken by the previous president of South Korea.
His predecessor Park Geun-hye, for example, closed an industrial complex just inside North Korea where South Korean firms employed workers from the North. A president Moon might re-open it.
Professor John Delury of the Graduate School of International Studies at Yonsei University in Seoul told the BBC: "We know pretty clearly what the presumed front-runner, Moon Jae-in, would do.
"He's supported by people who think the South has to go up there to Pyongyang and actively work on improving inter-Korean relations. If it's Moon who wins this election, South Korea really becomes a new player and could be much more forcefully a part of whatever problem or solution we see on North Korea."
The second in the race is harder to read.
Ahn Cheol-soo is the candidate from the People's Party
Ahn Cheol-soo is likely to be more conciliatory towards Pyongyang than the previous president, though he has been making tougher statements recently, perhaps to woo conservatives.
Either would pose a dilemma for Washington, according to Prof Delury, because they both want to improve the relationship between Seoul and Pyongyang: "And that, of course, flies completely in the face of what the United States is pushing right now which is more sanctions and more pressure and getting China to cut off North Korea.
"So potentially there's a train-wreck here where you've got the Trump administration saying 'pressure, pressure, pressure' on North Korea and suddenly you have a new South Korean president saying 'that's not going to solve the problem - we need to talk to those guys, we need to improve the relationship'."
Despite that, neither candidate - and certainly not the main conservative candidate, Hong Joon-pyo - seems likely to tell the United States to pack up its anti-missile system and take it home.
Thaad, as the system is called, is newly installed on a golf course in the south of the country. Mr Moon has voiced his opposition but whether he would remove it as president is uncertain.
There is opposition to it, both from local people who feel they would be in the line of fire if North Korea attacked the system, and from people on the left who oppose the current hard line against Pyongyang.
There is a generational divide in South Korean politics. Younger people lack the memory of war - not surprisingly because fighting in the Korean War ended in 1953 - and they feel economic insecurity.
Lee Chae-rin, a student at Yonsei University, told the BBC: "Even though foreigners always ask if we feel the threat of North Korea, the younger generation do not really that much compared with the older generation."
For them economic issues are strong. One of the classmates, Kim Tae-yeon, said: "South Korea has become much richer today but the experience of insecurity is different from that of our grandparents.
"Before, it was a problem of whether they could eat, and that was solved by economic growth. But now we're in a state of economic stagnation and that makes us much more insecure.
"Our problem is not whether we can eat but whether we would lose our function in this society because we cannot find a job."
There is some anger, particularly when the country's former president and the head of Samsung are facing trial for alleged corruption.
Former president Park Geun-hye was impeached over a corruption scandal
One student, Song Seung-hyun, said: "People just want someone who would kick over the table like Trump did in Washington. A lot of these politicians and business elites were in it for themselves.
"It comes down to the youth - our generation - want someone who would kick over the table."
That sentiment may or may not be prevalent in any generation. The winner of the election is not likely to "kick over the table".
They may well, though, want a thawing of relations with Pyongyang. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39801447 | news_world-asia-39801447 |
|
Mauricio Pochettino: 'Victory over Arsenal gives Spurs chance to pressure Chelsea' - BBC Sport | 2017-05-01 | [] | Tottenham's victory over Arsenal means they can "put psychological pressure" on Chelsea, says manager Mauricio Pochettino. | null | Last updated on .From the section Football
Tottenham's victory over Arsenal means they can put "psychological pressure" on Chelsea at the top of the Premier League, says boss Mauricio Pochettino.
The Argentine said Sunday's 2-0 win was "fantastic for our fans", as Spurs confirmed they would end a 22-year wait to finish above their derby rivals.
But he added the "most important" thing was keeping up with league leaders Chelsea, who beat Everton 3-0.
"We are in the race and the gap is back to four points," said Pochettino.
"We have to be focused now. We have another big game against West Ham on Friday, another difficult derby.
"That could be a chance to put psychological pressure on Chelsea. We play before them and, if we win, we will see what happens when Chelsea play Middlesbrough at Stamford Bridge on Monday."
Chelsea's victory at Everton earlier on Sunday had moved Antonio Conte's side seven points clear of their closest challengers.
But Dele Alli's 21st club goal of the season and a Harry Kane penalty secured Spurs a ninth successive league win, extending their best run since October 1960, when they won 13 games in a row.
Chelsea have been top of the league since 5 November, and were 10 points clear as recently as 19 March.
They have since lost twice - to Crystal Palace and Manchester United.
"I can understand our fans being excited about finishing above Arsenal, but I don't feel the same because for me it is about trying to win the title," Pochettino added.
"It is so important now to try and win trophies every season - that is our aim.
"It's true that it will be difficult but we will see what happens."
Sunday's match was the last derby to played at White Hart Lane in its current incarnation.
Tottenham will play their home games at Wembley for the 2017-18 season while construction work takes place on their new stadium.
The club's new 61,000-seater ground is being built next to the site of their current home.
'The points don't come from heaven'
The last time Tottenham finished above Arsenal was in 1995, when they came seventh and the Gunners were 12th.
Arsenal fans even came up with a name for the day on which it was confirmed Spurs would not be able to finish above them - St Totteringham's Day.
This season, it is Arsene Wenger's men faced with the insurmountable gap - they are 17 points behind Spurs with five games to play.
"They are the points," said Wenger. "They don't come from heaven. You earn them on the pitch and that's it."
Defeat at White Hart Lane left the Gunners six points adrift of fourth-placed Manchester City, albeit with a game in hand.
Wenger said: "It will be very difficult now but we have to fight.
"We have an FA Cup final and still the chance to get into the top four but we have to recover from this and prepare for our next game."
Analysis - Has the balance of power shifted?
St Totteringham's Day is a gruesome day of celebration used by Arsenal fans to inflict annual misery on north London rivals Spurs.
It is the day in the calendar when Spurs can no longer finish above Arsenal in the Premier League, and has been a growing tradition since Arsenal last ended a season below their neighbours from White Hart Lane in 1994-95.
Spurs ensured this year's St Totteringham's Day was cancelled with a convincing win that means they cannot be overtaken by the Gunners - but does it mean the balance of power in north London has now comprehensively shifted?
Trailing 17 points behind Spurs, the evidence to suggest so is compelling, but Wenger can offer two convincing counter-arguments, despite seeing his team overpowered and outplayed.
Wenger rightly points out it will take more than one season every 22 years to mark a permanent shift, while Arsenal are the only team in north London with a realistic chance of winning a trophy this season as they prepare for an FA Cup final against Chelsea at Wembley on 27 May.
Arsenal beat Manchester City 2-1 after extra time in their semi-final, a day after Spurs lost 4-2 in theirs.
And, even in what have been regarded as Wenger's fallow years, Arsenal still claimed the FA Cup in 2014 and 2015, while Spurs' last trophy was the League Cup in 2008.
So it depends on context - and perhaps which team you favour - when deciding whether there has been a shift in power.
In tangible terms, it is still possible for Arsenal to have the more successful season - this excellent Spurs side have yet to turn glorious promise into silverware - but lose the FA Cup final and finish outside the top four with no Champions League football next season, and there is only one winner in this local rivalry.
In the short and long term, however, this Spurs team look a much better proposition than Arsenal for success.
Pochettino, at 45, is regarded as one of the game's outstanding young managers, well versed in the modern methods, put into practice by a maturing, powerful, physical, energetic side.
Wenger, 67, is still surrounded by the uncertainty over his future and if he stays at Arsenal - the most likely outcome - faces a serious rebuild of a team that looks flimsy, not mentally strong enough and too often let down by its so-called elite players such as Mesut Ozil, who did a disappearing act at White Hart Lane. All those flaws were exposed by Spurs.
Spurs must build on the undoubted supremacy of their team next season to emphasise their dominance - but for now they look a team comfortable with themselves while Arsenal and Wenger look lost.
St Totteringham's Day has been cancelled this year. If the same happens in 12 months' time then perhaps that power shift in north London will be real and long-lasting. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39762660 | rt_football_39762660 |
|
Will Macron mean the blues or a boost for Brexit? - BBC News | 2017-05-09 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | Emmanuel Macron's role as president of France may not necessarily mean bad news for Brexit. | UK Politics | The received wisdom is that the election of Emmanuel Macron as president of France is bad for Britain's Brexit negotiations.
Like much received wisdom, it may just be wrong. For the arrival of this young financier-turned politician in the Elysee could actually make a deal between Britain and the European Union easier.
Yes, President Macron is a devoted pro-European. His belief in the idea and the institutions of the EU is part of his core.
In his election manifesto, he described Brexit as a "crime" that will plunge Britain into "servitude".
As such, he will brook no Brexit-induced dilution of the single market and all its works.
After he met the prime minister in February, he told reporters in Downing Street: "Brexit cannot lead to a kind of optimisation of Britain's relationship with the rest of Europe. I am very determined that there will be no undue advantages."
Macron will thus, so the argument goes, stiffen sinews in Brussels and re-invigorate the Franco-German motor that has lain dormant in recent years. He has made utterly clear that he wants Britain to pay top whack when it exits the EU.
He has spoken of reforming the Le Touquet agreement that allows British immigration officers to check passports in Calais. And he has been shameless in his ambition to lure French workers and money back to France.
So Macron on paper could look like no friend of Britain in the Brexit stakes.
And yet his election is actually better news for Theresa May than she might imagine.
Theresa May will face tough Brexit negotiations with France's new president
Some Conservative ministers had been quite open in their preference for Francois Fillon, the former centre-right candidate with whom they had more natural, partisan commonalities. But they know they can live with Macron.
The new president is not going to be as Brexit obsessed as some imagine. He has other fish to fry.
He has to build support and coalitions in the National Assembly where polls suggest his new party may struggle to form a majority in next month's elections.
He has huge economic problems to deal with at home. And his efforts in Brussels will be focused on gaining support for his own proposals to reform the EU and the eurozone.
Brexit is just one issue on his to-do list. His priority is dealing with France's difficulties and stopping Marine Le Pen winning in 2022.
Now, of course, when President Macron does focus on Brexit, he will naturally be tough on Britain. But that is already the position of the French government. Whitehall has long ruled out any favours from Paris. In many ways, Macron represents continuity.
And just think of the alternative. If Marine Le Pen had won, the EU would be in chaos.
The EU's focus may have shifted from Brexit had Marine Le Pen won the French presidency
Her election would have been seen by some as an existential threat to the EU. Brexit would have become a second order issue.
EU politicians would have had less bandwidth to spend on Brexit. And as such, a deal would have been less likely, or at the very least much harder. Compare that to the stability that a Macron presidency may provide.
For here is the real point. The election of Macron may just make the EU a little more confident or perhaps a little less defensive. Many in the EU will conclude - maybe over-optimistically - that the global populist surge has now peaked with Trump and Brexit.
The electoral failure of anti-establishment politicians in Austria, the Netherlands and now France will give them hope that the troubled EU project is not quite so threatened as they had imagined.
They may feel a little less fearful that Brexit could presage the breakup of the EU. And a less vulnerable EU may feel less determined to make an example of Britain in the negotiations. And that can only be good for Brexit, however hard or soft you want it.
So the election of President Macron will of course send shivers of relief through the corridors of Brussels. But it won't make the challenge of Brexit any more enormous than it already is.
And just perhaps, it might make the task a little easier.
• None Five reasons why Macron won the French election | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39842424 | news_uk-politics-39842424 |
|
Players Championship: Will Sawgrass event become a major? - BBC Sport | 2017-05-09 | [] | It is becoming harder to find reasons why this week's Players Championship will not eventually evolve to being a major, writes Iain Carter. | null | Coverage: Live text commentary on the BBC Sport website on Saturday and Sunday.
What makes a major? The question arises because it is becoming harder to find reasons why this week's Players Championship will not eventually evolve to that elevated level.
The four men's majors are the benchmark of the game.
The Open Championship is the world's oldest and most prestigious event, the Masters has become the game's most glamorous tournament, the US Open is America's national championship and the PGA? Well, it is the PGA.
Chronologically it is last of the big four and is regarded as such in significance - this despite always boasting the top 100 players in the world, which is more than the other three majors are able to do.
Gaining major status only genuinely happens when there is universal agreement that a tournament deserves such status.
The stature of the US Open has never been in doubt while on these shores, The Open's lustre only wobbled when American professionals became reluctant to travel in the 1950s.
Arnold Palmer's continued support of The Open ensured its elite status was preserved and never again ignored by any of the world's leading stars.
The Masters only truly acquired its major standing in the post-Second World War years and the US PGA Championship needed to switch from its original matchplay format in 1958 to maintain its relevance.
It is also the preserve of the PGA of America, one of the most powerful bodies in the sport and the organisation that runs the US Ryder Cup team.
All majors have in common a place in sporting history, large prize funds, deep fields populated with players desperate to win, a resonance that stretches beyond the golfing village and the ability to identify the best players in the world.
And this neatly brings us to the 44th Players Championship, which will be played at TPC Sawgrass, Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida from Thursday.
Which of those boxes is not ticked by the Players?
Its history has built year on year. This is the 36th time it will be played on Pete Dye's famous Stadium Course, relaid and refined this year, and the closing stretch of holes including the famous island-green 17th have become as familiar as any on the golf calendar.
In financial terms it is every bit as lucrative as any other tournament on the planet. This year it is worth $10.5m (£8.1m) and it is little surprise that it attracts the PGA Tour's strongest field of the season.
And it resonates. The fact that it returns to the same course every year helps and it generates memories that stick with us.
Remember Hal Sutton's "be the right club, be the right club, today" as he fired his tournament-winning approach to the 72nd green to hold off Tiger Woods in 2000? Or Fred Funk slamming his cap into the green upon completing his 2005 victory?
Sandy Lyle has been Britain's only winner, and his victory is still fondly remembered even though it was achieved 30 years ago. More recently the nerveless play-off wins by Sergio Garcia (2008) and Rickie Fowler (2015) are easier to recall than many a decisive moment in, say, the PGA Championship.
And there can be little argument over the pedigree of its champions. The Players is rarely won by anyone other than the highest calibre of golfer.
Jack Nicklaus triumphed three times, including the inaugural tournament in 1974, and the roster of champions includes; Woods, Greg Norman, Nick Price, Fred Couples, David Duval, Adam Scott, Martin Kaymer and last year's winner Jason Day - all world number ones.
Sawgrass messes with golfers heads. It demands precision and the correct angles of attack. "It tests basically everything from a mechanical and hitting standpoint, as well as to a mental approach," said Duval, the champion in 1999.
For this year's event the course has been relaid with new grasses and several greens have been altered.
The 12th hole now becomes a driveable par-four to provide a kickstart to the fireworks that inevitably occur on the water dominated par-five 16th, short 17th and dramatic par-four closing hole.
Until 2007, the tournament occupied a March date and was recognised as the first genuine gathering of the world's best golfers before the Masters. Then came the move to its current timing in May.
Many have debated the wisdom of the schedule change. "I don't believe the golf course has quite lived up to how they have wanted it since the move to May, with the condition of it," Duval said.
"It should go back to March," he added, saying such a move is more likely to yield firmer and faster playing conditions. "It's been a bit of struggle and so I hope it does go back."
Duval may well get his wish. The proposed restructuring of the golfing calendar would see the PGA shift from its August date to take the Players Championship slot in May, as it moves back to the original pre-Masters timing.
Tellingly, the Players is at the heart of the conversation on finding the most attractive schedule for the men's game. It, therefore, is already sitting at golf's top table.
And, while the sport might not need another major - and certainly not another in the United States - it feels more and more as though we are arriving at a tipping point.
Right now it is "the four majors and the Players" when we discuss the most prized events in the game, but for how much longer might this distinction be drawn? | http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/golf/39839666 | rt_golf_39839666 |
|
How will history remember the 2015-17 Parliament? - BBC News | 2017-05-09 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | Brexit, tragedy, a new PM, the rise of the SNP and a fall in Lib Dems helped shape an eventful two years. | Election 2017 | This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Prime Minister David Cameron says he will stand down
In the tradition of the Good Parliament, the Long Parliament, the Addled Parliament and the Cavalier Parliament, will history remember the short, but eventful parliament of 2015-17?
Probably as the Brexit Parliament… its central event was the EU Referendum and its spectacular fallout - and there can be few moments in history when the political scene has transformed so convulsively and completely.
Rewind, for a moment, to 9 May, 2015. David Cameron and George Osborne were all-conquering - they had sloughed off the constraints of coalition and headed the first Conservative majority government to take office since 1992.
Labour and the Lib Dems were in disarray and faced leadership contests, and only the new phalanx of SNP MPs - now the third party in the Commons - looked confident and organised.
With a majority of just 12, the government had to tread carefully - especially on euro issues. There was no way the prime minister could resile from his manifesto commitment to renegotiate the terms of Britain's EU membership and bring home new controls on immigration.
But right from the start, Tory strategists knew that the party faced what might be a devastating civil war between its pro-EU and pro-Brexit wings.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Prime Minister Theresa May said she wanted to "build a better Britain"
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Highlights of the arguments and campaigning ahead of the UK voting in the EU referendum
The referendum result forced David Cameron to resign, and a brief, but vicious smack down followed. Several cabinet ministers who had looked set to remain in office for a decade were suddenly out on their ears.
There was a little sniping from the dispossessed, but the Conservatives displayed their usual instinct for unity - an instinct summed up by the veteran pro-Remain former Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt, who told the Commons on 1 February: "As a confirmed remainer and supporter of the EU, I do not want the next generation of Conservative MPs to have the blight of this argument dogging them, their associations, their members and their voters in the way it has dogged us. It has soured friendships, deepened bitterness and damaged relationships - I swore at a mate in the Tea Room, and I am sorry."
Theresa May's new government was forced by a court action to bring in a bill to begin the process of leaving the EU - the 133-word European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill. It was passed, clean and un-amended by the Commons, but amended twice by the Lords, before they backed down when the Commons refused to accept the changes they had made.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Jeremy Corbyn won the contest in the first round of voting, with 251,417 votes
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Jeremy Corbyn after 2016 contest: Let's wipe that slate clean, from today, and get on with the work we have got to do as a party together
For all the sound and fury, and baleful warnings that pro-Remain peers would "block Brexit" the government got the result it wanted on time and with no serious inconvenience along the way.
Labour's internal troubles were obvious from the moment Jeremy Corbyn took office…. It was not just the doomed Owen Smith leadership challenge that laid bare the internal rivalries of the Labour right while actually strengthening the leader's hand.
There were also the silent ranks of MPs behind him at PMQs, the constant churn through the shadow cabinet and front bench, the preference of many MPs for jobs on the committee corridor or big-city mayoralties - or even outside politics altogether.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Angus Robertson asks the prime minister if he is "running away" from a previous pledge to take part in a TV debate
There were splits on everything from economic policy to Brexit, but perhaps the most dramatic manifestation of all this came in the December 2015 Syria vote, when David Cameron sought Commons approval to join the military action against ISIS in Syria, which Jeremy Corbyn opposed, but his shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn (in what was probably THE speech of the Parliament) supported.
The SNP meanwhile were enjoying their new status as the third party in the Commons - gleefully turfing the Lib Dems out of the offices they had enjoyed for decades, and making good use of their new prominence in debates and question times - with their Westminster leader, Angus Robertson emerging as the classiest performer at PMQs.
In the 2015 Parliament, the SNP seemed to defy the normal laws of politics, running a focused, disciplined and very smart political operation, closely coordinated with their Holyrood leadership.
The Westminster press corps never really penetrated their shell; there was no hint of internal dissent or factional rivalry as they relentlessly used their new prominence to paint Westminster as corrupt and antiquated, and to push to make the case for independence at every opportunity, while taking pot-shots at Labour at every opportunity. Their natural allies, Plaid Cymru, did much the same, and were probably boosted by association.
The Lib Dems began the Parliament decimated and demoralised - just barely visible on good days and missing from debates a lot of the time. Like generations of his predecessors, their new leader, Tim Farron, has had a rough ride in the Commons, but Brexit seems to have revived them somewhat, with Nick Clegg in particular shaking off his post-election melancholy.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Douglas Carswell gets a one word answer when he asks David Cameron about his future.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. David Cameron is asked about the past progressive tense and modal verbs by Caroline Lucas.
Perched uneasily next to them in the Commons benches were the Northern Ireland DUP, whose main role in the last Parliament was as the go-to source of extra votes when the government's narrow majority was under threat. They have enjoyed huge leverage since 2010, and have played their hand well.
Then we had the one-person parties - Douglas Carswell (sometime of UKIP) and the Greens' Caroline Lucas. Being the only Commons voice for a party with national pretentions is a tough task. Ms Lucas has been an effective performer, and has managed to use the House as a platform to make her presence - and her party's - felt. She has been helped by Commons rules which require cross-party support for backbench debates, making her a sought-after ally for all kinds of campaigns.
Mr Carswell has been more pre-occupied with the internal politics of his adopted party. How antiseptic that statement seems, set against the brutal party infighting which marked his sojourn in UKIP. But (see previous blogpost) he can leave Westminster having secured his ultimate political aim, and able to at least claim that his faction-fighting inside UKIP made the referendum victory possible.
Of course the parties are just one dimension of Westminster life. The two years of the 2015-17 Parliament also saw an impressive flowering of the select committees, where cross-party working is the order of the day.
At times they have exerted real leverage over governments - there was the health committee's push for a sugary drinks tax to tackle obesity, under the leadership of Dr Sarah Wollaston. There was the astounding sight of Prime Minister David Cameron having to publicly court the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Crispin Blunt, when he sought Commons approval to join the military action against ISIS in Syria. And there was a new trend to joint working, with several committees joining forces to address a series of issues which crossed departmental boundaries.
There were joint inquiries into Supported Housing (Work and Pensions and Communities and Local Government); Mental Health in Schools (Education and Health); Improving Air Quality (Environment Food and Rural Affairs, Environmental Audit Committee, Health, and Transport Committees); Competitiveness (Education and Business), and, most spectacularly, there was the joint Work and Pensions and Business inquiry into the collapse of BHS.
There was also cooperation between select committee chairs to push causes on which they agreed, most notably the close coordination between Sarah Wollaston, Clive Betts of the Communities and Local Government Committee, and the Public Accounts Committee chair, Meg Hillier, over funding for the NHS and social care.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Speaker John Bercow announces that clerks in the House of Commons will no longer have to wear wigs
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. The Speaker told the House of Commons that MPs should follow the example of Ken Clarke
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. John Bercow says the Lib Dem leader may be "irritating" to some Conservative backbenchers
The other continuing trend of the 2015 Parliament was more urgent questions and more emergency debates, as Speaker Bercow continued to facilitate MPs in jerking the chain of ministers. In this respect the Commons intakes of 2010 and 2015 hardly know they're born. The days when urgent questions were rarer than panda cubs, and emergency debates were merely a theoretical possibility, are long gone. A pro-active speaker has utterly changed the climate of the Commons, speeding up question times, so more voices are heard, and paying less regard to the rigid seniority system, which set the pecking order in debates. But John Bercow's term in the chair is now certainly closer to its end than its beginning.
This has also been a more visibly emotional parliament. There was an early moment of tragedy when the former Lib Dem Leader Charles Kennedy - who lost his seat at the election - died suddenly at his home, Then came the brutal murder of the Labour MP Jo Cox, and the terror attack of March 2017.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Jeremy Corbyn tribute to Jo Cox: 'We have lost one of our best'
Each of these events led to emotional occasions in the Commons, and produced a sense of a political community rallying round. And beyond those moments, this was a Parliament where MPs talked openly about their experiences of stillbirth and infant death, depression, alcoholism and the suicide of a relative. Some of these speeches - from Antoinette Sandbach and Vicky Foxcroft, for example - had a shattering impact on the MPs in the chamber and the wider public.
One of the biggest changes has been the growing audience for Parliament. A few centuries ago, it was illegal to report debates in the Commons - now there is a substantial and growing audience for BBC Parliament and Westminster's own online service which allows the public to watch not just the main chamber but committee and Westminster Hall proceedings, too.
The 21st century audience does not have to rely on next-day reports of debates, and committee hearings, it can watch and comment in real time, replay and analyse every word and facial expression and rebroadcast its favourite moments.
Some MPs are becoming adept at creating viral social media moments - as when the SNP contingent began to hum the EU anthem "Ode to Joy" during the final votes on the bill to trigger Article 50, attracting a rebuke from deputy speaker Lindsay Hoyle.
If I have one prediction for the next parliament, it is that more MPs will realise that there is now a very big spectators' gallery out there - and more and more of them will start to play to it. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39848296 | news_election-2017-39848296 |
|
Is work 'fair and decent'? That's not how the voters see it - BBC News | 2017-05-09 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | The head of the government's review into how we work says some businesses' employment practices are damaging the UK economy. | Business | This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Why bad work is bad for the economy
The head of the government's review into zero-hours contracts and the less secure world of work has said that too many businesses still allow "bad work" to flourish.
Ahead of a speech on Tuesday evening, Matthew Taylor told the BBC that workers should be "engaged" by employers and feel more in control of how they work.
"I think some business leaders understand completely the importance of good work and its link to productivity, but, as always, we have a long tail of businesses where there doesn't seem to be that understanding," he told me.
Mr Taylor said that he was "shocked" at a new poll which suggests only 1-in-10 believe that all work is "fair and decent".
Mr Taylor argued that it was "unacceptable" that so many people in work were classed as below the official poverty line.
A recent report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that the number of people defined as suffering "in-work poverty" had risen by 1.1 million since 2010, to 3.8 million.
Although overall poverty is down, the report said that high housing costs, low wage growth and cuts to benefits meant that more people were officially classed as below the poverty line (an income of 60% of median earnings) despite being in work.
Less secure work in the "gig-economy" is also seen as a challenge to employment standards.
Companies like Deliveroo and Uber have been criticised for controversial workplace practices, though many say that the companies offer good, flexible alternatives to 9-5 work and a better deal for consumers.
"I think bad work is unacceptable when so many people in work are in poverty," Mr Taylor told me.
"Bad work is clearly bad for our health and well-being, it leads to people dropping out of work.
"Bad work is bad for productivity, so it's bad for our economy.
"If we're going to introduce technology - robots, artificial intelligence - we need to do that in a way which thinks about the quality of people's work experience.
"Bad work just doesn't fit 2017. We want a world of engaged citizens, part of our communities.
"How can it be right that those same citizens who go to work for half their lives, don't get listened to, don't get involved, don't get engaged?"
Mr Taylor, who is head of the Royal Society for the Encouragements of the Arts (the RSA), said the new poll findings showed that the public were not convinced that all work was of the right quality.
The RSA commissioned Populus to question more than 2,000 people.
Fewer than 1-in-10 thought that "all work was fair and decent".
And nearly 75% said that more should be done to improve the quality of work.
"Three quarters of people think that making work better should be a national priority," Mr Taylor said.
"It shows that nearly as many people think it is perfectly possible for all jobs to be fair and to be decent but actually, shockingly, only 1-in-10 think that is currently the state of affairs.
"So the public wants change, believes change is possible, but thinks we have got a long journey to go on."
As I wrote yesterday, the changing world of work is rising up the political agenda.
Theresa May made "an economy that works for everyone" the cornerstone of her "offer" to the voters after she became Prime Minister.
The government has said that introducing the National Living Wage and lifting tax thresholds (the point at which we start paying tax on our income) has helped many poorer people in work.
Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats have criticised the government for letting the problem of the "quality" of work become so acute.
Labour has suggested it will ban zero-hours contracts and the Lib Dems have said that more transparency around what people are paid will help tackle the gap between higher and lower earners.
Mr Taylor said his review, which will be delivered to Number 10 shortly after the election whoever becomes Prime Minister, will call for a mix of new tax rules and workplace regulations as well as the promotion of a "new norm" around how businesses treat their employees.
"There is an old fashioned view in some parts of business that good work is somehow anti-competitive - it isn't," Mr Taylor said.
"If you get people to work better, then they will be more productive and be better for your business.
"That is an argument we've still got to win." | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39849571 | news_business-39849571 |
|
The man who helped prevent a nuclear crisis - BBC News | 2017-05-19 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | In 1988 a military scientist from Taiwan sent his wife to Tokyo Disneyland and then defected to the US. | Asia | Mr Chang arrived in the US in January 1988 after a lifetime in Taiwan, to inform on his government's nuclear ambitions
In 1988 Taiwan was racing to build its first nuclear bomb, but one military scientist put a stop to that when he defected to the United States and exposed those plans. This is the story of a man who insists he had to betray his country in order to save it.
To this day, critics consider Chang Hsien-yi a traitor - but he has no regrets.
"If I can ever do it all over again, I will do it," says the calmly defiant 73-year-old, speaking from his home in the US state of Idaho.
The former military colonel has been living there since 1988 when he fled to the US, a close ally of the island, and this is his first substantial interview about that time.
It might seem a perplexing turn of events given the close relationship the US has with Taiwan, but Washington had found out that Taiwan's government had secretly ordered scientists to develop nuclear weapons.
Taiwan's enemy, the Communist government of China, had been building up its nuclear arsenal since the 1960s, and the Taiwanese were terrified this would be unleashed on the island.
Taiwan separated from China after the Chinese Civil War in 1949. To this day China considers Taiwan a breakaway province and has vowed to reunify with the island, by force if necessary.
The leadership of the island was also in an uncertain phase - its president, Chiang Ching-kuo, was dying, and the US thought that General Hau Pei-tsun, whom they saw as a hawkish figure, would become his successor.
Mr Chang, seen here with one of his children in Taiwan before his defection, enjoyed a comfortable life at that time
They were worried about a nuclearisation of the Taiwan Strait and bent on stopping Taiwan's nuclear ambition in its tracks and preventing a regional arms race.
So they secretly enlisted Mr Chang to halt Taiwan's programme.
When Mr Chang was recruited by the CIA in the early 1980s, he was the deputy director at Taiwan's Institute of Nuclear Energy Research, which was responsible for the nuclear weapons programme.
As one of Taiwan's key nuclear scientists, he enjoyed a life of privilege and a lucrative salary.
But he says he began questioning whether the island should have nuclear weapons after the catastrophic Chernobyl accident in 1986 in the former Soviet Union.
He was convinced by the Americans' argument that stopping the programme would be "good for peace, and was for the benefit of mainland China and Taiwan".
Factory 221 witnessed the research and test of China's first nuclear bomb
"This fit into my mindset very much," says Mr Chang. "But the most important reason why I agreed is that they went to great efforts to assure me they would ensure my safety."
The next task was getting him and his family out.
At that time, military officials could not leave Taiwan without permission.
So, Mr Chang first ensured his wife and three young children's safety by sending them to Japan for a holiday.
His wife, Betty, says she had no clue about her husband's double life. They had only talked about the possibility of him accepting a job in the US.
The Changs were put in a safe house shortly after their arrival in the US
"He told me this was a trial to test how easy I could get out from Taiwan and to see how much luggage I could pack," she says.
Mrs Chang left on 8 January 1988 with their children, excited to visit Tokyo Disneyland.
The very next day, Mr Chang took a flight to the US using a fake passport provided by the CIA. All he had with him was some cash and a few personal possessions.
Contrary to previous reports, he says he did not take a single document with him when he left Taiwan.
"The American government had all the evidence, they just needed someone - me - to corroborate it."
Meanwhile in Tokyo, Betty Chang was approached by a woman who handed her a letter from Mr Chang. That was the moment she discovered her husband was a CIA spy and had defected.
"It said 'You will never go back to Taiwan and from Japan you will go to USA'... that was a surprise for me.
"I just cried when I knew I could no longer go back to Taiwan," says Mrs Chang.
The family was bundled into a plane headed for Seattle, where they were met by Mr Chang at the airport.
The Changs were later put in a safe house in Virginia, due to fears he would be assassinated by Taiwanese agents or patriotic extremists.
Within a month, the US succeeded in pressuring Taiwan to end the programme, using the intelligence it had collected and Mr Chang's testimony.
Taiwan was believed to be just one or two years from completing a nuclear bomb.
Mr Chang has remained silent for decades. But with his recent retirement he now wants to set the record straight with a memoir, titled Nuclear! Spy? CIA: Record of an Interview with Chang Hsien-yi.
The book, written with academic Chen Yi-shen and published in December, has reignited a debate about whether Mr Chang did the right thing for Taiwan.
Mr Chang recently wrote a book about his side of the story
Some praise him for preventing a potential nuclear war. Others see his actions as denying Taiwan the weapons it needed for self-defence and survival.
Even those in Taiwan's ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which officially opposes the development of nuclear energy and weapons, take a dim view of Mr Chang's actions.
"Regardless of what your political views are, when you betray your country, it's not acceptable... it cannot be forgiven," said the DPP's Wang Ting-yu, chairman of the parliament's foreign affairs and defence committee.
But Mr Chang insists he feared then that ambitious Taiwanese politicians would use nuclear weapons to try to take back mainland China.
He claims Madame Chiang Kai Shek, the stepmother of dying President Chiang Ching-kuo, and a group of generals loyal to her had even gone so far as to set up a separate chain of command to expedite the development of nuclear weapons.
Taiwan's programme was developed in response to China's stockpile of missiles, several of which are now on display at Beijing's Military Museum
"They said they wouldn't use it, but nobody believed it," says Mr Chang, adding that the US certainly did not.
Nowadays, there may still be politicians who could be tempted to use such weapons, this time to pursue Taiwan's formal independence from China at whatever cost, he says.
But the DPP's Mr Wang dismisses this notion. "We absolutely don't consider this, we don't even think about it," he said.
Taiwan has nuclear power plants, which some have protested against
Over the years some Taiwanese presidents have hinted at a desire to reactivate the island's nuclear weapons programme, but these suggestions have been quickly quashed by Washington's objections.
Still, the island is widely considered to have the ability to make nuclear weapons quickly if needed. China has in recent years threatened to attack if Taiwan ever deployed nuclear weapons.
Following his defection, Taiwan's military listed Mr Chang as a fugitive. But even after his arrest warrant expired in 2000, he has not returned to Taiwan and does not plan to.
He does not want to deal with criticism he is sure he would face, and the negative impact that would have on his family there.
The Chang family is pictured here in this 1995 photo, a few years after their defection to the US
In 1990, they were permanently resettled in Idaho, where Mr Chang worked as a consulting engineer and scientist at the US government's Idaho National Laboratories until he retired in 2013.
He says his only regret is that he was not able to see his parents before they passed away.
"You don't have to be in Taiwan to love Taiwan; I love Taiwan," says Mr Chang.
"I am Taiwanese, I am Chinese. I don't want to see Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait killing each other." | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39252502 | news_world-asia-39252502 |
|
Diving bans: Will retrospective action work? - BBC Sport | 2017-05-19 | [] | The Football Association approves retrospective action to punish players who dive from next season - but will it work? | null | The Football Association is calling it "successful deception of a match official".
Back in December, Burnley boss Sean Dyche said he thought retrospective bans would eradicate diving within six months. The players would stop doing it, if it meant risking suspension for the next two games.
From next season, under new rules announced on Thursday, a panel will review footage each Monday looking for cases - but only players who won a penalty or got a player sent off will be punished.
How it works in Scotland
The Scottish Football Association has had the power to retrospectively punish divers since the 2011-12 season.
Over time its rules have evolved. Now it looks not only at incidents involving penalties and red cards but anything that gives a team a "substantial advantage" - such as a free-kick scored from outside the box.
Vincent Lunny was the SFA's first compliance officer - a key role in deciding which cases warrant action.
He told BBC Radio 5 live "it would be naive to think it had an absolute effect of wiping it out".
"There are still many cases every year, and there are still many yellow cards for diving," he added.
Since the start of the 2014-15 season, players in Scotland have also been able to appeal against yellow cards given for simulation.
The first appeal, however, was only lodged the following season and in total there have been eight.
• None Six were upheld and the caution rescinded
• None Two were dismissed by the tribunal
How much of this sounds familiar?
"Silly to leave a foot in." "Naive defending." "Entitled to go down there." "The ref can't give it if you don't go down."
Motherwell's ex-Celtic and Middlesbrough striker Scott McDonald was shown a yellow card for simulation on Saturday.
He discussed the incident on BBC Scotland's Sportsound programme on Monday. One potential difficulty in enforcing the new FA rules is that - as he says - decisions are not always cut and dried.
The following is the exchange between McDonald (SM) and journalist Graham Spiers (GS).
SM: "It's not diving when there is contact, I wasn't diving."
GS: "Scott, if I get your argument right, and I've heard it from various footballers, the point you're making is if there is contact, you're entitled to take advantage of it and go down. is that correct?"
GS: "Right, some people call that a dive. You don't need to go down…"
SM: "Let's get it right though, I'm not dragging my leg out or trying to make contact. Contact has to be made on my movement."
GS: "You don't need to go down though do you? But you take advantage of it and you do go down, so let's be clear about that as well. It's diving."
SM: "How is it diving if there is contact?"
GS: "Because you say you take advantage of it. You could stay on your feet."
SM: "So you slide in on me and you don't get the ball. I take it past you but you make contact. You want me to stay on my feet at that point. If I can?"
GS: "If it's very obvious you're diving…"
SM: (interrupts): "It's a split-second, it's not even really a decision. There will be occasions where you know you are not going to get the ball on the other side. If there is fair contact made then you're well within your rights in the law of the game to take the contact."
GS: "The nub of it is this strange phrase: 'I felt I was entitled to go down.' I find it's glaringly obvious. Why deny it?"
SM: "But let's stop denying it - you're calling me a cheat, Graham, that's the difference."
SM: "If you're saying I dive, that's calling me a cheat, Graham. Basically that's what that is - if I'm diving, that's what you're saying. People that dive are cheats. Are they not?"
'A cancer we cannot allow to grow'
The introduction of retrospective bans for diving has received the backing of former Premier League referee Howard Webb.
The 45-year-old, who is overseeing the introduction of video refereeing in Major League Soccer, where retrospective suspensions for simulation already occur, told BBC Radio 5 live's Friday Football Social: "It is a positive move."
He continued: "We need to shift the balance. The risk/reward for players to dive is not in the right place.
"If a player is thinking 'I need to do something to try and get a point or win a game and if I hit the deck here I can get away with it and get a penalty and if I get caught I get a yellow card' that is not much of a deterrent. This new measure will be hopefully.
"It is happening here in the MLS. On a Monday morning, the disciplinary committee meet and look at all the controversial plays from the weekend and if they involve simulation then, providing the five-man panel are unanimous then that player, if he has won a penalty for his team and got a material benefit then that player will then get suspended. It works.
"Players come here knowing that if they dive and got away with it on the day they will pay the price later down the road.
"I think it was Sean Dyche who said if we introduce this it will get rid of diving in six months and lets hope he is right because it is a cancer that we cannot allow to grow."
The view from the Premier League
Reaction from Premier League managers has so far been mixed.
Crystal Palace boss Sam Allardyce says the plans are "utter rubbish" and called for video technology and sin-bins instead, while West Brom manager Tony Pulis embraced the idea.
"Every manager and club will say it's happened to them, but it's something we want to take out of the game," Pulis said.
"I'm pleased it's the way forward. I don't think there's any place for it in the game. I would most probably fine the players as well and give the money to charity."
Swansea manager Paul Clement echoed Allardyce's comments in saying punishment for diving should come during the game rather than retrospectively.
"It's not the answer. Video technology and looking at instant replays of major incidents are the steps that need to be taken," Clement said.
"The problem is if you're on the end of a potential dive that could cost you points, retrospective action is not going to help you and your team.
"What it can do is potentially help another team as that player could be banned for future fixtures, so I don't see retrospective bans as the answer.
"Any punishment has to be done there and then."
'It won't stop it, but it will have an effect'
When the ban came in there were the same objections in Scotland as we are hearing now south of the border.
The ban doesn't make a complete difference because some players will still do it but it does now have a stigma attached to it. It hasn't eliminated diving, it never will, but it has reduced it.
Alex Schalk got a penalty for Ross County against Celtic last month, there was no contact in the box. It was amazing to all of us that the referee did not see it but his anger was such that he thought there might have been.
The television replays proved instantly that the player had dived, the penalty was given and they scored it. Schalk got a two-game ban and in the end the goal did not make a difference to Celtic's unbeaten record. But it might have done.
Then there was Kudus Oyenuga of Morton, who was sent off for a foul on Hibernian's Jordon Forster, and on the way to the tunnel he had a square-up with Darren McGregor.
The two were face-to-face, Oyenuga went down like he was shot and McGregor was sent off too. Nothing happened to Oyenuga - although McGregor's red was subsequently reduced to a yellow. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39969813 | rt_football_39969813 |
|
Ian Brady: How the Moors Murderer came to symbolise pure evil - BBC News | 2017-05-20 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | Brady and his crimes were held up as the consequences of moral decay in 1960s Britain. | UK | Ian Brady's notoriety and significance goes beyond the criminal to the political and the cultural
Ian Brady's mug shot has become visual shorthand for psychopathic evil. With his accomplice Myra Hindley, he occupies an especially ignominious place in our national folklore.
Margaret Thatcher described their crimes as "the most hideous and evil in modern times". A BBC News article in 2002 suggested the so-called "Moors Murderers" had set "the benchmark by which other acts of evil are measured".
But Brady's notoriety goes beyond the criminal to the political and the cultural.
He became an important figure in 20th Century British history as a focus for debate about crime and punishment, good and evil, and the permissive society.
Brady and Hindley were charged with their crimes 11 days after the Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act had received royal assent in 1965.
They "cheated the gallows by a year" according to some, and were placed at the heart of a debate over capital punishment that would rumble on for more than a decade.
The horrific detail of their apparently motiveless crimes - the abduction, torture and murder of children and young people and the burying of the bodies on what the tabloids called "fog-shrouded wild moorlands" - was a horror story in the Gothic tradition that provided the perfect test of public opinion on ending the death penalty.
Police searches of Saddleworth moor began in the 1960s, including this area where the body of Lesley Downey was found
Successive home secretaries sought to reassure the public that, for the most heinous crimes, life imprisonment meant just that.
But Brady was more than just a debating chip in the argument over the hangman.
For many, he became a terrifying symbol of social upheaval.
His slicked back rocker-style hair and sociopathic stare chimed with the moral panic over youth culture.
Mod and rocker clashes in the mid-60s were described by one newspaper as a symptom of the "disintegration of a nation's character".
Brady and his crimes were held up as the consequences of moral decay.
Writing about the murders, the novelist CP Snow argued that "permissive attitudes" were the "earth out of which the poisonous flower grew".
Brady's depravity was linked to fears about changing morality in the so-called Swinging 60s
The novelist Pamela Hansford Johnson - who was married to Snow - made a similar point in her book On Iniquity in 1967.
She suggested that Brady and Hindley's crimes had been an indictment of 1960s Britain.
"A wound in the flesh of our society had cracked open," she wrote. "We looked into it, and we smelled the sepsis."
Brady helped shape the age-old argument that permissiveness leads to violent crime.
Commentators noted how he had been born "out of wedlock" and had begun a life of criminality as a juvenile.
In the mid-60s, crime was rising rapidly and the face of the bastard Ian Brady was the backdrop.
He personified "pure evil" just as his innocent young victims personified "pure good".
For the press and politicians, the Moors Murderers were powerful examples of the clear but simplistic divide between the criminal underclass and the law-abiding majority, at a time when anxiety about law and order was rising.
Brady's fascination with Adolf Hitler and the Nazis confirmed the sense that he was the epitome of social depravity.
From his arrest until the day he died more than 50 years later, his haunting visage - along with that of Myra Hindley - have been routinely deployed as images of the threat.
He is the child snatcher, the bogeyman, the beast. He is the monster. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39938520 | news_uk-39938520 |
|
EU and UK: Galaxies apart over Brexit? - BBC News | 2017-05-02 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | Two completely different versions of a London dinner - when it comes to Brexit, spin is everywhere. | Europe | Two entirely different tales emerged from dinner at Downing Street
Welcome to the EU/UK dominated Brexit Galaxy of Spin and Counter-Spin. A crazy old place. The galactic atmosphere is such these days that the dimensions of truth are elastic; at times, distorted.
Take the arguments this weekend over whether the Downing Street dinner last Wednesday at which Theresa May hosted European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker was a complete disaster or not.
Not at all, insists Downing Street.
But it was a fiasco, according to Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and thereafter hitting Twitter and headlines across the UK.
In Brussels, Politico quotes an EU diplomat saying the dinner went "badly, really badly". He reportedly went as far as to claim the British government was now "living in a different galaxy" to the EU when it came to Brexit expectations.
This all seems rather inflammatory, so who's right and who's stretching the truth?
Even French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron has been talking Brexit
Well, in this politically volatile pre-Brexit negotiations time, ahead of elections in biggest players UK, Germany and France and with the EU as a whole fighting to appear united, relevant and strong, one has to be extremely spin-aware.
For example, German Chancellor Angela Merkel talked last week about the UK harbouring Brexit "illusions". And French presidential favourite Emmanuel Macron announced he would, post-Brexit, end the bilateral deal by which France keeps in Calais so-called "illegal migrants" attempting to cross to Dover.
But these tough-sounding comments are at least as much aimed at their domestic audience as at the British government.
That said, a high-level EU source has confirmed to me that feelings were running pretty high following the Downing Street dinner due to what he described as a huge "asymmetry of expectations" and a "completely different reading" of the Brexit situation at No 10.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Theresa May said the report was "Brussels gossip"
He said the British government, from their comments about negotiations, clearly had "no good understanding of the fundamentals" around which he said the EU was united, and which would now not be undone.
There are certainly obvious sticking points where the EU and UK do seem a galaxy or two apart:
Poppycock, says a frustrated EU, to all of the above.
My source told me Mr Juncker was already vexed when he arrived at No 10 on Wednesday having only just been informed of the UK's (legally justified, but awkward) decision not sign the mid-term review of the EU's multi-annual budget until after the June elections.
The review needs unanimous approval to go ahead. It doesn't call for more cash but rather its redistribution. The EU is anxious to send money Africa-wards, for example, to halt the flow of migrants coming from there.
But the review is frozen until the UK signs it.
"They gave Juncker no warning at all and told him the night before he came to dinner," my source told me. "They have no idea how Brussels works."
Another high-level source I spoke to attended a meeting with all the EU team present at the Downing Street dinner.
"The word 'échec' (French for 'failure') came up several times," he told me.
"Before that the word wasn't used very often in connection with Brexit but now we're told we have to prepare for the possibility of a failure scenario."
What percentage chance of a successful outcome was being projected in EU leadership circles at the moment?
"50/50 with hopes for more clarity after the British elections are over," I was told.
Over and again, EU diplomats insist this is no "us against them" situation; that there's no desire to punish Britain and that a good Brexit is in everyone's interest.
"It's in our mutual interest to correct all the misunderstandings," I was told today. My source was confident that Downing Street was beginning to realise that now too.
Or are we still in the galaxy of spin? | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39775102 | news_world-europe-39775102 |
|
The Queen's Speech: What can we expect? - BBC News | 2017-06-21 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | BBC editors and correspondents examine the policies which may guide the new government. | UK Politics | The Queen's Speech on Wednesday will set out the government's proposed legislation and policies for the next session of parliament, as it continues negotiations on a post-election deal with the Democratic Unionist Party. BBC editors and correspondents have been looking at what might shape the government's programme.
A Queen's Speech sets out the government's proposals for legislation in the coming parliamentary session. It does not therefore necessarily have to set out the government's detailed plans for how it intends to conclude an international negotiation.
So do not expect Her Majesty to reveal precisely what form of Brexit Theresa May now wishes to pursue after her electoral setback. That will be determined by future discussions she will have with her party and our parliament where she has no majority.
Instead, the Queen's Speech will set out the legislation that will be needed howsoever we leave the EU. The largest measure by far will be what has been dubbed "the great repeal bill". This is a misnomer. In fact it should be called "the great continuity bill".
This bill will indeed repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and thereby take Britain out of the EU. But that is a technicality. More importantly the bill will transfer EU rules and regulations into UK law so there is no legal and financial chaos when we leave.
The idea is to preserve the status quo in the short term so that after Brexit parliament can go through these many laws at its leisure and delete, amend or keep what it wants.
This is such a huge exercise that the government will also have to set out how it intends to go through the estimated 19,000 laws it will need to transpose.
It is likely to use fast-track procedures - known as secondary legislation - that will ensure decisions are taken quickly by ministers and officials and there is no parliamentary gridlock potentially lasting years. But this will be controversial as there will be less parliamentary scrutiny than normal of what the government is doing.
And that is not all. The government has also made clear that it will also have to introduce other bills in areas where keeping EU law is not enough and where new legislation will be needed. These may cover immigration, customs, agriculture, fisheries, taxation, data protection, sanctions and nuclear safety. That is a lot of legislation.
The political point is this - parliament will provide the domestic battleground for Brexit, where MPs try to shape Theresa May's negotiating position, and the weapons they will use will be the bills set out in this coming Queen's Speech.
This Queen's Speech would normally reflect the winning party's manifesto. But this year, much of the interest is on what's going to be dropped or watered down. Some of the most contentious pledges seem likely to be ditched.
So don't expect to see the scrapping of the winter fuel allowance or a reduction of the so-called "triple lock", under which the state pension rises in line with the highest of average earnings, the inflation rate or 2.5%. This was to be replaced by a "double lock" rising with earnings or inflation.
What would this mean for the public finances? The "double lock" on pensions wasn't going to happen until 2020. And the cost of retaining the triple lock could be zero if the forecasts on earnings growing more than 2.5% are correct.
It's hard to see how the controversial social care plan, which involved people having to sell their homes until they had only £100,000 left in their estates, could get through parliament in its current form, either.
We don't know how much it would cost to retain the winter fuel allowance as there wasn't any detail on how it would be means tested. As for the so-called "dementia tax", the IFS says there also wasn't enough detail to cost either the original proposal or the subsequent U-turn.
What would really make a big difference to public spending is if the government eases the restrictions on public sector pay increases, currently capped at 1%, or the freeze on working age benefits.
There's been much talk about reining back on austerity. The new government could end up borrowing more, not less.
When it comes to business, this manifesto took a far more interventionist approach than previous Tory pledges. From wading into the energy market with a cap on standard variable tariffs, to plans to ensure worker representation at board level. Theresa May also wanted to increase the amount levied on firms employing migrant workers.
That hasn't gone down well with most firms who are wary of more regulation and fear any additional financial burdens when many are already grappling with rising costs and the uncertainty of Brexit. Could these measures also be diluted? Labour is keen on an even tougher energy cap so perhaps this eye catching measure will remain in the legislative programme.
But it's the spectre of leaving the EU which overshadows everything for business and the economy. Theresa May is certainly under some pressure to take a less rigid approach and several business organisations have already started to wade in.
Additionally, the so-called Great Repeal Bill, which aims to repatriate European law into British law before Brexit, should mean no sudden changes to rules and regulations over the next few years but deciding which laws should be kept or changed will be a huge undertaking.
When the 91-year-old Queen begins to read out her speech, the ink freshly dried on the now much-discussed vellum, we should get our first clear indication of where providing support for the UK's ageing population sits in the new government's list of priorities.
Will they deal with the very real problems faced by the social care system head on, or will they veer away from the issue after getting their fingers burned during the election campaign?
The social care system helps people who are older or disabled with washing, dressing and medication, among many other things.
With growing demand, squeezed budgets, fewer people getting council help, a shortage of care staff and care companies handing back local authority contracts, it is safe to say this complicated system is in crisis.
For many experts, the Conservative manifesto missed the point on care. It gave with one hand - increasing the amount of people's money that was protected - and took with the other, by including the value of a person's home in all calculations.
But it did nothing about what many see as the fundamental unfairness of a system that leaves some, particularly those with dementia, facing huge costs - sometimes running into the hundreds of thousands of pounds before they get help.
Only four days after the manifesto launch was a cap or limit on the highest care costs promised, but by then the opposition description of a "dementia tax" had stuck.
So has the election shifted the debate significantly? Is there now an appetite for finding a way to share the risk of very high dementia care costs in the way we share the risk of cancer or other health costs?
After putting short-term money into social care last winter, the government was planning a green paper on funding this autumn. The other main parties have also talked about working towards a cross-party consensus.
But what if the government puts social care into the "too difficult to deal with right now" tray? Well, that is described by at least one commentator as grim, because these problems won't go away.
Officials at Number 10 are, understandably, giving away no details as to how many of the government's ideas on improving UK security will make it into the Queen's Speech.
There is talk of a Counter Extremism Bill, a Commission Against Extremism and measures to curtail online propaganda, but none of this is confirmed.
But we do know from Theresa May's speech on the steps of Downing Street on 4 June the broad areas where she wants to see more effort being focused. She named extremism and hateful ideologies as the sources of current terrorist threats. This means both tackling online radicalisation and no longer allowing intolerance to fester.
"We need to work with allied democratic governments to reach international agreements that regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremist and terrorism planning," she said in her speech.
Her meeting in Paris on 13 June with the new French president appeared to reinforce this in principle but it may be too early to see detail inserted into the Queen's Speech. The prime minister has also suggested that custodial sentences could be extended for terrorist-related offences in the light of the prevailing threat.
Military action against the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, she said, is necessary to deprive terrorists of their safe spaces.
There will be a comprehensive review of Britain's counter-terrorism strategy, made all the more urgent by the Finsbury Park attack on Muslim worshippers.
After four terror attacks getting through in just three months, nearly everyone can agree this needs to be undertaken in order to give the police and MI5 the capabilities they need, and to avoid other potential attackers failing to be spotted and then slipping through the surveillance net.
At the outset of the election, the big talking point for education was the 11-plus and the return of grammars in England.
When the votes were counted, the most important figure was the 13-minus - the loss of Conservative MPs and the evaporation of the party's majority.
With this new parliamentary arithmetic, there has been widespread speculation that plans for a new wave of grammars have already been ditched, as too controversial to get through the Commons. But nothing has been confirmed and grammar supporters might hold on to a couple of straws for a scaled-down return to selection.
The Conservatives' new friends in the DUP are pro-grammar, and Graham Brady, the most high profile grammar-supporting MP, wields more influence than ever as the leader of Tory backbenchers.
School funding proved to be one of the biggest grassroots issues during the election. And proposed changes to the funding formula, which looked vulnerable before the election, are now likely to be heavily revised, with a higher minimum amount per pupil.
Apart from how school cash is allocated, head teachers have been loudly telling parents (otherwise known as "voters") that the overall level of funding is much too low.
If the new government is to avoid even more vociferous protests, they might need much bigger investments. And there must be every chance that the proposed source of extra money - scrapping universal free school lunches for infants - will be ditched as unpopular and requiring legislation that would now be difficult to get past MPs.
The other big education story was the impact of tuition fees on a resurgent youth vote.
Seats with big student populations, such as Canterbury and Portsmouth South, showed huge swings to Labour, suggesting the promise to scrap fees had been a vote-winner.
Will the government pause for thought? Will they want to be seen as piling more debt on to a younger generation already facing unaffordable housing and stagnating wages?
Also will the new government press ahead with one of the overlooked give-aways in the manifesto - to write off teachers' tuition fees as long as they stay in teaching?
If there is another election in the autumn, fees could be an even more topical issue, because that's exactly when fees and interest charges on loans are being increased again.
The prime minister has made few pronouncements on NHS policy but from the moment she arrived in Downing Street last year she made clear her interest in mental health. It was, Theresa May said at the time and again in a speech in January, a "burning injustice" that not enough help was on hand for those suffering mental health problems.
Given that the Conservatives' main election campaign health announcement was on mental health, its possible that this might feature in the Queen's Speech.
The Tories said they would scrap the 30-year-old Mental Health Act which, they argued, had brought discrimination and injustice with concerns that individuals were held unnecessarily in hospitals and police cells. A new Mental Health Treatment Bill was promised.
Mental health charities and professionals welcomed the idea of scrapping the old act but warned that a new bill would need plenty of work on detail and extensive consultation. Theresa May could restate the government's commitment to the plan in the Queen's Speech without being specific about the timing for a bill.
Beyond that, health legislation seems unlikely. There is no appetite in Whitehall and the NHS for further system-wide reform. Simon Stevens, head of NHS England, has pushed on with radical plans for joined-up care involving local health and social care leaders.
But he says they don't need new legislation. Ministers, aware that trying to push changes through Parliament without a majority will be difficult, are likely to let Mr Stevens get on with it.
The terror attacks at Manchester Arena and London Bridge changed the course of the election campaign and - together with the Finsbury Park attack on Muslim worshippers- provide the backcloth to the government's law and order priorities.
Chief constables have begun putting the case for increased resources, in particular for neighbourhood policing, their arguments strengthened by public support following the heroic actions of officers during the attacks.
Indeed, funding issues, with proposals on the way for a new formula for allocating central government cash to the 43 forces in England and Wales, are likely to overshadow proposals for police reform.
Those plans - giving more control to police and crime commissioners, allowing outsiders to enter the police at senior ranks and establishing a national infrastructure police force - may have to be eased in gradually.
Ministers are expected to reintroduce the Prisons Bill, which was aborted when the election was suddenly called, giving governors more say over the running of jails and bolstering the powers of inspectors.
But the immediate challenge is to stabilise prisons, with more staff, improved drug-detection methods and a renewed focus on mental health. Watch out too for an overhaul of probation; a review of the semi-privatised system, brought in by Chris Grayling, should be published very soon.
• None What is the Queen's Speech- - BBC News | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40204389 | news_uk-politics-40204389 |
|
Russia tries to shed hooligan image for Confederations Cup - BBC News | 2017-06-17 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Football fever rises in Russia ahead of the curtain-raiser tournament for 2018's World Cup. | Europe | Cristiano Ronaldo will be one of the big names at the Confederations Cup
The Confederations Cup kicks off this weekend in St Petersburg. For fans, the fortnight of international football is a taster for the 2018 World Cup.
But for Russia, plagued by image problems, the championship is also chance to prove that it is a safe host for travelling players and their supporters.
That is not how it looked last summer.
Russian hooligans were among those rampaging through the streets of France at the European Championship. The internet was flooded with phone footage of gangs, chasing and dishing out brutal beatings to rival fans.
Russian fans were blamed for violence in Marseille and in Lille at Euro 2016
There have been fears ever since that Russian hooligans will try to repeat those scenes on home turf.
Officials here are adamant that will not happen.
"We are working with fans, analysing potential threats," senior interior ministry official Anton Gusev explained at a press conference to present security plans both for this summer and the 2018 World Cup.
He revealed that 191 Russians were currently blacklisted and banned from matches. That is almost double the number before the trouble in Marseille.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Members of the Orel Butchers speak to the BBC about their lives as football hooligans
"Those convicted of serious violations including racism, setting off flares or fights are under our constant control," the security chief stressed, adding that his team were also working closely with police abroad.
At the heart of Russia's security arrangements is a new "fan passport" system.
On the ground floor of a Moscow city office block, staff are still busy creating the laminated photo IDs required by all ticket holders for the Confederations Cup.
It is one of multiple distribution centres issuing the passports to all applicants who pass security screening. For travelling fans, the ID also replaces a visa.
"After checks like this, I think it will be very safe," Andrei told the BBC, plastic ID already in hand.
He said he had won two match tickets at work and was not at all worried about security.
"Russia is not France. Everything will be great!" Andrei added.
"If there are idiot hooligans here, then they exist all over the world. But I think people will see this as a party, not as an excuse to come and fight," another fan called Ramil agreed.
With matches in four host cities, instead of the 11 being made ready for 2018, the Confederations Cup is a chance to test-drive the new IDs on a smaller scale.
But hooligans are not the only security concern.
It is just over two months since a suicide bomber attacked the metro in St Petersburg, the venue for the opening match on Saturday. There have been further terror attacks in Europe since then.
President Vladimir Putin has issued a decree tightening security for several weeks in the four host cities. Decree 202 sets restrictions on access and activities in those cities. Controversially, that includes extra curbs on political demonstrations.
Officers policing the Confederations Cup also need accreditation
"Currently, we have the situation totally under control, we don't see any terror threat," a deputy head of the FSB intelligence service told the BBC.
"We are increasing our work on all fronts: both inside the country and by co-operating with all foreign partners who are ready to help," said Alexei Lavrishchev.
In the kind of dig at the West that is common these days he added that Russia's borders were closed to members of international terror groups, "unlike European countries with a more liberal migration regime".
The man blamed for the St Petersburg bombing was a Russian citizen, though.
Hosting the World Cup, and its precursor this month, is a matter of great pride for Russia. But the event has thrust the country under an international spotlight that it is not always happy about.
A common reaction to criticism, including over hooliganism, has been to claim that Russia is the victim of a smear campaign. Russia's enemies, the argument goes, are trying to sabotage the World Cup.
But behind the bluster, officials do seem to have taken note.
Not so long ago, Alexei Smertin claimed there was no such thing as racism in Russian football.
The former Chelsea midfielder and national team captain has since been made a World Cup ambassador, given the task of rooting out racism amongst other things.
"It's an issue that exists everywhere," Mr Smertin told the BBC, while Russia's national squad trained behind him for their opening game. "But we will show our warm reception for all, despite their continent or nationality."
Russian football's anti-racism inspector Alexei Smertin once denied the problem existed there
Anti-racism campaigners reported a significant rise in abusive chanting in 2014-15, the last season they had figures for. But Alexei Smertin said Russia's slogan was "respect".
He also insisted his country was taking the problem of hooliganism seriously.
"I would say there is this tiny minority of people who are… a bit aggressive," the ex-Chelsea player conceded. "But 99% of people who love football are quite polite."
That is the message that Russia is working hard to project. As fans arrive for this weekend's first matches, it will have to starting proving itself.
Copa America champions Chile will be among the eight teams taking part in four venues
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40287171 | news_world-europe-40287171 |
|
Angela Wrightson killers: A friendship that ended in murder - BBC News | 2017-06-13 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | For two young teenagers the night of 8 December 2014 began like many others. But by the next morning they were murderers. | England | The two girls are pictured returning to Angela Wrightson's home in the early hours of 9 December, where they would continue the attack
For two young teenagers the night of 8 December 2014 began like many others. But by the next morning the two girls would be murderers, having taken their time to batter a vulnerable woman to death with a variety of weapons. The attack lasted for seven hours.
Then aged 13 and 14, the pair spent the early evening roaming the streets of Hartlepool drinking strong cider, smoking pilfered cigarettes, and taking selfies. Despite the drinking and drug-taking - the older girl had also taken illicit prescription medicine - they were not atypical teenagers.
They frequently posted on Facebook, declaring love and eternal friendship to a multitude of friends. They liked clothes, makeup, and styling their hair.
In court, much was made of a message sent about five weeks before the murder, where the younger girl referred to the older as her "partner in crime" and proclaimed: "We will be with each other through thick and thin."
Was it a harbinger of what was to happen? Or phrases people - especially excitable teenagers - use?
There was no indication the two of them would launch such a brutal attack. The judge, Lord Justice Globe, warned the jury to bear in mind the younger girl had no history of violence. While the older girl had lashed out at staff at a care home, she also had no history of causing or attempting to cause serious harm.
The pair were not off the radar, hidden away in an abusive family home. They were both in the care of the local authority. Children's Services knew about them. They had support workers, foster carers, and were catered for at special educational centres. The older girl had a mental health team and had received therapy and suggestions on how to manage her anger.
There have been reports in the media that the girls frequently "escaped" from their care homes. But there was no question of "escape". They weren't locked up, they'd done nothing to suggest they should be.
Both were allowed to visit friends in the evening, and foster parents and support workers would drive them into town and collect them afterwards.
A blood-stained shovel was found next to Angela Wrightson
They had known each other since early childhood but weren't especially close until a few months before the murder. They enjoyed hanging around with each other - the younger girl said the older was "fun" and "not boring" and they met up "every other day".
The younger girl was interested in a couple of boys and would "inbox" them, as she called it. The older enjoyed rap music but also liked One Direction. They were both fans of Cheryl Fernandez-Versini and their favourite song was I Don't Care.
The friendship was not encouraged by either girls' carers. Each family thought the other girl encouraged theirs to go missing. But they were from the same part of Hartlepool and naturally gravitated towards each other, and to the Stephen Street area, where both had family.
It was not a particularly intense relationship. Both named a handful of other girls as their closest friends. Both would go missing, get drunk, smoke and stay out late - with or without each other.
Angela Wrightson was a vulnerable alcoholic who lived in Stephen Street. Her house was known locally as a place where underage drinkers could hang out. Both girls had been there before and Ms Wrightson would buy the alcohol for them.
However, that night, some terrible alchemy led to a brutal, bloody and sustained attack, culminating in murder.
Ms Wrightson was left dead - having been tortured with a variety of weapons over a prolonged period.
A wooden batten with protruding screws at either end was also used to attack Angela Wrightson
How had this happened? Other cases of children who have killed in pairs shed little light on this case. The most notorious, the Bulger killers Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, had set out to abduct and murder a child.
It was accepted by all parties in court that Ms Wrightson's murderers did not set out that evening to harm anyone, let alone kill them.
No-one really knows what happened inside 14 Stephen Street that night. The older girl, drunk and high on prescription drugs, said she had passed out several times, or had fallen asleep. The younger claimed not to remember.
Although not pre-meditated, the murder wasn't a one-off explosion of rage. The length of time the girls spent battering Ms Wrightson, the fact they had several breaks to sit around and drink and smoke, the way they chose weapons from around the house - and perhaps most damningly, the fact they had a two-hour break when they visited a friend before returning to 14 Stephen Street to carry on with their attack - scuppered any defence based on a lack of control.
One of the items used to attack Angela Wrightson was a television, which was dropped on her head. Blood and hair were recovered from its surface
The girls left 39-year-old Ms Wrightson surrounded by broken furniture and blood-stained implements, and covered in shards of broken glass. She had hundreds of injuries, was naked from the waist down, and had bled out over the sofa on which she had been placed. Some of the crime scene photographs were deemed by the judge in the murder trial as too distressing for the jury to see.
Bloodied handprints were smeared on the walls, and blood was also found on the ceiling.
Throughout the evening the girls posed for selfies, which were Snapchatted to friends. Some pictures showed Ms Wrightson looking distressed in the background. Others didn't show Ms Wrightson, although she was there. It's likely she was already seriously injured, bleeding on the floor, while the teenagers drank, smoked and danced around to music.
Dr Elizabeth Yardley, associate professor of criminology at Birmingham City University, says the girls' use of social media suggested they did not care about the consequences.
"For many young people, social media is a 'performance of self'," she says. "They use it to tell stories about their lives in real time. Young people are generally quite savvy when it comes to what is and isn't appropriate to post on social media - they know that pictures of illegal activity will have consequences.
"The actions of these girls suggests that they did not care about the consequences, or were simply not thinking about them, as their values about what is right and wrong are significantly off kilter," Dr Yardley adds.
More than a quarter of occupied households on Stephen Street are categorised as "economically inactive"
The younger girl repeatedly told the jury "she didn't remember" what had happened the night Ms Wrightson was murdered. She told the police "she hadn't known what was going on," claiming she was on Facebook on her phone while the other girl smashed up the living room and hurled tables, a television and a printer at Ms Wrightson.
She said she hadn't noticed when Ms Wrightson was beaten with a stick studded with screws, or slashed across the head with broken glass, or had a mirror slammed over her face. Despite her claimed amnesia, it was pointed out in court, she had remarkable recall for remembering her co-accused was to blame.
If one of the pair was the more dominant, it was the younger girl.
Repeatedly telling the older girl to "kick her head in" and complaining "why isn't [Ms Wrightson] knocked out yet?" the younger girl sat and smoked and even spoke to a friend on the phone while orchestrating the attack.
Her friend heard her say: "Go on... kill her. Bray her."
The older girl was advised by carers to try to channel her anger through drawing
The younger girl had been bored that night and had left another friend's house because they'd started bickering. She'd tried to arrange to meet up with a number of people, tried to organise a "session" or party.
After their arrest and throughout the trial, the younger girl tried to push the blame on to the older one.
Despite being the younger of the two, she is much bigger than her friend, tall and heavily built. She had a relatively stable home life. An only child, her parents are married and her father works as a delivery driver.
When she was about 12 she began having serious arguments with her mother and started to go missing. On several occasions public appeals were put out by police.
A respite arrangement was worked out, where she would stay with a foster carer for a few nights a week. This became full-time, but she was always in touch with her family. Her mother in particular would emphasise the importance of making sure she went back to the foster home on time, and behaved herself.
Like the older girl, she was not at mainstream school, but was at an off-site educational centre. One of her support workers described her as "a bright girl".
Both of her parents were at the court; her mother turned up every day for the seven-week trial, her father most days. They left the room - her mother in tears - when the girls were found guilty of murder.
Angela Wrightson's body was discovered by her landlord
The older girl is slight, pretty, and looks younger than her age. In many ways she is is childlike. She has a very low IQ of between 60 and 70, and believed a person could not die from anything other than "being stabbed in the heart, shot in the head, or cancer".
When asked in court for her date of birth, she didn't know what the phrase meant. When it was altered to "when is your birthday?" she had no idea.
When she was arrested for murder she didn't understand why - just as she didn't understand why staff at a children's home told her off for lighting cigarettes from an electric toaster.
She looked up to her accomplice, saying the younger girl "acted older than her". In many ways the older girl was at the younger's beck and call - it was she who would demand they go out at night, would demand her Facebook password, would tell her to hold her coat for her.
Angela Wrightson is pictured on CCTV buying 3 Hammers cider at her local shop at about 19:30. Shortly afterwards she returned to her home for the final time
The older girl had a troubled and disorganised upbringing, living in turn with her mother, father, and at a number of foster homes. She was too unsettled to cope in mainstream school and was sent to a pupil referral unit.
At the trial, one of her support workers told the court the older girl "was the most volatile person" she had ever worked with.
The court heard she had a history of self-harming, using anything with a sharp edge to slash not just her arms and legs but even her face. She was also known to have smashed her own head into walls.
The day she murdered Ms Wrightson, she visited her mother who told her to kill herself.
The older girl was encouraged to use drawing as a way to channel her anger. This picture was found in her room after her arrest - she had drawn it several weeks beforehand
During the trial she tried to kill herself a number of times - including one attempt in the court's toilets between sessions of giving evidence.
When answering questions posed by the barristers at the trial, she was matter-of-fact - the tone of her voice similar to someone reading aloud a shopping list.
"I kicked Angie in the head and face. About seven times, I think. Then [the younger girl] told me to kick her again, so I kicked her some more in the belly and head and face".
She has five sisters with different fathers. Three of them are in jail - one for stabbing her mother and rupturing her spleen with a golf club.
The fact violence was an everyday occurrence in her life "trivialised" it, psychiatrists agree. She saw people attacked - but they didn't die, which may have fed into her notion that beatings don't kill.
After Angela Wrightson's death, local people left flowers at the door of the house where she was killed. She is pictured on the right, aged 34
She both witnessed and experienced domestic violence, being taken to A&E 24 times for different injuries. She had her fingers broken by her mother, who suffered from severe psychiatric illness and had been sectioned under the Mental Health Act.
The sisters were taught from a young age there was a ghost in the family home. The girl told the court her mother started giving her illicit prescription drugs - such as amphetamines, Tramadol and codeine - when she was about 11, and bought her strong cider at the same age.
Since the night of the murder the girl has hallucinated, waking up sweating and screaming, seeing blood on the walls. She hears the phantom laughter of young girls and thinks men are shouting at her through air vents in the ceiling, and through the shower head.
Both girls were from the industrial coastal town of Hartlepool
Dr Yardley points out: "Most of us gain an understanding of mainstream norms and values from our parents and families - we learn what is right and wrong and how to behave in particular circumstances in a socially appropriate and law abiding way.
"Children in care tend to come from backgrounds that prominently feature instability, abuse, violence and neglect. Having experienced a lack of control during their early childhoods, they will have an intense need to wrestle some control back later in their lives.
"In some cases, they will be drawing upon what they have learned from their home environments. They may see mum being hit by dad, mum drinking herself into oblivion - and see this as normal.
"Therefore they have a script or a framework, in which they learn how to react to particular events through observing what goes on around them.
"So for some children, they will learn that when they don't get what they want, they should react by physically attacking someone".
Neither of the older girl's parents attended her trial.
The younger girl took a photo of the older in the back of the police van on their way home, and sent it to friends
It seems that she maintained her loyalty to the younger girl, who was quick to jettison the friendship.
A letter written by the older girl to the younger was intercepted by staff at one of the secure units where the girls were held.
The paper, covered with a childish scrawl and littered with drawings of hearts exhorted her friend to "keep your chin up".
"Have missed you so much you know. I can't believe this has happened. I'm proper trashed.
"Whatever happens and however long we get, just keep your chin up bonny lass. I'm thinking of you every step of the way. Do our time, get out and start a new life.
"Wait until we get out, me and you on the sesh again but this time it will be bigger and better, I'm telling you."
However, following the brutal murder they committed, it's unlikely the girls will ever be allowed to see each other again. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35977027 | news_uk-england-35977027 |
|
Has British democracy let its people down? - BBC News | 2017-06-13 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The general election raised questions about whether the British democratic system served its country well. | UK | Parliamentary democracy is one of the British values that English schools are now required, by statute, to promote during lessons - not debate, not discuss, promote.
If some teachers interpret their new role as propagandists for this kingdom's existing system of governance, that would be a shame, because right now there are questions about how well our form of democracy is serving the UK.
Far from providing the stability and legitimacy it promises, one could argue that our democratic system has served to expose and deepen social divides.
Some would say it has even contrived to leave our country vulnerable at a critical moment in its history.
Rather than seeking to close down critical challenge of our form of democracy, do we need a serious and urgent conversation about how we can improve matters?
Yes, turnout was the highest since 1997, and there are clear signs that young people may have participated in larger numbers than in previous elections.
These must be encouraging signs for the democratic process.
But almost a third of the electorate still didn't bother to exercise their democratic right.
And for nine out of 10 of those that did last week, the victorious party in their constituency didn't change.
In many seats, that has been the case for decades.
Churchill: "No-one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise"
The overall result may have been unexpected and even "extraordinary", but for the vast majority of voters, the local outcome could be construed as suggesting people were quite happy with the status quo.
"No-one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise," Winston Churchill told the House of Commons in 1947.
"Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Most people would probably agree with that, and David Cameron was surely right to argue that democracy is a keystone in the curtain wall that defines our nation's character, a feature of British life that must be defended.
But a democracy's strength is not measured only in its ability to withstand external attack. It must be loved and cherished by those within.
Talk to people the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, and you will hear the argument that the system ignores ordinary people, that their voice is not being heard by the distant elites.
Democracy, they say, is failing them.
At a time in world history when power is shifting further away from the ordinary citizen to international institutions and global corporations, this sense of democratic deficit is felt even more keenly.
National and local democratic structures need to be more responsive, but in Britain people feel they are increasingly remote.
This snap election may have done little to restore people's faith in the democratic process.
If people felt their voice was irrelevant before, will they think the system is any better now?
Our two main political parties were founded and evolved to deal with the social and economic challenges of the industrial revolution.
Conservative and Labour, left and right, capitalism and socialism - these ideological movements were a response to the economic and cultural challenges of power moving from the field to the factory.
But power is moving again, from the national to the multinational.
How citizens think we should respond to that shift is the new divide in our politics.
It is less about left v right and more about nationalism v globalism.
The 9.5% increase in the vote share for Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party and the 6% increase in Theresa May's Conservative support might be held up as evidence that the British electorate is once again becoming more "tribal" in left-right terms.
But old-fashioned political tribalism is actually on the wane.
If some voters feel frustration with the limitations of our first-past-the-post electoral system, they are striving to get their voice heard as best they can.
On the cost of living, on trade, on public services, on climate change, on our future prosperity - we are living in uncertain times.
Smaller parties that face no realistic chance of power, however attractive, get squeezed out at such moments.
Protest votes can seem like a luxury.
Voters are striving to get their voice heard as best they can
You will hear commentators suggesting that the result of this election sends a clear message to our political leaders.
But it's hard to argue that the final electoral arithmetic gives effect to some silent national consensus on what Britain wants.
A weakened government exclusively wooing one small party's MPs, politicians that 99.4% of the public didn't vote for - does this really reflect the "will of the people"?
So what is the will of the people?
Analysing what happened last Thursday reveals all kinds of contradictory and opaque views within the voting patterns.
There are deep divides between young and old, town and country, north and south, rich and poor.
There was no definable message from the electorate last Thursday.
The nuanced opinions that the country and, indeed, every voter holds are impossible to explain from a simple "X" in a single box.
And the diminution of local government in England, the weakening of the trade union movement, the impotence of political protest movements, the increasing centralisation of overarching authority to one house in Downing Street - these add to the sense that the "demos" (people) are increasingly excluded from the "kratos" (power).
The defining feature of our democracy, this cornerstone of British values, is that citizens have a participatory role in political and civic life. The people have a voice.
Some would argue that the debate we must have now is how to convince the populace that the United Kingdom does have a democracy that allows that voice to be listened to, understood and acted upon.
Update 26 June 2017: This article has been changed to clarify some of the points made by Mark Easton.
Sorry, your browser cannot display this content. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40245805 | news_uk-40245805 |
|
Will Theresa May now have to change Brexit plans? - BBC News | 2017-06-13 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The election result means Theresa May faces new pressures over her plans for Brexit - but Remainers shouldn't be getting carried away. | UK Politics | Enthusiastic Remainers have been quick to jump on the election result as their latest opportunity to mould the UK's departure from the EU.
The various lobby groups, including former ministers still close to some in government, have been whirring with chatter and tactical planning about how to get their voices heard. There are ideas about commissions or "neddies" - groups of advisers from business and all political parties that met in years gone by.
Even senior Tories like the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, one of their few success stories at the moment, told us yesterday: "It can't just be a Tory Brexit." On first hearing, that is a staggering thing to hear from Tory lips.
But before Remainers get swept up in their moment, and their ambitions swell, it's worth pondering what possibly might be on the table - and what might not - given the usual caveats about the unpredictability of what might come next.
First off, even Brexit-supporting ministers involved in the process acknowledge that a minority government has to behave differently. Expect therefore a change in tone, a more overtly consensual approach; the government is, for example, more likely to agree opposition attempts to amend its EU legislation without a fight.
One cabinet minister told me the government will take a less ideological approach. Some members of cabinet will push for a less rigid stance, urging Theresa May to soften or scrub out her red lines, as the negotiations get under way.
But on the fundamental choices? Two well-placed ministers tell me it's hard to see, "hard to go back on" the decision that we are leaving the single market. It is likely the government will make more of trying to maximise our access to it. This could mean it will become an equal concern to immigration rather than being a clear rhetorical second.
But inasmuch as it is at all possible to take direct readings from the electoral message (and I'm not sure it is given how varied the results were), more than 80% of the public voted for the two main parties, who both promised to leave the single market and end free movement. Woe betide any politician in this climate who is suddenly going to tell the electorate they didn't mean it on immigration.
There are hopes in the Remain camp too about the influence of the DUP; their participation in government does not mean suddenly that the government's Brexit plan changes dramatically.
While the DUP have their own particular view on Brexit with concern about customs arrangements, they are not "soft" Brexiteers who will try to water down the whole thing.
They were involved as a party in the Vote Leave campaign and while they will push their strong view on the border and customs arrangement, they are not suddenly going to be arguing for only a tiny loosening of the links.
It is worth remembering too that even with the DUP and this week's promises of support, having been cut down to size, Theresa May is even more vulnerable to her powerful Eurosceptic backbenchers than before the election. The arithmetic means she has to listen to other parties more, but she also has less ballast to fend off her own MPs. One former minister told me "it'd only take me and a couple of my mates to defeat her".
It is easy to argue today for a grand-sounding Brexit Commission to bring all parties in. It could be a political tool for Theresa May to form a mechanism for appearing to be listening to all. The idea is not quite being denied or really encouraged in government. And insiders are well aware of how such ideas can prove pointless.
There is already, for example, the committee that's meant to discuss the Brexit situation for the four nations. Few people who have been close to that process argue it's achieved much at all. And years of arguing for an NHS commission haven't got far at all. The government, although it was considered by David Cameron, did not in the end, trust Labour enough to take up the call.
Theresa May doesn't trust easily. It wouldn't really be in keeping with her style to dramatically reach out to the other parties in a formal way. In truth it is also not that clear the Labour leadership would really want that kind of role.
But the reality of the parliamentary numbers means she is forced to take other opinions into consideration, or her government falls. There will no doubt be arguments about how it's done, whether a new process is introduced or not. It is just as likely the government and opposition whips are about to get to know each other much much better.
But "cross-party working" - otherwise known as clipping your wings - however it's done, will be a feature of life under Mrs May. Remember she is not just more vulnerable to the opposition, but on her own side too. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40261944 | news_uk-politics-40261944 |
|
Did Michael Gove really try to stop teaching climate change? - BBC News | 2017-06-13 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The new environment secretary has been accused over his past record on the teaching of climate change. | Education & Family | The new environment secretary, Michael Gove, is having his green credentials challenged
Did Michael Gove really try to stop schools in England from teaching about climate change in geography?
His ministerial return, as secretary of state for the environment, food and rural affairs, has prompted a wave of claims that Mr Gove tried to remove the teaching of climate change when he was in charge of the education department.
"This is a man who tried to stop young people in our schools learning about climate change, who tried to take it out of the geography curriculum," said Caroline Lucas, co-leader of the Green Party.
On social media, these claims about climate change have been linked with pictures of Mr Gove's visit to the newly elected President Trump, as though their awkward thumbs up were evidence of some kind of global compact.
But is there any substance to the claims?
Anyone taking geography GCSEs or A-levels this summer will wonder what the row is about, because pupils will have been grilled - probably the wrong word - about climate change and global warming.
And there are plenty of references to climate change in the national curriculum for younger years.
But the row about "climate change denial" goes back to a controversial rewriting of the geography curriculum when Mr Gove was education secretary.
In a draft version, climate change was conspicuous by its absence, prompting a wave of petitions and lobbying demands for its re-inclusion.
And when the final version was produced, climate change had been reinstated.
But instead of ending the argument, there was still a lingering fog of claims about political attempts to stifle the subject.
And the Department for Education had to publish a statement denying that climate change had been removed.
Smog in Beijing: Should schools teach the science without reference to climate change?
But what really happened?
People who were close to Mr Gove during this time say that the climate change allegations have taken on a life of their own, a Westminster version of an urban myth, without any foundation.
They say it's a complete misreading of what happened - and that rather than downplaying the teaching of climate change, it was to be bolstered by moving it to science.
And in the end, after a consultation, Mr Gove took the decision to keep teaching it as part of geography.
Another source said that climate change ended up being taught in geography and in science, so it hadn't been cut - so it was a meaningless row.
But there are also different versions of events.
Another very senior figure, close to the curriculum reforms, said that shifting climate change into science might have been the "formal" argument.
But they suggest that there was also an "instinctive" distrust of the topic, with lessons about climate change seen as having an underlying, politically driven agenda.
This became a political "tussle", it's claimed.
Another person involved in the rewriting of the geography curriculum remembers ministerial interventions and political horse-trading.
They describe attempts not to "stress the human causes" of climate change as an attempt to placate the "right wing of the Conservative party".
Mr Gove was described as wanting to make specific changes to the wording.
It was World Environment Day last week: Rising sea levels in Indonesia
This was the era of the coalition government - and it is claimed that the row was resolved behind the scenes after the intervention of the Department for Energy and Climate Change.
It was also suggested that "Nick Clegg was deployed" - as the deputy prime minister was sometimes involved with such departmental disagreements.
Although Mr Gove might have become the lightning rod in this row, it's worth noting that much of the controversial coverage about cutting climate change from geography was not about Mr Gove at all.
Tim Oates, who chaired the panel reviewing the national curriculum, argued it should be about core scientific knowledge, rather than issues, such as climate change, that might stem from that.
Such topics should be left to teachers to decide to teach rather than be prescribed, he said.
This had prompted reports that climate change "propaganda" was going to be dropped.
In a statement on Monday, Mr Oates said there had been "a lot of knee-jerk reaction and misunderstanding in media reports at the time".
"The debate the national curriculum panel had was not over whether children should understand climate science - I believe that they should.
"The debate was about what fundamental concepts they needed to learn at an early age in order to understand climate science."
"I am not a 'climate change denier' and I never have been," said Mr Oates.
There are other arguments underlying all this. Should ministers, political figures moving in and out of departments, really get involved in the detail of what pupils are taught? Or should this be the domain of subject specialists and education professionals?
And the school climate has changed too. Academies do not have to follow the national curriculum - so for most secondary schools, such requirements no longer even apply.
A spokesman for Mr Gove's new department, Defra, said: "The secretary of state wanted to enhance climate change in the national curriculum when he was education secretary. It was never his intention to remove it." | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-40250214 | news_education-40250214 |
|
A legal 'dream team' looking at Trump - BBC News | 2017-06-13 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Special counsel Robert Mueller is filling out his staff - and it could be bad news for the president. | US & Canada | The Senate testimony of ex-FBI boss James Comey dominated the headlines last week, but the latest announcements from Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation could be a more ominous indication of trouble on the horizon for the Trump administration.
Mr Mueller, who was tasked by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein with overseeing the Justice Department's inquiry into possible ties between the Trump presidential campaign and Russian operatives, is staffing up his office - and bringing in some prosecutorial heavy-hitters.
The hires could be an indication of the direction of the probe and the seriousness with which Mr Mueller is taking the enterprise.
Consider Michael Dreeben. On Friday afternoon the National Law Journal reported that the deputy solicitor general, a criminal-law expert who has argued more than 100 cases before the US Supreme Court, would be joining the special counsel team on a part-time basis.
"Mueller's selection of Dreeben suggests that the special counsel is looking very carefully into whether criminal laws were broken by the Trump campaign and the president's associates," writes Cristian Farias of the Huffington Post.
Lawfare blog's Paul Rosenzweig called news of the hiring "the worst thing that happened to Donald Trump this week".
"He is quite possibly the best criminal appellate lawyer in America," he continued.
Then there's Andrew Weissmann, head of the fraud section of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, who joined the team in late May. He is perhaps best known for his investigation into Volkswagen scheme to bypass emissions requirements on some of its autos. From 2002 to 2005 Weissmann oversaw the Enron energy company inquiry that ended in the prosecution and imprisonment of its top executive, Kenneth Lay.
If Mr Mueller's investigation touches on the president's business interests, including allegations of Russian financial entanglements, Weissmann would be the kind of experienced legal hand best suited for the job.
Those with a sense of history might have noted that Mr Mueller also tapped James Quarles, a private lawyer who was part of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force in the 1970s and is well aware of the challenges of investigations that tread close to the presidency.
Newt Gingrich has apparently changed his mind about Robert Mueller's investigation
Jeannie Rhee, a former deputy attorney general, and Aaron Zebley, Mr Mueller's chief of staff when he was FBI director, help round out the special counsel team that has taken up residence in a Justice Department office building in downtown Washington.
The moves haven't gone unnoticed by Mr Trump's supporters. On Monday morning former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who has fashioned himself as an expert on all things Trump, tweeted a shot across the independent counsel's bow.
"Republicans are delusional if they think the special counsel is going to be fair," he wrote. "Look who he is hiring."
He then suggested readers check out the Federal Election Committee records of some of Mr Mueller's staff, which reveals four of them - Dreeben, Rhee, Weissmann and Quarles - had given money to past Democratic presidential nominees.
The counter to that argument is that Mr Mueller himself was appointed to Justice Department posts, including FBI director, by Republican presidents.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Mr Gingrich's criticism could be a harbinger of a drive by Trump surrogates to undermine Mr Mueller's authority and, perhaps, lay the groundwork to question his ultimate prosecutorial decisions or seek his removal. It marks a rather stark change of views for the former House speaker, who just a month ago tweeted that Mr Mueller was a "superb choice" as special counsel.
One of Mr Trump's personal lawyers, Jay Sekulow, demurred when asked on Sunday if the president could fire Mr Mueller.
"The president is going to seek the advice of his counsel and inside the government as well as outside," he said. "And I'm not going to speculate on what he will or will not do."
And the speculation built further on Monday evening, when a close friend of the president, Christopher Ruddy, told PBS Newshour he was "considering perhaps" firing Mr Mueller.
Donald Trump has called the ongoing investigation a "witch hunt", a "hoax" and an excuse by Democrats for why they lost the presidential race. Mr Mueller's moves, however, indicate he does not share Mr Trump's view. He's assembling a team built for the long haul, with the talent and experience to take cases to trial and, if necessary, send people to prison.
So far, Mr Trump has only directed his criticism at former FBI Director James Comey. It may only be a matter of time before some of that attention is directed at Mr Mueller, however. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40181708 | news_world-us-canada-40181708 |
|
Reality Check: Does the weather affect election turnout? - BBC News | 2017-06-07 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Other factors are more important than the weather in determining whether or not people vote. | Election 2017 | The argument seems to make sense. If on election day the weather is bad, people might well decide to stay at home rather than vote.
And with the weather turning wet and windy in the UK this week, it's an argument that you might have heard or read about.
But experts say there is no evidence from the UK to suggest that bad weather stops people from voting.
"There's basically no correlation between the weather and turnout," says Stephen Fisher an associate professor of political sociology at Oxford University.
Mr Fisher's research suggests people are more likely to vote if the election race is close and there is a strong difference between the two leading parties.
He points to the 2001 election, where turnout fell to 59%, the lowest since World War Two.
A comfortable Labour win had been expected. And, for some, Tony Blair was not sufficiently distinct from his Conservative rivals.
"In 2001 a lot of people saw New Labour as centrist," says Mr Fisher.
"They didn't see much difference ideologically, and it didn't really matter who they voted for."
But political parties' efforts to get people to vote can be effective.
"Having being contacted by a party worker makes a difference to turnout," says Mr Fisher.
Turnout has broadly been on a downward trend since its peak of 84% in 1950.
But since 2001, it has perked up a bit, to about 66% in 2010 and 2015.
David Cowling, senior visiting fellow at King's College London, says: "People have turned away from established political parties.
That was underlined by last year's referendum on European membership, he says, which attracted almost three million more voters than the general election of 2015.
"What it offered was motivation," says Mr Cowling.
"It gave a voice to people that thought they didn't have one."
So are people likely to vote in decent numbers on Thursday?
In 30 years of analysing elections, John Curtice, professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde, has learnt it is "absolutely impossible" to forecast turnout.
But he says the big difference between Labour and the Conservatives policies this time might spur people to vote, as well as the narrowing in the opinion polls as the campaign has developed.
Mr Fisher says: "I suspect turnout is likely to be higher because of the ideological divide."
Mr Cowling is keen to see whether talk of a "galvanised young electorate is really going to become reality".
That could boost overall turnout, as young people on average have lower turnout rates than older voters.
But Mr Cowling also warns that "for a lot of people this is an important election but an unnecessary one and that may not encourage a bigger turnout than last time". | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40172917 | news_election-2017-40172917 |
|
Welby: Cross-party approach would 'draw poison' from Brexit - BBC News | 2017-06-25 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Justin Welby calls for a cross-party commission to help negotiate Britain's exit from the EU. | UK | The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby urged Mrs May to set up a cross-party commission
The Archbishop of Canterbury has urged the prime minister to set up a cross-party commission to "draw much of the poison" from Brexit negotiations.
Justin Welby told the Mail on Sunday the UK needed a united negotiating strategy for exiting the EU.
He said the commission should be under Parliament's authority, chaired by a senior politician.
Cabinet minister Priti Patel rejected the idea and said ministers were focused on getting "the right deal".
Formal Brexit negotiations began last Monday in Brussels. Key subjects to be negotiated include the status of EU nationals and Britons living elsewhere in the EU, the size of any "divorce" bill and how the UK will trade with the EU once it leaves.
In his article, the archbishop wrote that - with a hung parliament - there was "an understandable temptation for every difference to become a vote of confidence".
But he said that would be a "disaster", as British negotiators would not have "confidence in their backing from the UK".
He claimed a commission, with parties from the whole political spectrum, could "hold the ring for the differences [in opinion] to be fought out".
It should be under the authority of the Commons, and chaired by a senior politician, but without the authority to bind Parliament, he said.
"We need the politicians to find a way of neutralising the temptation to take minor advantage domestically from these great events," the archbishop wrote.
He added that Britain's decision to leave the EU was the third time in two centuries that the UK had to "redefine the place of our country in the world".
But International Development Secretary Priti Patel rejected the idea of a cross-party commission.
She told BBC Radio 5 live's Pienaar's Politics: "I think the point is, this isn't about commissions. The public voted last year to leave the European Union. Our job as government now is obviously securing the right deal for the country and not rerunning those arguments of Remain and Leave from last year."
In the same article, the archbishop said the Grenfell Tower fire - and the recent terror attacks in Manchester and London - had "brought out the best of communities in crisis".
"Communities have staggered, stumbled and pulled themselves up," he wrote.
"I am so proud and grateful to be part of a country where people at Westminster rush to treat a man who has just tried to kill them, where an imam ensures the would-be killer whose van is still resting on one of his congregation is protected."
The UK is due to leave the EU by the end of March 2019. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40395743 | news_uk-40395743 |
|
Trump accuses Obama of inaction over Russia meddling claim - BBC News | 2017-06-25 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The president says his predecessor "did nothing" despite knowing of meddling claims before the poll. | US & Canada | Mr Trump said the Russian investigation should focus on the Obama administration
President Donald Trump has accused his predecessor Barack Obama of inaction over alleged Russian interference in the US election in 2016.
Mr Trump said Mr Obama had learned well before the 8 November poll about the accusations and "did nothing".
His comments followed an article in the Washington Post which said that Mr Obama learned last August of President Vladimir Putin's "direct involvement".
The alleged meddling is the subject of high-level investigations in the US.
President Putin has repeatedly denied any Russian interference into the presidential election.
The Washington Post article says Mr Obama was told early last August by sources deep within the Russian government that Mr Putin was directly involved in a cyber campaign to disrupt the election, injure Hillary Clinton and aid a Trump victory.
The Post said Mr Obama secretly debated dozens of options to punish Russia but in the end settled on what it called symbolic measures - the expulsion of 35 diplomats and closure of two Russian compounds. They came in late December, well after the election.
The Post reported that Mr Obama was concerned he might himself be seen as trying to manipulate the election.
The paper quoted a former administration official as saying: "From national security people there was a sense of immediate introspection, of, 'Wow, did we mishandle this'."
Measures Mr Obama had considered but which were not put into action included planting cyber weapons in the Russian infrastructure and releasing information personally damaging to Mr Putin.
Imagine, for a moment, that you're Barack Obama in August 2016. You've just been informed by the CIA that Vladimir Putin has ordered a wide-ranging effort to disrupt the US presidential election.
What do you do? Mr Obama responded in typical fashion - cautiously. He alerted state officials, warned Russia and attempted (unsuccessfully) to fashion a bipartisan response with Republicans in Congress.
Now the second-guessing has begun. Some Democrats are saying the Obama team should have gone public with such a startling discovery before election day. The president feared such a move would prompt the Republican nominee to accuse him of meddling and undermine faith in the electoral process. He believed Mrs Clinton was going to win anyway, so it was best not to rock the boat.
Mr Trump himself is now questioning why Mr Obama didn't do more - a curious position given that he recently described the Russia hacking story as a Democratic "hoax".
These latest revelations add yet another wrinkle to a 2016 campaign that will be hashed and rehashed for the foreseeable future. The most pressing question now, however, is not what Mr Obama did. It's what the US government does next.
Mr Trump tweeted on Friday: "The Obama Administration knew far in advance of November 8th about election meddling by Russia. Did nothing about it. WHY?"
He followed that up with two more tweets on Saturday, the second saying: "Obama Administration official said they "choked" when it came to acting on Russian meddling of election. They didn't want to hurt Hillary?"
He repeats the argument in an interview with Fox News, which will air on Sunday.
"If he had the information, why didn't he do something about it? He should have done something about it. But you don't read that. It's quite sad."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Allegations of collusion between the Trump team and Russian officials during the election have dogged the president's first five months in office.
He has repeatedly denied the allegations, calling the investigations a "witch hunt".
US investigators are looking into whether Russian cyber hackers targeted US electoral systems to help Mr Trump win.
US media say special counsel Robert Mueller is also investigating Mr Trump for possible obstruction of justice over the Russia inquiries.
They involve the president's firing of FBI chief James Comey, who led one of the inquiries, and Mr Trump's alleged attempt to end a probe into sacked national security adviser Michael Flynn.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Do Trump voters care about the Russia investigation? | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40395433 | news_world-us-canada-40395433 |
|
Angela Wrightson killers: A friendship that ended in murder - BBC News | 2017-06-14 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | For two young teenagers the night of 8 December 2014 began like many others. But by the next morning they were murderers. | England | The two girls are pictured returning to Angela Wrightson's home in the early hours of 9 December, where they would continue the attack
For two young teenagers the night of 8 December 2014 began like many others. But by the next morning the two girls would be murderers, having taken their time to batter a vulnerable woman to death with a variety of weapons. The attack lasted for seven hours.
Then aged 13 and 14, the pair spent the early evening roaming the streets of Hartlepool drinking strong cider, smoking pilfered cigarettes, and taking selfies. Despite the drinking and drug-taking - the older girl had also taken illicit prescription medicine - they were not atypical teenagers.
They frequently posted on Facebook, declaring love and eternal friendship to a multitude of friends. They liked clothes, makeup, and styling their hair.
In court, much was made of a message sent about five weeks before the murder, where the younger girl referred to the older as her "partner in crime" and proclaimed: "We will be with each other through thick and thin."
Was it a harbinger of what was to happen? Or phrases people - especially excitable teenagers - use?
There was no indication the two of them would launch such a brutal attack. The judge, Lord Justice Globe, warned the jury to bear in mind the younger girl had no history of violence. While the older girl had lashed out at staff at a care home, she also had no history of causing or attempting to cause serious harm.
The pair were not off the radar, hidden away in an abusive family home. They were both in the care of the local authority. Children's Services knew about them. They had support workers, foster carers, and were catered for at special educational centres. The older girl had a mental health team and had received therapy and suggestions on how to manage her anger.
There have been reports in the media that the girls frequently "escaped" from their care homes. But there was no question of "escape". They weren't locked up, they'd done nothing to suggest they should be.
Both were allowed to visit friends in the evening, and foster parents and support workers would drive them into town and collect them afterwards.
A blood-stained shovel was found next to Angela Wrightson
They had known each other since early childhood but weren't especially close until a few months before the murder. They enjoyed hanging around with each other - the younger girl said the older was "fun" and "not boring" and they met up "every other day".
The younger girl was interested in a couple of boys and would "inbox" them, as she called it. The older enjoyed rap music but also liked One Direction. They were both fans of Cheryl Fernandez-Versini and their favourite song was I Don't Care.
The friendship was not encouraged by either girls' carers. Each family thought the other girl encouraged theirs to go missing. But they were from the same part of Hartlepool and naturally gravitated towards each other, and to the Stephen Street area, where both had family.
It was not a particularly intense relationship. Both named a handful of other girls as their closest friends. Both would go missing, get drunk, smoke and stay out late - with or without each other.
Angela Wrightson was a vulnerable alcoholic who lived in Stephen Street. Her house was known locally as a place where underage drinkers could hang out. Both girls had been there before and Ms Wrightson would buy the alcohol for them.
However, that night, some terrible alchemy led to a brutal, bloody and sustained attack, culminating in murder.
Ms Wrightson was left dead - having been tortured with a variety of weapons over a prolonged period.
A wooden batten with protruding screws at either end was also used to attack Angela Wrightson
How had this happened? Other cases of children who have killed in pairs shed little light on this case. The most notorious, the Bulger killers Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, had set out to abduct and murder a child.
It was accepted by all parties in court that Ms Wrightson's murderers did not set out that evening to harm anyone, let alone kill them.
No-one really knows what happened inside 14 Stephen Street that night. The older girl, drunk and high on prescription drugs, said she had passed out several times, or had fallen asleep. The younger claimed not to remember.
Although not pre-meditated, the murder wasn't a one-off explosion of rage. The length of time the girls spent battering Ms Wrightson, the fact they had several breaks to sit around and drink and smoke, the way they chose weapons from around the house - and perhaps most damningly, the fact they had a two-hour break when they visited a friend before returning to 14 Stephen Street to carry on with their attack - scuppered any defence based on a lack of control.
One of the items used to attack Angela Wrightson was a television, which was dropped on her head. Blood and hair were recovered from its surface
The girls left 39-year-old Ms Wrightson surrounded by broken furniture and blood-stained implements, and covered in shards of broken glass. She had hundreds of injuries, was naked from the waist down, and had bled out over the sofa on which she had been placed. Some of the crime scene photographs were deemed by the judge in the murder trial as too distressing for the jury to see.
Bloodied handprints were smeared on the walls, and blood was also found on the ceiling.
Throughout the evening the girls posed for selfies, which were Snapchatted to friends. Some pictures showed Ms Wrightson looking distressed in the background. Others didn't show Ms Wrightson, although she was there. It's likely she was already seriously injured, bleeding on the floor, while the teenagers drank, smoked and danced around to music.
Dr Elizabeth Yardley, associate professor of criminology at Birmingham City University, says the girls' use of social media suggested they did not care about the consequences.
"For many young people, social media is a 'performance of self'," she says. "They use it to tell stories about their lives in real time. Young people are generally quite savvy when it comes to what is and isn't appropriate to post on social media - they know that pictures of illegal activity will have consequences.
"The actions of these girls suggests that they did not care about the consequences, or were simply not thinking about them, as their values about what is right and wrong are significantly off kilter," Dr Yardley adds.
More than a quarter of occupied households on Stephen Street are categorised as "economically inactive"
The younger girl repeatedly told the jury "she didn't remember" what had happened the night Ms Wrightson was murdered. She told the police "she hadn't known what was going on," claiming she was on Facebook on her phone while the other girl smashed up the living room and hurled tables, a television and a printer at Ms Wrightson.
She said she hadn't noticed when Ms Wrightson was beaten with a stick studded with screws, or slashed across the head with broken glass, or had a mirror slammed over her face. Despite her claimed amnesia, it was pointed out in court, she had remarkable recall for remembering her co-accused was to blame.
If one of the pair was the more dominant, it was the younger girl.
Repeatedly telling the older girl to "kick her head in" and complaining "why isn't [Ms Wrightson] knocked out yet?" the younger girl sat and smoked and even spoke to a friend on the phone while orchestrating the attack.
Her friend heard her say: "Go on... kill her. Bray her."
The older girl was advised by carers to try to channel her anger through drawing
The younger girl had been bored that night and had left another friend's house because they'd started bickering. She'd tried to arrange to meet up with a number of people, tried to organise a "session" or party.
After their arrest and throughout the trial, the younger girl tried to push the blame on to the older one.
Despite being the younger of the two, she is much bigger than her friend, tall and heavily built. She had a relatively stable home life. An only child, her parents are married and her father works as a delivery driver.
When she was about 12 she began having serious arguments with her mother and started to go missing. On several occasions public appeals were put out by police.
A respite arrangement was worked out, where she would stay with a foster carer for a few nights a week. This became full-time, but she was always in touch with her family. Her mother in particular would emphasise the importance of making sure she went back to the foster home on time, and behaved herself.
Like the older girl, she was not at mainstream school, but was at an off-site educational centre. One of her support workers described her as "a bright girl".
Both of her parents were at the court; her mother turned up every day for the seven-week trial, her father most days. They left the room - her mother in tears - when the girls were found guilty of murder.
Angela Wrightson's body was discovered by her landlord
The older girl is slight, pretty, and looks younger than her age. In many ways she is is childlike. She has a very low IQ of between 60 and 70, and believed a person could not die from anything other than "being stabbed in the heart, shot in the head, or cancer".
When asked in court for her date of birth, she didn't know what the phrase meant. When it was altered to "when is your birthday?" she had no idea.
When she was arrested for murder she didn't understand why - just as she didn't understand why staff at a children's home told her off for lighting cigarettes from an electric toaster.
She looked up to her accomplice, saying the younger girl "acted older than her". In many ways the older girl was at the younger's beck and call - it was she who would demand they go out at night, would demand her Facebook password, would tell her to hold her coat for her.
Angela Wrightson is pictured on CCTV buying 3 Hammers cider at her local shop at about 19:30. Shortly afterwards she returned to her home for the final time
The older girl had a troubled and disorganised upbringing, living in turn with her mother, father, and at a number of foster homes. She was too unsettled to cope in mainstream school and was sent to a pupil referral unit.
At the trial, one of her support workers told the court the older girl "was the most volatile person" she had ever worked with.
The court heard she had a history of self-harming, using anything with a sharp edge to slash not just her arms and legs but even her face. She was also known to have smashed her own head into walls.
The day she murdered Ms Wrightson, she visited her mother who told her to kill herself.
The older girl was encouraged to use drawing as a way to channel her anger. This picture was found in her room after her arrest - she had drawn it several weeks beforehand
During the trial she tried to kill herself a number of times - including one attempt in the court's toilets between sessions of giving evidence.
When answering questions posed by the barristers at the trial, she was matter-of-fact - the tone of her voice similar to someone reading aloud a shopping list.
"I kicked Angie in the head and face. About seven times, I think. Then [the younger girl] told me to kick her again, so I kicked her some more in the belly and head and face".
She has five sisters with different fathers. Three of them are in jail - one for stabbing her mother and rupturing her spleen with a golf club.
The fact violence was an everyday occurrence in her life "trivialised" it, psychiatrists agree. She saw people attacked - but they didn't die, which may have fed into her notion that beatings don't kill.
After Angela Wrightson's death, local people left flowers at the door of the house where she was killed. She is pictured on the right, aged 34
She both witnessed and experienced domestic violence, being taken to A&E 24 times for different injuries. She had her fingers broken by her mother, who suffered from severe psychiatric illness and had been sectioned under the Mental Health Act.
The sisters were taught from a young age there was a ghost in the family home. The girl told the court her mother started giving her illicit prescription drugs - such as amphetamines, Tramadol and codeine - when she was about 11, and bought her strong cider at the same age.
Since the night of the murder the girl has hallucinated, waking up sweating and screaming, seeing blood on the walls. She hears the phantom laughter of young girls and thinks men are shouting at her through air vents in the ceiling, and through the shower head.
Both girls were from the industrial coastal town of Hartlepool
Dr Yardley points out: "Most of us gain an understanding of mainstream norms and values from our parents and families - we learn what is right and wrong and how to behave in particular circumstances in a socially appropriate and law abiding way.
"Children in care tend to come from backgrounds that prominently feature instability, abuse, violence and neglect. Having experienced a lack of control during their early childhoods, they will have an intense need to wrestle some control back later in their lives.
"In some cases, they will be drawing upon what they have learned from their home environments. They may see mum being hit by dad, mum drinking herself into oblivion - and see this as normal.
"Therefore they have a script or a framework, in which they learn how to react to particular events through observing what goes on around them.
"So for some children, they will learn that when they don't get what they want, they should react by physically attacking someone".
Neither of the older girl's parents attended her trial.
The younger girl took a photo of the older in the back of the police van on their way home, and sent it to friends
It seems that she maintained her loyalty to the younger girl, who was quick to jettison the friendship.
A letter written by the older girl to the younger was intercepted by staff at one of the secure units where the girls were held.
The paper, covered with a childish scrawl and littered with drawings of hearts exhorted her friend to "keep your chin up".
"Have missed you so much you know. I can't believe this has happened. I'm proper trashed.
"Whatever happens and however long we get, just keep your chin up bonny lass. I'm thinking of you every step of the way. Do our time, get out and start a new life.
"Wait until we get out, me and you on the sesh again but this time it will be bigger and better, I'm telling you."
However, following the brutal murder they committed, it's unlikely the girls will ever be allowed to see each other again. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35977027 | news_uk-england-35977027 |
|
Abortion: NI women not entitled to NHS terminations in England - BBC News | 2017-06-14 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Supreme Court rules women from Northern Ireland are not entitled to free NHS abortions in England. | Northern Ireland | The UK's highest court has rejected an appeal by a mother and daughter in their legal battle for women from Northern Ireland to receive free abortions on the NHS in England.
The Supreme Court challenge centred on the case of a Northern Ireland woman who became pregnant when she was 15.
She went to England with her mother for an abortion in a private clinic in 2012, at a cost of about £900.
Northern Ireland's abortion law is much stricter than the rest of the UK.
Terminations are only permitted if a woman's life is at risk, or there is a permanent or serious risk to her mental or physical health.
Rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormalities are not circumstances in which abortions can be performed legally in Northern Ireland.
The mother and daughter took the case against UK Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who conceded that he had the power to make provisions for Northern Ireland residents to access free NHS abortions in England.
Supreme Court judges dismissed the mother and daughter's appeal by a narrow majority of three to two
They claimed that it was "unlawful" that he had not done so.
However, Supreme Court judges dismissed the mother and daughter's appeal by a narrow majority of three to two.
Delivering the ruling, Lord Wilson said it was not for the court to "address the ethical considerations which underlie the difference" in the law regarding abortion in Northern Ireland and England.
However, he said the five judges had been "sharply divided" on the case.
He expressed sympathy for women facing unwanted pregnancies in Northern Ireland and said the law put many of them in a "deeply unenviable position".
He said they faced "embarrassment, difficulty, and uncertainty" in their "urgent need to raise the necessary funds" to travel to Great Britain for private abortions.
Supreme Court judge Lord Wilson expressed sympathy for the women but did not allow their appeal
Lord Wilson conceded that the financial burden had added to their "emotional strain".
But he did not rule in favour of the women's case, and dismissed their appeal, a decision with which his fellow judges Lord Reed and Lord Hughes agreed.
Their judgement acknowledged that under devolution, separate authorities in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are responsible for providing free health services to those usually resident there.
It stated that the health secretary was entitled to restrict access to NHS abortions "in line with this scheme for local decision-making".
The judgement added that Mr Hunt was "entitled to afford respect to the democratic decision of the people of Northern Ireland not to fund abortion services".
Lord Wilson added that Lady Hale and Lord Kerr gave dissenting judgments and would have allowed the appeal.
The mother and daughter, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said they will now take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.
In a joint statement, they said they were "really encouraged that two of the judges found in our favour" and that all of the judges had been "sympathetic" to their situation.
"We have come this far and fought hard because the issues are so important for women in Northern Ireland. For this reason, we will do all that we can to take the fight further.
"We have instructed our legal team to file an application with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, to protect the human rights of the many other women who make the lonely journey to England every week because they are denied access to basic healthcare services in their own country."
Last year, more than 700 women from Northern Ireland travelled to England for an abortion last year, according to UK Department of Health figures.
The number was 100 fewer than the year before.
The mother and daughter initially took their case to the High Court in London in 2014, when the court heard they had struggled to part-raise the funds for a private abortion in England.
High Court judge, Mr Justice King, ruled at the time that the health secretary duty's to promote a comprehensive health service in England "is a duty in relation to the physical and mental health of the people of England".
He said that duty did not extend "to persons who are ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland".
His 2014 ruling also said that devolutionary powers had to be taken into consideration.
The following year, the women took their case to the Court of Appeal but again, they lost the argument.
The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal in the UK for civil cases.
However, the mother and daughter's lawyer, Angela Jackman, said on Wednesday her clients had made "significant strides" since the original High Court ruling.
She added that the split decision of the Supreme Court judges provided them with a "firm basis" for taking their case forward to the European Court of Human Rights.
The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), which was among organisations that participated in the legal challenge, said it was disappointed with the overall verdict of the Supreme Court.
BPAS's chief executive Ann Furedi said: "NHS-funded abortion care may not have been declared a legal right for Northern Irish women today, but it is morally right to provide it."
She added: "They deserve the same care and compassion as all other UK citizens."
However, the Iona Institute, which is anti-abortion, said Northern Ireland "should be proud of its life-saving abortion law".
The Christian organisation added: "At a time when scientific advances have given us an amazing 'window' into babies in the womb we are right to continue to reject the permissive British abortion model." | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-40271763 | news_uk-northern-ireland-40271763 |
|
So, farewell austerity? - BBC News | 2017-06-10 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | After years of public sector cuts, yesterday’s general election result revealed that a sizeable portion of voters are tired of the “spend less” mantra. | Business | Talk of controlling the deficit is now likely to be dialled down
Before the 2010 election, David Cameron and George Osborne believed they would be tested on one issue.
Could they be trusted to get the public finances "back in order".
It was an age-old attack narrative used by the Conservatives over the decades - to great success.
Labour breaks the national bank, eventually, it was claimed.
And the Conservatives are voted in to sweep up the mess.
It was a policy that became known by a single word - austerity.
In the Budget of 2010, Mr Osborne, the Chancellor, announced £81bn of cuts over four years, some of the sharpest reversals in public financing seen for decades.
"It is a hard road, but it leads to a better future," he said.
The argument held, just, in 2015.
Ed Miliband relentlessly attacked the Conservatives on the issue of "cuts".
And was rejected at the ballot box.
Yesterday, a change, and economically as well as politically, a pretty fundamental one.
But Jeremy Corbyn - on a vision of higher spending, higher taxes and higher levels of investment - came closer than almost everyone, apart from maybe Jeremy Corbyn, believed possible.
So close that Theresa May will need the support of the Democratic Unionist Party to maintain her government.
What next for the "sound money" pledge contained in the Conservative manifesto, the idea that cuts would continue for the sake of the health of public finances?
Well, like a number of pledges made by Mrs May, let's say it might well be flexible.
One Tory close to Number 10 told me that the message would need to change or Mrs May would not be able to convince non-Conservative voters to back her.
"It's time for the austerity policies to shift," he said.
Nick Macpherson, the former permanent secretary at the Treasury, tweeted the election result "guarantees a higher deficit".
In short, many economists believe the government will be obliged to borrow more as political uncertainty weighs on growth, leading to less wealth creation and therefore the need for higher borrowing.
Mrs May and her chancellor were already saying before the election - most clearly in private - that the age of constant cuts was harder to sell to the public.
But rather than make an increase in spending the focus of their "offer" to the voter - as Labour tried to do - they allowed the whiff of tax rises to hang over their campaign.
The triple tax lock of 2015 (no increases in income tax, national insurance contributions or VAT) was dumped in favour of a single lock on VAT and a vaguer pledge to lower taxes generally.
Mrs May also abandoned the pensions triple lock, which guaranteed a rise in the annual pension of at least 2.5% a year.
And said nothing about curtailing the public sector pay freeze or reversing any of the in-work benefit reductions announced in previous Budgets.
Cuts to public services would continue, Mrs May suggested.
Cuts so deep that the Institute for Fiscal Studies wondered whether they were actually deliverable.
The "tough" party was still on show, and with poll leads storming above 20%, it seemed like a tactic that could work.
But it crumbled in the face of Labour's very different proposition.
Mr Corbyn was the change candidate, Mrs May "more of the same".
The classic election split which plays well for the former if people are feeling dissatisfied with where their lives are.
And in an era when real incomes are once again falling, "change" had many attractions.
Now, I expect that the Conservatives will do their best to distance themselves from the nasty party tag.
And, on economic policy at least, the DUP may help.
In their manifesto, the party says that the pensions triple lock should be maintained.
It attacks plans to means test the Winter Fuel Allowance (a Tory pledge) as well as any other "assaults" on benefits, which could of course include the in-work benefits freeze.
If Mrs May wants to push her policies through Parliament she will have to recognise where the DUP is coming from.
Talk of controlling the deficit (the amount the government spends above what it gains in tax revenue) is likely to be dialled down.
The overall debt will be allowed to rise.
Tories I have spoken to say that the Conservatives have to change the record on austerity.
And they are looking to Mrs May to take the lead. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40224901 | news_business-40224901 |
|
Kim Edwards: The girl who killed her mother and sister - BBC News | 2017-06-10 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Kim Edwards hated her mother so much she plotted to murder her and her sister. Why? | Lincolnshire | Kim Edwards murdered her mother and sister with the help of boyfriend Lucas Markham
A judge has ruled that teenager Kim Edwards can be identified as having killed her mother and sister. But how did their relationship turn from love to loathing?
As the details of the cold and brutal killings of Elizabeth Edwards and her daughter Katie were read out in court, the facts seemed at odds with the slight and seemingly timid teenager sitting in the dock.
Nottingham Crown Court heard how she and her boyfriend Lucas Markham, both aged 14 at the time, had plotted for days to cut their victims' throats as they slept at the family home in Spalding, Lincolnshire.
A grudge Kim held against her mother - and her bitter resentment of her mother's close relationship with her sister - was the motivation for the murders, prosecutor Peter Joyce QC said.
But it was not until jurors heard the details of a series of interviews Kim gave to police and psychiatrists that the depth of her hatred was revealed.
Elizabeth Edwards, 49, and her daughter Katie, 13, were found dead at their home in Spalding
"I wanted to get revenge for the way she treated me," Kim told one psychiatrist.
"I did it because I did not like Mum at all and I did not want her to ruin or corrupt anyone else.
"I did not feel anything for my mother, she deserved it and I'm glad she's dead."
She also told detectives: "Ever since I was young I never got on with my mum, she always favoured my sister."
In the three-person household of 5 Dawson Avenue she felt unwanted, unloved and cut adrift.
Mrs Edwards and her daughter Katie were murdered in their beds
Prosecutors said Kim showed "utter contempt" for her mother and her sister (pictured)
The court heard the difficulties between Kim and her mother could be traced back to January 2008 when Mrs Edwards had struck Kim, aged six at the time, in a row over the television.
Mrs Edwards referred herself to social services and Kim and Katie were placed in care for several months.
Social services closed the file on the Edwards family later that same year but Mrs Edwards would later say she believed Kim never truly forgave her.
The issues between Mrs Edwards and her eldest daughter resurfaced in 2013 and lurched from one problem to another over the next three years.
In September 2013, Mrs Edwards told Kim's teachers her daughter was planning to run away, although by March 2014 she told them their relationship had improved.
Eight months later Kim told support workers her mother had tried to strangle her, but this was denied by both Mrs Edwards and her sister. In January 2015 Mrs Edwards asked her GP for family therapy.
Kim Edwards and her mother shared a Facebook conversation just 10 days before the killings
At the start of 2015 Mrs Edwards arranged an emergency psychiatric appointment after discovering a suicide note left by Kim. Following an assessment, no evidence of mental illness was found, however.
In August of the same year the child and adolescent mental health services in Lincolnshire reported Kim's relationship with her mother was much better but Kim was feeling left out of the family triangle.
In May of that year, Kim had begun her relationship with Lucas. The pair ran away from home in October, before being discovered six days later sleeping rough in woods north of Spalding.
Mrs Edwards disapproved of her daughter's relationship with Lucas, the court heard.
In the weeks before her death, the churchgoing dinner lady had barred Lucas from her home, forcing the couple to meet in the garden, and had described the couple as "a time-bomb waiting to go off".
Kim told psychiatrists that by this stage her life had become a "like a living, walking hell", and in March she tried to kill herself by taking an overdose of painkillers.
The following month the fast deteriorating mother-daughter relationship blew up with murderous consequences.
A psychiatrist described the teenagers' relationship as "toxic"
In court, psychiatrists Dr Philip Joseph and Dr Indranil Chakrabarti attempted to explain what led to the killings.
Dr Joseph, for the prosecution, blamed the toxic "Bonnie and Clyde" relationship between Kim and Lucas. He said Kim had not been suffering from a recognised mental disorder but had been struggling to feel part of the family unit.
"In that triangle she felt very much left out," he said. "She felt that her mother was very much more attached to her younger sister."
He said she had told him the family dynamic made her feel unhappy and she was "jealous" of her sister.
She felt the only solution was to kill her mother.
"I was getting rid of the only problem I could see," Kim had told him.
"I thought it would have been better for my sister to die too.
"I was not killing my sister out of anger, and I miss her, but I was excited about killing my mother and I was looking forward to it."
Kim and Lucas had been in a relationship since May 2015
Dr Chakrabarti, for the defence, contended Kim had an adjustment disorder and longstanding attachment issues as a result of her strained relationship with her mother.
He said the disorder had been brought on by a series of stressful events, including Lucas being expelled from school and her attempt to kill herself.
He also pointed to a row between Kim and her mother on 9 April in which Mrs Edwards told Kim she would turn out like her father, who had left the family home when she was two years old.
Following the argument, Kim had gone to Lucas's home and the couple barricaded themselves in his room overnight. When Kim returned home she found her mother had bagged up some of her possessions and given others to her sister.
Kim had told Dr Chakrabarti her mother's actions had left her feeling like she "did not belong to the family anymore".
The following day, the court was told, she and Lucas began plotting the killings.
Kim Edwards said she was "jealous" of her sister Katie (left) and her relationship with their mother
On the night of the murders, Kim let Lucas into the house through the bathroom window.
He had brought a bag of knives with him.
Lucas took one of the knives and crept in to Mrs Edwards room where he stabbed her through the throat - he stabbed her eight times while smothering her with a pillow to stop her screaming out.
He then went in to Katie's room and stabbed her twice in the neck while she slept.
Following the murders, Kim and Lucas had sex on a mattress in the living room, ate ice cream and settled down to watch the vampire-themed Twilight films.
Over the next day-and-a-half they stayed at the house. They ignored visits from Lucas's aunt and police officers sent to the property to look for the two teenagers, who by now had been reported missing from school.
It was not until police forced their way into the house through a downstairs window that the couple were discovered.
PC Alistair Pullen, who was the first officer to enter the house, said that when he asked where Mrs Edwards was Lucas "looked at me clean in the eye and said 'Why don't you go up and see?'".
Kim would later tell Dr Joseph: "We felt laid back about what had happened - neither of us felt that bad about it."
Det Ch Insp Martin Holvey, who led the murder investigation, said: "The actual after-effects are probably the most chilling, the fact of what happened in those 36 hours after and how they carried on as normal, watching TV, watching a film, going upstairs to use the toilet while people are lying upstairs dead; it beggars belief."
He said he believed the "tragic and unprecedented" killings had been a result of a combination of issues.
"I guess many people through life will say things, especially juveniles, that they don't mean - 'I hate you' or 'I'm going to kill you'.
"It's a throwaway comment for many, many people, but this wasn't, this carried on, and they carried on talking about it over the next few days."
The whole truth of what happened in the Edwards' family home will probably never be known.
The jury rejected Kim's version of events and decided she did not have a psychological condition which would diminish her responsibility.
It leaves only an inescapable, if unpalatable, conclusion - that this 14-year-old girl was so consumed by hatred for her mother, she decided to kill her and her sister as well. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-37648194 | news_uk-england-lincolnshire-37648194 |
|
Two brothers, same murder, but one goes free. Why? - BBC News | 2017-06-26 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | A decades-old murder and how a Supreme Court decision means freedom for one man, and life in prison for the other | US & Canada | The difference between life in prison and freedom: 15 months
Sammy Maldonado is 15 months older than his brother, David. The age difference is the reason that Sammy may spend the rest of his life in prison for a murder he did not commit, while his brother - the actual perpetrator - is going free.
On 13 August, 1980 - the day that blew the Maldonados' lives apart - Ted Kennedy had just conceded to Jimmy Carter in the Democratic primary for president. Stanley Kubrick's The Shining was terrifying American movie audiences, and the Iranian hostage crisis was sliding into its 10th month.
It was the end of a long, hot summer day, and teenagers David and Sammy decided to escape from their bleak urban surroundings in northern Philadelphia to an idyllic spot called Devil's Pool.
The brothers piled into a friend's 1970 Mustang, stopped off for a gallon of cheap wine, and drove into the park. They hiked down the footpath from the car park until the trees parted around a rocky outcropping that looked down on a deep, creek-fed basin of water. Swimmers launched themselves from the rocks and into the cold, dark water, drank beers and smoked pot.
Before long the Maldonados had befriended another group of teenagers who traded their beer for the brothers' joints. They drank and listened to a kid strumming a guitar, until both boys were drunk, high and feeling bold.
According to court documents, at some point, one of the boys decided "to steal the white kids' box" - a cardboard box they hoped was full of valuables. As the light was fading, Sammy snatched it and took off running. David followed, grabbing a steak knife from the other teenagers' picnic supplies.
The other group gave chase, and Sammy and David got separated from the rest of the group with 19-year-old Steven Monahan hot on their tail. According to the testimony at trial, Sammy almost immediately abandoned the box - which among its treasures held a $10 bill, a report card, and a comb - and Monahan tackled him. David jumped on to Monahan's back and stabbed him twice with the steak knife. Monahan fell, and the brothers took off into the woods.
Back in the parking lot, they flagged down their friends and climbed into the Mustang heading back into the city.
"I think I killed him," David said from the back seat, and started to cry.
Thirty-seven years later, the Maldonado brothers sit beside each other in the visiting room of the Pennsylvania State Correctional Institution at Graterford in identical faded crimson jumpsuits. They've aged from scrawny teens into middle-aged men. Sammy is the quieter one, with a smooth bald head and professorial glasses. David is taller, lanky with thinning dark hair and a moustache that has turned more salt than pepper. The family resemblance is in the eyes - the same slate grey colour.
After Steven Monahan died - his aorta punctured by one of the stab wounds - both boys were convicted of second-degree felony murder and sentenced to mandatory life in prison without the possibility of parole. Because of the laws on the books in Pennsylvania, the judge in the case had no say on the sentences, even remarking at the time: "I think it's harsh, because I never would have sentenced you to a life term in prison under these facts."
They've spent nearly their entire time in prison in the same facility; Sammy's cell at Graterford is just 15 cells away from David's. Because they're housed on the "honour block", they can visit each other several times a day. Like all brothers they argue and get on each other's nerves, but today there is reason for some levity: in just a few weeks' time, David is going free.
"I'm elated for him," says Sammy.
"It's bittersweet," says David. "I hate to leave Sam."
They were both supposed to die in prison. But a series of recent US Supreme Court decisions has changed everything for David, who was 17 at the time of the murder, and classified as a juvenile.
In the 2012 case of Miller v Alabama, the high court decided mandatory life sentences for juveniles constitute a violation of the US constitution's eighth amendment, which bars cruel and unusual punishment.
Four years later, the justices ruled that the Miller decision should be retroactive, meaning the roughly 2,300 men and women across the US who'd been sentenced to life in prison as children had a right to be resentenced, and therefore eligible for parole and release.
"Because juveniles have diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform… they are less deserving of the most severe punishments," Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the Miller decision.
"Our decisions rested not only on common sense - on what 'any parent knows' - but on science and social science as well."
A series of recent Supreme Court cases led to David's freedom - but not Sammy's
The state of Pennsylvania holds the most "juvenile lifers" in the country - more than 500 inmates. The state's county judges have been slowly making their way through them in the resentencing process, starting with the greyest lifers - the longest serving inmate was a 79-year-old man who had been in prison for 63 years. As of May 2017, 40 juvenile lifers have been released in Pennsylvania.
On 13 December 2016, it was David Maldonado's turn. He went before a judge who heard how he went from being a drug addict to earning a master's degree, and about his work counselling other inmates.
Although the family of the victim was opposed, the judge resentenced him to 30 years and not long after that, the Pennsylvania parole board approved his release. (The Monahan family did not respond to requests for an interview.)
But the Supreme Court decisions that freed David have no effect on his brother's case. On the day that the murder took place, Sammy Maldonado was 18 years, four months and 10 days old - legally speaking, an adult.
Even though it was David who stabbed Steven Monahan, in the eyes of the law, Sammy's age of 18 automatically classified him as a fully mature adult, capable of making the same decisions as a 40-year-old, while his brother was a juvenile with a still-developing brain who required special consideration.
"Sammy didn't do the stabbing, he got beat up - but he was 18 years," says Michael Wiseman, a lawyer for both men. "He is far less culpable than David."
Asked if he would consider himself an adult when the crime occurred, Sammy answers: "No, no, I can answer that empathically. No. I was immature, I was impetuous. When you're young like that you're easily influenced."
David Maldonado walks out of a Pennsylvania prison after 37 years
A few months later, on a bright, sunny day in May, David Maldonado emerges from the front doors of Graterford prison carrying a cardboard box of his belongings. He wears a brand new shirt and slacks that a friend who came to pick him up brought - he nearly walked out with the price tags still attached.
The prison lobby broke into a tiny celebration as he left, with strangers, inmates and correctional officers alike clapping him on the back and wishing him the best.
Before heading back to Philadelphia, David and his friend stop at a nearby diner for some coffee, where he confronts his first free-world challenge. The tables are pushed too closely together for his comfort, and his back is nearly touching a woman seated behind him. It makes him nervous, he keeps glancing over his shoulder before asking if he can switch seats.
"What is your problem?" the woman's husband suddenly barks.
"It's the third thing you've said about her," the man shouts.
"I didn't say nothing," David says. "I didn't say nothing."
After a few tense moments, the man returns to his meal.
"I gotta learn to tolerate certain stuff that in prison I wouldn't tolerate," David says. "I gotta remember I'm not in prison no more."
That's the kind of impulse control David and Sammy would argue they did not have as teenagers when they committed the crime. A growing body of scientific research would agree with them, and some advocates say the same research that gave David a second chance should apply to Sammy, too.
Prefrontal circuitry (in green) continues to change into adulthood
In 1993, a 17-year-old Missouri boy named Christopher Simmons was sentenced to death for the robbery and murder of a 46-year-old woman. Simmons' lawyers argued all the way to the Supreme Court that it was cruel and unusual punishment to execute a "developmentally immature" person. The case gained some unexpected allies - the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association, among others.
For the first time, a cadre of psychologists and neuroscientists submitted the argument that it was inappropriate to execute juveniles because their brains haven't finished developing. They said that MRI scans of the brains of juveniles and adolescents show that well into a person's early 20s the brain is continuing to add grey matter and the prefrontal cortex - which is believed to regulate self-control - is developing.
"The brain continues to change throughout our entire lifetime, but there are massive changes still happening into the 20s," says BJ Casey, a professor of psychology and director of the Fundamentals of the Adolescent Brain lab at Yale University.
In 2005, the justices decided in the Simmons case that due to "evolving standards of decency" those 18 years and younger could not be executed by the state - it was the first time the court factored in developmental science. The court cited several neurological and psychological studies in the Miller and Montgomery decisions as well.
Since then, the evidence has only grown showing that the brain is far from finished changing by 18, and major development continues up until the age of 24 or 25. Neuroimaging shows that the brains of young adults aged 18 to 24 respond differently than the brains of older adults when making decisions, assessing risk, controlling impulses and resisting peer pressure.
"It's quite clear that, at least in the United States, we choose our legal boundaries for reasons other than scientific ones," says Laurence Steinberg, a psychology professor at Temple University and an expert in the field of adolescent brain development.
"If you're looking for a boundary that's an answer to the question, 'When do people stop maturing?', 18 is clearly too young."
Some neuroscientists and psychologists like Casey argue that young adulthood should be treated as its own distinct phase of life, separate from childhood and adulthood. She says that young adult brains simply do not function the same way that adult brains do when under stress or threat.
"They're far more impulsive in threatening situations, they're significantly different from adults over 21," she says.
The Supreme Court rulings also have implications for Lee Malvo, who was 17 when he took part in the Washington sniper attacks
Both Sammy and David say that in their first few years in prison, they were terrors - drugs were easy to obtain and they graduated from smoking weed to shooting heroin. They fought other inmates, and coped with their fates by spending as much time as possible in an intoxicated stupor.
But by their early 20s, they'd both lost interest in drugs. Sammy took up boxing, as evidenced by a few missing teeth, and eventually became a born-again Christian. David started going to classes and earned his GED (a certificate equivalent to a high school diploma).
"I had to start doing the time instead of letting it do me," he says.
By the time of his release, David had earned a masters of theology and was working as a drug and alcohol counsellor for Spanish-speaking inmates. Sammy - who says he spends most of his time alone in his cell studying the law and the Bible - has a job as a teacher's aid for inmates working towards their GEDs.
"I'll be 54 next month, he just turned 55," says David. "We're not the kids we were. We don't have the problems we had back then."
There's at least one court case making its way through the system that could result in a similar game-changing decision for people like Sammy.
Ted Koch is a lawyer representing Luis Noel Cruz, an inmate in Connecticut who committed a murder on the orders of the Latin Kings gang when he was 18 and a half years old. A federal judge has agreed to hear arguments later this year that the Miller decision should apply to someone who was just past his 18th birthday.
"It's arbitrary - the science doesn't draw bright lines, so the law shouldn't either," says Koch.
The idea that young adults are simply different from both juveniles and adults is gaining some traction - states like Connecticut have opened special wings of their prisons to house inmates 18 to 25, with an eye on rehabilitation and even a path towards criminal record expungement.
Just this spring, San Francisco opened a young adult court - citing the latest developments in neuroscience as the reason for its existence - specifically for offenders ages 18 to 25. There are similar courts in New York and Idaho.
Nevertheless, the movement to change national and state laws to include special considerations for 18- to 25-year-old lifers is still in its infancy.
Though there is no national estimate of how many inmates would fall in this group, in the state of Pennsylvania alone it's 2,203 men and women.
"[Nationwide], it's certainly going to be a very big number," says Ashley Nellis, a senior research analyst with The Sentencing Project.
Koch believes there are likely to be similar challenges coming from inmates like his client, those just over 18 when their crimes were committed, who will argue that the Miller decision should apply to them.
"I think there's a wave coming behind me," says Koch.
David, on the outside, Sammy, on the inside
A month after David's release, Sammy sits alone in the visiting room. His arms are dotted with faded, blueish tattoos, including a chain wrapped around his right wrist - another relic of his impulsive youth. Once he gets released, "I'm gonna have them removed," he says.
Sammy has complete confidence that he'll walk out of Graterford some day, although his legal avenues are limited. He will either need to earn a commutation from the Governor of Pennsylvania - which is rare - or there will need to be a change in law.
One of his greatest regrets is that his release could not happen before the deaths of their parents. Although the Maldonados' childhood was marred by physical abuse, alcoholism, and general tumult - in his 17 years outside, David Maldonado lived at 20 different addresses and attended 13 different schools - the family reconciled after the boys went to prison. According to their aunt, their father worked three different jobs trying to afford better lawyers. He died in 2010, 28 years after he started coming to see his sons on a consistent basis.
"I wish I could have had those 28 years back, but it's gone," says Sammy.
For now, he sits in his cell, studying or working at his typewriter with his television on and the sound turned off, waiting for his chance to join David in the free world. Even though it was David's actions that landed them both in prison, Sammy says he bears no ill will towards his little brother.
"Guilt is a very, very strong emotion. I know it's tearing at him," says Sammy. "Tell David not to worry about me. Stress to him I'm OK and I'm going to get out of here."
The following day, David Maldonado is hoofing it down a hot, sunny street in West Philadelphia, poking his head into various cheque-cashing places and bodegas to see if they can wire money to Sammy's prison commissary account.
"I want to send him $50 as soon as I get to the right place," he says.
His face is fuller - he's gained seven pounds since his release - and his cheeks are tan from his work clearing litter from a park in North Philadelphia. He's been hired as an alcohol and drugs counsellor, he's looking for an apartment, and slowly reconnecting with family and friends. He even tried lobster for the first time (he was not a fan).
David is hopeful that the simple fact that he is out, and doing well, will help Sammy's case once he applies for commutation.
"I take responsibility for what I did. I shouldn't have did what I did. [The victim] didn't deserve what I did," says David.
"If you let me out and I'm the one who did it and you trust me to be out here, I don't see why you can't trust [Sammy]. He didn't do nothing." | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40375420 | news_world-us-canada-40375420 |
|
Qatar row: What's caused the fall-out between Gulf neighbours? - BBC News | 2017-06-05 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Qatar's support for Islamist groups has soured relations with Gulf neighbours like Saudi Arabia. | Middle East | Qatar has been accused of supporting terror
On Monday 5 June 2017, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, the UAE, and the internationally recognised Yemeni government severed their diplomatic relations with Qatar, accusing Doha of supporting terrorism.
In addition, the states announced that they were suspending air, sea, and land transport with Qatar, while Qatari citizens are required to return home within two weeks.
Qatar's support of the Saudi and UAE-led operations in Yemen is also suspended.
This might seem familiar. These states (aside from Yemen) withdrew their diplomats from Doha in 2014 over a similar set of concerns. That spat was resolved within nine months. But the core issues remain.
On this occasion, though similar motives fuel the dispute, the fact that Qatar's land border with Saudi Arabia - its only land crossing - will be suspended shows a severe escalation, given just how critical this border is for Qatar's imports, including food.
Reports emerged in late May 2017 of a speech given by the Qatari Emir, Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, where he was purported to have criticised America, offered support for Iran, reaffirmed Qatar's support for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and said that Qatar's relations with Israel were "good".
Qatar's official news agency then also reported that Qatar was withdrawing its ambassadors from Saudi, Bahrain, Egypt, and the UAE after discovering a "conspiracy" against Qatar. Subsequently, Qatari officials furiously denied that there was any truth behind these reports, but the damage was done.
The key problem was that these comments simply voiced out loud what many have long understood as Qatar's true policy positions.
Qatar has long had a tense relationship with the US. On a military-to-military level, the two countries co-operate well generally. But the US has long been angered by what it sees as slanted coverage in the Middle East by Qatar-owned Al Jazeera, Qatar's apparent support for a range of Islamist groups around the region, and lax anti-terrorist financing laws.
Similarly, Qatar has been bold in its support of Hamas, the Palestinian militant group affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood. In May 2017, Qatar used its influence to push Hamas to issue a policy document seen by some as an attempt to soften its extremist image.
But support for Hamas places Qatar deeply at odds with many states, such as the US, who view Hamas as a terrorist organization. And the other Gulf monarchies prefer to deal with its secular rival Fatah as representatives for the Palestinians.
But the problem is that Qatar is just too bold, too often.
The core issue presently is Qatar's support of Islamists around the Middle East region, which emerged quite evidently during the Arab Spring. This is as much a result of the personalised politics of Qatar's foreign policy and elite bureaucracy as it is an active decision by Qatar to support Islamists.
Moreover, Qatar argues vociferously that it does not support Islamists because the state prefers to, but because such groups like the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood enjoy significant public support.
Qatar's Emir Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani is alleged to have given a speech in May criticising the US
Either way, the UAE in particular, but also Saudi Arabia, do not agree at all with this approach of emboldening Islamist groups around the region. They tried to get Qatar to stop doing this in 2014, but, a few concessions aside, the broad tenor of Qatar's foreign policy approach did not change.
Otherwise, particularly under the leadership of the former Emir Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, Qatar sought to carve out a unique niche for itself and its policies, such as augmenting relations with Israel or Iran, and rejecting the wider consensus of the regional group of the monarchies, the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC).
Saudi Arabia withdrew its ambassador to Doha from 2002 to 2008 to try to pressure Qatar to curb its individualistic tendencies. This approach broadly failed too.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the leaders of this current move, will not want to fail again. And their position is strong, while Qatar's is weak.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE are emboldened. Leading the intervention in Yemen in 2015 displayed a newfound desire to truly lead on matters of regional security. And the UAE has, not least with a decade's operations alongside Isaf forces in Afghanistan, forged a reputation for itself as one of the US's most reliable Arab partners.
Then President Trump unprecedentedly took his first foreign visit to Saudi Arabia, and signed the largest weapons deal in history.
The only real card that Qatar holds with Washington is that it has, since the early 1990s, hosted a critical US base at al-Udeid. But this may no longer be enough. Other Gulf states may stand ready to replace this key base, though the logistics of this would not be straightforward.
The argument to President Trump may be compelling: with US help, Qatar might be persuaded to evict Hamas leadership from Doha and genuinely cut back on funding Islamist groups.
It seems that the time of Qatar's individualistic foreign policy may be up.
Dr David Roberts is a lecturer in the Defence Studies Department at King's College London. He was the Director of the Qatar office of the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi). He is the author of Qatar: Securing the Global Ambitions of a City State. Follow him on Twitter @thegulfblog | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-40159080 | news_world-middle-east-40159080 |
|
Bank surprises with interest rate vote - BBC News | 2017-06-15 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The Bank of England's vote to keep interest rates unchanged was much closer than expected. | Business | UK interest rates have been kept on hold at 0.25%, but in a surprise move three of the Bank of England's rate-setting committee backed a rate rise.
The 5-3 vote by the Bank's policymakers was the closest for a rate rise since 2007, and comes with inflation close to a four-year high of 2.9%.
Inflation is now well above the Bank's target rate of 2%.
News of the vote pushed the pound up by more than a cent against the dollar, although it fell back later.
Ian McCafferty, Michael Saunders and Kristin Forbes were the three members of the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) who voted for an increase. Ms Forbes had been the sole vote in favour of a rise at the MPC's previous two meetings.
However, the decision of Mr Saunders and Mr McCafferty to back an increase as well surprised economists.
"The more hawkish tone of the MPC appears to reflect some concern about inflation - which has accelerated faster than it expected over recent months and is now forecast to exceed 3% this year - as well as the strength of employment that is continuing to erode slack in the labour market," Capital Economics said.
Hargreaves Lansdown senior economist Ben Brettell said it appeared that the "willingness of the MPC to 'look through' higher inflation and leave rates on hold is wearing thin, and if inflation continues to surprise we could see higher rates by the end of the summer".
Sterling, which had been trading below $1.27 before the minutes were released, surged to almost $1.28 in response, while the FTSE 100 share index was down more than 1%.
In the minutes of its meeting, the MPC said the "driving force" behind the recent pickup in inflation had remained the depreciation of sterling that followed the Brexit vote in June last year.
However, it added that a "number of indicators of domestically generated inflationary pressure" had also increased in recent months.
The committee said inflation could exceed 3% by the autumn and was expected to remain above the 2% target for an "extended period" as the weaker pound pushed up prices while pay growth remained "subdued".
The three MPC members who voted to raise rates were swayed by the inflation fears, and also took into account growth in "business investment and net trade" which appear "on track" to compensate for weaker consumption. They also thought that interest rates would still leave monetary policy "very supportive".
However, the five committee members who voted to leave rates unchanged took into account the recent slowdown in consumer spending and economic growth as a whole. They said "it was too early to judge with confidence how large and persistent", that would be.
"It is as yet unclear to what degree weaker consumption would be offset by other components of demand". the minutes said.
While different members of the MPC placed different weights on these arguments, the minutes said that "all committee members agreed that any increases in Bank Rate would be expected to be at a gradual pace and to a limited extent".
Kallum Pickering, senior UK economist at Berenberg, said: "This gradual shift in stance represents the MPC's efforts to foretell and communicate a forthcoming hike. Don't ignore it."
However, other economists said it could still be some time before the Bank votes to rise rates.
"It is far from certain that interest rates will rise in the near term," said Howard Archer, chief economic adviser to the EY Item Club.
"There is the potential for the balance of views to alter, with the imminent changes in the MPC's membership. Kristin Forbes who has been a strong advocate of raising interest rates is now leaving the MPC, while another member is due to appointed as the committee is currently one short." | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40288125 | news_business-40288125 |
|
Newspaper headlines: 'Sorrow at tower fire turns to anger' - BBC News | 2017-06-15 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Friday's front pages continue to carry extensive coverage of the fire at the west London tower. | The Papers | The UK's national front pages are again dominated by the Grenfell Tower tragedy.
Against the backdrop of the charred building, the Daily Mirror's headline reads simply: "Criminal".
"We need answers. We need change," the paper says.
"Now the anger," is the headline on the Sun's front page, which says "sadness has given way to fury as angry locals demand to know how the inferno was allowed to happen."
The Daily Telegraph talks of a "litany of failings", while the Daily Mail says ministers are facing three disturbing questions: was the lethal cladding chosen to meet environmental targets; why were families told to stay in their flats; and how many other "tinder box towers" are there?
The i newspaper quotes from the planning application submitted before the block's recent refurbishment.
It said cladding would improve the environmental performance of the building and its appearance.
Meanwhile, the Sun says the cladding covers thousands of homes and offices across Britain; numerous schemes have made use of it "to get green energy ticks".
The Times reports that particular type of cladding used on Grenfell Tower is banned in the US on buildings taller than 40ft (12m) - for fire safety reasons.
It says the manufacturer makes two fire-resistant alternatives, but they are more expensive.
The paper calculates the difference in cost at Grenfell Tower would have amounted to less than £5,000 for the entire building.
There were also further heart-rending accounts of the horrors at Grenfell Tower - as well as the heroism.
The Sun says one father got his pregnant wife and youngest daughter down the smoke-filled stairs from the 21st floor, climbing over bodies on the way.
Marcio Gomes, an Ofsted inspector, says he and his family had been instructed to stay put for two hours by emergency operators; but by 04:30 BST the blaze had reached his windows and he realised he had to act to save his family.
Another woman tells the paper she saved her family by running a bath and letting it flood the floors; it kept the flames at bay until crews reached her flat at 03:00.
The Daily Mail tells how a young Italian couple who were engaged to be married phoned their parents from their flat on the 23rd floor to say goodbye.
The architecture graduates moved to London three months ago to look for work and were captivated by the views of the capital from their flat, often posting pictures on social media.
One had shown a rainbow across the city skyline, with the word: "Spectacular".
Away from the North Kensington fire, several papers round on shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, who has reportedly called for a million protesters to take to the streets to call for Theresa May to leave Downing Street.
"Our democracy has no place for the mob," says the Daily Telegraph in a lengthy editorial.
"We had an election last week," says the Daily Express, adding that "whichever way you cut it, Labour lost".
There's a similar message in the Daily Mail, which tells Mr McDonnell: "We live in a democracy and our arguments are settled in Westminster."
Student loan debt in the UK has risen to more than £100bn, according to the Guardian - a rise of almost 17% in a single year.
The figures come from the Student Loans Company and show that England accounts for more than £89bn of the total.
The average amount of debt accrued by each student on graduation is more than £32,000.
Meanwhile, the Times reports that almost a dozen universities have given their vice chancellors big pay rises - despite suffering a significant fall in student numbers.
It says "university chiefs received an average package of £280,877 including pension contributions".
A report by the British Council - the UK's international organisation for educational opportunities and cultural relations - suggests that school foreign exchange trips are being killed off by excessive red tape.
There is confusion over child protection rules, according to the Times.
The problem is said to be contributing to a big slump in pupils taking foreign languages at GCSE level.
In an editorial, the newspaper laments what it calls a "blinkered" approach. A mastery of foreign languages, it says, has never been so important.
And finally, the Daily Mirror celebrates three people who have pulled off an amazing feat, with odds of 48-million-to-one against.
Steve Winterbottom, 35, from Buxton, Derbyshire, shares the same birthday as his father - 4 June.
He and his wife, Emma, now have a baby, Emma Ray, who was born two weeks early - also on 4 June. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-40297669 | news_blogs-the-papers-40297669 |
|
Ideas on the table for citizens' rights - BBC News | 2017-06-23 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Theresa May drops a big hint about how British negotiators hope to get round one of the big obstacles - who will police rules after Brexit. | UK Politics | There was relief that the UK is at last putting its ideas on the table but concerns over the British plans for EU citizens reflect Theresa May's fundamental bind. She faces a united opposing front here in Brussels, at least for now.
There are clashing expectations from the public at home - who want different things from departure. And of course varying strands of thought and demands from inside her own party.
Even a leader at the peak of their powers would struggle to deal with all that.
While complex, this summit was perhaps a brief respite from the brooding turmoil in her own party, where questions about the viability of her leadership lurk. Governing is doing, not fending off enemies - and at least today, Theresa May has done that.
There was also a big hint about how the British negotiators hope to get round one of the big obstacles. As we've discussed before one of the big gaps between the two negotiating sides here are who will police the rules on citizen's rights. So, if something goes wrong, who can they appeal to, how will their rights be protected.
The EU side is adamant that it can only be the European Court of Justice. Theresa May has been totally insistent that it can't be them.
At the press conference this afternoon she repeated that it would be the British courts in charge. So far, so the same. But she then tantalisingly - if you are a nerd like me - said that because the rights would be agreed as part of the withdrawal treaty, they would be therefore subject to international law.
Therefore, theoretically, that means they could be enforced by an international court of some variety. Lawyers suggest that is not likely to be the Hague, but could be some kind of new organisation that had British and European lawyers involved.
Sources in government have suggested it is a course the UK is likely to pursue, even though it has not been the subject of extensive discussions yet between the two sides. It could be, hypothetically, an elegant solution to avoid the clash, if the EU is amenable.
Sources on the UK side also suggest that it's unreasonable of the EU to expect EU judges to continue to rule on British citizens abroad, as well as expecting EU judges to continue to rule on EU citizens in Britain.
If the arrangement is truly to be reciprocal, they argue, then wouldn't it be more fair for British judges to rule on British expats abroad, and vice versa. There are many long, tangled arguments ahead, but at least, in the last forty eight hours, ideas are now being discussed. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40387897 | news_uk-politics-40387897 |
|
Isle of Wight term-time holiday dad Jon Platt guilty - BBC News | 2017-06-23 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Jon Platt's defence lawyers had argued that pursuing legal action against him was an "abuse of process". | Hampshire & Isle of Wight | Jon Platt admitted he was relieved the case had come to an end
A father who fought a long-running legal battle after taking his daughter on a term-time holiday to Disney World Florida has been found guilty over the unauthorised trip.
Jon Platt was convicted of failing to secure his child's regular attendance.
He lost an earlier legal challenge at the Supreme Court in April, despite winning previous legal battles in a case brought by Isle of Wight Council.
Platt was given a 12-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay £2,000.
Jon Platt lost his legal challenge at the Supreme Court in April
The case - over a £120 fine - returned to Isle of Wight Magistrates' Court earlier where Paul Greatorex QC, for Platt, had argued the prosecution should not continue and was an "abuse of process".
He suggested none of the documents published by the council or the primary school on attendance made it clear when a penalty notice would be given.
"It's completely vague, it does not give the guidance that parents are entitled to expect," he said.
Mr Platt told the court he did not believe he had seen a number of documents from the school setting out changes to absence rules.
He said a form from the school, when he applied for the seven-day absence in 2015, had noted that attendance of between 90% and 95% was satisfactory, which his child fell into.
But Ben Rich, counsel for Isle of Wight Council, said giving clear guidance did not mean spelling out every consequence of any action.
He argued the school was not required to make sure that every letter sent home was read, and that the council's code of conduct had made it clear that a penalty notice could be issued for a term-time holiday.
Giving the judgment, magistrate Jeannie Walker said: "The circumstances of this case fall squarely into that breach of school rules."
Speaking after the hearing Mr Platt said he was "disappointed" by the verdict.
"I didn't want to lose but there's a part of me that is actually relieved.
"If we'd won today, it seems pretty clear the Isle of Wight Council on the abuse of process argument may well have sought to appeal to the High Court and I desperately needed this all to be over." | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-40381825 | news_uk-england-hampshire-40381825 |
|
Reality Check: What has happened since the Brexit vote? - BBC News | 2017-06-23 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Reality Check correspondent Chris Morris looks back at a year since the referendum. | UK Politics | It's a year since the referendum in which the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, and it's safe to say that no-one yet knows how this is going to turn out.
This month's general election has only served to heighten the sense that much of the Brexit process is still unknown - particularly the final destination.
So what has changed in the past year?
Well, in terms of the process, in March the UK triggered Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, the formal route out of the EU that has never been put to the test before.
And - after an unexpected UK election that produced an unexpected result - formal face-to-face negotiations on the terms of divorce finally began earlier this week.
But there has been only one day of meetings between the two chief negotiators - David Davis and Michel Barnier - and there is an enormous amount still to do. That worries EU officials in particular.
The next few months will be crucial. By October we should know whether a deal looks achievable on the elements of separation that the EU intends to focus on first: citizens' rights, a financial settlement, and the future status of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
For now, all we know is that the two-year period for Article 50 negotiations is due to come to an end on 29 March 2019, and unless all parties agree on an extension, that is when the UK will leave the EU.
Amid all this uncertainty, what about some of the claims that reverberated around the referendum campaign last year?
The claim: £350m a week going to the EU that could go to the NHS
The verdict: The famous £350 million-a-week slogan daubed on the side of a Vote Leave bus has been debunked many times. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. The UK didn't send £350m a week to the EU because the rebate was deducted before any money was sent, and there's no sign that such a sum will be plucked from a magic money tree to be sent to the NHS when we leave.
A big concern for the NHS post-Brexit is whether it will be able to recruit the staff it needs to keep services going. The number of nurses from the EU registering to work in the UK has dropped from 1,304 in July 2016 to just 46 in April 2017.
That's a problem because 6.9% of nurses and health visitors in the NHS and 9.3% of doctors come from countries elsewhere in the EU (and the European Economic Area).
The fall in the number of EU nurses registering for work is part of a pattern that has seen net migration to the UK fall even before Brexit happens. The latest figures from the ONS show fewer EU citizens arriving in the UK and more leaving. What we don't yet know is what kind of immigration system the government plans to introduce when it brings free movement of people from the rest of the EU to an end.
The claim: Another prominent claim from the leave campaign in the run-up to the referendum last year was that Turkey was on the verge of joining the EU, and the UK couldn't do anything to stop it.
The verdict: Again, not true then and not true now.
In fact, since the referendum, Turkey has lived through an attempted military coup, a massive crackdown on opposition and dissent, and a sharp deterioration in human rights. Several countries are calling openly for stuttering membership talks to come to an end, and Turkey feels further away than ever from joining the EU.
The claim: There were many warnings of dire economic consequences from the remain side during the referendum campaign.
The verdict: A Treasury analysis that a leave vote would tip the UK into recession and cause an "immediate and profound" economic shock has proven to be unfounded.
That may be partly because so little actually happened in the immediate aftermath of the referendum result. It took nine months to trigger Article 50, and for much of the past year there was a sense of a phoney war as the country digested what had just taken place.
But many of the economic forecasts were about what might happen after we actually leave, and we're nowhere near that point yet. However, there has been one clear economic consequence of the Brexit vote that has had a knock-on effect on inflation: a sustained fall in the value of the pound.
During the course of the past year, sterling has fallen by as much as 19.3% against the US dollar and 15.5% against the euro. It has recovered slightly, but on Thursday the pound was 15% lower than it was on 23 June 2016 relative to the dollar, and 13.2% lower against the euro.
The claim: Another economic argument, used this time by the leave campaign, was that the UK would be well advised to leave an economic union that was in terminal decline.
The verdict: In fact the latest projections from the OECD predict that the UK economy will grow by 1.6% this year and 1% next year, while the euro area will grow by 1.8% in both 2017 and 2018.
The World Bank is more optimistic about the UK economy, and the eurozone still has some serious underlying issues to grapple with. Perceptions can change quickly, but the election in France of a new young president in Emmanuel Macron has reinforced the idea that perhaps - just perhaps - the EU has got its mojo back, just as the UK shuffles towards the exit door.
So where do we go from here?
All in all, it feels like there still has not been an honest debate in the UK about what Brexit actually means in practice. Both the main parties avoided any serious detail during the course of the election campaign.
But debate has resumed about alternative models - the Swiss model and the Norwegian model - that were discussed at length before and after the referendum, only to be discarded once Theresa May announced that she was determined that the UK would leave the single market and the customs union.
Debate about the long-term destination, and the prospects for a lengthy transition period, will intensify in the coming months. But there is an urgent need for progress on some of the more immediate practical issues.
As a direct result of the decision to leave the EU, the government plans legislation that will totally recast national policy on immigration, customs, trade, agriculture and fisheries, nuclear safeguards and international sanctions, as well as the "Repeal Bill" that will transpose all EU rules and regulations into British law.
It is remarkable how much we still don't know about how this process is going to unfold. One year on from the referendum, we are in many ways none the wiser.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40382479 | news_uk-politics-40382479 |
|
Porter heatwave dispute: Union 'will tell staff to wear dresses' - BBC News | 2017-06-23 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The action could come after a hospital porter was suspended after rolling his trousers up in the hot weather. | Beds, Herts & Bucks | The porters' request to wear three-quarter-length trousers was declined
A union says it will instruct members to wear dresses if a dispute over a hospital porter suspended for rolling up his trousers in hot weather is not resolved.
Michael Wood, a porter at Watford General Hospital, said he was facing disciplinary action from his employers Medirest.
The company says porters should "wear appropriate uniform at all times".
The GMB said it would tell porters to wear dresses if he was not reinstated.
The row follows a successful protest by boys at protest on Thursday by about 30 boys at the ISCA Academy in Exeter who wore skirts to school because shorts were not part of the school's uniform. The school has now changed the rules meaning boys will be allowed to shorts in lessons from next year.
Union official Mick Dooley said: "What we're hoping to do is get round the table and get Michael back to work, failing that, the chief executive of Watford General Hospital, [is] going to see her porters wearing dresses.
"We're going to put out a message to porters [to start] wearing dresses and start wearing skirts."
Mr Wood, 46, said he rolled up his black-coloured polyester trousers to three-quarter-length on Wednesday - the hottest June day for 40 years - but was called to the office and asked to roll them down again.
When he said he "could not promise" not to roll them back up, he was sent home.
Michael Wood said he was facing disciplinary action from his employers Medirest
"Our health and safety is paramount in the hospital, when you're struggling to work when you're sweating, you become irritable and argumentative," Mr Wood said.
"I wouldn't mind wearing a dress - at least I'd be cool."
On Wednesday, temperatures in nearby Harpenden peaked at 31.5C.
Mr Dooley said: "Because of the unusually high temperatures, the NHS managers in Watford General have adopted a reasonable approach towards their workforce.
"However, Medirest consider suspending safety reps is the preferred option."
He said Mr Wood had been "treated unfairly" and "should be reinstated immediately".
Medirest said it would be inappropriate to comment on an individual case where an investigation is ongoing but added the "health and safety of our colleagues is always our number one priority".
"Due to the nature of their job and health and safety requirements, it is important that porters wear appropriate uniform at all times," a statement said.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-40379293 | news_uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-40379293 |
|
UK's red letter day awaited in Brussels - with Brexit talks looming - BBC News | 2017-06-01 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | In almost a year, there's been zero progress on a deal, but Brussels thinks that's about to change. | Europe | Theresa May, pictured in July 2016 on her first trip as PM - to meet Germany's Angela Merkel
It's now almost a year since the UK blind-sided the EU by voting to leave the club.
And the sum total of face-to-face negotiations between the two sides to date? Zero.
Perfectly explicable in political circles, though baffling for much of the general public.
That's why, on both sides of the Channel, 8 June is a red-letter day.
Not only is it general election time for the UK, but here in Brussels it means finally starting Brexit negotiations - once the new British government is in place.
The first day of EU-UK Brexit talks is expected to be 19 June. And they will focus on who will meet, how often, in which country, discussing which aspects of Brexit, in which order.
And how prepared are the two sides?
Well, there's a definite aura of smugness emanating from the European Commission. Their man, Michel Barnier, is the EU's chief Brexit negotiator.
While the UK seemed to tear itself apart with recriminations hurled between Leavers and Remainers after the EU referendum, with politics and press coverage then becoming caught up in general election fever, the EU was quietly getting its Brexit ducks in a row.
It struck me once again this week just how far apart the two sides' pre-negotiating styles are.
Theresa May's government insists it has a Brexit plan - but prefers not to divulge it.
Instead, British voters are doused in rhetoric: Brexit means Brexit, No deal is better than a bad deal, and so forth, repeated by Prime Minister May in a televised interview just this Monday.
Both large parties in the UK election are set for Brexit, no matter what
The very same day, the European Commission produced groaningly meaty documents with draft negotiating details on two of its key Brexit priorities: the post-Brexit rights of EU citizens in the UK and of UK citizens in the EU, and the financial settlement the EU insists Britain pays before leaving.
The documents contain no real surprises, but as one of my colleagues noted, "no detail seems too small".
A stark reminder that the EU has been mulling all this over for the past 11 months. It's been busy game-planning. It's got in the lawyers.
In the draft papers, the EU even calls for the salaries of native English teachers at elite European schools attended by civil servants' children to be included in Britain's exit bill.
Also listed are the multiple legal acts from which the EU is calculating the UK's financial liabilities, though the final sum is notably absent. The EU wants Britain to agree on a methodology, to work out the precise exit bill in the first stage of negotiations.
Brexiteers desperate to "take back control" will be angry to see that Brussels wants the European Court of Justice to maintain jurisdiction in disputes involving the rights of EU citizens remaining in the UK after Brexit.
Michel Barnier is leading the EU side - and he's been preparing
It's this sort of detail that could well lead to confrontation with the UK government from the start - so why publish the minutiae in the first place?
With so many players involved on the EU side, the likelihood of press leaks are manifold, so Brussels is going for full disclosure in the name of "transparency".
Importantly for the UK, absent from any EU document is a mandate for Mr Barnier to negotiate post-Brexit relations with Britain, including a future trade deal, during the first phase of talks.
So insist though the British may, it is not in his discretion to start parallel negotiations.
This will be tough for Britain's new government to accept. The time pressure is huge.
Under EU rules, the Brexit deal must be agreed by March 2019 at the latest, and that's just the divorce, never mind the complexities of sorting out a new UK-EU relationship.
Also of note - no matter what some high-profile British politicians like Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson might insist - there is in fact no wiggle room in any EU paper published to date to allow UK cherry-picking from the single market, along the lines of 'we want to be part of the single market for cars and financial services, but we don't want to accept freedom of movement'.
Alongside the smug ambience at EU HQ as regards Brexit there is also a growing sense of coldness.
"We've gone through the five stages of mourning in rapid succession," is something you're often told here. "From huge sadness at the UK departing, to anger, remorse and now matter-of-fact acceptance."
Unlike normal trade deals between the EU and third countries, Brexit from the EU perspective is about destruction, not creating something new and filled with potential.
Whatever emerges from Brexit will be worse, it's felt, than what existed before - and many in the EU want Brexit to be difficult.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. "We Europeans have to take our destiny in our own hands," says Mrs Merkel
Brussels is more than aware that Euroscepticsm is alive and well across the continent. If liberal governments like President Emmanuel Macron's in France disappoint voters, for example, populist nationalists could yet win the day.
Mainstream EU leaders are anxious to demonstrate that exiting the club doesn't pay. Brexit has to hurt, they think, to damage the arguments of those in other countries pushing to leave the bloc,
From now until March 2019, the UK exists in an uncomfortable twilight zone - legally still an EU member, emotionally already viewed as an outsider.
The pre-negotiations rhetoric these 12 months has been bullish and threatening on both sides.
That led to a plea from a former judge at the European Court of Justice: for the EU and Britain's new government after 8 June to keep in mind that this is a divorce, not a war. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40115291 | news_world-europe-40115291 |
|
So, farewell austerity? - BBC News | 2017-06-09 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | After years of public sector cuts, yesterday’s general election result revealed that a sizeable portion of voters are tired of the “spend less” mantra. | Business | Talk of controlling the deficit is now likely to be dialled down
Before the 2010 election, David Cameron and George Osborne believed they would be tested on one issue.
Could they be trusted to get the public finances "back in order".
It was an age-old attack narrative used by the Conservatives over the decades - to great success.
Labour breaks the national bank, eventually, it was claimed.
And the Conservatives are voted in to sweep up the mess.
It was a policy that became known by a single word - austerity.
In the Budget of 2010, Mr Osborne, the Chancellor, announced £81bn of cuts over four years, some of the sharpest reversals in public financing seen for decades.
"It is a hard road, but it leads to a better future," he said.
The argument held, just, in 2015.
Ed Miliband relentlessly attacked the Conservatives on the issue of "cuts".
And was rejected at the ballot box.
Yesterday, a change, and economically as well as politically, a pretty fundamental one.
But Jeremy Corbyn - on a vision of higher spending, higher taxes and higher levels of investment - came closer than almost everyone, apart from maybe Jeremy Corbyn, believed possible.
So close that Theresa May will need the support of the Democratic Unionist Party to maintain her government.
What next for the "sound money" pledge contained in the Conservative manifesto, the idea that cuts would continue for the sake of the health of public finances?
Well, like a number of pledges made by Mrs May, let's say it might well be flexible.
One Tory close to Number 10 told me that the message would need to change or Mrs May would not be able to convince non-Conservative voters to back her.
"It's time for the austerity policies to shift," he said.
Nick Macpherson, the former permanent secretary at the Treasury, tweeted the election result "guarantees a higher deficit".
In short, many economists believe the government will be obliged to borrow more as political uncertainty weighs on growth, leading to less wealth creation and therefore the need for higher borrowing.
Mrs May and her chancellor were already saying before the election - most clearly in private - that the age of constant cuts was harder to sell to the public.
But rather than make an increase in spending the focus of their "offer" to the voter - as Labour tried to do - they allowed the whiff of tax rises to hang over their campaign.
The triple tax lock of 2015 (no increases in income tax, national insurance contributions or VAT) was dumped in favour of a single lock on VAT and a vaguer pledge to lower taxes generally.
Mrs May also abandoned the pensions triple lock, which guaranteed a rise in the annual pension of at least 2.5% a year.
And said nothing about curtailing the public sector pay freeze or reversing any of the in-work benefit reductions announced in previous Budgets.
Cuts to public services would continue, Mrs May suggested.
Cuts so deep that the Institute for Fiscal Studies wondered whether they were actually deliverable.
The "tough" party was still on show, and with poll leads storming above 20%, it seemed like a tactic that could work.
But it crumbled in the face of Labour's very different proposition.
Mr Corbyn was the change candidate, Mrs May "more of the same".
The classic election split which plays well for the former if people are feeling dissatisfied with where their lives are.
And in an era when real incomes are once again falling, "change" had many attractions.
Now, I expect that the Conservatives will do their best to distance themselves from the nasty party tag.
And, on economic policy at least, the DUP may help.
In their manifesto, the party says that the pensions triple lock should be maintained.
It attacks plans to means test the Winter Fuel Allowance (a Tory pledge) as well as any other "assaults" on benefits, which could of course include the in-work benefits freeze.
If Mrs May wants to push her policies through Parliament she will have to recognise where the DUP is coming from.
Talk of controlling the deficit (the amount the government spends above what it gains in tax revenue) is likely to be dialled down.
The overall debt will be allowed to rise.
Tories I have spoken to say that the Conservatives have to change the record on austerity.
And they are looking to Mrs May to take the lead. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40224901 | news_business-40224901 |
|
Kim Edwards: The girl who killed her mother and sister - BBC News | 2017-06-09 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Kim Edwards hated her mother so much she plotted to murder her and her sister. Why? | Lincolnshire | Kim Edwards murdered her mother and sister with the help of boyfriend Lucas Markham
A judge has ruled that teenager Kim Edwards can be identified as having killed her mother and sister. But how did their relationship turn from love to loathing?
As the details of the cold and brutal killings of Elizabeth Edwards and her daughter Katie were read out in court, the facts seemed at odds with the slight and seemingly timid teenager sitting in the dock.
Nottingham Crown Court heard how she and her boyfriend Lucas Markham, both aged 14 at the time, had plotted for days to cut their victims' throats as they slept at the family home in Spalding, Lincolnshire.
A grudge Kim held against her mother - and her bitter resentment of her mother's close relationship with her sister - was the motivation for the murders, prosecutor Peter Joyce QC said.
But it was not until jurors heard the details of a series of interviews Kim gave to police and psychiatrists that the depth of her hatred was revealed.
Elizabeth Edwards, 49, and her daughter Katie, 13, were found dead at their home in Spalding
"I wanted to get revenge for the way she treated me," Kim told one psychiatrist.
"I did it because I did not like Mum at all and I did not want her to ruin or corrupt anyone else.
"I did not feel anything for my mother, she deserved it and I'm glad she's dead."
She also told detectives: "Ever since I was young I never got on with my mum, she always favoured my sister."
In the three-person household of 5 Dawson Avenue she felt unwanted, unloved and cut adrift.
Mrs Edwards and her daughter Katie were murdered in their beds
Prosecutors said Kim showed "utter contempt" for her mother and her sister (pictured)
The court heard the difficulties between Kim and her mother could be traced back to January 2008 when Mrs Edwards had struck Kim, aged six at the time, in a row over the television.
Mrs Edwards referred herself to social services and Kim and Katie were placed in care for several months.
Social services closed the file on the Edwards family later that same year but Mrs Edwards would later say she believed Kim never truly forgave her.
The issues between Mrs Edwards and her eldest daughter resurfaced in 2013 and lurched from one problem to another over the next three years.
In September 2013, Mrs Edwards told Kim's teachers her daughter was planning to run away, although by March 2014 she told them their relationship had improved.
Eight months later Kim told support workers her mother had tried to strangle her, but this was denied by both Mrs Edwards and her sister. In January 2015 Mrs Edwards asked her GP for family therapy.
Kim Edwards and her mother shared a Facebook conversation just 10 days before the killings
At the start of 2015 Mrs Edwards arranged an emergency psychiatric appointment after discovering a suicide note left by Kim. Following an assessment, no evidence of mental illness was found, however.
In August of the same year the child and adolescent mental health services in Lincolnshire reported Kim's relationship with her mother was much better but Kim was feeling left out of the family triangle.
In May of that year, Kim had begun her relationship with Lucas. The pair ran away from home in October, before being discovered six days later sleeping rough in woods north of Spalding.
Mrs Edwards disapproved of her daughter's relationship with Lucas, the court heard.
In the weeks before her death, the churchgoing dinner lady had barred Lucas from her home, forcing the couple to meet in the garden, and had described the couple as "a time-bomb waiting to go off".
Kim told psychiatrists that by this stage her life had become a "like a living, walking hell", and in March she tried to kill herself by taking an overdose of painkillers.
The following month the fast deteriorating mother-daughter relationship blew up with murderous consequences.
A psychiatrist described the teenagers' relationship as "toxic"
In court, psychiatrists Dr Philip Joseph and Dr Indranil Chakrabarti attempted to explain what led to the killings.
Dr Joseph, for the prosecution, blamed the toxic "Bonnie and Clyde" relationship between Kim and Lucas. He said Kim had not been suffering from a recognised mental disorder but had been struggling to feel part of the family unit.
"In that triangle she felt very much left out," he said. "She felt that her mother was very much more attached to her younger sister."
He said she had told him the family dynamic made her feel unhappy and she was "jealous" of her sister.
She felt the only solution was to kill her mother.
"I was getting rid of the only problem I could see," Kim had told him.
"I thought it would have been better for my sister to die too.
"I was not killing my sister out of anger, and I miss her, but I was excited about killing my mother and I was looking forward to it."
Kim and Lucas had been in a relationship since May 2015
Dr Chakrabarti, for the defence, contended Kim had an adjustment disorder and longstanding attachment issues as a result of her strained relationship with her mother.
He said the disorder had been brought on by a series of stressful events, including Lucas being expelled from school and her attempt to kill herself.
He also pointed to a row between Kim and her mother on 9 April in which Mrs Edwards told Kim she would turn out like her father, who had left the family home when she was two years old.
Following the argument, Kim had gone to Lucas's home and the couple barricaded themselves in his room overnight. When Kim returned home she found her mother had bagged up some of her possessions and given others to her sister.
Kim had told Dr Chakrabarti her mother's actions had left her feeling like she "did not belong to the family anymore".
The following day, the court was told, she and Lucas began plotting the killings.
Kim Edwards said she was "jealous" of her sister Katie (left) and her relationship with their mother
On the night of the murders, Kim let Lucas into the house through the bathroom window.
He had brought a bag of knives with him.
Lucas took one of the knives and crept in to Mrs Edwards room where he stabbed her through the throat - he stabbed her eight times while smothering her with a pillow to stop her screaming out.
He then went in to Katie's room and stabbed her twice in the neck while she slept.
Following the murders, Kim and Lucas had sex on a mattress in the living room, ate ice cream and settled down to watch the vampire-themed Twilight films.
Over the next day-and-a-half they stayed at the house. They ignored visits from Lucas's aunt and police officers sent to the property to look for the two teenagers, who by now had been reported missing from school.
It was not until police forced their way into the house through a downstairs window that the couple were discovered.
PC Alistair Pullen, who was the first officer to enter the house, said that when he asked where Mrs Edwards was Lucas "looked at me clean in the eye and said 'Why don't you go up and see?'".
Kim would later tell Dr Joseph: "We felt laid back about what had happened - neither of us felt that bad about it."
Det Ch Insp Martin Holvey, who led the murder investigation, said: "The actual after-effects are probably the most chilling, the fact of what happened in those 36 hours after and how they carried on as normal, watching TV, watching a film, going upstairs to use the toilet while people are lying upstairs dead; it beggars belief."
He said he believed the "tragic and unprecedented" killings had been a result of a combination of issues.
"I guess many people through life will say things, especially juveniles, that they don't mean - 'I hate you' or 'I'm going to kill you'.
"It's a throwaway comment for many, many people, but this wasn't, this carried on, and they carried on talking about it over the next few days."
The whole truth of what happened in the Edwards' family home will probably never be known.
The jury rejected Kim's version of events and decided she did not have a psychological condition which would diminish her responsibility.
It leaves only an inescapable, if unpalatable, conclusion - that this 14-year-old girl was so consumed by hatred for her mother, she decided to kill her and her sister as well. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-37648194 | news_uk-england-lincolnshire-37648194 |
|
Obituary: Peter Sallis - BBC News | 2017-06-06 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The veteran star of Last of the Summer wine, and the voice of Wallace in Wallace and Gromit, has died aged 96. | Entertainment & Arts | Peter Sallis became a household name in the UK in the comedy Last Of The Summer Wine
Peter Sallis was best known as the mild-mannered Norman Clegg in Last of the Summer Wine.
By the time he first appeared in the role he had already carved out a distinguished career in the theatre and on television.
His role as the flat-capped philosopher made him the longest-serving cast member of the much-loved series.
And he reached an even wider audience as the voice of Wallace, the cheese-loving character in the animated series, Wallace and Gromit.
Peter Sallis was born on 1 February 1921 in Twickenham, Middlesex.
After attending Minchenden Grammar School in Southgate, north London, where the family had moved, he emulated his father and went to work in a bank.
The acting bug first struck during his wartime service in the RAF, when he was asked to play the lead role in an amateur production of Noel Coward's play Hay Fever.
"Acting is a matter of instinct," he later said when appearing on Desert Island Discs. "As soon as I was on the stage I just felt so at home."
Peter Sallis (third from right) as Snug in a 1958 production of A Midsummer Night's Dream
When hostilities ceased he enrolled at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art (Rada).
His first professional appearance came in 1946 and for the next six decades he was rarely out of work.
Throughout the 1950s he made a name for himself as a reliable character actor playing everything from Shakespeare to Chekhov.
His first play with a star cast was a production of Three Sisters, where he appeared alongside Ralph Richardson and Celia Johnson.
He had film roles in Anastasia, The VIPs and Wuthering Heights, but it was for his television work that he was better known.
He had already acted in two TV plays by writer Roy Clarke, in one playing a transvestite, before landing the role of Clegg in a Comedy Playhouse episode entitled Of Funerals and Fish.
This was successful enough for the BBC to commission a series with the revised title Last of the Summer Wine.
Surprisingly, given its later success, the first series was not well received by either audiences or critics.
Sallis recalled that filming of the early episodes was enlivened by off-screen arguments between his fellow actors Michael Bates and Bill Owen.
"Michael Bates was somewhere to the right of Margaret Thatcher," he said. "And Bill Owen was somewhere to the left of Lenin. It was all incomprehensible to me as I'd never had a political thought in my life."
The series sparked an appreciation society and a deluge of tourists to the Yorkshire village where it was filmed.
Sallis said, "You would not find me getting up to anything crazy that Clegg gets up to, but I have been very lucky to be a part of it all."
Peter Sallis, Bill Owen and Michael Bates - the original trio in Last of the Summer Wine
As well as Summer Wine, Sallis appeared in the Pallisers and The Diary of Samuel Pepys. In addition, he wrote a stage play, End of Term, and also a handful of radio plays.
Despite calling himself "only mildly well-known", after 30 years of playing Clegg, Sallis's face was one of the most familiar on British television.
And in 1992 his voice became recognisable across the world, when his distinctive tones graced the character of Wallace in Nick Park's celebrated animation films.
As one half of Wallace and Gromit, he appeared in such modern classics as The Wrong Trousers and A Close Shave.
Asked for the inspiration behind Wallace, Nick Park called Sallis his automatic choice and explained how the actor had even helped influence the character's face.
He said: "There was something about his voice that somehow insisted I make Wallace's mouth really wide to get it around the syllables."
Peter Sallis considered himself very fortunate to be in the hands of talented scriptwriters.
But his own gentle manner and natural timing certainly helped create comic characters of enduring and wide-ranging appeal.
It was with the mild-mannered Clegg that he felt most at home.
"I am like him in many ways. I am fairly retiring and do not like to be the centre of attention. I think I'm well cast."
Follow us on Facebook, on Twitter @BBCNewsEnts, or on Instagram at bbcnewsents. If you have a story suggestion email [email protected].
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-27129358 | news_entertainment-arts-27129358 |
|
Reality Check: Does the weather affect election turnout? - BBC News | 2017-06-06 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Other factors are more important than the weather in determining whether or not people vote. | Election 2017 | The argument seems to make sense. If on election day the weather is bad, people might well decide to stay at home rather than vote.
And with the weather turning wet and windy in the UK this week, it's an argument that you might have heard or read about.
But experts say there is no evidence from the UK to suggest that bad weather stops people from voting.
"There's basically no correlation between the weather and turnout," says Stephen Fisher an associate professor of political sociology at Oxford University.
Mr Fisher's research suggests people are more likely to vote if the election race is close and there is a strong difference between the two leading parties.
He points to the 2001 election, where turnout fell to 59%, the lowest since World War Two.
A comfortable Labour win had been expected. And, for some, Tony Blair was not sufficiently distinct from his Conservative rivals.
"In 2001 a lot of people saw New Labour as centrist," says Mr Fisher.
"They didn't see much difference ideologically, and it didn't really matter who they voted for."
But political parties' efforts to get people to vote can be effective.
"Having being contacted by a party worker makes a difference to turnout," says Mr Fisher.
Turnout has broadly been on a downward trend since its peak of 84% in 1950.
But since 2001, it has perked up a bit, to about 66% in 2010 and 2015.
David Cowling, senior visiting fellow at King's College London, says: "People have turned away from established political parties.
That was underlined by last year's referendum on European membership, he says, which attracted almost three million more voters than the general election of 2015.
"What it offered was motivation," says Mr Cowling.
"It gave a voice to people that thought they didn't have one."
So are people likely to vote in decent numbers on Thursday?
In 30 years of analysing elections, John Curtice, professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde, has learnt it is "absolutely impossible" to forecast turnout.
But he says the big difference between Labour and the Conservatives policies this time might spur people to vote, as well as the narrowing in the opinion polls as the campaign has developed.
Mr Fisher says: "I suspect turnout is likely to be higher because of the ideological divide."
Mr Cowling is keen to see whether talk of a "galvanised young electorate is really going to become reality".
That could boost overall turnout, as young people on average have lower turnout rates than older voters.
But Mr Cowling also warns that "for a lot of people this is an important election but an unnecessary one and that may not encourage a bigger turnout than last time". | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40172917 | news_election-2017-40172917 |
|
Qatar row: What's caused the fall-out between Gulf neighbours? - BBC News | 2017-06-06 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Qatar's support for Islamist groups has soured relations with Gulf neighbours like Saudi Arabia. | Middle East | Qatar has been accused of supporting terror
On Monday 5 June 2017, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, the UAE, and the internationally recognised Yemeni government severed their diplomatic relations with Qatar, accusing Doha of supporting terrorism.
In addition, the states announced that they were suspending air, sea, and land transport with Qatar, while Qatari citizens are required to return home within two weeks.
Qatar's support of the Saudi and UAE-led operations in Yemen is also suspended.
This might seem familiar. These states (aside from Yemen) withdrew their diplomats from Doha in 2014 over a similar set of concerns. That spat was resolved within nine months. But the core issues remain.
On this occasion, though similar motives fuel the dispute, the fact that Qatar's land border with Saudi Arabia - its only land crossing - will be suspended shows a severe escalation, given just how critical this border is for Qatar's imports, including food.
Reports emerged in late May 2017 of a speech given by the Qatari Emir, Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, where he was purported to have criticised America, offered support for Iran, reaffirmed Qatar's support for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and said that Qatar's relations with Israel were "good".
Qatar's official news agency then also reported that Qatar was withdrawing its ambassadors from Saudi, Bahrain, Egypt, and the UAE after discovering a "conspiracy" against Qatar. Subsequently, Qatari officials furiously denied that there was any truth behind these reports, but the damage was done.
The key problem was that these comments simply voiced out loud what many have long understood as Qatar's true policy positions.
Qatar has long had a tense relationship with the US. On a military-to-military level, the two countries co-operate well generally. But the US has long been angered by what it sees as slanted coverage in the Middle East by Qatar-owned Al Jazeera, Qatar's apparent support for a range of Islamist groups around the region, and lax anti-terrorist financing laws.
Similarly, Qatar has been bold in its support of Hamas, the Palestinian militant group affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood. In May 2017, Qatar used its influence to push Hamas to issue a policy document seen by some as an attempt to soften its extremist image.
But support for Hamas places Qatar deeply at odds with many states, such as the US, who view Hamas as a terrorist organization. And the other Gulf monarchies prefer to deal with its secular rival Fatah as representatives for the Palestinians.
But the problem is that Qatar is just too bold, too often.
The core issue presently is Qatar's support of Islamists around the Middle East region, which emerged quite evidently during the Arab Spring. This is as much a result of the personalised politics of Qatar's foreign policy and elite bureaucracy as it is an active decision by Qatar to support Islamists.
Moreover, Qatar argues vociferously that it does not support Islamists because the state prefers to, but because such groups like the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood enjoy significant public support.
Qatar's Emir Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani is alleged to have given a speech in May criticising the US
Either way, the UAE in particular, but also Saudi Arabia, do not agree at all with this approach of emboldening Islamist groups around the region. They tried to get Qatar to stop doing this in 2014, but, a few concessions aside, the broad tenor of Qatar's foreign policy approach did not change.
Otherwise, particularly under the leadership of the former Emir Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, Qatar sought to carve out a unique niche for itself and its policies, such as augmenting relations with Israel or Iran, and rejecting the wider consensus of the regional group of the monarchies, the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC).
Saudi Arabia withdrew its ambassador to Doha from 2002 to 2008 to try to pressure Qatar to curb its individualistic tendencies. This approach broadly failed too.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the leaders of this current move, will not want to fail again. And their position is strong, while Qatar's is weak.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE are emboldened. Leading the intervention in Yemen in 2015 displayed a newfound desire to truly lead on matters of regional security. And the UAE has, not least with a decade's operations alongside Isaf forces in Afghanistan, forged a reputation for itself as one of the US's most reliable Arab partners.
Then President Trump unprecedentedly took his first foreign visit to Saudi Arabia, and signed the largest weapons deal in history.
The only real card that Qatar holds with Washington is that it has, since the early 1990s, hosted a critical US base at al-Udeid. But this may no longer be enough. Other Gulf states may stand ready to replace this key base, though the logistics of this would not be straightforward.
The argument to President Trump may be compelling: with US help, Qatar might be persuaded to evict Hamas leadership from Doha and genuinely cut back on funding Islamist groups.
It seems that the time of Qatar's individualistic foreign policy may be up.
Dr David Roberts is a lecturer in the Defence Studies Department at King's College London. He was the Director of the Qatar office of the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi). He is the author of Qatar: Securing the Global Ambitions of a City State. Follow him on Twitter @thegulfblog | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-40159080 | news_world-middle-east-40159080 |
|
Ideas on the table for citizens' rights - BBC News | 2017-06-24 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Theresa May drops a big hint about how British negotiators hope to get round one of the big obstacles - who will police rules after Brexit. | UK Politics | There was relief that the UK is at last putting its ideas on the table but concerns over the British plans for EU citizens reflect Theresa May's fundamental bind. She faces a united opposing front here in Brussels, at least for now.
There are clashing expectations from the public at home - who want different things from departure. And of course varying strands of thought and demands from inside her own party.
Even a leader at the peak of their powers would struggle to deal with all that.
While complex, this summit was perhaps a brief respite from the brooding turmoil in her own party, where questions about the viability of her leadership lurk. Governing is doing, not fending off enemies - and at least today, Theresa May has done that.
There was also a big hint about how the British negotiators hope to get round one of the big obstacles. As we've discussed before one of the big gaps between the two negotiating sides here are who will police the rules on citizen's rights. So, if something goes wrong, who can they appeal to, how will their rights be protected.
The EU side is adamant that it can only be the European Court of Justice. Theresa May has been totally insistent that it can't be them.
At the press conference this afternoon she repeated that it would be the British courts in charge. So far, so the same. But she then tantalisingly - if you are a nerd like me - said that because the rights would be agreed as part of the withdrawal treaty, they would be therefore subject to international law.
Therefore, theoretically, that means they could be enforced by an international court of some variety. Lawyers suggest that is not likely to be the Hague, but could be some kind of new organisation that had British and European lawyers involved.
Sources in government have suggested it is a course the UK is likely to pursue, even though it has not been the subject of extensive discussions yet between the two sides. It could be, hypothetically, an elegant solution to avoid the clash, if the EU is amenable.
Sources on the UK side also suggest that it's unreasonable of the EU to expect EU judges to continue to rule on British citizens abroad, as well as expecting EU judges to continue to rule on EU citizens in Britain.
If the arrangement is truly to be reciprocal, they argue, then wouldn't it be more fair for British judges to rule on British expats abroad, and vice versa. There are many long, tangled arguments ahead, but at least, in the last forty eight hours, ideas are now being discussed. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40387897 | news_uk-politics-40387897 |
|
Isle of Wight term-time holiday dad Jon Platt guilty - BBC News | 2017-06-24 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Jon Platt's defence lawyers had argued that pursuing legal action against him was an "abuse of process". | Hampshire & Isle of Wight | Jon Platt admitted he was relieved the case had come to an end
A father who fought a long-running legal battle after taking his daughter on a term-time holiday to Disney World Florida has been found guilty over the unauthorised trip.
Jon Platt was convicted of failing to secure his child's regular attendance.
He lost an earlier legal challenge at the Supreme Court in April, despite winning previous legal battles in a case brought by Isle of Wight Council.
Platt was given a 12-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay £2,000.
Jon Platt lost his legal challenge at the Supreme Court in April
The case - over a £120 fine - returned to Isle of Wight Magistrates' Court earlier where Paul Greatorex QC, for Platt, had argued the prosecution should not continue and was an "abuse of process".
He suggested none of the documents published by the council or the primary school on attendance made it clear when a penalty notice would be given.
"It's completely vague, it does not give the guidance that parents are entitled to expect," he said.
Mr Platt told the court he did not believe he had seen a number of documents from the school setting out changes to absence rules.
He said a form from the school, when he applied for the seven-day absence in 2015, had noted that attendance of between 90% and 95% was satisfactory, which his child fell into.
But Ben Rich, counsel for Isle of Wight Council, said giving clear guidance did not mean spelling out every consequence of any action.
He argued the school was not required to make sure that every letter sent home was read, and that the council's code of conduct had made it clear that a penalty notice could be issued for a term-time holiday.
Giving the judgment, magistrate Jeannie Walker said: "The circumstances of this case fall squarely into that breach of school rules."
Speaking after the hearing Mr Platt said he was "disappointed" by the verdict.
"I didn't want to lose but there's a part of me that is actually relieved.
"If we'd won today, it seems pretty clear the Isle of Wight Council on the abuse of process argument may well have sought to appeal to the High Court and I desperately needed this all to be over." | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-40381825 | news_uk-england-hampshire-40381825 |
|
Reality Check: What has happened since the Brexit vote? - BBC News | 2017-06-24 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Reality Check correspondent Chris Morris looks back at a year since the referendum. | UK Politics | It's a year since the referendum in which the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, and it's safe to say that no-one yet knows how this is going to turn out.
This month's general election has only served to heighten the sense that much of the Brexit process is still unknown - particularly the final destination.
So what has changed in the past year?
Well, in terms of the process, in March the UK triggered Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, the formal route out of the EU that has never been put to the test before.
And - after an unexpected UK election that produced an unexpected result - formal face-to-face negotiations on the terms of divorce finally began earlier this week.
But there has been only one day of meetings between the two chief negotiators - David Davis and Michel Barnier - and there is an enormous amount still to do. That worries EU officials in particular.
The next few months will be crucial. By October we should know whether a deal looks achievable on the elements of separation that the EU intends to focus on first: citizens' rights, a financial settlement, and the future status of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
For now, all we know is that the two-year period for Article 50 negotiations is due to come to an end on 29 March 2019, and unless all parties agree on an extension, that is when the UK will leave the EU.
Amid all this uncertainty, what about some of the claims that reverberated around the referendum campaign last year?
The claim: £350m a week going to the EU that could go to the NHS
The verdict: The famous £350 million-a-week slogan daubed on the side of a Vote Leave bus has been debunked many times. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. The UK didn't send £350m a week to the EU because the rebate was deducted before any money was sent, and there's no sign that such a sum will be plucked from a magic money tree to be sent to the NHS when we leave.
A big concern for the NHS post-Brexit is whether it will be able to recruit the staff it needs to keep services going. The number of nurses from the EU registering to work in the UK has dropped from 1,304 in July 2016 to just 46 in April 2017.
That's a problem because 6.9% of nurses and health visitors in the NHS and 9.3% of doctors come from countries elsewhere in the EU (and the European Economic Area).
The fall in the number of EU nurses registering for work is part of a pattern that has seen net migration to the UK fall even before Brexit happens. The latest figures from the ONS show fewer EU citizens arriving in the UK and more leaving. What we don't yet know is what kind of immigration system the government plans to introduce when it brings free movement of people from the rest of the EU to an end.
The claim: Another prominent claim from the leave campaign in the run-up to the referendum last year was that Turkey was on the verge of joining the EU, and the UK couldn't do anything to stop it.
The verdict: Again, not true then and not true now.
In fact, since the referendum, Turkey has lived through an attempted military coup, a massive crackdown on opposition and dissent, and a sharp deterioration in human rights. Several countries are calling openly for stuttering membership talks to come to an end, and Turkey feels further away than ever from joining the EU.
The claim: There were many warnings of dire economic consequences from the remain side during the referendum campaign.
The verdict: A Treasury analysis that a leave vote would tip the UK into recession and cause an "immediate and profound" economic shock has proven to be unfounded.
That may be partly because so little actually happened in the immediate aftermath of the referendum result. It took nine months to trigger Article 50, and for much of the past year there was a sense of a phoney war as the country digested what had just taken place.
But many of the economic forecasts were about what might happen after we actually leave, and we're nowhere near that point yet. However, there has been one clear economic consequence of the Brexit vote that has had a knock-on effect on inflation: a sustained fall in the value of the pound.
During the course of the past year, sterling has fallen by as much as 19.3% against the US dollar and 15.5% against the euro. It has recovered slightly, but on Thursday the pound was 15% lower than it was on 23 June 2016 relative to the dollar, and 13.2% lower against the euro.
The claim: Another economic argument, used this time by the leave campaign, was that the UK would be well advised to leave an economic union that was in terminal decline.
The verdict: In fact the latest projections from the OECD predict that the UK economy will grow by 1.6% this year and 1% next year, while the euro area will grow by 1.8% in both 2017 and 2018.
The World Bank is more optimistic about the UK economy, and the eurozone still has some serious underlying issues to grapple with. Perceptions can change quickly, but the election in France of a new young president in Emmanuel Macron has reinforced the idea that perhaps - just perhaps - the EU has got its mojo back, just as the UK shuffles towards the exit door.
So where do we go from here?
All in all, it feels like there still has not been an honest debate in the UK about what Brexit actually means in practice. Both the main parties avoided any serious detail during the course of the election campaign.
But debate has resumed about alternative models - the Swiss model and the Norwegian model - that were discussed at length before and after the referendum, only to be discarded once Theresa May announced that she was determined that the UK would leave the single market and the customs union.
Debate about the long-term destination, and the prospects for a lengthy transition period, will intensify in the coming months. But there is an urgent need for progress on some of the more immediate practical issues.
As a direct result of the decision to leave the EU, the government plans legislation that will totally recast national policy on immigration, customs, trade, agriculture and fisheries, nuclear safeguards and international sanctions, as well as the "Repeal Bill" that will transpose all EU rules and regulations into British law.
It is remarkable how much we still don't know about how this process is going to unfold. One year on from the referendum, we are in many ways none the wiser.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40382479 | news_uk-politics-40382479 |
|
Trump accuses Obama of inaction over Russia meddling claim - BBC News | 2017-06-24 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The president says his predecessor "did nothing" despite knowing of meddling claims before the poll. | US & Canada | Mr Trump said the Russian investigation should focus on the Obama administration
President Donald Trump has accused his predecessor Barack Obama of inaction over alleged Russian interference in the US election in 2016.
Mr Trump said Mr Obama had learned well before the 8 November poll about the accusations and "did nothing".
His comments followed an article in the Washington Post which said that Mr Obama learned last August of President Vladimir Putin's "direct involvement".
The alleged meddling is the subject of high-level investigations in the US.
President Putin has repeatedly denied any Russian interference into the presidential election.
The Washington Post article says Mr Obama was told early last August by sources deep within the Russian government that Mr Putin was directly involved in a cyber campaign to disrupt the election, injure Hillary Clinton and aid a Trump victory.
The Post said Mr Obama secretly debated dozens of options to punish Russia but in the end settled on what it called symbolic measures - the expulsion of 35 diplomats and closure of two Russian compounds. They came in late December, well after the election.
The Post reported that Mr Obama was concerned he might himself be seen as trying to manipulate the election.
The paper quoted a former administration official as saying: "From national security people there was a sense of immediate introspection, of, 'Wow, did we mishandle this'."
Measures Mr Obama had considered but which were not put into action included planting cyber weapons in the Russian infrastructure and releasing information personally damaging to Mr Putin.
Imagine, for a moment, that you're Barack Obama in August 2016. You've just been informed by the CIA that Vladimir Putin has ordered a wide-ranging effort to disrupt the US presidential election.
What do you do? Mr Obama responded in typical fashion - cautiously. He alerted state officials, warned Russia and attempted (unsuccessfully) to fashion a bipartisan response with Republicans in Congress.
Now the second-guessing has begun. Some Democrats are saying the Obama team should have gone public with such a startling discovery before election day. The president feared such a move would prompt the Republican nominee to accuse him of meddling and undermine faith in the electoral process. He believed Mrs Clinton was going to win anyway, so it was best not to rock the boat.
Mr Trump himself is now questioning why Mr Obama didn't do more - a curious position given that he recently described the Russia hacking story as a Democratic "hoax".
These latest revelations add yet another wrinkle to a 2016 campaign that will be hashed and rehashed for the foreseeable future. The most pressing question now, however, is not what Mr Obama did. It's what the US government does next.
Mr Trump tweeted on Friday: "The Obama Administration knew far in advance of November 8th about election meddling by Russia. Did nothing about it. WHY?"
He followed that up with two more tweets on Saturday, the second saying: "Obama Administration official said they "choked" when it came to acting on Russian meddling of election. They didn't want to hurt Hillary?"
He repeats the argument in an interview with Fox News, which will air on Sunday.
"If he had the information, why didn't he do something about it? He should have done something about it. But you don't read that. It's quite sad."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Allegations of collusion between the Trump team and Russian officials during the election have dogged the president's first five months in office.
He has repeatedly denied the allegations, calling the investigations a "witch hunt".
US investigators are looking into whether Russian cyber hackers targeted US electoral systems to help Mr Trump win.
US media say special counsel Robert Mueller is also investigating Mr Trump for possible obstruction of justice over the Russia inquiries.
They involve the president's firing of FBI chief James Comey, who led one of the inquiries, and Mr Trump's alleged attempt to end a probe into sacked national security adviser Michael Flynn.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Do Trump voters care about the Russia investigation? | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40395433 | news_world-us-canada-40395433 |
|
Has British democracy let its people down? - BBC News | 2017-06-12 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The general election raised questions about whether the British democratic system served its country well. | UK | Parliamentary democracy is one of the British values that English schools are now required, by statute, to promote during lessons - not debate, not discuss, promote.
If some teachers interpret their new role as propagandists for this kingdom's existing system of governance, that would be a shame, because right now there are questions about how well our form of democracy is serving the UK.
Far from providing the stability and legitimacy it promises, one could argue that our democratic system has served to expose and deepen social divides.
Some would say it has even contrived to leave our country vulnerable at a critical moment in its history.
Rather than seeking to close down critical challenge of our form of democracy, do we need a serious and urgent conversation about how we can improve matters?
Yes, turnout was the highest since 1997, and there are clear signs that young people may have participated in larger numbers than in previous elections.
These must be encouraging signs for the democratic process.
But almost a third of the electorate still didn't bother to exercise their democratic right.
And for nine out of 10 of those that did last week, the victorious party in their constituency didn't change.
In many seats, that has been the case for decades.
Churchill: "No-one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise"
The overall result may have been unexpected and even "extraordinary", but for the vast majority of voters, the local outcome could be construed as suggesting people were quite happy with the status quo.
"No-one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise," Winston Churchill told the House of Commons in 1947.
"Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Most people would probably agree with that, and David Cameron was surely right to argue that democracy is a keystone in the curtain wall that defines our nation's character, a feature of British life that must be defended.
But a democracy's strength is not measured only in its ability to withstand external attack. It must be loved and cherished by those within.
Talk to people the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, and you will hear the argument that the system ignores ordinary people, that their voice is not being heard by the distant elites.
Democracy, they say, is failing them.
At a time in world history when power is shifting further away from the ordinary citizen to international institutions and global corporations, this sense of democratic deficit is felt even more keenly.
National and local democratic structures need to be more responsive, but in Britain people feel they are increasingly remote.
This snap election may have done little to restore people's faith in the democratic process.
If people felt their voice was irrelevant before, will they think the system is any better now?
Our two main political parties were founded and evolved to deal with the social and economic challenges of the industrial revolution.
Conservative and Labour, left and right, capitalism and socialism - these ideological movements were a response to the economic and cultural challenges of power moving from the field to the factory.
But power is moving again, from the national to the multinational.
How citizens think we should respond to that shift is the new divide in our politics.
It is less about left v right and more about nationalism v globalism.
The 9.5% increase in the vote share for Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party and the 6% increase in Theresa May's Conservative support might be held up as evidence that the British electorate is once again becoming more "tribal" in left-right terms.
But old-fashioned political tribalism is actually on the wane.
If some voters feel frustration with the limitations of our first-past-the-post electoral system, they are striving to get their voice heard as best they can.
On the cost of living, on trade, on public services, on climate change, on our future prosperity - we are living in uncertain times.
Smaller parties that face no realistic chance of power, however attractive, get squeezed out at such moments.
Protest votes can seem like a luxury.
Voters are striving to get their voice heard as best they can
You will hear commentators suggesting that the result of this election sends a clear message to our political leaders.
But it's hard to argue that the final electoral arithmetic gives effect to some silent national consensus on what Britain wants.
A weakened government exclusively wooing one small party's MPs, politicians that 99.4% of the public didn't vote for - does this really reflect the "will of the people"?
So what is the will of the people?
Analysing what happened last Thursday reveals all kinds of contradictory and opaque views within the voting patterns.
There are deep divides between young and old, town and country, north and south, rich and poor.
There was no definable message from the electorate last Thursday.
The nuanced opinions that the country and, indeed, every voter holds are impossible to explain from a simple "X" in a single box.
And the diminution of local government in England, the weakening of the trade union movement, the impotence of political protest movements, the increasing centralisation of overarching authority to one house in Downing Street - these add to the sense that the "demos" (people) are increasingly excluded from the "kratos" (power).
The defining feature of our democracy, this cornerstone of British values, is that citizens have a participatory role in political and civic life. The people have a voice.
Some would argue that the debate we must have now is how to convince the populace that the United Kingdom does have a democracy that allows that voice to be listened to, understood and acted upon.
Update 26 June 2017: This article has been changed to clarify some of the points made by Mark Easton.
Sorry, your browser cannot display this content. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40245805 | news_uk-40245805 |
|
'Facebook blasphemer' given death penalty - BBC News | 2017-06-12 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The 30-year-old is accused of posting insulting comments about the Prophet Muhammad. | Technology | Facebook has yet to comment on the death sentence
A man accused of posting blasphemous content to Facebook has been sentenced to death by a court in Pakistan.
Taimoor Raza was convicted after allegedly posting remarks about the Prophet Muhammad, his wives and companions within the site's comments.
The public prosecutor involved said he believed it was the first time the death penalty had been awarded in a case related to social media.
Facebook itself has yet to comment on the case.
The US firm previously announced in March that it was deploying a team to Pakistan to address the government's concerns about blasphemous content on its service, but added that it still wished to protect "the privacy and rights" of its members.
Pakistan's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has described blasphemy as being an "unpardonable offence".
Raza's case was heard by an anti-terrorism court in Bahawalpur - about 309 miles (498km) from the capital Islamabad.
His defence lawyer said the 30-year-old had become involved in an argument about Islam on the social network with someone who had turned out to be a counter-terrorism official.
The public prosecutor said the accused had been arrested after playing hate speech and blasphemous material from his phone at a bus stop, following which his handset had been confiscated and analysed.
Raza will be able to appeal against the death penalty at Lahore High Court and then, if required, in Pakistan's Supreme Court.
The Express Tribune, a local newspaper, reported that the verdict came days after a college professor was refused bail in another case involving accusations of blasphemy on social media in Pakistan.
Its Pakistan campaigner, Nadia Rahman, has called for Raza's immediate release.
"Convicting and sentencing someone to death for allegedly posting blasphemous material online is a violation of international human rights law and sets a dangerous precedent," she told the BBC.
"No one should be hauled before an anti-terrorism court or any other court solely for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief online."
There were anti-Facebook protests in 2010 after a competition to draw the Prophet Muhammad
The developments come seven years after a Pakistan court temporarily blocked local access to Facebook after the social network was used to promote a contest to draw images of Prophet Muhammad - an act considered to be offensive by many Muslims.
This is a dramatic time for Pakistani social media. Once considered a platform where people could express themselves freely, it is now a place where people worry about the consequences of commenting.
Instead of acting to restore confidence and safeguarding the masses' right to freedom of expression, the government has been busy making threats through TV and newspaper adverts.
This is happening with a clear understanding about the gravity that accusations of blasphemy can have. There have been several incidents of vigilantes taking the law into their own hands after such claims.
Human rights activists accuse the government of pushing through a controversial cyber-crimes law without addressing their concerns.
In a country where fewer people have been convicted of blasphemy than have been killed after being accused of the offence, this ruling will not calm nerves. And increasingly people prefer to use chat apps and closed groups to post content so that their thoughts cannot be seen by the wider public.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40246754 | news_technology-40246754 |
|
Russia tries to shed hooligan image for Confederations Cup - BBC News | 2017-06-16 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Football fever rises in Russia ahead of the curtain-raiser tournament for 2018's World Cup. | Europe | Cristiano Ronaldo will be one of the big names at the Confederations Cup
The Confederations Cup kicks off this weekend in St Petersburg. For fans, the fortnight of international football is a taster for the 2018 World Cup.
But for Russia, plagued by image problems, the championship is also chance to prove that it is a safe host for travelling players and their supporters.
That is not how it looked last summer.
Russian hooligans were among those rampaging through the streets of France at the European Championship. The internet was flooded with phone footage of gangs, chasing and dishing out brutal beatings to rival fans.
Russian fans were blamed for violence in Marseille and in Lille at Euro 2016
There have been fears ever since that Russian hooligans will try to repeat those scenes on home turf.
Officials here are adamant that will not happen.
"We are working with fans, analysing potential threats," senior interior ministry official Anton Gusev explained at a press conference to present security plans both for this summer and the 2018 World Cup.
He revealed that 191 Russians were currently blacklisted and banned from matches. That is almost double the number before the trouble in Marseille.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Members of the Orel Butchers speak to the BBC about their lives as football hooligans
"Those convicted of serious violations including racism, setting off flares or fights are under our constant control," the security chief stressed, adding that his team were also working closely with police abroad.
At the heart of Russia's security arrangements is a new "fan passport" system.
On the ground floor of a Moscow city office block, staff are still busy creating the laminated photo IDs required by all ticket holders for the Confederations Cup.
It is one of multiple distribution centres issuing the passports to all applicants who pass security screening. For travelling fans, the ID also replaces a visa.
"After checks like this, I think it will be very safe," Andrei told the BBC, plastic ID already in hand.
He said he had won two match tickets at work and was not at all worried about security.
"Russia is not France. Everything will be great!" Andrei added.
"If there are idiot hooligans here, then they exist all over the world. But I think people will see this as a party, not as an excuse to come and fight," another fan called Ramil agreed.
With matches in four host cities, instead of the 11 being made ready for 2018, the Confederations Cup is a chance to test-drive the new IDs on a smaller scale.
But hooligans are not the only security concern.
It is just over two months since a suicide bomber attacked the metro in St Petersburg, the venue for the opening match on Saturday. There have been further terror attacks in Europe since then.
President Vladimir Putin has issued a decree tightening security for several weeks in the four host cities. Decree 202 sets restrictions on access and activities in those cities. Controversially, that includes extra curbs on political demonstrations.
Officers policing the Confederations Cup also need accreditation
"Currently, we have the situation totally under control, we don't see any terror threat," a deputy head of the FSB intelligence service told the BBC.
"We are increasing our work on all fronts: both inside the country and by co-operating with all foreign partners who are ready to help," said Alexei Lavrishchev.
In the kind of dig at the West that is common these days he added that Russia's borders were closed to members of international terror groups, "unlike European countries with a more liberal migration regime".
The man blamed for the St Petersburg bombing was a Russian citizen, though.
Hosting the World Cup, and its precursor this month, is a matter of great pride for Russia. But the event has thrust the country under an international spotlight that it is not always happy about.
A common reaction to criticism, including over hooliganism, has been to claim that Russia is the victim of a smear campaign. Russia's enemies, the argument goes, are trying to sabotage the World Cup.
But behind the bluster, officials do seem to have taken note.
Not so long ago, Alexei Smertin claimed there was no such thing as racism in Russian football.
The former Chelsea midfielder and national team captain has since been made a World Cup ambassador, given the task of rooting out racism amongst other things.
"It's an issue that exists everywhere," Mr Smertin told the BBC, while Russia's national squad trained behind him for their opening game. "But we will show our warm reception for all, despite their continent or nationality."
Russian football's anti-racism inspector Alexei Smertin once denied the problem existed there
Anti-racism campaigners reported a significant rise in abusive chanting in 2014-15, the last season they had figures for. But Alexei Smertin said Russia's slogan was "respect".
He also insisted his country was taking the problem of hooliganism seriously.
"I would say there is this tiny minority of people who are… a bit aggressive," the ex-Chelsea player conceded. "But 99% of people who love football are quite polite."
That is the message that Russia is working hard to project. As fans arrive for this weekend's first matches, it will have to starting proving itself.
Copa America champions Chile will be among the eight teams taking part in four venues
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40287171 | news_world-europe-40287171 |
|
Newspaper headlines: 'Sorrow at tower fire turns to anger' - BBC News | 2017-06-16 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Friday's front pages continue to carry extensive coverage of the fire at the west London tower. | The Papers | The UK's national front pages are again dominated by the Grenfell Tower tragedy.
Against the backdrop of the charred building, the Daily Mirror's headline reads simply: "Criminal".
"We need answers. We need change," the paper says.
"Now the anger," is the headline on the Sun's front page, which says "sadness has given way to fury as angry locals demand to know how the inferno was allowed to happen."
The Daily Telegraph talks of a "litany of failings", while the Daily Mail says ministers are facing three disturbing questions: was the lethal cladding chosen to meet environmental targets; why were families told to stay in their flats; and how many other "tinder box towers" are there?
The i newspaper quotes from the planning application submitted before the block's recent refurbishment.
It said cladding would improve the environmental performance of the building and its appearance.
Meanwhile, the Sun says the cladding covers thousands of homes and offices across Britain; numerous schemes have made use of it "to get green energy ticks".
The Times reports that particular type of cladding used on Grenfell Tower is banned in the US on buildings taller than 40ft (12m) - for fire safety reasons.
It says the manufacturer makes two fire-resistant alternatives, but they are more expensive.
The paper calculates the difference in cost at Grenfell Tower would have amounted to less than £5,000 for the entire building.
There were also further heart-rending accounts of the horrors at Grenfell Tower - as well as the heroism.
The Sun says one father got his pregnant wife and youngest daughter down the smoke-filled stairs from the 21st floor, climbing over bodies on the way.
Marcio Gomes, an Ofsted inspector, says he and his family had been instructed to stay put for two hours by emergency operators; but by 04:30 BST the blaze had reached his windows and he realised he had to act to save his family.
Another woman tells the paper she saved her family by running a bath and letting it flood the floors; it kept the flames at bay until crews reached her flat at 03:00.
The Daily Mail tells how a young Italian couple who were engaged to be married phoned their parents from their flat on the 23rd floor to say goodbye.
The architecture graduates moved to London three months ago to look for work and were captivated by the views of the capital from their flat, often posting pictures on social media.
One had shown a rainbow across the city skyline, with the word: "Spectacular".
Away from the North Kensington fire, several papers round on shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, who has reportedly called for a million protesters to take to the streets to call for Theresa May to leave Downing Street.
"Our democracy has no place for the mob," says the Daily Telegraph in a lengthy editorial.
"We had an election last week," says the Daily Express, adding that "whichever way you cut it, Labour lost".
There's a similar message in the Daily Mail, which tells Mr McDonnell: "We live in a democracy and our arguments are settled in Westminster."
Student loan debt in the UK has risen to more than £100bn, according to the Guardian - a rise of almost 17% in a single year.
The figures come from the Student Loans Company and show that England accounts for more than £89bn of the total.
The average amount of debt accrued by each student on graduation is more than £32,000.
Meanwhile, the Times reports that almost a dozen universities have given their vice chancellors big pay rises - despite suffering a significant fall in student numbers.
It says "university chiefs received an average package of £280,877 including pension contributions".
A report by the British Council - the UK's international organisation for educational opportunities and cultural relations - suggests that school foreign exchange trips are being killed off by excessive red tape.
There is confusion over child protection rules, according to the Times.
The problem is said to be contributing to a big slump in pupils taking foreign languages at GCSE level.
In an editorial, the newspaper laments what it calls a "blinkered" approach. A mastery of foreign languages, it says, has never been so important.
And finally, the Daily Mirror celebrates three people who have pulled off an amazing feat, with odds of 48-million-to-one against.
Steve Winterbottom, 35, from Buxton, Derbyshire, shares the same birthday as his father - 4 June.
He and his wife, Emma, now have a baby, Emma Ray, who was born two weeks early - also on 4 June. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-40297669 | news_blogs-the-papers-40297669 |
|
Mark Carney says time not right for interest rate rise - BBC News | 2017-06-20 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Wage growth is slowing and the impact of Brexit is unclear, the Bank of England governor says. | Business | This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
The time is not right for an interest rate rise, Bank of England governor Mark Carney has said.
Wage growth is falling, and the impact of Brexit on the economy is unclear, Mr Carney said in a speech at Mansion House in London.
The pound fell sharply after Mr Carney's comments.
Meanwhile, Chancellor Philip Hammond called for a smooth Brexit to avoid a "cliff edge" for businesses as the UK leaves the European Union.
In his Mansion House speech, Mr Carney said: "From my perspective, given the mixed signals on consumer spending and business investment, and given the still subdued domestic inflationary pressures, in particular anaemic wage growth, now is not yet the time to begin that adjustment [rate rises].
"In the coming months, I would like to see the extent to which weaker consumption growth is offset by other components of demand, whether wages begin to firm, and more generally, how the economy reacts to the prospect of tighter financial conditions and the reality of Brexit negotiations."
As Brexit negotiations unfold, the UK economy will be influenced by the expectations of domestic consumers, firms, and markets about any transition period and what will happen in the longer term, Mr Carney said.
He said companies on both sides of the Channel may "soon need to activate contingency plans".
"Before long, we will all begin to find out the extent to which Brexit is a gentle stroll along a smooth path to a land of cake and consumption," he said.
Following Mr Carney's comments, the pound fell about 0.4% against the dollar to trade at $1.2682.
The Bank governor warned that monetary policy, which is controlled by the Bank of England, "cannot prevent the weaker real income growth likely to accompany the transition to new trading arrangements with the EU".
But he said the Bank's policy could influence how "the hit to incomes is distributed between job losses and price rises".
Meanwhile, in his speech at Mansion House, Mr Hammond outlined priorities for a "Brexit for Britain", including a comprehensive free trade agreement for goods and services.
He said the UK and the EU needed to negotiate "mutually beneficial transitional arrangements to avoid unnecessary disruption and dangerous cliff edges" from Brexit.
The chancellor added that the UK needed "frictionless customs arrangements", especially on the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
He said the UK would "almost certainly need an implementation period, outside the Customs Union itself, but with current customs border arrangements remaining in place, until new long-term arrangements are up and running".
Mr Hammond added that the negotiations need to take a "pragmatic approach" to the export of UK financial services, and he warned against "protectionist agendas" dressed up as arguments about supervisory oversight.
However, he said there were also legitimate concerns, such as those raised by the European Commission about euro clearing.
Last week the EU revealed a draft law that would give it the power to move the lucrative euro clearing business out of London and keep it in the EU.
Mr Carney echoed Mr Hammond's comments, saying that "fragmentation of such global markets by jurisdiction or currency would reduce the benefits of central clearing." | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40338570 | news_business-40338570 |
|
The Queen's Speech: What can we expect? - BBC News | 2017-06-20 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | BBC editors and correspondents examine the policies which may guide the new government. | UK Politics | The Queen's Speech on Wednesday will set out the government's proposed legislation and policies for the next session of parliament, as it continues negotiations on a post-election deal with the Democratic Unionist Party. BBC editors and correspondents have been looking at what might shape the government's programme.
A Queen's Speech sets out the government's proposals for legislation in the coming parliamentary session. It does not therefore necessarily have to set out the government's detailed plans for how it intends to conclude an international negotiation.
So do not expect Her Majesty to reveal precisely what form of Brexit Theresa May now wishes to pursue after her electoral setback. That will be determined by future discussions she will have with her party and our parliament where she has no majority.
Instead, the Queen's Speech will set out the legislation that will be needed howsoever we leave the EU. The largest measure by far will be what has been dubbed "the great repeal bill". This is a misnomer. In fact it should be called "the great continuity bill".
This bill will indeed repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and thereby take Britain out of the EU. But that is a technicality. More importantly the bill will transfer EU rules and regulations into UK law so there is no legal and financial chaos when we leave.
The idea is to preserve the status quo in the short term so that after Brexit parliament can go through these many laws at its leisure and delete, amend or keep what it wants.
This is such a huge exercise that the government will also have to set out how it intends to go through the estimated 19,000 laws it will need to transpose.
It is likely to use fast-track procedures - known as secondary legislation - that will ensure decisions are taken quickly by ministers and officials and there is no parliamentary gridlock potentially lasting years. But this will be controversial as there will be less parliamentary scrutiny than normal of what the government is doing.
And that is not all. The government has also made clear that it will also have to introduce other bills in areas where keeping EU law is not enough and where new legislation will be needed. These may cover immigration, customs, agriculture, fisheries, taxation, data protection, sanctions and nuclear safety. That is a lot of legislation.
The political point is this - parliament will provide the domestic battleground for Brexit, where MPs try to shape Theresa May's negotiating position, and the weapons they will use will be the bills set out in this coming Queen's Speech.
This Queen's Speech would normally reflect the winning party's manifesto. But this year, much of the interest is on what's going to be dropped or watered down. Some of the most contentious pledges seem likely to be ditched.
So don't expect to see the scrapping of the winter fuel allowance or a reduction of the so-called "triple lock", under which the state pension rises in line with the highest of average earnings, the inflation rate or 2.5%. This was to be replaced by a "double lock" rising with earnings or inflation.
What would this mean for the public finances? The "double lock" on pensions wasn't going to happen until 2020. And the cost of retaining the triple lock could be zero if the forecasts on earnings growing more than 2.5% are correct.
It's hard to see how the controversial social care plan, which involved people having to sell their homes until they had only £100,000 left in their estates, could get through parliament in its current form, either.
We don't know how much it would cost to retain the winter fuel allowance as there wasn't any detail on how it would be means tested. As for the so-called "dementia tax", the IFS says there also wasn't enough detail to cost either the original proposal or the subsequent U-turn.
What would really make a big difference to public spending is if the government eases the restrictions on public sector pay increases, currently capped at 1%, or the freeze on working age benefits.
There's been much talk about reining back on austerity. The new government could end up borrowing more, not less.
When it comes to business, this manifesto took a far more interventionist approach than previous Tory pledges. From wading into the energy market with a cap on standard variable tariffs, to plans to ensure worker representation at board level. Theresa May also wanted to increase the amount levied on firms employing migrant workers.
That hasn't gone down well with most firms who are wary of more regulation and fear any additional financial burdens when many are already grappling with rising costs and the uncertainty of Brexit. Could these measures also be diluted? Labour is keen on an even tougher energy cap so perhaps this eye catching measure will remain in the legislative programme.
But it's the spectre of leaving the EU which overshadows everything for business and the economy. Theresa May is certainly under some pressure to take a less rigid approach and several business organisations have already started to wade in.
Additionally, the so-called Great Repeal Bill, which aims to repatriate European law into British law before Brexit, should mean no sudden changes to rules and regulations over the next few years but deciding which laws should be kept or changed will be a huge undertaking.
When the 91-year-old Queen begins to read out her speech, the ink freshly dried on the now much-discussed vellum, we should get our first clear indication of where providing support for the UK's ageing population sits in the new government's list of priorities.
Will they deal with the very real problems faced by the social care system head on, or will they veer away from the issue after getting their fingers burned during the election campaign?
The social care system helps people who are older or disabled with washing, dressing and medication, among many other things.
With growing demand, squeezed budgets, fewer people getting council help, a shortage of care staff and care companies handing back local authority contracts, it is safe to say this complicated system is in crisis.
For many experts, the Conservative manifesto missed the point on care. It gave with one hand - increasing the amount of people's money that was protected - and took with the other, by including the value of a person's home in all calculations.
But it did nothing about what many see as the fundamental unfairness of a system that leaves some, particularly those with dementia, facing huge costs - sometimes running into the hundreds of thousands of pounds before they get help.
Only four days after the manifesto launch was a cap or limit on the highest care costs promised, but by then the opposition description of a "dementia tax" had stuck.
So has the election shifted the debate significantly? Is there now an appetite for finding a way to share the risk of very high dementia care costs in the way we share the risk of cancer or other health costs?
After putting short-term money into social care last winter, the government was planning a green paper on funding this autumn. The other main parties have also talked about working towards a cross-party consensus.
But what if the government puts social care into the "too difficult to deal with right now" tray? Well, that is described by at least one commentator as grim, because these problems won't go away.
Officials at Number 10 are, understandably, giving away no details as to how many of the government's ideas on improving UK security will make it into the Queen's Speech.
There is talk of a Counter Extremism Bill, a Commission Against Extremism and measures to curtail online propaganda, but none of this is confirmed.
But we do know from Theresa May's speech on the steps of Downing Street on 4 June the broad areas where she wants to see more effort being focused. She named extremism and hateful ideologies as the sources of current terrorist threats. This means both tackling online radicalisation and no longer allowing intolerance to fester.
"We need to work with allied democratic governments to reach international agreements that regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremist and terrorism planning," she said in her speech.
Her meeting in Paris on 13 June with the new French president appeared to reinforce this in principle but it may be too early to see detail inserted into the Queen's Speech. The prime minister has also suggested that custodial sentences could be extended for terrorist-related offences in the light of the prevailing threat.
Military action against the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, she said, is necessary to deprive terrorists of their safe spaces.
There will be a comprehensive review of Britain's counter-terrorism strategy, made all the more urgent by the Finsbury Park attack on Muslim worshippers.
After four terror attacks getting through in just three months, nearly everyone can agree this needs to be undertaken in order to give the police and MI5 the capabilities they need, and to avoid other potential attackers failing to be spotted and then slipping through the surveillance net.
At the outset of the election, the big talking point for education was the 11-plus and the return of grammars in England.
When the votes were counted, the most important figure was the 13-minus - the loss of Conservative MPs and the evaporation of the party's majority.
With this new parliamentary arithmetic, there has been widespread speculation that plans for a new wave of grammars have already been ditched, as too controversial to get through the Commons. But nothing has been confirmed and grammar supporters might hold on to a couple of straws for a scaled-down return to selection.
The Conservatives' new friends in the DUP are pro-grammar, and Graham Brady, the most high profile grammar-supporting MP, wields more influence than ever as the leader of Tory backbenchers.
School funding proved to be one of the biggest grassroots issues during the election. And proposed changes to the funding formula, which looked vulnerable before the election, are now likely to be heavily revised, with a higher minimum amount per pupil.
Apart from how school cash is allocated, head teachers have been loudly telling parents (otherwise known as "voters") that the overall level of funding is much too low.
If the new government is to avoid even more vociferous protests, they might need much bigger investments. And there must be every chance that the proposed source of extra money - scrapping universal free school lunches for infants - will be ditched as unpopular and requiring legislation that would now be difficult to get past MPs.
The other big education story was the impact of tuition fees on a resurgent youth vote.
Seats with big student populations, such as Canterbury and Portsmouth South, showed huge swings to Labour, suggesting the promise to scrap fees had been a vote-winner.
Will the government pause for thought? Will they want to be seen as piling more debt on to a younger generation already facing unaffordable housing and stagnating wages?
Also will the new government press ahead with one of the overlooked give-aways in the manifesto - to write off teachers' tuition fees as long as they stay in teaching?
If there is another election in the autumn, fees could be an even more topical issue, because that's exactly when fees and interest charges on loans are being increased again.
The prime minister has made few pronouncements on NHS policy but from the moment she arrived in Downing Street last year she made clear her interest in mental health. It was, Theresa May said at the time and again in a speech in January, a "burning injustice" that not enough help was on hand for those suffering mental health problems.
Given that the Conservatives' main election campaign health announcement was on mental health, its possible that this might feature in the Queen's Speech.
The Tories said they would scrap the 30-year-old Mental Health Act which, they argued, had brought discrimination and injustice with concerns that individuals were held unnecessarily in hospitals and police cells. A new Mental Health Treatment Bill was promised.
Mental health charities and professionals welcomed the idea of scrapping the old act but warned that a new bill would need plenty of work on detail and extensive consultation. Theresa May could restate the government's commitment to the plan in the Queen's Speech without being specific about the timing for a bill.
Beyond that, health legislation seems unlikely. There is no appetite in Whitehall and the NHS for further system-wide reform. Simon Stevens, head of NHS England, has pushed on with radical plans for joined-up care involving local health and social care leaders.
But he says they don't need new legislation. Ministers, aware that trying to push changes through Parliament without a majority will be difficult, are likely to let Mr Stevens get on with it.
The terror attacks at Manchester Arena and London Bridge changed the course of the election campaign and - together with the Finsbury Park attack on Muslim worshippers- provide the backcloth to the government's law and order priorities.
Chief constables have begun putting the case for increased resources, in particular for neighbourhood policing, their arguments strengthened by public support following the heroic actions of officers during the attacks.
Indeed, funding issues, with proposals on the way for a new formula for allocating central government cash to the 43 forces in England and Wales, are likely to overshadow proposals for police reform.
Those plans - giving more control to police and crime commissioners, allowing outsiders to enter the police at senior ranks and establishing a national infrastructure police force - may have to be eased in gradually.
Ministers are expected to reintroduce the Prisons Bill, which was aborted when the election was suddenly called, giving governors more say over the running of jails and bolstering the powers of inspectors.
But the immediate challenge is to stabilise prisons, with more staff, improved drug-detection methods and a renewed focus on mental health. Watch out too for an overhaul of probation; a review of the semi-privatised system, brought in by Chris Grayling, should be published very soon.
• None What is the Queen's Speech- - BBC News | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40204389 | news_uk-politics-40204389 |
|
What sort of Brexit does Philip Hammond want? - BBC News | 2017-06-20 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | What does Chancellor Philip Hammond's increasingly vocal stance on Brexit say about his intentions, his prime minister and his party | Brexit | What does Chancellor Philip Hammond's increasingly vocal stance on Brexit say about his intentions, his prime minister and his party?
Is the chancellor intent on using his soft power to take on the hard Brexiteers? He's certainly using it to isolate one very vulnerable prime minister.
Mr Hammond, while seemingly content to let her remain in political limbo, has also vented his frustration about his boss, making it clear that Theresa May's team had made sure he had been shut away during the election, forbidden to talk about the economy.
He has suggested that this was the key, fatal, majority-losing mistake.
His message now: "It's the economy, stupid," and that goes for Brexit too.
Monday's talks in Brussels are one baby step on a long journey to a new future.
The election has changed everything. There are those in the Conservative Party who think the lesson was clear: hard Brexit has been rejected.
"Our power is now limited. To say it is a mess is to state the bleeding obvious," one former minister, an ardent campaigner for Leave, told us.
A former minister on the other side of the debate made it clear she had kept her seat because she was an ardent Remainer and was pinning her hopes on the chancellor softening Brexit.
Whether or not the chancellor is "on manoeuvres", Mr Hammond is certainly marshalling his arguments.
A planned Mansion House speech was postponed because of the Grenfell fire, but was briefed as potentially lobbing a missile into Number 10 and that the chancellor was toying with the idea of arguing to stay in the Customs Union.
He hasn't done that. Instead, he told the BBC's Andrew Marr programme that he would prioritise the economy, jobs and skills, while adding: "We're leaving the EU and because we're leaving the EU we will be leaving the single market. And by the way, we'll be leaving the Customs Union." The postponed speech will now be delivered on Tuesday 20 June.
In a wider context, to understand the chancellor's language you have to decode the debate and the movement of the Tories biggest beasts, those who consider themselves the natural rulers, who feel that those they see as rebels, or Leavers, have seized control of their citadel.
It looks as if a counter-strike by these forces is unfolding before our eyes.
Consider: two former prime ministers, John Major and David Cameron, who were humiliated by Eurosceptics, have backed Mr Hammond's view, calling for the economy to be put first and for an agreement on Brexit with other parties.
So has former Conservative leader William Hague. So has the only Tory hero of the hour, Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Conservatives' leader.
Almost unnoticed, the generally rather underwhelming reshuffle was at the heart of the coup.
Chancellor Phillip Hammond secure in place, Remainer Damien Green elevated to First Secretary of State, Remainer Gavin Barwell, former Croydon MP, the prime minister's new chief of staff, a critical appointment.
David Cameron and Sir John Major have both backed Mr Hammond's stance on Brexit
Brexit Secretary David Davis's top team has been eviscerated. His main ministerial enthusiast for leaving the EU, David Jones, was sacked without warning. The other resigned. The department didn't know it was coming. More importantly, Mr Davis didn't know it was coming.
One ally and former minister told us: "It's a major blow. David is now isolated, he is concerned that half his senior team have been swept from beneath him."
Another friend ruefully admitted that Mr Davis's hand had been weakened by the loss of close allies but is hoping he is strong enough to stand firm without them.
But the signs are that the core, indefinable, establishment of the Conservative Party, the party of business and occasional populist nationalism, is seizing back control.
If the softies are on the rise, what is it they want?
"Putting the economy first" is code for lots of things from staying in the single market, to staying in the Customs Union, to staying in the European Economic Area.
Mr Hammond believes that the economy and jobs should be prioritised in Brexit talks
But two things are at the heart of their demands.
First, a gradual, gliding process of leaving the European Union, gracefully shedding its laws, institutions and benefits only very slowly: a "transitional arrangement" in the jargon. It is never said, but presumably this transition can be frozen into permanence at any point.
Then, there's the rejection of Mrs May's contention that "no deal" - a very hard Brexit - is better than a bad deal.
Some complain that "hard" and "soft" Brexit are meaningless, crude terms. They are correct to the extent that, like "left" and "right", they are big holdalls containing disputed goods.
But, in this case, the key to the argument is immigration. At the heart of soft Brexit is a compromise: getting better access to the single market by ditching tough demands on immigration.
So what did Mr Hammond say? He repeatedly emphasised that Brexit required a "slope not a cliff" and that no deal would be "a very, very bad deal" although one purpose-built to punish would be worse.
Immigration will be a key topic in the Brexit negotiations
He explicitly said he wanted as close to the tariff- and trade-barrier-free single market as we could get. That implies giving up something on immigration.
So far it isn't enough to rile the right on the backbenches, but it leans heavily on one side of the debate.
But peer into next year, and it is the sort of deal that might need the support of Labour, Lib Dem and SNP MPs.
There is already detailed thinking about such a temporary Macronist alliance - akin to that which has just swept through French politics - in the voting lobbies.
But maybe, just maybe, none of this is really about a final agreement with the EU but an interim one with cabinet colleagues.
Few think Mrs May can survive long. There will probably be a leadership contest within the next few years, very possibly within the next few months.
Few want to, to coin a phrase, jump off a cliff, and rather fancy instead sloping towards the future.
Though still keeping his own Brexit cards close to his chest, Boris Johnson wrote yesterday about an "open Brexit" and not "slamming the drawbridge on talent".
A very public message about the price for support in a leadership contest perhaps?
There's some hard politics behind the soft option.
• None What are the UK's Brexit trade options? | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-40328846 | news_uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-40328846 |
|
Is India's ban on cattle slaughter 'food fascism'? - BBC News | 2017-06-02 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Critics say the beef ban is a brazen attack on India's secularism and federalism. | India | Beef kebabs are popular with millions of Indians
A lawmaker from India's southern state of Kerala has announced that he is returning to eating meat, fish and eggs after practising vegetarianism for nearly two decades.
There's nothing unusual about a lapsed vegetarian but VT Balram said his decision was prompted by the federal Hindu nationalist BJP government's attempt to seize the people's right to eat what they wanted.
"I have been living without eating meat, fish or eggs since 1998. But now the time has come break it and uphold the right politics of food assertively," Mr Balram said, while posting a video of him eating beef with friends and fellow party workers.
The BJP believes that cows should be protected, because they are considered holy by India's majority Hindu population. Some 18 Indian states have already banned slaughter of cattle.
But millions of Indians, including Dalits (formerly untouchables), Muslims and Christians, consume beef. And it's another matter, say many, that there's no outrage against the routine selling of male calves by Hindu farmers and pastoralists to middlemen for slaughter as the animals are of little use - bullocks have been phased out by tractors in much of rural India, and villagers need to rear only the occasional bull.
Ironically, the cow has become a polarising animal. Two years ago, a mob attacked a man and killed him over "rumours" that his family ate beef. Vigilante cow protection groups, operating with impunity, have killed people for transporting cattle.
More recently, the chief of BJP's powerful ideological fountainhead Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (National Volunteers' Organisation) has called for a countrywide ban on the slaughter of cows. And this week, a senior judge said the cow should be declared a national animal and people who slaughter cows should be sentenced to life in prison.
Many say this is all contributing to effectively killing India's thriving buffalo meat trade.
Several states opposed the federal government's decision to ban the sale of cattle for slaughter
Earlier this week, several Indian states opposed the federal government's decision to ban the sale of cattle for slaughter at livestock markets. The government said the order was aimed at preventing uncontrolled and unregulated animal trade.
But the ban, say many, could end up hurting some $4bn (£3.11bn) in annual beef exports and millions of jobs. There are some 190 million cattle in India, and tens of millions "go out of the system" - die or need to be slaughtered - every year. How will poor farmers sell their animals?
So, as lawyer Gautam Bhatia says, the new rules are "perceived as imposing an indirect beef ban". He believes the government will find it difficult to defend them if they are challenged in the court - one state court, responding to a petition that they violate the right of a person to chose what he eats, has already put the ban on hold.
The badly-drafted rules, Mr Bhatia says, are "an opportunity for citizens and courts to think once again whether the prescription of food choices is consistent with a Constitution that promises economic and social liberty to all".
Critics have been calling the beef ban an example of "dietary profiling" and "food fascism". Others say it smacks of cultural imperialism, and is a brazen attack on India's secularism and constitutional values. Don't laugh, but there could be a conspiracy to turn India vegetarian, screamed a recent headline.
Many believe that the BJP, under Narendra Modi, appears to be completely out of depth with India's widely diverse food practices which have always been distinguished by religion, region, caste, class, age and gender.
Indians now eat more meat, including beef - cow and buffalo meat - than ever. Consumption of beef grew up 14% in cities, and 35% in villages, according to government data analysed by IndiaSpend, a non-profit data journalism initiative.
Beef is the preferred meat in north-eastern states like Nagaland and Meghalaya. According to National Sample Survey data, 42% Indians describe themselves as vegetarians who don't eat eggs, fish or meat; another baseline government survey showed 71% of Indians over the age of 15 are non-vegetarian.
Critics say the ban is an attack on rights of citizens
Governments have tried to impose food bans and choices around the world, mostly using health and environment concerns and hygiene concerns.
In the US, for example, groups have rallied against subsidised vegetables, outlawing large sodas, promotion of organic food and taxing fat. Bangkok is banning street food to clean up streets and enforce hygiene standards.
India has done the same in the past. Crops like BT brinjal have been stalled by the government and industrially manufactured food like Maggi noodles banned temporarily amid claims they contained dangerously high levels of lead. Scarcity has also led to bans - a ban of milk sweets in the 1970s in Delhi was justified because milk used to be in short supply.
"To the extent that this ban on cattle slaughter justifies itself by speaking of 'unfit and infected cattle', it seems to invoke public health, but then stops short by not banning the sale of goats, sheep and chicken as well," sociologist Amita Baviskar told me.
"In fact, the public health argument leads logically to a move towards better regulation like stricter checking of animals for disease, more hygienic slaughter and storage of meat rather than a flat-out ban."
Clearly, the ban appears to be working already.
There are fears that the proposed ban would hit a thriving buffalo meat exports
"Selling red meat, even goat meat, in a BJP-ruled state is now injurious to one's health. Who would want to risk the wrath of the vigilantes?," says Dr Baviskar.
As it is, she says, meat-eating habits of Indians have been changing rapidly in the last couple of decades and the chicken, once regarded as a "dirty bird", is now the most popular meat.
"I see a greater polarisation taking place between red states (meat-eating) and white states (chicken eating) Within the white states, meat-eaters will have to skulk about, looking over their shoulder as they bite into a beef kebab". | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-40116811 | news_world-asia-india-40116811 |
|
Do you have to rescue someone in danger? - BBC News | 2017-07-21 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | Five Florida teenagers watched a man drowning - but did nothing to help. Can they be prosecuted? | US & Canada | A video of Jamel Dunn's last moments appeared on social media
It is a harrowing video to watch: a man, crying out for help as he struggles to swim in the middle of a Florida pond.
Off camera, the voices of five teens, mocking him.
"They drowning, what the heck," one laughs.
"Ain't nobody fixing to help you," another is heard to say.
And, after his head disappeared under the water for the final time: "Oh, he just died."
The body of Jamel Dunn - a 32-year-old disabled father-of-two - was found in the water three days later, on 12 July.
Up until that point, no one knew where he had gone. No one had called 911 to report a man in trouble. No one even knew anyone had witnessed the drowning until the video emerged on social media, and Dunn's family members saw it.
Its contents have shocked the community in the city of Cocoa, on Florida's east coast. But the teens, aged between 14 and 16, will face no charges, prosecutors have said: there is nothing on the statute books which deal with an incident like this, they say.
The family have shared this picture of Dunn on a GoFundMe page to help with funeral costs
The vast majority of states in America do not put a "duty to rescue" on their citizens, but 10 do.
But even these do not cover all instances. Florida is one of the few states to have such a law, but it only covers reporting a sexual battery if witnessed or suspected, according to The Volokh Conspiracy, a blog written mainly by law professors.
In fact, only a few countries in the world have a law which means people have to help or risk prison time, including Germany, where four people are currently being prosecuted for "unterlassene Hilfeleistung" (failure to provide assistance).
According to local reports in Germany, last October an 82-year-old man collapsed in a bank in Essen, but was then ignored by other customers, ranging in age from 39 to 62, for the next 20 minutes.
A fifth customer eventually called an ambulance, but it was too late, and the man died a few days later in hospital. No-one in the case has been named.
Perhaps the most high-profile instance of a law like this involved the death of Princess Diana.
Seven photographers were accused of failing to render assistance by French investigators following the 1997 Paris crash which killed the princess, her boyfriend Dodi Al-Fayed and driver Henri Paul.
Photographers who took pictures immediately after Princess Diana's fatal crash were investigated
The men had taken photographs rather than helping the dying occupants of the car, it was alleged.
But after two years of investigation, all charges were dropped against them.
But why would you have such rules? Surely people should help simply because it is the right thing to do?
Sometimes, however, people are more worried about being landed with a bill - or getting into legal trouble.
In China, that fear is so strong that when a two-year-old girl was struck in a hit-and-run accident in the city of Foshan, Guangdong Province, 18 people ignored her before one person stopped to help.
Wang Yue, two, is seen on CCTV before being hit by a vehicle.
Wang Yue, who was nicknamed "Little Yueyue" by Chinese media, later died in hospital.
The case sparked a national debate about China's morality, one which reared its head again this year, when a woman was struck by a car but then ignored by pedestrians crossing the road moments later.
But many social media users understood the decision, according to the New York Times.
"If I helped her to get up and sent her to the hospital, doctors would ask you to pay the medical bill," one wrote. "Her relatives would come and beat you up indiscriminately."
The teenagers in the Florida case, however, would not have ended up in trouble. Every state in the US has a "good Samaritan law", which largely protects those who try to help in an emergency situation from being sued.
But whether or not this factored into their thinking is unknown. The teens were heard to mention alligators - but that would not have prevented them calling 911.
As for the moral argument, Yvonne Martinez, the Cocoa Police Department spokeswoman, told Florida Today at least one of the boys did not seem worried by the implications of what they had done.
"There was no remorse, only a smirk," she said. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40680895 | news_world-us-canada-40680895 |
|
Newspaper headlines: UK 'ditches cake-and-eat-it Brexit stance' - BBC News | 2017-07-03 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | British officials have accepted a "painful" trade-off in Brexit talks, and the EU is planning migrant "crisis" talks, according to the front pages. | The Papers | UK officials have "quietly abandoned" hopes of securing "the government's promised cake-and-eat-it Brexit deal", the Guardian reports.
According to the paper, government insiders have reported a "dramatic change of mood" in the Department for Exiting the European Union since the general election.
It says the idea of enjoying full trade access to the bloc - without concessions over immigration, courts and a financial settlement - is now being given less credence by officials.
Many of the papers focus on the reported divisions within Conservative ranks about public spending.
"Cabinet split over austerity tax row" is the front page headline in the Daily Telegraph.
It suggests Chancellor Philip Hammond has warned ministers that "unpopular tax rises" will be required to fund possible moves, like lifting the cap on public sector pay increases.
The Mail's editorial says the paper is "deeply troubled by reports that some Tory MPs, including senior ministers, are demanding that the spending taps be turned back on".
According to the Times, Britain's new independent reviewer of counter-terrorism laws is concerned about the way jihadist attacks are covered by the media.
It says Max Hill believes the publication of images of dead terrorists can give, in his words, "the oxygen of publicity in death, to those who apparently craved martyrdom".
But one senior media lawyer, Mark Stephens, tells the paper: "It is extremely unhelpful to make the argument that freedom of speech needs to be curbed, in an effort to fight terror."
The lead in the Financial Times is about a delegation from the City of London travelling to Brussels this week, with what it describes as "a secret blueprint for a post-Brexit free-trade deal on financial services".
The paper says there is concern among bankers that the deadline for the UK to leave the EU, in March 2019, will come before a "credible deal has been struck".
"Blame it on our boys" is the front page headline in the Sun. It claims that Iraqis, who had alleged that they were mistreated by American troops, were told by lawyers to accuse UK forces instead, because the Ministry of Defence was easier to sue.
The paper quotes someone who used to work for a law firm handling such claims, saying it was widely known that many were fake.
The front pages of both the Daily Mirror and the Daily Express report on the latest deaths of migrants who tried to cross the Mediterranean from Africa to Europe.
The Mirror's headline is "Migrants' hell on Costa beaches", while in the Express it is "EU in crisis over boat migrants".
The paper says European Union officials are to hold emergency talks on the matter.
The Mirror's opinion column urges the authorities to "turn the tide on the crisis".
It believes that, faced with such a problem, the UK is "morally right" to spend £13bn on international development, which could help tackle some of the causes of migration.
According to the Times, Donald Trump may "drop in" to the UK in the next fortnight.
It says the US president has a gap in his diary, between a visit to Germany this week for the G20 summit and a trip to France later in July.
The White House will apparently give officials here only 24 hours' notice, if he decides to come.
"Britain braced for snap Trump visit" is the headline.
Finally, amid all the preview coverage of Wimbledon, the Daily Telegraph goes straight to the front of the queue - the queue, that is, of people who have been camping since early on Saturday to get tickets for the first day of the championships.
There the paper finds Des Robson, a middle-aged computer technician from Northumberland, who put a visit to Centre Court on his bucket list, after suffering two heart attacks.
Behind him is Elle-Anne Lee, a 21-year-old dental nurse.
Her father had bet her £100 that she would not be among the first three in the queue.
She tells the paper: "Now I'm quids in." | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-40476851 | news_blogs-the-papers-40476851 |
|
Newspaper headlines: 'Give us hope Johanna' and Brexit 'threat' - BBC News | 2017-07-13 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | Johanna Konta's upcoming Wimbledon semi-final and Labour's Brexit "threat" make the front pages. | The Papers | Theresa May is interviewed by the Sun to mark her first year as prime minister
The Times leads on a claim that Google has paid millions of dollars in secret funds to UK and US academics in the hope that their research would sway public opinion and influence government policy.
According to a US watchdog group, payments from the tech giant ranged from $5,000 to $400,000 but were not declared by research teams in two-thirds of cases.
The paper says many of the studies made arguments in Google's favour, such as that collecting large amounts of data was a fair exchange for its free services.
Google tells the paper the Campaign for Accountability's report was "misleading".
You could soon be able to write your will in a text or record it on a voicemail, the Daily Telegraph says.
It reports on a new consultation from the Law Commission for England and Wales, which says it wants to bring legislation on wills into the digital age.
The existing law on wills being written, signed and witnessed dates back to 1839.
The commission admits that the proposals could add to family disputes if people who are seriously ill make last-minute changes to their will on a smartphone or tablet.
The Sun is the only paper to have an interview with Theresa May to mark her first year as prime minister.
She appeals to be allowed to stay on in Downing Street for at least the "next few years", so she can deliver Brexit.
But the paper says Mrs May refused to say if she will fight the next election as leader and thinks her remarks are "the strongest public signal yet" that she is preparing to stand down before 2022.
In its editorial, the paper states "it's not too late for her to rescue her time as prime minister" and her determination to do so is "commendably clear".
"The Great Ambulance Betrayal" is the headline in the Daily Mail.
The paper says health chiefs are being accused of putting lives at risk by sending cars to 999 calls instead of ambulances, to help them meet response targets.
The Mail says there is concern that seriously injured people are waiting longer for treatment because the cars can only take people to hospital if they can sit in the back seat.
An anonymous paramedic is quoted as saying that "care, patient safety and dignity are being badly compromised".
The paper says the NHS is now moving to close the loophole and will give call handlers more time to assess calls and dispatch ambulances.
The Financial Times leads on concerns from financial watchdogs that pension reforms are putting savers in danger of paying too much in fees, or making risky investments.
The paper's editorial says many experts predicted this would happen when former Chancellor George Osborne brought in the changes in 2015 to give savers more choice about what they did with their money.
It concludes that it is too soon to call the reforms "a fiasco", but the early signs "do not look promising".
Most of the papers have pictures of a grimacing Andy Murray on the front and back pages, as the defending champion was knocked out of Wimbledon while being hampered by a hip injury.
"Pain, Set and Match" is the Daily Star's summary, while the Metro and the Daily Mail both go for "Andy's Agony".
Murray's exit prompts the Sun to put another British player on its front page with the headline "Give us Hope Johanna", which it hopes tennis fans will sing when Johanna Konta plays Venus Williams in the semi-final later.
The Times is among the papers to report that the Australian High Commissioner has tried to reclaim the British number one as an Aussie - because she was born there.
But the Telegraph tells him in no uncertain terms "hands off Konta!"
And the Daily Express features a railways fan who has built a replica station, complete with a 60ft platform, in his back garden in East Sussex.
The paper says it was "just the ticket" to house Stuart Searle's collection of rail memorabilia including hundreds of station signs.
He has also built a 50ft-long underground station.
But according to the paper he will not stop there, and now has plans to build a cinema for his large collection of film posters. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-40590100 | news_blogs-the-papers-40590100 |
|
Charlie Gard has 10% chance of improvement, US doctor claims - BBC News | 2017-07-13 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | A US doctor offering to treat Charlie Gard agrees to visit him, if the High Court adjourns. | London | Charlie has a rare genetic condition and is on life support
An American doctor offering to treat terminally ill Charlie Gard has told the High Court there is a 10% chance he could improve the baby's condition.
The 11-month-old has a rare genetic disorder and severe brain damage which doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) had said was irreversible.
In April, the High Court ruled that life support should be removed to enable Charlie to die with dignity.
The doctor has agreed to assess Charlie in the UK if the court adjourns.
Mr Justice Francis is due to rule on whether Charlie, who is on life support at GOSH, can be given a trial treatment.
The US doctor - who cannot be named for legal reasons - has been giving evidence to the High Court via video link.
The judge said he wanted to hear what the doctor thought had changed since he gave his ruling in April.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. The six-year-old US boy who outlived medical expectations
The doctor suggested there was now clinical data not available in April and he thought the therapy was "worth trying".
Although he has not yet seen Charlie in person, he told the judge tests on the boy's brain show "disorganisation of brain activity and not major structural brain damage".
Using nucleoside treatment - which is a therapy and not a cure - he estimated there would be a 10% chance of "meaningful success" for Charlie.
He said early tests on mice with TK2, a slightly different condition to Charlie's, had resulted in some improvements.
He acknowledged that while it would be desirable to conduct further testing on rodents, that could take a minimum of six months to two years.
The small number of people with Charlie's rare genetic condition - mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome - would make robust clinical trials difficult, he added.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Alasdair Seton-Marsden read a statement from Charlie's parents that said 'he is still fighting'
Doctors at GOSH - where Charlie is being cared for - say he should be moved on to palliative care but his parents have raised more than £1.3m to take their son to the US for the nucleoside therapy.
The High Court has also been hearing arguments about the child's head size, which UK doctors said indicated of lack of brain function.
Mr Francis said it was "absurd" that a dispute over his head size was "undermining" the case.
Doctors said the baby's skull had not grown in three months.
The lawyer for Charlie's parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, told the court Ms Yates had regularly measured her son's head and disagreed with the hospital's measurements.
The court heard Ms Yates had measured her baby's head this morning and there was a 2cm difference with the hospital's measurements.
Mr Justice Francis said he wanted the matter resolved and called for an independent person to measure Charlie's head within 24 hours.
"It is absurd that the science of this case is being infected by the inability to measure a child's skull," he said.
Connie Yates and Chris Gard walked out of the hearing at the High Court
Charlie's parents, from Bedfont, west London, left the courtroom after two hours over a disagreement with the judge about what they had said at a previous hearing on whether their child was in pain.
Mr Gard stood up and said: "I thought this was supposed to be independent."
Mr Justice Francis then offered to adjourn but was told the pair already knew the evidence being given by their legal team.
Ms Yates and Mr Gard returned for the afternoon session.
Supporters of Charlie's parents have been outside the court
Connie Yates and Chris Gard have raised more than £1.3m to fund a treatment trial
The case returned to the High Court following reports of new data from foreign healthcare experts who suggested treatment could improve Charlie's condition.
Doctors at GOSH have said the evidence is not new but it was right for the court to explore it.
Grant Armstrong, who is leading Ms Yates and Mr Gard's legal team, told the judge they wanted to reopen the case on the basis that the treatment is likely to affect Charlie's brain cells.
He said the parents disputed the view that Charlie has "irreversible, irreparable" brain damage.
The couple have already lost battles in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court to allow them to take their son elsewhere for treatment.
They also failed to persuade European Court of Human Rights judges to intervene in the case.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40593286 | news_uk-england-london-40593286 |
|
Parliament takes pride in role in gay rights struggles - BBC News | 2017-07-07 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | How politicians and Parliament have been at the centre of battles over gay rights over the past 60 years. | Parliaments | Flying the flag for LGBT rights - Parliament shows it solidarity
Westminster's "palace of enchantments" will be given an LGBTI gleam this weekend - lit up in the colours of the rainbow flag to mark both Pride Week and also the 50th anniversary of the Act of Parliament which legalised gay sex.
The decision was taken by Commons Speaker John Bercow and the Lord Speaker, Lord Fowler, who explained their thinking in their first-ever joint interview, for Radio 4's Today in Parliament.
Legalisation, in 1967, was the product of a ten-year parliamentary campaign to follow-up the 1957 Wolfenden Report which had recommended the decriminalisation of consenting male homosexual sex.
There had been gathering pressure and determined resistance as the issue surfaced repeatedly in Parliament, with furious internal argument within the two main parties.
My favourite moment was a question put by the Conservative former Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir, who asked "are your Lordships going to pass a bill that would make it lawful for two senior officers of police to go to bed together?"
The Conservative MP Humphrey Berkeley brought in a bill for reform, but lost his seat in the 1966 general election. He was not reselected, and was told that his local party could tolerate him being for either homosexual law reform or the abolition of hanging, but not both.
The torch was passed to the Labour MP, Leo Abse, who won approval for a ten-minute rule bill in July 1966, by 244 votes to 100. Abse had the support of the new Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, who battled in Cabinet to persuade reluctant colleagues to give government support to the Bill.
Opponents thought it was the product of middle class liberalism and would alienate Labour's working-class base, but the government did eventually crucial provide extra debating time in the Commons, when Abse's private members bill faced a filibuster.
The necessary 100 MPs needed to force votes at regular intervals in the debate was mustered, and at 5.50am on the morning of July 4, 1966, the Bill passed its Third Reading by 99 votes to 14, after a 20-hour sitting.
Legalisation was presented in an apologetic way - a measure to end the criminalisation of unfortunates - and not a "vote of confidence in homosexuality".
The age of consent was set at 21, and despite attempts to lower it by, among others, the Conservative Edwina Currie, it remained at that age until 2000.
Even after legalisation, the personal consequences for MPs and others in the public eye of being outed were still devastating.
There were cases like that of Maureen Colquhoun, a Labour MP elected in Northampton in 1974, who brought in bills on abortion, gender balance and the protection of prostitutes.
Her relationship with another woman was revealed in the Daily Mail. She defeated two attempts to deselect her, and she was forced to campaign for re-election in 1979, with some party members refusing to support her because of her private life, rather than her politics. She lost.
Maureen Colquhoun saw off two attempts to deselect her
Perhaps the most high profile example was that of someone who never actually made it into Parliament, Peter Tatchell, the Labour candidate in the 1983 Bermondsey by-election, whose homosexuality became an election issue.
In an interview on Radio 4's Today in Parliament on Friday, Joanna Cherry, the gay SNP MP, said the level of "hate filled homophobia" he faced deterred her from any idea of a career in politics - although she would have liked (at that time) to be a Labour MP.
Labour's Chris Smith, a future Culture Secretary, was the first MP to come out as gay, in 1984.
And there was also legislation, like Section 28 of the 1988 Local Government Act, which said local councils could not "intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
No prosecution was ever brought under Section 28, but it had considerable impact on, for example, lesbian, gay and bisexual support groups in schools and colleges. It was repealed in 2000.
In recent years the battles have tended to be on legislation designed to be anti-discriminatory, first the creation of Civil Partnerships, then the legislation to allow same-sex couples to marry, and most recently the "Turing Bill" to pardon gay men convicted for offences that would not be considered crimes today.
Today, Speaker Bercow's coat of arms features LGBT colours. And for Norman Fowler, the Lord Speaker, his experience as health secretary in the 1980s, when AIDS emerged as a major public health issue, it brought the issue for discrimination against gay people into focus.
Both wanted Parliament to pay its respects to the LGBT community and to show solidarity.
"We have gone in half a century from the criminalisation of one type of love to almost complete legal equality," Mr Bercow said.
Lord Fowler said the lighting of one of the most famous buildings in the world would be a symbol to people who were being persecuted.
• None Why is Pride important to you? | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-parliaments-40530264 | news_uk-politics-parliaments-40530264 |
|
US considering arms to Ukraine, says envoy Volker - BBC News | 2017-07-25 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | Washington is reviewing whether to arm those fighting Russian-backed rebels, says a new envoy. | US & Canada | Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko (second right) meets servicemen during a visit to Donetsk region in June
The new US special representative for Ukraine says Washington is actively reviewing whether to send weapons to help those fighting against Russian-backed rebels.
Kurt Volker told the BBC that arming Ukrainian government forces could change Moscow's approach.
He said he did not think the move would be provocative.
Russia warned that anything that heightened tension could jeopardise a solution to the conflict.
Mr Volker, a former US permanent representative to Nato, was given the role in Kiev earlier this month.
"Defensive weapons, ones that would allow Ukraine to defend itself, and to take out tanks for example, would actually help" stop Russia threatening Ukraine, he said in a BBC interview.
"I'm not again predicting where we go on this. That's a matter for further discussion and decision. But I think that argument that it would be provocative to Russia or emboldening of Ukraine is just getting it backwards," he added.
He said success in establishing peace in eastern Ukraine would require what he called a new strategic dialogue with Russia. On a visit to the front line on Sunday Mr Volker had described the situation as a "hot war" that had to be addressed as quickly as possible.
Responding to Mr Volker's latest remarks, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told the BBC: "We have said more than once that any actions that provoke tension on the line of separation, that provoke a situation which is already complex, will only take us further away from the moment when this internal Ukrainian issue is resolved."
The UN says more than 10,000 people have died since the eastern Ukraine conflict erupted in April 2014, soon after Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimea peninsula. The fighting has displaced more than 1.6 million people.
A ceasefire was agreed in Minsk in February 2015, but its terms are far from being fulfilled. The leaders of France and Germany discussed the conflict over the phone with the presidents of Ukraine and Russia late on Monday.
There has been a sharp rise in violence in which eight Ukrainian soldiers were killed over 24 hours.
The US Department of State called it "the deadliest one-day period in 2017" in the eastern Ukraine conflict.
In a video statement, the department blamed the "Russian-led" rebels for the flare-up. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40712385 | news_world-us-canada-40712385 |
|
Germany's big businesses' Brexit worries - BBC News | 2017-07-25 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | How are Germany's economic giants viewing the UK's negotiations to leave the EU? | Europe | It must be serious. They've deployed the Royals.
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have been on tour in Germany with a very specific purpose: to reassure the country that Brexit doesn't mean the break-up of a beautiful relationship.
Prince William, after speaking a few words in German, told guests at a British embassy garden party: "This relationship between UK and Germany really matters, it will continue despite Britain's recent decision to leave the European Union. I am confident we will remain the firmest of friends."
But since the British election, German politicians are more troubled than ever about Brexit. The German council for foreign relations' director, Daniela Schwarzer, told me: "Policymakers in Berlin are surprised and worried at the degree of confusion in London, the lack of clarity as to the strategy the UK wants to follow.
"There is a lot surprise about how the negotiations are being handled and the somewhat incoherent messages which come out of London."
Of course, Germany is just one country in the European Union - but it is first among equals, its chancellor by far the most senior politician, with a new and determined ally in President Macron, who's refreshed the Franco-German alliance.
Even before Brexit became a reality, there's been an argument, almost an assumption, that German industry would put pressure on German politicians to argue for a good deal for the UK - access to the European market without having to abide by the rules.
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge recently toured Germany
So far, Mrs Merkel has been adamant: no cherry picking. Will German industry push her to change her mind?
I visited the Trumpf company in Stuttgart, a concern with a turnover of 3bn euros (£2.7bn) a year that makes sheet metal, laser cutters and machine tools. It employs 4,000 people in Germany and another 8,000 globally: in the USA, China, Japan, South Korea - and in Luton, Southampton and Rugby.
The company's Heidi Maier tells me orders from the UK are up because people have got used to the idea of Brexit.
"Despite political insecurities and decisions we don't like and we don't back, our business is doing very well," she says.
We stand in front of the True Punch 5000. The machine is swift and certain, precise and elegant, all the qualities that make Germans so proud of their engineering prowess.
The exact opposite of these qualities - slowness and uncertainty - is what worries German industry about Brexit.
I ask Ms Maier what they want Mrs Merkel to push for. "What would help is decisions, and fast decisions," she says.
"As soon as we know the new rules, we can go ahead. We are actually preparing for tariffs, which is the implication [of what the British government is saying], which would worsen our business. The goods we produce in Great Britain would become more expensive due to the tariffs, and we don't know how our customers would react to that."
Most German businesses tend to lobby government through powerful trade associations. And one industry has more horsepower than any other.
Germany's glittering car industry is an industrial giant with immense political clout and a 400bn euro turnover, employing 800,000 people. And the relationship with the UK is very important. One in seven cars exported from Germany goes to the UK, its single biggest market.
The Trumpf machine is just one example of German high-tech engineering
Ever since Brexit was a speck on the horizon, enthusiasts for leaving have argued the mighty German auto industry wouldn't allow politicians to punish Britain, a point I put to Matthias Wissman, the president of the VDA, the German automotive industry association.
"What we want is to keep the European Union of the 27 together," he says. "That is the first priority. Second priority is to have a trade area with the UK with no tariff barriers, no non-tariff barriers. That is possible if the UK understands what the preconditions are.
"We want a good deal for Britain, but the best deal for Britain would be to stay in the customs union. Anything else would be worse for both sides. The best thing would be to stay in the internal market, like Norway."
He accused pro-Brexiteers of making "totally unrealistic" promises. "I see a lot which is astonishing for a friend of Great Britain. I miss the traditional British pragmatism. We would like to have it in the future, but I see more and more ideological points of view which make pragmatism very difficult and unfortunately in both parties, Conservative and Labour."
The UK is the German auto industry's biggest export market
When I put to him Liam Fox's view that a trade deal with the EU could be "one of the easiest in human history", he laughs and says it would take years and years but "time is running out".
"You need a transition period. And if you want an easy solution, stay in the customs union and the internal market.
"A transition period would also be very pragmatic. We hope that on the British side that gets deeper and deeper into the intellectual capabilities of those who decide."
This is not just the view of one man, or one industry. There seems to be a consensus among the industrial powerbrokers.
Klaus Deutsch of the federation of German industry, the BDI, makes it clear they did not want Brexit in the first place and would like the UK to stay in the single market and observe all the rules.
But that's not the government's intention, so what follows?
"We would favour a comprehensive agreement. But the most important thing is legal certainty in the period from A to B. If you don't have a transition period of many years, then there will be a huge disruption to all sorts of businesses.
"The concern of business is unless you get a clear cut and legally safe agreement, you can't sell pharmaceuticals, or cars or what have you, across the Channel, you have to stop business, divest, change business models."
Will Germany prioritise EU unity over its economic relationship with the UK?
He makes it clear only the British government can decide what it wants, but what about the idea they'll push Mrs Merkel to soften her approach?
"That's completely unlikely," Mr Deutsch says. "The importance of the European Union for German corporates is even higher than the importance of a bilateral relationship with the United Kingdom. So, the priority of safeguarding… the unity of the European Union is much more important than one economic relationship. There are a lot of illusions - it won't happen."
Speaking on BBC Radio 4's The World This Weekend programme, Owen Paterson, the former cabinet minister, who recently visited Germany, told me he had felt a "sense of denial" in the country over Brexit.
"It is hugely in everyone's interest that we maintain reciprocal free trade and as we have absolute conformity of standards, everyone should get their head round that," he told me.
"Whereas [the Germans] are still thinking entirely in terms of remaining in the current institutions and that's clearly what we are not going to do.
"We're not going to stay in the single market. We are not going to stay in the customs union. We're certainly not going to stay under the remit of the European Court of Justice. I found that that was something they had not really got their heads round."
And my overriding impression of the view of the big beasts of Germany industry?
Frustration that they don't know where the British government wants to head and a strong sense that any outcome will be worse than what exists.
But also, a total rejection of the idea that the economic relationship with the UK outweighs the German interest in European unity. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40683091 | news_world-europe-40683091 |
|
'Why my brain injury gets me arrested' - BBC News | 2017-07-22 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | Dominic Hurley is regularly mistaken for being drunk, but his slurred speech and poor balance is the result of a brain injury following a moped crash in Ayia Napa. | Disability | Dominic Hurley is regularly mistaken for being drunk and it has led to him getting arrested. His slurred speech and poor balance is actually a result of a brain injury caused by a moped crash while he worked abroad.
In 1994, Hurley, then 21, went on a rare night out with his colleagues. He had been studying for a degree in hotel management and was on a year's placement at a hotel near Ayia Napa in Cyprus.
The group had been out for some food and drinks but were tired and called an early end to the night. They travelled back to their accommodation on rented mopeds.
"I had the slowest one and was at the back," he says. "I must have fallen asleep or hit a pothole or lost concentration, I don't know, but I tumbled off and I wasn't wearing a helmet."
Hurley hit his head and ended up in hospital for months. His parents were told he probably wouldn't walk or talk again.
He had been in Cyprus for just seven weeks.
Dominic Hurley was flown back to the UK by the air ambulance days after the crash
"It totally changed me. I was in a coma for three months but I wasn't fully aware of things for at least a year.
"At 21 I had everything going in life, I was into sports, going out, and it all changed. It's like I've got two lives - I've got one until I was 21 and I've got one afterwards."
Hurley, who now lives in Rotherham, defied the doctors' expectations and did walk and talk again, but 23 years after the crash he continues to live with paralysis on his right-side and has learned to write with his left hand. His speech is slurred and he finds organising his life difficult.
His memory has also been significantly impaired. He can remember snapshots of his time in Cyprus but has a total blank of the accident and the following 12 months of recovery.
He says he can only remember "bits and bobs" from his childhood and even then he can't be sure if he's fabricated the memories from photographs.
"There's no time or place to my memories. My brain and memory are like a brick wall where you throw bits of mud at it - some of it sticks, some slide off and other ones bounce off."
Other symptoms of his brain injury have got him into trouble with the law as he can appear drunk and his agitation quickly escalates.
"I am a very nice person but I've been arrested three times," he says.
The first arrest was during a trip to Torquay when he complained about a meal at an Indian restaurant. The food was "awful", he says, and had attempted to convey the point calmly to the staff.
"I tried to explain but they locked the door and said I had to pay. They phoned the police, then I had an argument with the police and I sounded drunk and I was probably stumbling a bit.
"I was thrown in the back of the van and put in a cell. It wasn't until the morning that I could explain."
The second time, Hurley was in a taxi with friends when the driver demanded payment before he would drive them anywhere.
Dominic with his parents Anne and Bill
They tried to explain their friend's situation but say the police were called and Hurley was "yanked out the car" and taken into custody due to what they thought was drunken behaviour.
"They're not like police cells in The Bill or cells you see on TV," Hurley says. "There's excrement on the walls. They make my problems even worse when I'm cold and I get migraines."
He says the three arrests have seen him separated from friends, dragged from cars, and his hands forced behind his back - harsh treatment that made him feel like a "common criminal".
"Each time I was just seen as another drunk. I wasn't given much of an interview at all."
The BBC contacted the National Police Chiefs' Council but it said it could not comment on the care Hurley received.
The third time he was arrested Hurley had been in close proximity to a fight at a pub, but this time he had a trick up his sleeve.
He had been issued with a Brain Injury Identification Card, an initiative from Headway, which describes the side effects he might display.
"The police went through my wallet and found it and said they'd ring my parents. It really helped because they let me out rather than keeping me in all night."
The card was launched nationally this week to help all those in a similar situation to Hurley.
Peter McCabe, chief executive of Headway, a brain injury charity, says: "Many people are assumed to be drunk as a result of having slurred speech or an unsteady gait, with attempts to explain the effects of their brain injury often being ignored."
He says the ID card aims to raise awareness within the criminal justice system and help police officers understand the situation at the earliest opportunity.
He calls it a "simple solution to a tricky conversation" and believes it also gives carriers a confidence boost to which Hurley agrees.
The now 44-year-old father-of-one, says: "All the problems started because people assumed I was intoxicated. I think the card is a great idea. You can work hard to raise awareness but you may not reach every police officer and that is where the ID card comes in.
"I want to be able to tell people rather than have them wondering what's wrong with me. It's just a better way of doing it."
The scheme has received support from the National Police Chiefs' Council, Police Scotland, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Liaison and Diversion and the National Appropriate Adult Network.
Following his accident, Dominic returned to education and studied graphic design at college in Sheffield. It's where he also met his wife, Doreen, who comes from Germany and was on a 12-month work placement.
"She met me and liked me,' he says. "It is more difficult with a brain injury, but all it takes is just a bit more understanding."
For more Disability News, follow on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to the weekly podcast.
• None BBC Ouch: 'My brain injury turned me into a teenager' | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/disability-40653929 | news_disability-40653929 |
|
Legal highs and chemsex drugs targeted in new strategy - BBC News | 2017-07-14 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | The Home Office's new scheme aims to share intelligence on emerging drugs and help users recover. | UK | New legislation to tackle "legal highs" was introduced last year
So-called legal highs and chemsex drugs will be targeted in a government move aimed at cutting illicit drug use.
Fewer than one in ten adults in England and Wales now take drugs, according to the Home Office, but drug-related deaths have risen sharply.
The strategy will target psychoactive substances, performance-enhancing drugs and the misuse of prescribed medicines.
Drugs charities praised the strategy's focus on recovery, but raised concerns that budget cuts could affect delivery.
The strategy applies across England, with some elements spreading to Wales and Scotland.
New psychoactive substances (NPS), formerly known as legal highs, mimic the effects of other drugs, such as cannabis.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Harry Shapiro, from Drugwise, says drugs on the streets are "at the highest purity levels"
Last year, laws were introduced to criminalise the production, distribution, sale and supply of them, but they continue to fall into the hands of users.
Chemsex - using drugs as part of sexual activity - often involves crystal methamphetamine, GHB/GBL and mephedrone.
Government studies show the practice increases health risks, both mentally and physically, including aiding the spread of blood-borne infections and viruses.
It comes as the number of drug deaths in England and Wales increased by 10.3% to 2,479 in 2015, following rises of 14.9% in 2014 and 19.6% in 2013.
Home Office statistics show the number of adults aged between 16 and 59 who take drugs is at now at 8% - a 2.5% drop from 10 years ago.
In December 2010, with Home Office priorities centred on police reform and immigration, the last government drug strategy felt like a box-ticking exercise. Just 25 pages long, it contained little detail or original thinking and just one paragraph on the problem that was later to engulf prisons, legal highs.
The theme of the last strategy was supporting people to live a "drug-free life". It emphasised the need for "abstinence" and said too many users were reliant on drug-substitute treatments such as methadone.
The 2017 strategy makes no mention of abstinence or limiting methadone use, but it sets more demanding and wide-ranging measurements of treatment success.
At double the length of the previous document, there is a sense that the Home Office is more focused on the issue than before, prompted perhaps by the recent rise in drug deaths and the need to prevent a new generation of drug users sparking a fresh crime-wave.
Home Secretary Amber Rudd, who will chair a new cross-government drug strategy board, said she was "determined to confront the scale of this issue".
The chief executive of the drug treatment campaign Collective Voice, Paul Hayes, welcomed the fact that recovery was being put "at the heart" of the government's response.
While also welcoming the shift in the government's focus, Harry Shapiro, director of online advice service DrugWise, said he was concerned about a lack of funding.
"It has shifted from the 2010 strategy [when] there was an emphasis that recovery from addiction was just about abstinence," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"Anyone working in the sector knew that that wasn't the case, because if you are going to recover, you have got to have something to recover to.
"The government has recognised that more needs to be done in that area, but it all has to be delivered at a local level and local authorities are struggling with budgets, drug services are suffering from cuts."
Ron Hogg, the Police and Crime and Victims Commissioner in County Durham, said he agreed with a focus on helping users recover, but said it was "shameful" the strategy did not look into decriminalising drugs.
He said that in Portugal - where drugs were decriminalised 12 years ago - drug use, drug-related deaths and the number of people injecting had all fallen.
Home Office Minister Sarah Newton said she had looked at arguments for decriminalisation, but added: "When you look at all the other available evidence, we just don't agree."
The National Police Chiefs' Council's lead for drugs, Commander Simon Bray said police "will play our part" in delivering the plan. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40597941 | news_uk-40597941 |
|
Charlie Gard has 10% chance of improvement, US doctor claims - BBC News | 2017-07-14 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | A US doctor offering to treat Charlie Gard agrees to visit him, if the High Court adjourns. | London | Charlie has a rare genetic condition and is on life support
An American doctor offering to treat terminally ill Charlie Gard has told the High Court there is a 10% chance he could improve the baby's condition.
The 11-month-old has a rare genetic disorder and severe brain damage which doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) had said was irreversible.
In April, the High Court ruled that life support should be removed to enable Charlie to die with dignity.
The doctor has agreed to assess Charlie in the UK if the court adjourns.
Mr Justice Francis is due to rule on whether Charlie, who is on life support at GOSH, can be given a trial treatment.
The US doctor - who cannot be named for legal reasons - has been giving evidence to the High Court via video link.
The judge said he wanted to hear what the doctor thought had changed since he gave his ruling in April.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. The six-year-old US boy who outlived medical expectations
The doctor suggested there was now clinical data not available in April and he thought the therapy was "worth trying".
Although he has not yet seen Charlie in person, he told the judge tests on the boy's brain show "disorganisation of brain activity and not major structural brain damage".
Using nucleoside treatment - which is a therapy and not a cure - he estimated there would be a 10% chance of "meaningful success" for Charlie.
He said early tests on mice with TK2, a slightly different condition to Charlie's, had resulted in some improvements.
He acknowledged that while it would be desirable to conduct further testing on rodents, that could take a minimum of six months to two years.
The small number of people with Charlie's rare genetic condition - mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome - would make robust clinical trials difficult, he added.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Alasdair Seton-Marsden read a statement from Charlie's parents that said 'he is still fighting'
Doctors at GOSH - where Charlie is being cared for - say he should be moved on to palliative care but his parents have raised more than £1.3m to take their son to the US for the nucleoside therapy.
The High Court has also been hearing arguments about the child's head size, which UK doctors said indicated of lack of brain function.
Mr Francis said it was "absurd" that a dispute over his head size was "undermining" the case.
Doctors said the baby's skull had not grown in three months.
The lawyer for Charlie's parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, told the court Ms Yates had regularly measured her son's head and disagreed with the hospital's measurements.
The court heard Ms Yates had measured her baby's head this morning and there was a 2cm difference with the hospital's measurements.
Mr Justice Francis said he wanted the matter resolved and called for an independent person to measure Charlie's head within 24 hours.
"It is absurd that the science of this case is being infected by the inability to measure a child's skull," he said.
Connie Yates and Chris Gard walked out of the hearing at the High Court
Charlie's parents, from Bedfont, west London, left the courtroom after two hours over a disagreement with the judge about what they had said at a previous hearing on whether their child was in pain.
Mr Gard stood up and said: "I thought this was supposed to be independent."
Mr Justice Francis then offered to adjourn but was told the pair already knew the evidence being given by their legal team.
Ms Yates and Mr Gard returned for the afternoon session.
Supporters of Charlie's parents have been outside the court
Connie Yates and Chris Gard have raised more than £1.3m to fund a treatment trial
The case returned to the High Court following reports of new data from foreign healthcare experts who suggested treatment could improve Charlie's condition.
Doctors at GOSH have said the evidence is not new but it was right for the court to explore it.
Grant Armstrong, who is leading Ms Yates and Mr Gard's legal team, told the judge they wanted to reopen the case on the basis that the treatment is likely to affect Charlie's brain cells.
He said the parents disputed the view that Charlie has "irreversible, irreparable" brain damage.
The couple have already lost battles in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court to allow them to take their son elsewhere for treatment.
They also failed to persuade European Court of Human Rights judges to intervene in the case.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40593286 | news_uk-england-london-40593286 |
|
Newspaper headlines: Conservative MP's 'N-word shame' - BBC News | 2017-07-10 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | Racist language used by a Conservative MP and the decision to cap teachers' pay feature on the front pages. | The Papers | The parents of Charlie Gard appear in many of the newspapers
Several papers report the warning from a pay review body that schools in England are struggling to recruit teachers, after the government decided to cap their pay rises at 1%.
The story makes the lead in the Daily Telegraph, which says the prime minister is likely to face more challenges from her own MPs on the issue.
The paper says the pay review body's warning will add to mounting pressure on Chancellor Philip Hammond to ease the pay cap in his Budget later this year.
The Guardian says Mrs May has been accused of insulting teachers.
It also believes pressure is building on the government to announce a review of public sector pay in the autumn Budget.
In other education news, ministers are considering scrapping the Conservative programme to build hundreds more free schools, as they struggle to fund a manifesto promise to boost education budgets by £4bn, according to the Times.
The paper also reports the decision to continue the 1% cap on pay rises for teachers, calling it another real-terms salary cut for half a million staff in England and Wales.
The grim-faced parents of Charlie Gard are pictured on the Daily Mirror's front page, after a hearing at the High Court on Monday.
The Times reports how they shouted at the judge and a lawyer as they were told to provide fresh evidence that their terminally-ill baby should be taken abroad for treatment.
The Daily Mail says that after the hearing, many were left pondering the same simple clash of arguments.
It was the medical establishment versus a family not prepared to admit defeat, as long as someone, somewhere, was saying that something might be done.
The main story in the Financial Times is that the drugs industry is going to court to try to stop the NHS imposing new limits on the price it will pay for medicines.
The FT says the industry has complained that the policy might prevent patients from securing cutting-edge medicines for the most serious diseases.
The paper says the rules also affect drugs for very rare illnesses, which often affect children, and will be subject to a cost limit for the first time.
The Guardian's front page, meanwhile, highlights a warning from scientists that the sixth mass extinction of species in the earth's history is well under way.
The paper says the new study analysed both common and rare species and found that billions of regional or local populations had been lost, mainly because of human overpopulation and over-consumption.
Animals affected include lions in South Africa, Guatemalan bearded lizards, as well as red squirrels and barn swallows.
A front-page report in the Financial Times says the government has conceded that the European Court of Justice could continue to have sway over Britain for a limited time after Brexit.
The paper sees the move as a "blurring" of one of Prime Minister Theresa May's red lines over negotiations with the EU, and says it could pave the way for a softer Brexit.
The FT calls it the most consequential concession since the referendum.
Mrs May's call for a cross-party approach to tacking the challenges facing the UK is given short shrift in the Telegraph.
The paper says that instead of prompting a great coming together, the idea seems to be falling apart almost immediately.
The Conservatives sometimes appear to have lost their bearings, the paper says, and the prime minister will not find the right path by following Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
But the Sun believes it was honest and brave of Mrs May to offer other parties a say.
What it calls Jeremy Corbyn's "graceless" rebuff was predictable, it says.
Amid all the Wimbledon coverage, the Telegraph highlights complaints of sexism in the tournament's scheduling.
It says critics have pointed out that the show courts at the All England Club are routinely hosting two men's games, but only one women's match, each day.
It says Andy Murray has entered the fray, urging Wimbledon to begin play earlier on Centre Court to allow four matches and an equal split.
And finally, there is widespread coverage of two new studies, which conclude that drinking coffee can reduce the risk of dying early.
The findings make the lead in the Daily Express, which says three cups a day can cut the risk of cancer, heart disease and strokes.
The Times adds that while coffee has been blamed for health problems such as insomnia, heartburn and weak bones, the new findings appear to show that the benefits outweigh the risks.
Fill the cafetiere, it advises, but ditch the cigarette. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-40564307 | news_blogs-the-papers-40564307 |
|
Cameron says fiscal discipline not 'selfish' amid austerity debate - BBC News | 2017-07-04 | ['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews'] | The former PM says opponents of austerity are wrongly portraying the government as "uncaring". | UK Politics | The former PM says leaving debts to future generations is wrong
David Cameron has said opponents of fiscal discipline are "selfish" not "compassionate", as the debate within the Tories over austerity continues.
The ex-prime minister, who introduced the public sector pay cap, said those who believed in "sound finances" were wrongly being painted as "uncaring".
"The exact reverse is true," he said at an event in South Korea. "Giving up sound finances isn't being generous."
Chancellor Philip Hammond has urged ministers to "hold their nerve".
As a growing number of Tory MPs, as well as opposition parties and unions, call for the 1% cap on public sector pay increases to be reviewed, the chancellor has said the "right balance" must be struck in terms of fairness to workers and taxpayers.
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson expressed his support for a rethink on Monday, while Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has said he sympathises with the millions of NHS workers whose pay has been squeezed since 2010 - firstly through a two-year pay freeze and then through the cap, which was imposed in 2012.
But Mr Cameron, who as prime minister of the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition oversaw six years of cuts to public spending, defended his government's record on cutting the multibillion pound annual deficit and suggested it would be a mistake to now loosen up efforts.
Five million public sector workers have seen their pay capped since 2012
"The opponents of so-called austerity couch their arguments in a way that make them sound generous and compassionate," said the former PM, who stood down as an MP last year, at a conference in Seoul.
"They seek to paint the supporters of sound finances as selfish, or uncaring. The exact reverse is true.
"Giving up on sound finances isn't being generous, it's being selfish: spending money today that you may need tomorrow."
Rises of 1% for dentists, nurses, doctors and the military have already been agreed for this year and No 10 said ministers would respond to pay review bodies next recommendations in due course.
Nigel Lawson, a former chancellor to Margaret Thatcher, said it was Mr Hammond's job to keep control of public spending and urged ministers to formulate the policy behind closed doors.
"It's not easy but it is necessary," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "People understand we need to pay our way on the road to economic success."
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said increasing pay in line with inflation next year could cost about £5bn and to do so for the rest of the Parliament could "easily cost twice that".
However, director Paul Johnson told the BBC that Mr Hammond had a range of options to ease the constraints on pay without breaching his immediate financial targets.
"If that were the government's biggest priority then it could probably afford to do it," he said. "The country would hardly be bankrupt if the government were to borrow a few billion more than currently planned."
But he said it was not clear how much "headroom" Mr Hammond would have given uncertainty over the performance of the economy and other spending pressures.
After the Tories' failure to win a majority, the chancellor has said it is up to his party to again make the case for a market-based economy, underpinned by sound public finances, and oppose those calling for a "different path".
Labour said immediate action was needed from the government not "just more empty words or infighting from members of the cabinet".
"The fact that some of the pillars of our community and the public sector such as teachers, doctors and police officers are seeing their pay cut exposes the double standards of a government that likes to praise their work but will not actually truly reward it," said shadow chancellor John McDonnell. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40496775 | news_uk-politics-40496775 |