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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Australian Open: Roger Federer beats Tomas Berdych to reach semi-finals - BBC Sport | 2018-01-24 | None | Defending champion Roger Federer reaches his 14th Australian Open semi-final with a straight-set victory over Tomas Berdych. | null | Last updated on .From the section Tennis
Coverage: Watch highlights on BBC Two, the BBC Sport website and app. Live commentary on the best matches on BBC Radio 5 live, 5 live sports extra and online.
Defending champion Roger Federer reached his 14th Australian Open semi-final with a straight-set victory over Tomas Berdych.
Second seed Federer, 36, beat the Czech 19th seed 7-6 (7-1) 6-3 6-4 in the Rod Laver Arena night session.
It was their 10th meeting at Grand Slams, and an eighth win for the Swiss player.
Federer goes on to face unseeded 21-year-old Hyeon Chung of South Korea in the last four on Friday.
Britain's Kyle Edmund takes on sixth seed Marin Cilic of Croatia in the first semi-final at 08:30 GMT on Thursday.
• None Read more: Simona Halep to face Angelique Kerber in semi-finals
• None Edmund better & fitter than ever - McEnroe
Federer's most recent win over Berdych was a straight-sets victory in last year's Wimbledon semi-final, and he prevailed again in similar fashion to take his career record against the Czech to 20-6.
Berdych, 32, made a strong start, capitalising on a surprisingly loose Federer to move 3-0 ahead, and serving for the set at 5-3.
A set point went begging, however, and Federer reclaimed the break at the fourth opportunity, despite an argument with umpire Fergus Murphy over Hawkeye.
Berdych had a second chance to grab the set when Federer double-faulted but, having worked his way into the rally, could only fire a backhand long.
Federer needed no more help as he raced through the tie-break, sealing it with an exquisite drop shot.
The Swiss made the decisive move in the second set at 4-3, swatting away a beautiful backhand before charging into the net to fire another on break point.
With the second set wrapped up moments later, Berdych headed off court for treatment to his back, but showed no sign of injury on his return.
Federer was giving him enough problems, the Swiss even mastering line calling when he broke at 1-1 in the third set.
The world number two stopped mid-rally to challenge a ball near the baseline and was proved correct by one millimetre when Hawkeye gave its verdict.
Berdych would rally one final time with a fizzing forehand return but after Federer made it three breaks in a row with a brilliant backhand, he was not about to let the Czech back in.
"I hung around, got a bit lucky, a bit angry, a frustrated, maybe at the umpire, but I actually thought the call was good anyway!" said Federer.
"I was just frustrated and a bit antsy. I'm happy I got out of that first set. It ended up being key to the match. Tomas was great."
Find out how to get into tennis in our special guide.
Tennis news sent to your phone | http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/42802119 | rt_tennis_42802119 |
|
Chelsea stadium: £1bn Stamford Bridge hit by family dispute - BBC Sport | 2018-01-12 | None | How Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich's plans to build Europe's most expensive stadium are being held up by a family living in the shadow of Stamford Bridge. | null | Little has ever stood between Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich and realising his ambitions for the club.
But plans for a reported £1bn new stadium are being held up by one family over their right to light - and the lack of it shining into their home when the new Stamford Bridge is built.
The Crosthwaites have lived in their west London cottage for 50 years and it is so close to the Premier League club's ground that you could almost kick a football from their doorstep onto the pitch.
The family - made up of parents Lucinda and Nicolas, plus children Louis and Rose - took out an injunction in May over their belief the towering new 60,000-capacity stadium will cast a permanent shadow over parts of their home.
The new stadium was granted planning permission one year ago and has been signed off by the Mayor of London, but Chelsea have called on the local council to intervene and take advantage of planning laws to stop the injunction effectively ending the planned development.
Hammersmith and Fulham councillors are meeting on Monday to decide what happens next.
Billionaire Abramovich is a man who usually gets what he wants, but the dispute has already put the brakes on the project's investment and there is a risk that Europe's most expensive stadium may not even get built.
The club have told the local council that work cannot go ahead while there remains a risk the injunction could successfully stop the development. And the council says if it does not act to help Chelsea the "development would not proceed as proposed".
The Crosthwaites own a large house in an expensive part of west London - a three-bedroom property on the same street sold for £1.18m last year.
Chelsea's offer of legal advice worth £50,000, and further compensation understood to be in the region of a six-figure sum could not persuade them to waive their 'right to light' in their home.
Daughter Rose says their home is the nearest property to the new stadium. And even though it's on the other side of a railway from Stamford Bridge - and in a different borough - she says that "sunlight and daylight will be seriously affected".
"It is deemed as having an unacceptable and harmful impact by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea," she added in a recent letter as part of the case.
The family have said via their lawyers they are not opposed to the redevelopment of the stadium, but have suggested the east stand in question could be "cut-back or re-designed so as not to cause interference".
And they have highlighted a "disproportionate amount of hospitality seating" which takes up more space than normal seating.
They say there will be almost 17,000 hospitality seats, 28% of the total, and compare that to Arsenal's Emirates Stadium where hospitality comprises 16% of the capacity.
The family also believe Chelsea's attempt to effectively sidestep the injunction with the help of Hammersmith and Fulham council is not in the public interest and possibly illegal.
Their house sits in the neighbouring Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which they say has been firmly opposed to the development.
Premier League champions Chelsea have outlined that the planning and development of their new stadium has been above board on every aspect.
A public consultation of 13,000 local residents earned 97.5% support, and they have paid compensation to other homeowners who have been affected by losing their 'right to light'.
Chelsea also claim that the new stadium will "further enhance the economic, cultural and social services they provide", including £6m worth of educational programmes, a £7m improvement to local infrastructure and an additional £16.3m spent in local businesses as 2.4 million people visit the area annually.
That forms the key argument in the part of the law being disputed - section 203 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016.
Chelsea say the land can be compulsorily acquired by the council - and override the injunction - if Hammersmith and Fulham think it would contribute to the economic, environmental or social wellbeing of the area.
The club also says it will lease the land off the council and cover any liabilities or costs.
The family's lawyers say the council can purchase land "which they require" but ask whether it is "convenient" rather than "indispensable".
There is no doubt the Crosthwaites live in a very desirable part of London. The trees which shield them from the railway line are part of a conservation area.
However, their home is not an enormous property. Chelsea players who perform at Stamford Bridge will doubtless live in far bigger homes.
The thing that makes this particular house unique is that, unlike all the other properties on the street, it is directly opposite the stadium.
All the rest look straight at an adjacent hotel, which is to be pulled down to allow Stamford Bridge to be rebuilt. Those houses could get marginally more light because the stadium will be further away.
For the Crosthwaites, no such consolation exists. And, as the family have occupied the same house for half a century, they are committed to fighting Roman Abramovich, no matter how much the odds are stacked against them.
Which way is the council heading?
Hammersmith and Fulham council accepts that acquiring the land should only be done where necessary to allow beneficial regeneration to take place and be sure that it justifies interfering with the human rights of those affected.
A report for councillors, drawn up by head of planning and regeneration John Finlayson and to be discussed on Monday, recommends that the council buys the land (owned by Chelsea and Network Rail) and leases it back to the club so that development can go ahead.
As it stands, the club "will not be able to implement the development or secure any necessary development financing whilst there remains a risk that the existing injunctive proceedings might succeed", the report warns.
Finlayson's report adds: "There is a compelling case in the public interest for the council to acquire the land for planning purposes and enable the development to proceed and the public benefits to be realised."
Without the council exercising its statutory powers, though, the "development would not proceed as proposed" it warns.
It is understood that should the council decide to pursue the purchase, the Crosthwaite family will seek further legal advice - so the case may yet still run.
Abramovich has wanted to increase Chelsea's stadium capacity for several years but was thwarted in his previous attempts to buy Battersea Power Station, ultimately losing out to property developers.
If successful, the Blues would not be able to move into their new home until the 2024-25 season, yet it would at last put them in line with their main London rivals.
Eleven years ago, Arsenal built the 60,000-seat Emirates Stadium, in 2016 West Ham moved to the 57,000-capacity Olympic Stadium, and Tottenham are redeveloping their White Hart Lane ground at the moment.
The 41,000-capacity Stamford Bridge is the seventh biggest stadium used by a Premier League team, well behind Manchester United's 75,500-seater Old Trafford.
Chelsea are yet to find a temporary home for the four years it might take to build the new stadium, but Wembley Stadium is being considered as a possible option. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42648061 | rt_football_42648061 |
|
How the Worboys judgement helps victims of serious crime - BBC News | 2018-02-21 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The Supreme Court's ruling that the Metropolitan Police botched the investigation into the black cab rapist John Worboys - and in doing so breached victims' human rights - will have a profound effect on crime fighting. | UK | Campaigners for justice for Worboys' victims at the Metropolitan Police HQ
The Supreme Court's ruling that the Metropolitan Police botched the investigation into the black cab rapist John Worboys - and in doing so breached victims' human rights - will have a profound effect on crime fighting.
It is not about the compensation, but the duty that the police are now under to carry out an effective investigation - and prove that they have done so.
The case was so important to the landscape of British policing that Theresa May, when she was home secretary, intervened in the case to make her own arguments.
Her lawyers argued - you may be surprised by this - that our top judges should leave the decision to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
So why is this case so important?
Put most simply, the law has repeatedly made clear that police can not in general terms be sued for negligence. That position was underlined by the Supreme Court just three years ago in the case of Joanna Michael, murdered by her boyfriend.
She dialled 999, but police downgraded her call and officers turned up too late to save her. The court ruled that the bar on negligence claims against the police stood.
At the other end of the crime spectrum, they also can't be sued if they do not catch the thief who stole your lawnmower - nor can your neighbour sue them if a slow-moving investigation fails to catch the miscreant before he nicks their lawnmower. That's because the police can't be held responsible for a crime committed by someone else.
But two of Worboys' victims, "DSD" and "NBV", have now altered the legal landscape.
The women's case was that had there been an effective proper investigation from the start, they would not have been subjected to the attacks.
Therefore they had been victims of inhuman or degrading treatment, which the state has a duty to prevent, under Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
The Metropolitan Police long ago conceded officers had failed over Worboys. But it fought this Article 3 challenge to the top because of the legal implications were it to lose all police forces would be under a clear obligation to prove they had effectively and exhaustively investigated a serious violent crime, or face damages claims.
And that, to all intents and purposes is what has now happened.
The Supreme Court justices could have limited their ruling to saying there was only a breach if a force was guilty of systemic failings such as back-office bungling because detectives were poorly managed.
But they went far further - and by a majority ruled that a force had to show that its actual investigation - the specific operational steps taken to hunt down the attacker - were effective.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Women need to be confident police will investigate - John Worboys' victim
In the case of DSD, Worboys dropped her off at a police station after he had drugged her. But no officer took his name. Nobody later checked the CCTV to get his black cab registration. He could have been interviewed but wasn't. That is exactly the kind of basic failing that meant the police today lost.
So will this open the floodgates to compensation claims from lawnmower theft victims? Not at all, says Lord Kerr, the lead justice.
"I do not believe that this is a serious possibility," he said in the judgement,
"The recognition that really serious operational failures by police in the investigation of offences can give rise to a breach of Article 3 cannot realistically be said to herald an avalanche of claims for every retrospectively detected error in police investigations of minor crime."
But there's no doubt there will be more legal action. The first successful case could come from the families of serial killer Stephen Port's four victims.
During his trial in 2016, it emerged that the police missed obvious opportunities to link the deaths and apprehend him.
"This [the Worboys judgement] is a significant decision for the families of Anthony, Gabriel, Daniel and Jack," says Andy Petherbridge, the lawyer representing the relatives.
"We have begun civil claims against the Metropolitan Police Service - these include a claim under Article 3. I would expect today's judgment to have a positive bearing on our case. This could also strengthen any claims by survivors assaulted by Port."
Whatever the outcome of that claim, the impact on policing itself will be massive.
Every single serious violent crime investigation will now have to be rock solid.
Nothing can be left to chance.
Everything will have to be documented - everything might be reviewed - even more so than the kind of processes seen in many successful investigations that daily protect the public.
Some officers are still clearly fearful - and the Met itself has predicted it will mean shifting resources away from less serious crimes, such as fraud.
But in all likelihood the long-term effect could be exactly what the victims want to see in the first place: Better training, better decision-making, better service - and more criminals caught.
Just think about the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. It was just such a major and professional review of the available evidence by a focused and dedicated team of detectives and forensic experts that ultimately led to two of his killers being jailed.
Or as DSD put it herself at the Supreme Court: "Had you [the police] done your job properly, there wouldn't be 105 victims, there would be one." | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43148671 | news_uk-43148671 |
|
May: New security deal should be effective by next year - BBC News | 2018-02-17 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The prime minister calls for a new post-Brexit partnership on security in a speech in Munich. | UK Politics | This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Theresa May: "Those who threaten our security would like nothing more than to see us fractured"
Theresa May has called for a new "deep and special partnership" to ensure the UK and EU can continue to work together on security after Brexit.
She said new arrangements in foreign and defence policy cooperation should be effective by next year.
In a speech to the Munich Security Conference the prime minister said the UK would remain committed to Europe's security after leaving the EU.
New security arrangements have yet to be negotiated for after Brexit.
Theresa May said that, without cooperation, the UK would no longer be able to help the European police agency Europol as it currently does or extradite suspects as quickly.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
To maintain coordination on security Theresa May said the UK and EU should continue to work together on sanctions, operations on the ground and developing capabilities in defence, cyber and space.
The prime minister warned that "rigid institutional restrictions or deep-seated ideology" should not jeopardise the security of UK citizens.
"We must do whatever is most practical and pragmatic in ensuring our collective security," she added.
She said the UK and EU's enemies would "like nothing better than to see us fractured".
President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker said the "security bridge between the UK and the EU would still be maintained" but added "you cannot mix it up with other issues."
Theresa May noted that the EU had comprehensive relationships with other countries on trade and argued that there is "no legal or operational reason" why similar agreements could not be reached on security.
During talks with Angela Merkel on Friday, Mrs May said both sides need to be "bold and ambitious" in framing their future relations.
The German chancellor said that while the UK could not replicate its existing membership outside the EU, she wanted relations to be "as close as possible".
EU member states currently work closely in the fight against organised crime and terrorism.
Key initiatives include the European Arrest Warrant - under which suspects can be speedily extradited between member states - Europol, the EU intelligence agency, and the Schengen Information System of real-time alerts about suspects.
The UK says that while the legal framework for its membership of these arrangements will end when it leaves the EU in March 2019, it wants to draw up new working arrangements - which ministers have described as being "as close to the status quo as possible".
Mrs Merkel said she was "curious not frustrated" about the UK's approach
In her speech, Mrs May pointed to the arrest of suspected terrorists and operations against people traffickers as examples of the benefits of cooperation across borders.
The moderator at the event, Wolfgang Ischinger, said that the UK's decision to leave the EU was "extremely regrettable" and that "everything would be so much easier if you stayed."
The Lib Dem's defence spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said it was "high time" the prime minister said "what she wants and what she is willing to give way on."
Theresa May has spent months calling for a deep and special economic partnership with the EU after Brexit and now her focus turns to security.
Again she's asking for a unique arrangement.
Britain will be outside the EU, a "third" country, and it would be unprecedented for the current close cooperation to continue. But the thrust of the British government's argument is that we should be a special case.
The UK is offering its substantial resources (the second largest defence budget in NATO) and expertise in counter terrorism.
The prime minister wants a treaty to enshrine what Downing Street describes as the real, tangible benefits of cooperation, and says failure to sign up will play into the hands of our enemies who'd like nothing more than to see Europe divided.
Her warning to EU leaders is blunt. Don't let your deep seated ideology put Europe's citizens in danger.
Mrs May has consistently said that she won't use security as a bargaining chip, that her offer is "unconditional" but that's no guarantee that the EU would simply accept a request from the UK to continue to be a part of Europol or the European Arrest Warrant.
Her hope is that the EU takes a practical, pragmatic approach because they accept that continuing to work together is mutually beneficial.
Earlier this year the outgoing head of Europol, Rob Wainwright, told the BBC Brexit would mean the UK losing influence on cross-border policing and security work.
"We will find other ways of influencing, more informal ways, but they will be less direct, less pronounced and probably less successful than they are now," he said.
Mrs May's speech is one of a series dubbed "the road to Brexit" with her government under pressure to set out in detail what it wants life outside the EU to look like. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43088246 | news_uk-politics-43088246 |
|
Julian Assange: Warrant for his arrest upheld by court - BBC News | 2018-02-13 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The Wikileaks founder remains at the Ecuadorean embassy in London after failing to answer bail. | UK | An arrest warrant for the Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been upheld by Westminster Magistrates' Court.
The warrant was issued in 2012 when Mr Assange, 46, breached bail conditions by seeking political refuge at the Ecuadorean embassy.
On Tuesday, the judge said he needed to face justice for breaching bail and therefore the warrant should remain.
Mr Assange, who has been staying at the embassy since 2012, tweeted his "surprise" at the decision.
His bail was set in relation to sexual assault allegations he faced in Sweden. The allegations were dropped in May 2017.
Under the warrant, Mr Assange would be arrested as soon as he left Ecuadorean soil.
As there is not an extradition treaty between the UK and Ecuador, he cannot be arrested inside the embassy.
To explain his decision to break his bail conditions, Mr Assange argued that should he face the Swedish authorities, they would extradite him to the US.
He fears he would be charged by US authorities for publishing classified documents on his Wikileaks website.
But Judge Emma Arbuthnot said she did not find this fear "reasonable" - as any decision by Sweden to extradite Mr Assange to the US would cause a diplomatic crisis.
Even if that decision was taken, she argued, Mr Assange would be able to argue against extradition by citing extraneous circumstances, fair trial concerns and poor conditions in US detention centres.
In her ruling, she described Mr Assange as "a man who wants to impose his own terms on the course of justice, whether the course of justice is in this jurisdiction or Sweden".
"He appears to consider himself above the normal rules of law and wants justice only if it goes in his favour."
Mr Assange's lawyers said his arrest for failing to answer bail was no longer in the public interest but the judge rejected that argument.
"Defendants on bail up and down the country, and requested persons facing extradition, come to court to face the consequences of their own choices," she said.
"He should have the courage to do the same."
After the ruling, Mr Assange posted his reaction on Twitter, saying: "We are surprised.
"Judge went well outside what the parties presented in court. This seems to have led to many factual errors in the judgment."
A small group of supporters stood quietly outside the court, holding banners reading "Free Assange" and "Assange Safe Passage".
Mr Assange's lawyer, Mark Summers, said his client was living in conditions "akin to imprisonment," adding that his "psychological health" had deteriorated and he was "in serious peril".
The court heard that Mr Assange suffers from a bad tooth, a frozen shoulder and depression.
The judge rejected these claims as reason to lift the warrant, saying: "Mr Assange's health problems could be much worse."
She also rejected a UN report, cited by Mr Assange in his appeal, that said he is subject to arbitrary detention.
She highlighted that he himself had negotiated the bail conditions he went on to break. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43049474 | news_uk-43049474 |
|
Suffrage: The journey towards 50-50 - BBC News | 2018-02-07 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | A century after women won the right to vote, the fight for equality in politics goes on. | UK Politics | A re-enactment of a suffragette protest outside the Houses of Parliament
If my five-year-old self had been told that my great-grandmothers weren't allowed to vote, I'd have thought that was pretty daft.
I grew up with a female prime minister in charge. It would have made no sense to me whatsoever back then to discover that women hadn't had a say.
If Mrs Thatcher wasn't always given a fond reception in Glasgow in the 1980s, it wasn't because she had a particular kind of chromosomes. And growing up - I suppose like many women of my generation - our expectation was that if you worked hard enough, women could more or less have it all.
That sense of what was possible grew with the size of Sue Ellen from Dallas's shoulder pads, followed later by the Spice Girls' cartoonish power. The fictitious Mrs Banks in Mary Poppins seemed to rather enjoy dashing off to suffragette rallies (whatever they really were), which of course she could do only with the help of her nanny to look after her children.
But to learn about the history of the fight for the vote back then seemed like a study of a weird injustice overturned from another world, not anything that could be in the memory of anyone's lifetime. Interesting to learn, yes, but relevant? It didn't necessarily seem so.
Well guess what? I can't be the only person in the world to have discovered as I grew up that life was a bit more complicated than that, and opportunity for women wasn't really going to be defined by Kylie Minogue's example of switching careers when she fancied it. Personal choices were a lot more complex. And yes, reality crept in - women were, and are, treated differently in so many parts of life. Without question, that decades-long struggle finds its own echoes today.
I'm writing this late at night on a bus speeding along a four-lane highway in China. It's full of officials from No 10 and other British journalists. We're all trailing the convoy of the UK's second female prime minister, who saw off another woman for her job (although who knows what might come next), following her every move in a trade mission as she escapes the political maelstrom for a moment.
And while there are plenty of women in this travelling version of the Westminster bubble, here, as time and again in our politics, it is a long way off from being one-for-one.
In politics at least, it is abundantly clear that big changes have taken place. Parliament does now look more like the population. There are 208 female MPs at the moment, that's a record level. But it's still not quite a third, and well short of reflecting the population.
It's a long time since the first ever MP was elected, in 1918, a long time since 19 MPs were voted in at the 1979 general election alongside the country's first female political leader, the 60 women elected in 1992 or even the dramatic doubling in 1997. Life is about more than just numbers, of course, but does the proportion of women sitting on our green benches really matter?
Forty five women have served as cabinet ministers (pictures: Getty Images & PA)
The argument is made, by most politicians certainly, that we should be aiming for something much more like 50-50. But the parties have different approaches to how to hit that mark.
Labour has pursued an active strategy for many years, where only women are allowed to stand for some seats. The all-women shortlist was much argued over to start with. And as times move on there's a new pointed question, dragging in the debate over the status of transgender candidates.
The Tories have worked more informally, using support networks and gentle encouragement - and that has often been important too. Interestingly, many female MPs who give wholehearted backing to Theresa May came to know and like her through her work over the years as part of their organisation, Women To Win.
But why should they make the effort, and does it matter to you? Certainly most voters have got many more things to worry about than gender equality in politics. Remember, it took years and years for the campaigns of the suffragettes to cut through.
But if we want our politics to represent all of us fairly, consider this. If you are reading this with female eyes then I guess, like me, you're no stranger to being the only woman in the room. It's not necessarily bad, or good, sometimes it doesn't occur to you at all, but sometimes it is glaringly obvious, and rather different.
If you are a man reading this, what does it feel like if you are the only one in a room full of women? Again, whether you like it or loathe it, you may not always notice, but when you do, sometimes it can feel pretty different.
As human beings, we all know that different environments and different contexts lead to different conversations. Think back to when women were forbidden from having a say in who ran the country. Were their voices heard, their hopes and fears fully taken into consideration?
With the glorious benefit of 100 years of hindsight, the answer to that is a straightforward no. A century on, is it so strange to hope that everyone can be represented in any room?
That's not to say for a second that women's concerns are all the same. But in the most straightforward of terms, if you want a system to be successful, why would you not want to include as many people as possible? Does a democracy inspire faith, if some of its members feel no-one is listening?
As this anniversary approaches it is not simply a question of commemorating an achievement of days long gone. The best tribute maybe is to remember suffrage's most simple message, to give everyone a say. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42945323 | news_uk-politics-42945323 |
|
100 Women: The female protesters against giving women the vote - BBC News | 2018-02-07 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | In 1918 some eligible women over the age of 30 were given the right to vote in the UK - but not every woman was happy about it. | UK | A century ago, after years of campaigning, women over the age of 30 who owned property were given the right to vote in the UK.
But for many thousands of women, it was not a moment of celebration.
Known as the anti-suffrage movement, these women had been working to oppose the suffragettes.
They believed women didn't have the capacity to understand politics, and portrayed the suffragettes as a group of "ugly" women and "spinsters".
The Anti-Suffrage League was founded in 1908 by Mary Humphrey Ward, with support from two men: Lord Curzon and William Cremer.
A year later, it was announced that more than 250,000 people, both men and women, had signed a petition against giving women the vote.
Writing in The Queen in 1908, one "opponent", as they were described in the article, said they saw the campaign for the vote as a "prelude to a social revolution" that would set society back.
"We believe in the division of functions as the keystone of civilisation," the piece continued.
"It is as if the animals on the farm should insist on changing places - the cows insist upon drawing the coach, while the horses strive in vain to chew the cud and ruminate."
Historian Kathy Atherton says people nowadays can find it "surprising" that women were involved in an anti-suffrage movement, but that it's important to "put yourself in their shoes".
"There would have been a general acceptance that women were intellectually inferior and emotional - and women would have believed that as well as men - so they didn't have the capacity to make political judgements," she says.
"It's a really hierarchical society and the white male is at the top of the heap.
"There's a fear that you're upsetting the natural order of things, even going so far as thinking the colonies would be affected if they felt that Britain was being ruled by women."
"One of the arguments that some of these anti-suffrage campaigners put forward was that if we give British women the vote - and they would very specifically use the example of India - Indian men and women won't like it," says Dr Sumita Mukherjee from the University of Bristol.
At the time, India was ruled by the British Empire so power was exerted by the government in London and, by default, those who voted for them in the first place.
"They [the anti-suffrage movement] used this assumption that colonial subjects were very patriarchal themselves and they wouldn't like it if women had the vote in Britain," says Dr Mukherjee.
"The counter-argument was that there had been a female queen, Queen Victoria. She'd been Empress of the British Empire and most subjects hadn't kicked up a fuss about having an empress so why would they kick up a fuss about British women having a vote?"
There were also arguments much closer to home.
Historical author Elizabeth Crawford says there was a genuine concern at the time that giving women the vote would "destroy families".
"They thought it would cause dissension in the home if a man wanted to vote conservative and his wife liberal," she says.
The writer in The Queen magazine said the suffragettes were "irresponsible" in forcing the vote on wives and mothers.
"It is a vast upheaval of social institutions and habits, which must cut into the peace and well-being of families and harm the education of children," the article claimed.
A leaflet from 1909 held in The Woman's Library puts forward an argument that women have "neither capacity nor leisure" to vote.
"Women are more easily swayed by sentiment, less open to reason, less logical, keener in intuition, more sensitive than men," the writer claims.
"The qualities in which their minds excel are those least required in politics; their strong points are wasted or harmful there."
Both sides of the campaign produced artwork and slogans to promote their points of view.
"They [the anti-suffrage images] are portraying the suffragettes as being absolute harridans, slovenly housewives, appalling mothers, that they were ugly, that they looked like men, that they were lesbians," says Ms Atherton.
"It's very much like the Twitter campaigns that you get at the moment, whenever a high-profile woman says something of a feminist nature."
The Suffragists – were first to organise, forming local societies in the 1860s The Suffragettes – were active for just 10 years after splitting from the Suffragists in 1903 Suffragettes – disrupted meetings, vandalised art and buildings and were often arrested Suffragists – successfully built support in parliament over many years Suffragettes – increased publicity and re-energised the cause but also sparked a backlash Then in World War One, women took new roles in factories and beyond... ...which made denying them voting rights harder than ever After 50 years of women standing up and speaking out... Parliament finally passed a law giving some women the vote in 1918
Prof June Purvis of the University of Portsmouth has collected many postcards printed with anti-suffrage messages and imagery.
"I was quite fascinated by these postcards because not many people have done research on them, and I thought they were telling a message of how difficult it was for women at that time to be taken seriously," she says.
A number of the examples in her collection still have original writing on the back, many of which don't explicitly refer to the image on the front.
"In the early 20th century postcards were big business," says Prof Purvis.
"I think the people who bought them were sending a normal message [for example arranging to meet up], like how we now use email."
For Prof Purvis, one of the stand-out postcards shows a group of women, supposedly in the House of Commons, showing what a future with women in Parliament would be like.
In the image, one woman is staring into a hand mirror, while another reads a book in the corner and yet another has brought her baby with her.
"That postcard really portrays the cultural fear at the time, that if women got the vote, they may then ask to be allowed to stand for Parliament and this is going to upset the whole gender order."
In November 1918 women were granted the right to stand for election for the first time.
BBC 100 Women names 100 influential and inspirational women around the world every year and shares their stories. Find us on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter and use #100Women
Other stories you might like: | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42704341 | news_uk-42704341 |
|
Labour wants permanent customs union treaty after Brexit - Starmer - BBC News | 2018-02-25 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Sir Keir Starmer backs a new customs treaty after Brexit - and warns the PM 'crunch time" is coming. | UK Politics | This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Sir Keir Starmer: "We've long championed being in a customs union with the EU"
Jeremy Corbyn is to confirm a shift in the Labour Party's position on remaining in the customs union after Brexit, Sir Keir Starmer has indicated.
The shadow Brexit secretary said Labour's front bench was "unanimous" in its backing for striking a new deal with the EU after Brexit.
The UK would leave the customs union but then negotiate a treaty that will "do the work of the customs union".
But Liam Fox said Labour's position did not make sense.
The international trade secretary told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show: "Labour say they want to join a customs union. What does that mean?
"Is it like Turkey, which has a customs union but only in goods, not in agriculture, not in services, not in finance? Is that what we want for Britain? Will we take rules in certain sectors but not in others?"
Sir Keir also warned Prime Minister Theresa May "crunch time" was coming, as MPs geared up to vote on her policy of staying out of the customs union when the UK leaves the EU next March so that the UK can strike its own trade deals.
Labour leader Mr Corbyn is due to make a speech on Monday setting out his party's position.
Labour has previously said it wants the UK to retain the "benefits" of the customs union and the single market without saying how that would be achieved.
Sir Keir said being in a customs union permanently was the "the only way realistically to get tariff free access," which was "really important for our manufacturing base" and the only way to avoid the return of a "hard border" in Northern Ireland.
He said Britain was more likely to strike new deals if it works "jointly with the EU", adding: "We all want to do bold new trade agreements but we would be better off doing that with the EU."
Labour's efforts to persuade Conservative rebels to side with them are set to intensify.
Now that Labour appears to have come down firmly on the side of a softer Brexit, after months of hedging its bets, there's a renewed focus at Westminster on whether Tory rebels can defeat Theresa May and keep the UK in the customs union.
On paper, there would appear to be the numbers for pro-EU Conservative MPs to side with Labour (and the Lib Dems, SNP, Plaid Cymru and Green Party) to overturn Theresa May's majority.
But Conservative rebels would need nerves of steel to torpedo the PM's whole Brexit strategy.
It could pave the way to another general election, which might just deliver a Labour government.
The PM is hoping she can say enough this week to keep the Remainers on side, but the "meaningful vote" on Brexit expected in the autumn looms ever larger.
Mr Fox has said the UK can only strike its own trade deals if it is not part of a customs union - and he told Andrew Marr his department was working with "21 different countries" to get agreements in place that could be signed as soon as the UK leaves.
He said Mrs May would be setting out what the cabinet had agreed on the UK's future economic relationship with the EU in a speech on Friday, in the north-east of England.
And he urged Remain-supporting Tory MPs, who are threatening to derail the prime minister's plan to leave the customs union, to have an "an open mind" and listen to what she had to say, which would "deal with a lot of the reservations that they have".
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Liam Fox: "Labour say they want to join a customs union, what does that mean?"
The Labour leadership is under pressure from some of their own MPs to join forces with Conservative rebels and the Lib Dems to back an amendment to the Trade Bill, currently making its way through Parliament, to stay in a customs union.
Mr Fox said a vote on the bill, which had been due to take place next week, had been delayed because "we want to persuade our colleagues of the merits of our argument before we take the bill forward".
Sir Keir said the Labour leadership had not yet decided to back the rebel Tory amendments but claimed they were similar to ones that had been tabled by the Labour front bench.
He said Mrs May did not have a majority in Parliament for staying out of a customs union and she would face a "crunch" vote "sooner rather than later" - although he denied Labour was engaged in a cynical attempt to remove her from office and force a general election.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Tory rebel Anna Soubry suggested she was ready to pull back if Mrs May announced measures that would amount to a customs agreement on Friday, telling BBC Radio 4's The World This Weekend: "It's absolutely beholden now on the government to get itself in the right place."
In his speech on Monday, Mr Corbyn will say the EU "is not the root of all our problems and leaving it will not solve all our problems," adding: "Brexit is what we make of it together, the priorities and choices we make in the negotiations."
More than 80 senior figures in the Labour Party have, meanwhile, urged Mr Corbyn to commit to remaining in the EU single market after Brexit.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
In a statement seen by the Observer, figures including Lord Mandelson, pro-European backbencher Chuka Umunna, former leader Lord Kinnock, and trade union leaders said the party as a minimum "must clearly and unambiguously" set out to remain part of the European economic area.
Although they regard Mr Corbyn's expected commitment on Monday as a "step forward", they said this falls "way short" of where Labour should be on Brexit.
Mr Umunna warned leaving the single market and customs union would "torpedo" Labour's anti-austerity and industrial investment plans. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43186005 | news_uk-politics-43186005 |
|
Ministers conclude crunch Brexit talks at Chequers - BBC News | 2018-02-22 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Brexit sub-committee meets for eight hours over Brexit strategy, ahead of a speech by the PM next week. | UK Politics | Theresa May and 11 senior ministers have been thrashing out the UK's approach to Brexit in an eight-hour discussion at the PM's country retreat.
BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg said everyone is said to have left Chequers happy implying "baby steps forwards not a huge breakthrough".
The PM will set out the position in a speech next week, after a discussion by the full cabinet.
There have been clear differences between ministers over the way forward.
But Laura Kuenssberg said she had been told the prime minister had "played a blinder" and persuaded Brexiteers to shift their position.
However, a cabinet Brexiteer source had said "divergence has won the day" with mutual recognition between the UK and EU on goods in future, rather than the UK being forced to stick to EU rules.
This Twitter post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser. View original content on Twitter The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Skip twitter post by Laura Kuenssberg This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Twitter’s cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
This Twitter post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser. View original content on Twitter The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Skip twitter post 2 by Laura Kuenssberg This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Twitter’s cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
Conservative Party chairman Brandon Lewis said on BBC Question Time the cabinet would agree on the Brexit position, following the Chequers talks.
"What I can say to you is the outcome of those discussions will come to cabinet in the next few days, and late next week the prime minister will make a statement, a speech and outline what that position is."
Pressed on whether everyone in the cabinet would agree with it, he replied: "Absolutely, yes."
Official cars make they way towards Chequers near Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire
The Brexit sub-committee includes key figures such as Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and Chancellor Philip Hammond, who were on opposite sides of the EU referendum argument in 2016.
A Downing Street spokesman said: "The prime minister and cabinet ministers met at Chequers for eight hours.
"They held discussions including about the automotive sector led by Greg Clark, agrifood led by Michael Gove, digital trade by Liam Fox and a discussion on the overall future economic partnership that was led by the prime minister."
Chief Whip Julian Smith and senior UK diplomats Tim Barrow and Ed Llewellyn were among those present, alongside the cabinet's Brexit sub-committee.
Guinness short rib of Dexter Beef with onions and parsnip mash
Mrs May still has to get any agreement through the whole cabinet on Tuesday, through her party - and then through 27 other EU member states.
Documents suggest European Commission negotiators will not approve of a UK proposal that seeks to select which EU rules to stick to post-Brexit and which to diverge from.
Slides published online by the commission say such an approach would be "not compatible with the principles" set out in the EU's own guidelines and posed a risk to the "proper functioning" of its single market.
But an EU diplomat told the BBC "we are hoping for a relationship that is as close as possible to the existing relationship", adding that EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier should be given a mandate "to explore all possibilities".
Before the final arrangements with the EU kick in, a temporary transition period is planned - although the details have yet to be negotiated.
On Wednesday, the UK set out its plans for how this "status quo" transition phase should work.
The document suggests the UK will abide by new EU laws and be involved in talks on future fishing quotas, but will not be able to sign trade deals without the EU's permission.
It also says the period should last as long as it takes to "prepare and implement the new processes and new systems".
No 10 denied this meant it would be longer than the planned two years.
But Sir Bill Cash, chairman of the Commons European Scrutiny Committee, warned that the UK could face an extra £4bn-£5bn Brexit "divorce bill" if the post-withdraw transition period extends beyond the EU's preferred end date of 31 December 2020.
He said that the current £35-39bn agreement was intended to cover to the end of the current EU budget period at the end of 2020.
For Labour, shadow chancellor John McDonnell said he would like to see "a customs union" option on the table, which would "solve some of the issues around Northern Ireland" and enable the UK to influence future trade negotiations.
Taking questions after a speech in London, he also said Labour would rather have a general election than a second referendum on Britain's EU membership because "there needs to be a wider debate" about the UK's future relationship with Europe.
Shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry also told LBC that while Brexit meant the UK could not be in the customs union, a new agreement was needed: "That we think is likely to be a customs union that will look pretty much like the current customs union."
It could mean the PM faces the prospect of a Commons rebellion as Conservative MP Anna Soubry said she had cross-party support for an amendment to the trade bill, calling for the government to form "a" customs union with the EU after Brexit. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43136076 | news_uk-politics-43136076 |
|
Julian Assange: Warrant for his arrest upheld by court - BBC News | 2018-02-14 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The Wikileaks founder remains at the Ecuadorean embassy in London after failing to answer bail. | UK | An arrest warrant for the Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been upheld by Westminster Magistrates' Court.
The warrant was issued in 2012 when Mr Assange, 46, breached bail conditions by seeking political refuge at the Ecuadorean embassy.
On Tuesday, the judge said he needed to face justice for breaching bail and therefore the warrant should remain.
Mr Assange, who has been staying at the embassy since 2012, tweeted his "surprise" at the decision.
His bail was set in relation to sexual assault allegations he faced in Sweden. The allegations were dropped in May 2017.
Under the warrant, Mr Assange would be arrested as soon as he left Ecuadorean soil.
As there is not an extradition treaty between the UK and Ecuador, he cannot be arrested inside the embassy.
To explain his decision to break his bail conditions, Mr Assange argued that should he face the Swedish authorities, they would extradite him to the US.
He fears he would be charged by US authorities for publishing classified documents on his Wikileaks website.
But Judge Emma Arbuthnot said she did not find this fear "reasonable" - as any decision by Sweden to extradite Mr Assange to the US would cause a diplomatic crisis.
Even if that decision was taken, she argued, Mr Assange would be able to argue against extradition by citing extraneous circumstances, fair trial concerns and poor conditions in US detention centres.
In her ruling, she described Mr Assange as "a man who wants to impose his own terms on the course of justice, whether the course of justice is in this jurisdiction or Sweden".
"He appears to consider himself above the normal rules of law and wants justice only if it goes in his favour."
Mr Assange's lawyers said his arrest for failing to answer bail was no longer in the public interest but the judge rejected that argument.
"Defendants on bail up and down the country, and requested persons facing extradition, come to court to face the consequences of their own choices," she said.
"He should have the courage to do the same."
After the ruling, Mr Assange posted his reaction on Twitter, saying: "We are surprised.
"Judge went well outside what the parties presented in court. This seems to have led to many factual errors in the judgment."
A small group of supporters stood quietly outside the court, holding banners reading "Free Assange" and "Assange Safe Passage".
Mr Assange's lawyer, Mark Summers, said his client was living in conditions "akin to imprisonment," adding that his "psychological health" had deteriorated and he was "in serious peril".
The court heard that Mr Assange suffers from a bad tooth, a frozen shoulder and depression.
The judge rejected these claims as reason to lift the warrant, saying: "Mr Assange's health problems could be much worse."
She also rejected a UN report, cited by Mr Assange in his appeal, that said he is subject to arbitrary detention.
She highlighted that he himself had negotiated the bail conditions he went on to break. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43049474 | news_uk-43049474 |
|
Labour wants permanent customs union treaty after Brexit - Starmer - BBC News | 2018-02-26 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Sir Keir Starmer backs a new customs treaty after Brexit - and warns the PM 'crunch time" is coming. | UK Politics | This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Sir Keir Starmer: "We've long championed being in a customs union with the EU"
Jeremy Corbyn is to confirm a shift in the Labour Party's position on remaining in the customs union after Brexit, Sir Keir Starmer has indicated.
The shadow Brexit secretary said Labour's front bench was "unanimous" in its backing for striking a new deal with the EU after Brexit.
The UK would leave the customs union but then negotiate a treaty that will "do the work of the customs union".
But Liam Fox said Labour's position did not make sense.
The international trade secretary told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show: "Labour say they want to join a customs union. What does that mean?
"Is it like Turkey, which has a customs union but only in goods, not in agriculture, not in services, not in finance? Is that what we want for Britain? Will we take rules in certain sectors but not in others?"
Sir Keir also warned Prime Minister Theresa May "crunch time" was coming, as MPs geared up to vote on her policy of staying out of the customs union when the UK leaves the EU next March so that the UK can strike its own trade deals.
Labour leader Mr Corbyn is due to make a speech on Monday setting out his party's position.
Labour has previously said it wants the UK to retain the "benefits" of the customs union and the single market without saying how that would be achieved.
Sir Keir said being in a customs union permanently was the "the only way realistically to get tariff free access," which was "really important for our manufacturing base" and the only way to avoid the return of a "hard border" in Northern Ireland.
He said Britain was more likely to strike new deals if it works "jointly with the EU", adding: "We all want to do bold new trade agreements but we would be better off doing that with the EU."
Labour's efforts to persuade Conservative rebels to side with them are set to intensify.
Now that Labour appears to have come down firmly on the side of a softer Brexit, after months of hedging its bets, there's a renewed focus at Westminster on whether Tory rebels can defeat Theresa May and keep the UK in the customs union.
On paper, there would appear to be the numbers for pro-EU Conservative MPs to side with Labour (and the Lib Dems, SNP, Plaid Cymru and Green Party) to overturn Theresa May's majority.
But Conservative rebels would need nerves of steel to torpedo the PM's whole Brexit strategy.
It could pave the way to another general election, which might just deliver a Labour government.
The PM is hoping she can say enough this week to keep the Remainers on side, but the "meaningful vote" on Brexit expected in the autumn looms ever larger.
Mr Fox has said the UK can only strike its own trade deals if it is not part of a customs union - and he told Andrew Marr his department was working with "21 different countries" to get agreements in place that could be signed as soon as the UK leaves.
He said Mrs May would be setting out what the cabinet had agreed on the UK's future economic relationship with the EU in a speech on Friday, in the north-east of England.
And he urged Remain-supporting Tory MPs, who are threatening to derail the prime minister's plan to leave the customs union, to have an "an open mind" and listen to what she had to say, which would "deal with a lot of the reservations that they have".
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Liam Fox: "Labour say they want to join a customs union, what does that mean?"
The Labour leadership is under pressure from some of their own MPs to join forces with Conservative rebels and the Lib Dems to back an amendment to the Trade Bill, currently making its way through Parliament, to stay in a customs union.
Mr Fox said a vote on the bill, which had been due to take place next week, had been delayed because "we want to persuade our colleagues of the merits of our argument before we take the bill forward".
Sir Keir said the Labour leadership had not yet decided to back the rebel Tory amendments but claimed they were similar to ones that had been tabled by the Labour front bench.
He said Mrs May did not have a majority in Parliament for staying out of a customs union and she would face a "crunch" vote "sooner rather than later" - although he denied Labour was engaged in a cynical attempt to remove her from office and force a general election.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Tory rebel Anna Soubry suggested she was ready to pull back if Mrs May announced measures that would amount to a customs agreement on Friday, telling BBC Radio 4's The World This Weekend: "It's absolutely beholden now on the government to get itself in the right place."
In his speech on Monday, Mr Corbyn will say the EU "is not the root of all our problems and leaving it will not solve all our problems," adding: "Brexit is what we make of it together, the priorities and choices we make in the negotiations."
More than 80 senior figures in the Labour Party have, meanwhile, urged Mr Corbyn to commit to remaining in the EU single market after Brexit.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
In a statement seen by the Observer, figures including Lord Mandelson, pro-European backbencher Chuka Umunna, former leader Lord Kinnock, and trade union leaders said the party as a minimum "must clearly and unambiguously" set out to remain part of the European economic area.
Although they regard Mr Corbyn's expected commitment on Monday as a "step forward", they said this falls "way short" of where Labour should be on Brexit.
Mr Umunna warned leaving the single market and customs union would "torpedo" Labour's anti-austerity and industrial investment plans. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43186005 | news_uk-politics-43186005 |
|
Far-right terror threat 'growing' in UK as four plots foiled - BBC News | 2018-02-26 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The UK's top counter-terrorism police officer says four extreme-right plots were foiled last year | UK | This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Mark Rowley said four far-right terror attacks were foiled last year
The retiring head of counter-terrorism policing in the UK has warned of the growing threat of far-right terrorism.
Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, who will retire from the Met Police next month, said four extreme-right terror plots were disrupted last year.
Ten Islamist-inspired plots have been foiled since March last year, he added.
In a speech made at Policy Exchange, the Met Police's Mr Rowley also warned that far-right extremists are working in similar ways to Islamist extremists.
He said they create intolerance, exploit grievances, and generate distrust of state institutions.
One of the four alleged far-right plots disrupted was that of white supremacist Ethan Stables.
Earlier this month, he was convicted of plotting an axe and machete attack on a gay pride event at a pub in Barrow.
Mr Rowley said: "Islamist and right-wing extremism is reaching into our communities through sophisticated propaganda and subversive strategies creating and exploiting vulnerabilities that can ultimately lead to acts of violence and terrorism.
"Ten conspiracies of an Islamist nature were stopped since the Westminster attack.
"And I can tell you today that over the same period police have been able to prevent a further four extreme, right-wing inspired plots in the UK."
He said it was "important we make these figures public in order to illustrate the growth of right-wing extremism".
Referring to the banned group National Action, he said: "For the first time we have a home-grown proscribed white supremacist, neo-Nazi terror group, which seeks to plan attacks and build international networks."
Last year, the security service MI5 joined the fight against the right-wing terrorist threat.
There are currently more than 600 live investigations and more than 3,000 people of interest at any one time.
While they have not been involved directly in terrorism, he singled out Tommy Robinson, who founded the English Defence League (EDL), and Jayda Fransen, the deputy leader of Britain First, as voices from the far right who stir up tensions.
Mr Rowley told the BBC: "In the noise and focus on the global threat, and what we've wrestled with with Daesh [the Islamic State group], I don't think the change and growth in extreme right-wing terrorist threat has been explained or described well enough - and that's one of the things I wanted to do."
Aside from the attempted gay pride attack in Barrow, the other three alleged plots that were foiled last year are yet to come to trial.
One allegedly involved a neo-Nazi buying a machete with the intention of murdering the Labour MP Rosie Cooper.
Mr Rowley oversaw the response to five terror attacks in the UK last year, including at Westminster
Mr Rowley said the ability of extremists and terrorists of all kinds to "ply their trade" through the internet was of great concern.
He urged social media companies to do more to combat extremism.
"Many of them tried to argue for some that they simply provide pipes, they have no editorial responsibilities," he said.
"That argument was always in my view nonsense. They've stopped using that argument. They've started to try and take some responsibility.
"I think to be fair to them, they can't exert editorial control over everything that is published on their sites.
"But they can exert a massive amount of control both on the day-to -ay management of it, and I think more in the future about how they design their platforms and their operating systems and their products.
"Their products shouldn't simply be designed for maximising profit, they should be designed with a parallel objective around public safety."
Mr Rowley was also asked what should happen to two Londoners suspected of being members of an Islamic State cell - dubbed "the Beatles" by Western media because of their British accents.
The gang was notorious for kidnapping Western hostages and filming their murders - often by beheading.
Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh were captured in Syria in January and are accused of links to a string of hostage murders in Iraq and Syria.
Mr Rowley said: "The people who have done the most ghastly things overseas, the ones who don't fight to the death, we would all like to see them never able to do anyone any harm ever again.
"Locking them up and throwing away the key would be a great idea."
Mohammed Emwazi, better known as "Jihadi John", was a suspected member of the cell before his death. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43200966 | news_uk-43200966 |
|
Hacking suspect Lauri Love appeals against US extradition - BBC News | 2018-02-05 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Lauri Love is alleged to have hacked into the FBI, the US central bank, the US army and Nasa. | Suffolk | Lauri Love is appealing his extradition to the US at the Royal Courts of Justice
The extradition of an alleged computer hacker to the US would not be in the "interests of justice", High Court judges have been told.
Lauri Love, 32, from Stradishall, Suffolk, is suspected of hacking into FBI, US Central Bank and Nasa systems.
Edward Fitzgerald QC told the court there were "overwhelming reasons of justice and humanity" why any trial should take place in the UK.
The case is before Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett and Mr Justice Ouseley.
Lauri Love wants to answer US charges against him in the UK
In September 2016, District Judge Nina Tempia ruled at Westminster Magistrates' Court that Mr Love could be extradited.
It is argued on Mr Love's behalf that she "misdirected herself and erred in law in her conclusions".
Mr Fitzgerald said there was a "compelling" need for Mr Love, who has Asperger's syndrome, to stay in this country with the care and support of his family.
He said there was a "high risk" of suicide if Mr Love is sent to the US.
Lauri Love's supporters protested outside the Royal Courts of Justice
Mr Fitzgerald submitted that the "proper place for him to be tried, if he is to be tried, is in the UK and not in the US".
He told the court: "The very fact that he would be taken away from his family, his home and the support that he desperately needs here is a disproportionate response to his alleged offending behaviour, because he could be tried here."
There was further evidence, he said, which had become available since the hearing before the district judge, as to the "inhumanity of the conditions in the federal prison system".
Mr Love is alleged to have stolen huge amounts of data from US agencies, including the Federal Reserve, the US army, the defence department, Nasa and the FBI in a series of online attacks in 2012 and 2013.
He could be jailed in the US for up to 99 years if he is found guilty.
The court heard there was a "high risk" of suicide if Mr Love is sent to the US
Peter Caldwell, representing the US, made submissions inviting the judges to dismiss Mr Love's appeal.
In a written argument he said the district judge's conclusion on extradition was "reasonably open to her on the findings of fact she made".
He said having identified a high risk of suicide, she "properly assessed whether and how that risk could be managed were the appellant to be extradited".
Mr Caldwell told the judges: "The evidence of the US authorities established that any risk to the appellant would be appropriately managed during transit in custody, and were bail refused, within the setting of pre-trial detention, and if he were convicted, on sentence."
The hearing is expected to conclude on Thursday morning.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-42166200 | news_uk-england-suffolk-42166200 |
|
Far-right terror threat 'growing' in UK as four plots foiled - BBC News | 2018-02-27 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The UK's top counter-terrorism police officer says four extreme-right plots were foiled last year | UK | This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Mark Rowley said four far-right terror attacks were foiled last year
The retiring head of counter-terrorism policing in the UK has warned of the growing threat of far-right terrorism.
Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, who will retire from the Met Police next month, said four extreme-right terror plots were disrupted last year.
Ten Islamist-inspired plots have been foiled since March last year, he added.
In a speech made at Policy Exchange, the Met Police's Mr Rowley also warned that far-right extremists are working in similar ways to Islamist extremists.
He said they create intolerance, exploit grievances, and generate distrust of state institutions.
One of the four alleged far-right plots disrupted was that of white supremacist Ethan Stables.
Earlier this month, he was convicted of plotting an axe and machete attack on a gay pride event at a pub in Barrow.
Mr Rowley said: "Islamist and right-wing extremism is reaching into our communities through sophisticated propaganda and subversive strategies creating and exploiting vulnerabilities that can ultimately lead to acts of violence and terrorism.
"Ten conspiracies of an Islamist nature were stopped since the Westminster attack.
"And I can tell you today that over the same period police have been able to prevent a further four extreme, right-wing inspired plots in the UK."
He said it was "important we make these figures public in order to illustrate the growth of right-wing extremism".
Referring to the banned group National Action, he said: "For the first time we have a home-grown proscribed white supremacist, neo-Nazi terror group, which seeks to plan attacks and build international networks."
Last year, the security service MI5 joined the fight against the right-wing terrorist threat.
There are currently more than 600 live investigations and more than 3,000 people of interest at any one time.
While they have not been involved directly in terrorism, he singled out Tommy Robinson, who founded the English Defence League (EDL), and Jayda Fransen, the deputy leader of Britain First, as voices from the far right who stir up tensions.
Mr Rowley told the BBC: "In the noise and focus on the global threat, and what we've wrestled with with Daesh [the Islamic State group], I don't think the change and growth in extreme right-wing terrorist threat has been explained or described well enough - and that's one of the things I wanted to do."
Aside from the attempted gay pride attack in Barrow, the other three alleged plots that were foiled last year are yet to come to trial.
One allegedly involved a neo-Nazi buying a machete with the intention of murdering the Labour MP Rosie Cooper.
Mr Rowley oversaw the response to five terror attacks in the UK last year, including at Westminster
Mr Rowley said the ability of extremists and terrorists of all kinds to "ply their trade" through the internet was of great concern.
He urged social media companies to do more to combat extremism.
"Many of them tried to argue for some that they simply provide pipes, they have no editorial responsibilities," he said.
"That argument was always in my view nonsense. They've stopped using that argument. They've started to try and take some responsibility.
"I think to be fair to them, they can't exert editorial control over everything that is published on their sites.
"But they can exert a massive amount of control both on the day-to -ay management of it, and I think more in the future about how they design their platforms and their operating systems and their products.
"Their products shouldn't simply be designed for maximising profit, they should be designed with a parallel objective around public safety."
Mr Rowley was also asked what should happen to two Londoners suspected of being members of an Islamic State cell - dubbed "the Beatles" by Western media because of their British accents.
The gang was notorious for kidnapping Western hostages and filming their murders - often by beheading.
Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh were captured in Syria in January and are accused of links to a string of hostage murders in Iraq and Syria.
Mr Rowley said: "The people who have done the most ghastly things overseas, the ones who don't fight to the death, we would all like to see them never able to do anyone any harm ever again.
"Locking them up and throwing away the key would be a great idea."
Mohammed Emwazi, better known as "Jihadi John", was a suspected member of the cell before his death. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43200966 | news_uk-43200966 |
|
Ministers conclude crunch Brexit talks at Chequers - BBC News | 2018-02-23 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Brexit sub-committee meets for eight hours over Brexit strategy, ahead of a speech by the PM next week. | UK Politics | Theresa May and 11 senior ministers have been thrashing out the UK's approach to Brexit in an eight-hour discussion at the PM's country retreat.
BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg said everyone is said to have left Chequers happy implying "baby steps forwards not a huge breakthrough".
The PM will set out the position in a speech next week, after a discussion by the full cabinet.
There have been clear differences between ministers over the way forward.
But Laura Kuenssberg said she had been told the prime minister had "played a blinder" and persuaded Brexiteers to shift their position.
However, a cabinet Brexiteer source had said "divergence has won the day" with mutual recognition between the UK and EU on goods in future, rather than the UK being forced to stick to EU rules.
This Twitter post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser. View original content on Twitter The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Skip twitter post by Laura Kuenssberg This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Twitter’s cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
This Twitter post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser. View original content on Twitter The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Skip twitter post 2 by Laura Kuenssberg This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Twitter’s cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
Conservative Party chairman Brandon Lewis said on BBC Question Time the cabinet would agree on the Brexit position, following the Chequers talks.
"What I can say to you is the outcome of those discussions will come to cabinet in the next few days, and late next week the prime minister will make a statement, a speech and outline what that position is."
Pressed on whether everyone in the cabinet would agree with it, he replied: "Absolutely, yes."
Official cars make they way towards Chequers near Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire
The Brexit sub-committee includes key figures such as Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and Chancellor Philip Hammond, who were on opposite sides of the EU referendum argument in 2016.
A Downing Street spokesman said: "The prime minister and cabinet ministers met at Chequers for eight hours.
"They held discussions including about the automotive sector led by Greg Clark, agrifood led by Michael Gove, digital trade by Liam Fox and a discussion on the overall future economic partnership that was led by the prime minister."
Chief Whip Julian Smith and senior UK diplomats Tim Barrow and Ed Llewellyn were among those present, alongside the cabinet's Brexit sub-committee.
Guinness short rib of Dexter Beef with onions and parsnip mash
Mrs May still has to get any agreement through the whole cabinet on Tuesday, through her party - and then through 27 other EU member states.
Documents suggest European Commission negotiators will not approve of a UK proposal that seeks to select which EU rules to stick to post-Brexit and which to diverge from.
Slides published online by the commission say such an approach would be "not compatible with the principles" set out in the EU's own guidelines and posed a risk to the "proper functioning" of its single market.
But an EU diplomat told the BBC "we are hoping for a relationship that is as close as possible to the existing relationship", adding that EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier should be given a mandate "to explore all possibilities".
Before the final arrangements with the EU kick in, a temporary transition period is planned - although the details have yet to be negotiated.
On Wednesday, the UK set out its plans for how this "status quo" transition phase should work.
The document suggests the UK will abide by new EU laws and be involved in talks on future fishing quotas, but will not be able to sign trade deals without the EU's permission.
It also says the period should last as long as it takes to "prepare and implement the new processes and new systems".
No 10 denied this meant it would be longer than the planned two years.
But Sir Bill Cash, chairman of the Commons European Scrutiny Committee, warned that the UK could face an extra £4bn-£5bn Brexit "divorce bill" if the post-withdraw transition period extends beyond the EU's preferred end date of 31 December 2020.
He said that the current £35-39bn agreement was intended to cover to the end of the current EU budget period at the end of 2020.
For Labour, shadow chancellor John McDonnell said he would like to see "a customs union" option on the table, which would "solve some of the issues around Northern Ireland" and enable the UK to influence future trade negotiations.
Taking questions after a speech in London, he also said Labour would rather have a general election than a second referendum on Britain's EU membership because "there needs to be a wider debate" about the UK's future relationship with Europe.
Shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry also told LBC that while Brexit meant the UK could not be in the customs union, a new agreement was needed: "That we think is likely to be a customs union that will look pretty much like the current customs union."
It could mean the PM faces the prospect of a Commons rebellion as Conservative MP Anna Soubry said she had cross-party support for an amendment to the trade bill, calling for the government to form "a" customs union with the EU after Brexit. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43136076 | news_uk-politics-43136076 |
|
Brexit transition phase not a deferral - David Davis - BBC News | 2018-02-01 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | David Davis insists the two-year transition period after Brexit is not the same as staying in the EU. | UK Politics | This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
David Davis insists the transition period after the UK leaves the EU is not a "deferral" of Brexit, even though the UK will follow Brussels' rules.
He rejected claims by Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg it would be "more honest" to say the UK was effectively staying in the EU for two years after Brexit day.
The Brexit Secretary confirmed the UK would be subject to European Court of Justice rulings during the transition.
But he said it would be free to strike trade deals with other countries.
This was something it was not allowed to do while still a member of the EU, he told a committee of MPs.
The UK will officially leave the EU on 29 March 2019 but will continue to allow free movement of people, goods and money for about two years to allow businesses to adjust.
The EU is seeking to tighten the conditions which will apply to the UK during the transitional period, according a draft of revised EU guidelines.
It would further restrict the UK's freedom to determine its own rules on immigration, trade and fishing and see full freedom of movement extended until the start of 2021.
Mr Rees-Mogg said the UK would be a "vassal state" of the EU - subject to its rules without any say over how they are made.
Mr Davis said that would be the case if that arrangement continued "in perpetuity" but he insisted that would not happen, telling the Commons Brexit committee: "No vassal state, us".
He told the MPs: "I don't want the country to be sucked into something that is not an implementation period but an extension."
But he also said he expected a clash with some EU nations over whether the UK will be able to seek its own trade deals during the transition period.
"Firstly, we will not be members of the union. We will be replicating to a very large extent the operations of the single market and customs union in order to make sure there is a single change, from the point of view of businesses in particular," he said.
"We will not be subject to the duty of sincere co-operation, which is what stops us arriving at trade deals now [and] negotiating and signing trade deals now. So that freedom will exist."
But he added: "There may be an argument over the issue of doing outside negotiations. There may well be an argument over that."
The UK's approach was one that "visibly does no harm to the European Union" but "there are people within the union who want to restrict any advantage for us", he added.
Mr Davis said he expected to reach a deal on a transition period by March - and he wanted it to last between 21 and 27 months after Brexit day.
The EU's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier has said the transition should end after 19 months, in December 2020.
Mr Davis said it was not a deal breaker that EU wanted a shorter transition period but he thought two years was "about right" for the UK.
He also hit back at the CBI's call for the UK to stay in the EU customs union, a view he had shared before becoming Brexit secretary, saying business groups were being "small-C conservative" about Brexit.
He said they were focused on trying to protect their existing members without thinking enough about "future trade", adding that the companies that will benefit from new markets opened up by Brexit "don't even exist" yet.
• None Why are there no Brexit talks? | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42802801 | news_uk-politics-42802801 |
|
Finsbury Park mosque attack: Defendant 'not on trial for views' - BBC News | 2018-02-01 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The judge says jurors must decide if the defendant was driving the van that hit people in Finsbury Park. | UK | Darren Osborne is accused of murder and attempted murder
The judge in the trial of a man accused of driving a van into a group of people outside a London mosque has told the jury he is not on trial for his views.
Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb was summing up evidence heard during the first eight days of the trial of Darren Osborne.
Prosecutors said Mr Osborne had become "obsessed" with Muslims and had intended to kill as many as possible.
He denies murder and attempted murder, saying a friend called Dave was driving when people in Finsbury Park were hit.
Makram Ali, 51, from Haringey, was killed after leaving a prayer meeting at Muslim Welfare House in June and nine other people were injured.
Mr Osborne said he hired the van to kill Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn on a march he was due to attend.
The 48-year-old, from Cardiff, told the court he was alone in the van as he drove towards the march - but that "road blocks" in central London had "thwarted their plans".
Closing the defence, Lisa Wilding QC said Mr Osborne accepted many of the arguments made by the prosecution, as well as the views he holds, but she said that did not make him guilty of the charges.
She said: "You may describe his views as abhorrent, but why would a man so intent on killing… to proclaim his cause and give his views, why would he deny doing the very thing he set out to do if, in fact, he did do it?"
Ms Wilding said his plan was over after he could not get to the march and there was no "plan B".
She added: "You may think that Darren Osborne doesn't know his own mind, so how can you?"
Speaking to the jury after both the prosecution and defence had made their closing arguments, Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb said the defendant was not on trial for his views, but for whether they had led him to commit the offence he was charged with.
She said: "Every ordinary decent person hates child abuse and acts of terror. That sort of feeling is very different from hatred to those who follow a religion because a small proportion of them commit terror.
"There is no defence of being in the grip of moral justification or outrage."
But the judge added: "His defence is he was not the driver, if you are not sure he was, he must be acquitted."
The jury has now been sent out to consider their verdict.
Mr Osborne denies the murder of Mr Ali and the attempted murder of "persons at the junction of Seven Sisters Road and Whadcoat Street, London". | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42907842 | news_uk-42907842 |
|
Facebook users spending less time online - BBC News | 2018-02-01 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The fall of about 50 million hours a day came before major changes to the News Feed last month. | Business | Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg wants users to interact more
Facebook users spent less time on the site even before it announced major changes to its News Feed in January.
Measures such as showing fewer viral videos cut time spent on the social network by about 5%, or roughly 50 million hours a day, in the last three months of 2017.
However, Facebook reported better than expected results despite the fall.
Chief executive Mark Zuckerberg said the priority was encouraging more personal interaction among users.
"Helping people connect is more important than maximising the time they spend on Facebook," he said.
"We can make sure the service is good for people's well-being and for society overall."
In January, Facebook said it would make changes to news feeds to prioritise posts from friends and family and make content from businesses and news outlets less prominent.
The number of monthly active users rose 14% to 2.13 billion in the three months to December, although that was slightly lower growth than the previous quarter.
In the US and Canada, which generates a sizeable proportion of Facebook's advertising revenues - the number of daily users fell about 700,000 to 184 million in the quarter.
Facebook said annual revenues soared 47% last year to more than $40bn (£28.2bn), while profits jumped 56% to nearly $16bn.
The gains came despite a $2.3bn payment triggered by recent changes to US tax law.
There are politicians, academics and even former executives lining up to tell Facebook what's wrong with it, but Mark Zuckerberg has only ever trusted his own data.
And so these tweaks to the News Feed, above all else, are a result of what Facebook's engineers have seen for themselves.
Mr Zuckerberg's (pretty convincing) argument is that by not fixing the News Feed, the long-term health of the company could be in jeopardy - not because of Russian propaganda or fake news, but because it just won't be fun or useful to use.
The 33-year-old is again warning investors that it's going to take time to heal the News Feed, making it a better place for you and for me - and then eventually, he hopes, advertisers and businesses.
What we need to look out for is investors' patience with him. Over the past two years Facebook has consistently beat expectations, and it did again today, even with the caveats. Will Wall Street cut him some slack as a result?
Daniel Ives, an analyst at GBH Insights, said the firm's financial results were "robust" and described Facebook's strategy as "the right medicine at the right time".
"We believe this strategy will drive higher advertising pricing monetisation trends in the long-term for Facebook and was a move Zuckerberg & Co needed to make," he said.
Facebook shares initially fell by more than 4% in after-hours trading, but rebounded quickly following the results call. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42893051 | news_business-42893051 |
|
Wigan Athletic 1-0 Manchester City - BBC Sport | 2018-02-19 | None | Wigan Athletic end Manchester City's hopes of a Quadruple as Will Grigg's goal secures a famous FA Cup win. | null | Last updated on .From the section FA Cup
Wigan Athletic ended Manchester City's hopes of a clean sweep of trophies with a stunning upset in their FA Cup fifth-round tie.
The League One side survived virtually constant pressure from the Premier League leaders, eventually capitalising on Fabian Delph's controversial first-half red card when Will Grigg struck 11 minutes from time.
The striker's low finish capped a night of drama at the DW Stadium, with City's Fernandinho wasting a fine chance shortly before Delph was dismissed for a heavy challenge on Max Power.
The incident led to a heated argument between City boss Pep Guardiola and opposite number Paul Cook in the tunnel at half-time.
And there were unedifying scenes at full-time, too, with City striker Sergio Aguero involved in an altercation with one of the many home fans who invaded the pitch.
City threw everything at their hosts both before and after Grigg's goal - a guided shot from 20 yards - and Danilo's header was gratefully held by Christian Walton in the game's final attack.
Wigan host Southampton in the quarter-finals on the weekend of 17-18 March
• None Read more: Just how big was Wigan's win?
The full-time whistle sparked scenes of celebration from the home fans. City supporters, in contrast, were visibly angered - and objects were thrown onto the pitch from the away end once the players had departed.
That could not tarnish Wigan's night, though, as they beat City in this competition for the third time in six seasons.
The Latics may have fallen two divisions since beating the Blues in the 2013 final at Wembley, but they remain something of a bogey side for them.
City had 83% of possession and spent long spells in the Wigan half, with home right-back Nathan Byrne producing a standout performance as the visitors regularly raided down the left.
Chey Dunkley made 13 clearances - more than the entire City team - while his fellow centre-back Dan Burn marshalled the defensive unit superbly.
Grigg's task as a lone striker appeared thankless as he touched the ball less than any player who completed 90 minutes.
But one of those 19 touches will live long in the memory - his placed finished past Claudio Bravo.
City's defeat means three Premier League sides have been knocked out of this year's FA Cup at the DW Stadium.
Another - Southampton - visit in the next round. Mauricio Pellegrino's men will be fully aware the spirit that carried Wigan all the way to victory at Wembley five years ago lives on.
Guardiola, who said his side "gave absolutely everything", refused to comment in detail about the red card, and his subsequent clash with Cook.
The dismissal did not change the flow of the game, as City dominated even with a numerical disadvantage, but the decision did prompt a half-time reshuffle with Leroy Sane replaced by Kyle Walker.
Delph seemed stunned to be shown the second red card of his career, after sliding in for a 50-50 ball. The challenge was robust but did not appear malicious and he will now miss Sunday's League Cup final against Arsenal.
Referee Anthony Taylor took his yellow card out and began writing on it, before changing it for a red card instead.
Cook's angry gesticulations after the tackle appeared to irritate Guardiola, and the pair continued a heated debate in the tunnel, with staff from both sides attempting to keep things under control.
Match of the Day pundit Jermaine Jenas said the decision was "strange", adding: "I really don't think the tackle was that strong. I feel he won enough of the ball, it wasn't two-footed."
City may well feel aggrieved, but they found the target just five times from 27 attempts, as the finishing that has made them England's highest-scoring team eluded them.
It seemed unthinkable that a side boasting nine goals in their past two games - and a 16-point lead at the top of the Premier League - would succumb to just a third defeat in 42 matches.
And City's defeat is perhaps all the more surprising as it arrives during Wigan's worst run of form this season. Cook's side came into the fixture having lost back-to-back league games for the first time in the campaign.
But their spirit and commitment derailed a City side seen by some as the best of the Premier League era.
Talk of an unprecedented Quadruple had intensified in recent weeks, although Guardiola always maintained such an achievement would be "impossible". He was proved right in spectacular circumstances.
This was no hard-fought exit at the hands of a European force, but a shock that will go down in FA Cup folklore.
City must now attempt instead to chase a Treble, starting with their Wembley final against the Gunners on Sunday.
Man of the match - Will Grigg
• None Grigg scored his seventh goal in this season's FA Cup - more than any other player. His goal came from Wigan's only shot in the second half.
• None Guardiola's side failed to score for only the third time this season, with Wolves in the EFL Cup and Crystal Palace in the Premier League also keeping them at bay.
• None City have been knocked out of the FA Cup by a side from the third tier or lower for the first time since the third round in 2004-05 (1-0 v Oldham).
• None Delph's sending-off was the ninth in all competitions for City under Guardiola - only Watford (10) have had more among Premier League clubs in that time.
Wigan boss Paul Cook: "It feels great. It's such a severe test. They're such a strong side and move the ball so well. We had to ride our luck at times and the sending-off is always a big incident.
"Our lads deserve credit for their work. Some of the blocks they made were outstanding and to beat Man City you have to do that."
Manchester City boss Pep Guardiola: "Congratulations for Wigan for the qualification. We did absolutely everything, we made a mistake and this kind of game is like a final. OK, we accept the defeat. Congratulations to the winner."
Manchester City face Arsenal in the League Cup final at Wembley on Sunday (16:30 GMT). Wigan host League One's bottom club Rochdale on Saturday (15:00).
• None Attempt saved. Danilo (Manchester City) header from the centre of the box is saved in the top right corner. Assisted by Kevin De Bruyne with a cross.
• None Attempt blocked. Ilkay Gündogan (Manchester City) header from the centre of the box is blocked. Assisted by Claudio Bravo with a headed pass.
• None Attempt blocked. Fernandinho (Manchester City) header from the centre of the box is blocked. Assisted by Bernardo Silva with a cross.
• None Attempt blocked. Bernardo Silva (Manchester City) left footed shot from outside the box is blocked. Assisted by Kevin De Bruyne.
• None Attempt blocked. Danilo (Manchester City) right footed shot from outside the box is blocked. Assisted by Kyle Walker.
• None Attempt saved. Bernardo Silva (Manchester City) left footed shot from outside the box is saved in the bottom right corner.
• None Bernardo Silva (Manchester City) wins a free kick on the right wing.
• None Attempt blocked. Aymeric Laporte (Manchester City) left footed shot from the left side of the box is blocked. Assisted by John Stones. Navigate to the next page Navigate to the last page | http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43027542 | rt_football_43027542 |
|
100 Women: The female protesters against giving women the vote - BBC News | 2018-02-06 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | In 1918 some eligible women over the age of 30 were given the right to vote in the UK - but not every woman was happy about it. | UK | A century ago, after years of campaigning, women over the age of 30 who owned property were given the right to vote in the UK.
But for many thousands of women, it was not a moment of celebration.
Known as the anti-suffrage movement, these women had been working to oppose the suffragettes.
They believed women didn't have the capacity to understand politics, and portrayed the suffragettes as a group of "ugly" women and "spinsters".
The Anti-Suffrage League was founded in 1908 by Mary Humphrey Ward, with support from two men: Lord Curzon and William Cremer.
A year later, it was announced that more than 250,000 people, both men and women, had signed a petition against giving women the vote.
Writing in The Queen in 1908, one "opponent", as they were described in the article, said they saw the campaign for the vote as a "prelude to a social revolution" that would set society back.
"We believe in the division of functions as the keystone of civilisation," the piece continued.
"It is as if the animals on the farm should insist on changing places - the cows insist upon drawing the coach, while the horses strive in vain to chew the cud and ruminate."
Historian Kathy Atherton says people nowadays can find it "surprising" that women were involved in an anti-suffrage movement, but that it's important to "put yourself in their shoes".
"There would have been a general acceptance that women were intellectually inferior and emotional - and women would have believed that as well as men - so they didn't have the capacity to make political judgements," she says.
"It's a really hierarchical society and the white male is at the top of the heap.
"There's a fear that you're upsetting the natural order of things, even going so far as thinking the colonies would be affected if they felt that Britain was being ruled by women."
"One of the arguments that some of these anti-suffrage campaigners put forward was that if we give British women the vote - and they would very specifically use the example of India - Indian men and women won't like it," says Dr Sumita Mukherjee from the University of Bristol.
At the time, India was ruled by the British Empire so power was exerted by the government in London and, by default, those who voted for them in the first place.
"They [the anti-suffrage movement] used this assumption that colonial subjects were very patriarchal themselves and they wouldn't like it if women had the vote in Britain," says Dr Mukherjee.
"The counter-argument was that there had been a female queen, Queen Victoria. She'd been Empress of the British Empire and most subjects hadn't kicked up a fuss about having an empress so why would they kick up a fuss about British women having a vote?"
There were also arguments much closer to home.
Historical author Elizabeth Crawford says there was a genuine concern at the time that giving women the vote would "destroy families".
"They thought it would cause dissension in the home if a man wanted to vote conservative and his wife liberal," she says.
The writer in The Queen magazine said the suffragettes were "irresponsible" in forcing the vote on wives and mothers.
"It is a vast upheaval of social institutions and habits, which must cut into the peace and well-being of families and harm the education of children," the article claimed.
A leaflet from 1909 held in The Woman's Library puts forward an argument that women have "neither capacity nor leisure" to vote.
"Women are more easily swayed by sentiment, less open to reason, less logical, keener in intuition, more sensitive than men," the writer claims.
"The qualities in which their minds excel are those least required in politics; their strong points are wasted or harmful there."
Both sides of the campaign produced artwork and slogans to promote their points of view.
"They [the anti-suffrage images] are portraying the suffragettes as being absolute harridans, slovenly housewives, appalling mothers, that they were ugly, that they looked like men, that they were lesbians," says Ms Atherton.
"It's very much like the Twitter campaigns that you get at the moment, whenever a high-profile woman says something of a feminist nature."
The Suffragists – were first to organise, forming local societies in the 1860s The Suffragettes – were active for just 10 years after splitting from the Suffragists in 1903 Suffragettes – disrupted meetings, vandalised art and buildings and were often arrested Suffragists – successfully built support in parliament over many years Suffragettes – increased publicity and re-energised the cause but also sparked a backlash Then in World War One, women took new roles in factories and beyond... ...which made denying them voting rights harder than ever After 50 years of women standing up and speaking out... Parliament finally passed a law giving some women the vote in 1918
Prof June Purvis of the University of Portsmouth has collected many postcards printed with anti-suffrage messages and imagery.
"I was quite fascinated by these postcards because not many people have done research on them, and I thought they were telling a message of how difficult it was for women at that time to be taken seriously," she says.
A number of the examples in her collection still have original writing on the back, many of which don't explicitly refer to the image on the front.
"In the early 20th century postcards were big business," says Prof Purvis.
"I think the people who bought them were sending a normal message [for example arranging to meet up], like how we now use email."
For Prof Purvis, one of the stand-out postcards shows a group of women, supposedly in the House of Commons, showing what a future with women in Parliament would be like.
In the image, one woman is staring into a hand mirror, while another reads a book in the corner and yet another has brought her baby with her.
"That postcard really portrays the cultural fear at the time, that if women got the vote, they may then ask to be allowed to stand for Parliament and this is going to upset the whole gender order."
In November 1918 women were granted the right to stand for election for the first time.
BBC 100 Women names 100 influential and inspirational women around the world every year and shares their stories. Find us on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter and use #100Women
Other stories you might like: | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42704341 | news_uk-42704341 |
|
Suffrage: The journey towards 50-50 - BBC News | 2018-02-06 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | A century after women won the right to vote, the fight for equality in politics goes on. | UK Politics | A re-enactment of a suffragette protest outside the Houses of Parliament
If my five-year-old self had been told that my great-grandmothers weren't allowed to vote, I'd have thought that was pretty daft.
I grew up with a female prime minister in charge. It would have made no sense to me whatsoever back then to discover that women hadn't had a say.
If Mrs Thatcher wasn't always given a fond reception in Glasgow in the 1980s, it wasn't because she had a particular kind of chromosomes. And growing up - I suppose like many women of my generation - our expectation was that if you worked hard enough, women could more or less have it all.
That sense of what was possible grew with the size of Sue Ellen from Dallas's shoulder pads, followed later by the Spice Girls' cartoonish power. The fictitious Mrs Banks in Mary Poppins seemed to rather enjoy dashing off to suffragette rallies (whatever they really were), which of course she could do only with the help of her nanny to look after her children.
But to learn about the history of the fight for the vote back then seemed like a study of a weird injustice overturned from another world, not anything that could be in the memory of anyone's lifetime. Interesting to learn, yes, but relevant? It didn't necessarily seem so.
Well guess what? I can't be the only person in the world to have discovered as I grew up that life was a bit more complicated than that, and opportunity for women wasn't really going to be defined by Kylie Minogue's example of switching careers when she fancied it. Personal choices were a lot more complex. And yes, reality crept in - women were, and are, treated differently in so many parts of life. Without question, that decades-long struggle finds its own echoes today.
I'm writing this late at night on a bus speeding along a four-lane highway in China. It's full of officials from No 10 and other British journalists. We're all trailing the convoy of the UK's second female prime minister, who saw off another woman for her job (although who knows what might come next), following her every move in a trade mission as she escapes the political maelstrom for a moment.
And while there are plenty of women in this travelling version of the Westminster bubble, here, as time and again in our politics, it is a long way off from being one-for-one.
In politics at least, it is abundantly clear that big changes have taken place. Parliament does now look more like the population. There are 208 female MPs at the moment, that's a record level. But it's still not quite a third, and well short of reflecting the population.
It's a long time since the first ever MP was elected, in 1918, a long time since 19 MPs were voted in at the 1979 general election alongside the country's first female political leader, the 60 women elected in 1992 or even the dramatic doubling in 1997. Life is about more than just numbers, of course, but does the proportion of women sitting on our green benches really matter?
Forty five women have served as cabinet ministers (pictures: Getty Images & PA)
The argument is made, by most politicians certainly, that we should be aiming for something much more like 50-50. But the parties have different approaches to how to hit that mark.
Labour has pursued an active strategy for many years, where only women are allowed to stand for some seats. The all-women shortlist was much argued over to start with. And as times move on there's a new pointed question, dragging in the debate over the status of transgender candidates.
The Tories have worked more informally, using support networks and gentle encouragement - and that has often been important too. Interestingly, many female MPs who give wholehearted backing to Theresa May came to know and like her through her work over the years as part of their organisation, Women To Win.
But why should they make the effort, and does it matter to you? Certainly most voters have got many more things to worry about than gender equality in politics. Remember, it took years and years for the campaigns of the suffragettes to cut through.
But if we want our politics to represent all of us fairly, consider this. If you are reading this with female eyes then I guess, like me, you're no stranger to being the only woman in the room. It's not necessarily bad, or good, sometimes it doesn't occur to you at all, but sometimes it is glaringly obvious, and rather different.
If you are a man reading this, what does it feel like if you are the only one in a room full of women? Again, whether you like it or loathe it, you may not always notice, but when you do, sometimes it can feel pretty different.
As human beings, we all know that different environments and different contexts lead to different conversations. Think back to when women were forbidden from having a say in who ran the country. Were their voices heard, their hopes and fears fully taken into consideration?
With the glorious benefit of 100 years of hindsight, the answer to that is a straightforward no. A century on, is it so strange to hope that everyone can be represented in any room?
That's not to say for a second that women's concerns are all the same. But in the most straightforward of terms, if you want a system to be successful, why would you not want to include as many people as possible? Does a democracy inspire faith, if some of its members feel no-one is listening?
As this anniversary approaches it is not simply a question of commemorating an achievement of days long gone. The best tribute maybe is to remember suffrage's most simple message, to give everyone a say. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42945323 | news_uk-politics-42945323 |
|
Julian Assange arrest warrant still stands, court rules - BBC News | 2018-02-06 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Sex assault charges against him were dropped but he is still wanted for bail offences dating from 2012. | UK | This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Julian Assange's lawyer says he is not hiding from justice
A UK warrant to arrest Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is still valid, a court has ruled.
The warrant was issued in 2012 after Mr Assange failed to answer bail over sex assault claims in Sweden, now dropped.
Lawyers for Mr Assange, who has been living in London's Ecuador embassy since then, argued the warrant had therefore "lost its purpose".
His lawyers went on to argue against it on other grounds and the court will rule on 13 February.
At Westminster Magistrates' Court, senior district judge and chief magistrate Emma Arbuthnot said, having considered the arguments, she was "not persuaded that the warrant should be withdrawn".
She told the court that not surrendering to bail was a stand-alone offence under the Bail Act and Mr Assange must explain why he had failed to do so.
The offence carries a maximum penalty of one year in prison.
His lawyers went on to argue that his case should be discontinued on the grounds that his treatment was not proportionate in the interests of justice.
Mr Assange's lawyer Mark Summers QC said his client had "had reasonable grounds for the course that he took".
He said the UN had ruled that Mr Assange's situation at present was "arbitrary, unreasonable and disproportionate" and his conduct in failing to answer bail had not had "the usual consequence of paralysing the underlying legal proceedings".
Mr Summers said Mr Assange had "at all times" offered to cooperate with the Swedish investigation and the five and a half years he had spent in the embassy in London "may be thought to be adequate, if not severe punishment, for the actions that he took".
Mr Assange has long feared that, if he leaves the Ecuadorean embassy and is arrested, he could then be extradited to the US to face prosecution for publishing classified information through Wikileaks.
After the hearing, his legal team said they would continue to seek assurances that the UK did not have a US extradition warrant and would let him leave the country freely and without interference.
Mr Assange later said in a tweet that he had received a package addressed to him at the embassy and containing "an unknown white powdery substance and a threat".
The Metropolitan Police confirmed specialist officers assessed a small package and it was deemed not to be suspicious.
Earlier this month the UK government refused to grant Mr Assange diplomatic status and called on him to leave the embassy and "face justice". It has refused to guarantee he will not be extradited to the US, which has said his arrest is "a priority".
Wikileaks, which was founded by Mr Assange in 2006, has been involved in several high-profile releases of classified US information.
It made headlines around the world in April 2010 when it released footage showing US soldiers shooting dead 18 civilians from a helicopter in Iraq.
Mr Assange promoted and defended the video, as well as a massive release of classified US military documents relating to the Afghan and Iraq wars in July and October 2010.
The website continued to release new documents, including five million confidential emails from US-based intelligence company Stratfor. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42964699 | news_uk-42964699 |
|
Premier League: Winter break under discussion before new TV deal - BBC Sport | 2018-02-06 | None | The Premier League is considering introducing a winter break when a television rights deal is next agreed. | null | Last updated on .From the section Football
The Premier League is considering introducing a winter break when the next television rights deal is agreed.
The top leagues in Germany, France, Italy and Spain all take time out in mid-season.
The Football Association has previously said a winter break is not feasible until the end of the current television deal in 2019.
Talks have been ongoing for several months, and are understood to have been constructive.
A January break has been under discussion which, if agreed, would not impact on the traditional festive football schedule.
If you are viewing this page on the BBC News app please click here to vote.
An announcement on the next Premier League TV rights is expected next week. The league is seeking an increase on the current £5.14bn deal which includes 168 live matches a season, with Sky holding five packages of games and BT two.
The prospect of a winter break is referenced in the tender documents that have been sent to broadcasters. The next TV deal will cover 2019-2022.
"The Premier League has been in discussions with the FA and EFL for several months regarding the challenges of the increasingly congested English football calendar and ways in which we can work together to ease fixture congestion while also giving players a mid-season break," the Premier League said in a statement.
"Provided space can be found in the calendar, we are open to this in principle and will continue constructive discussions with our football stakeholders to seek a workable solution."
'I would cry if a winter break was introduced'
If the Premier League season does incorporate a winter break, it would be welcomed by some top-flight managers.
Manchester City manager Pep Guardiola said in January that the festive schedule was "killing" the players. Earlier in the season, his Manchester United counterpart. Jose Mourinho said the lack of a break was hampering English clubs' hopes in the Champions League.
Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger once said he would "cry" if a winter break was introduced, though his side played six games in 19 days during the latest festive schedule.
One of the arguments for a break is that it would benefit the national side, but England boss Gareth Southgate questioned whether it would improve his side's chance of winning a trophy.
The German Bundesliga, Spain's La Liga, Italy's Serie A and France Ligue 1 are among the top leagues in Europe to have a winter break in their schedules.
German football enjoyed the longest stretch without a game this season - 22 days. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42954835 | rt_football_42954835 |
|
How will the Haiti scandal affect Oxfam? - BBC News | 2018-02-12 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | How will allegations about the behaviour of Oxfam staff hit the charity and the wider sector? | UK | Accusations Oxfam concealed findings its staff used prostitutes while delivering aid in Haiti in 2011 have led members of the public to admit they are now doubtful about donating to any charity.
The British organisation's deputy chief executive Penny Lawrence has resigned in the wake of the revelations but further action is required to restore the faith of donors.
"Absolutely - to any charity," says IT security analyst Anil, 40, when asked if he has been put off donating.
"I feel bad saying that but I don't feel confident in what goes on behind the scenes.
"I know the majority of people who work there are very good at what they do but the management is shocking. That [recent allegations] is shocking."
The extent of the damage to public faith and donations is yet to be felt but for retail professional James, 52, the claims only add to his frustrations with the third sector.
"My wife has said she definitely will not give money to Oxfam now," he says. "This has dented public opinion in a very detrimental way."
He adds: "I think there are some issues with charities anyway. I have a bit of a problem, for example, with how much they pay their chief executives.
"I'm concerned about how much of the money I actually give makes it to the causes."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Michelle Russell, from Charity Commission, says the regulator is "very angry"
"It's an upsetting case," Daniel Fluskey, from the Institute of Fundraising, told BBC Radio 5 live.
"This will have an impact on public trust and confidence in Oxfam.
"I know they've taken a number of steps to get in touch with all of their supporters to tell them what they've done and that's going to have to continue."
Last year, Oxfam had a total income of £409m - of which £176m came from the UK government and other public authorities.
Of the rest, £108m came from donations and legacies and £91m from sales in its shops.
Other international aid organisations have been quick to distance themselves from the story.
The British Red Cross has reassured its supporters it has "a zero tolerance policy to any form of sexual harassment and misconduct".
It said there had been "no dismissals... for reasons relating to sexual harassment, abuse or paedophilia in at least the past five years".
For some members of the public, Oxfam's mistakes reflect badly on it alone.
Account manager Laura, 39, insists the accusations would have no impact on her decision to donate to other organisations.
"No, not at all," she says. "Definitely not."
"I only really select a few charities to donate to and Oxfam isn't one of them," she adds.
"If it was a different charity then yes it would [affect my decision to donate to them]."
Aid organisations must now be seen to be making real strides to improve transparency as they bid restore the public's faith.
"I think all charities now need to subscribe to some sort of governance and compliance and it needs to be available to the public whenever they want to see it," Anil adds.
"Who gets what, what bonuses are there, where is the money allocated to?
"There should be internal auditing by an external company to see exactly where the money is going and what it is being spent on."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Penny Mordaunt: 'They did absolutely the wrong thing'
The concern for many in the sector now is about the long-term effects of the story, and experts are warning against complacency.
Conservative MP Paul Scully, who sits on the International Development Committee, said the scandal could have wider implications for international aid.
"The long term concern about this is the risk of people not wanting to donate to charities that do amazing work across the world and also to those people that it becomes another argument about why not to spend money on international development.
"There is a disincentive in the system [for charities to be more transparent] because charities are competing against one another for donations and so that means there is the fear that if something tarnishes their reputation it may affect their donations."
Mr Fluskey said charities need to think about public trust and confidence "in all areas" of their work.
He said organisations need to make sure they are "open and transparent" and "working to the right values".
"We know that people care about causes and that they do want to give support to charities - we can't take that for granted, but we believe the British public will continue to support charities where they see them working according to the high standards they expect." | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43030705 | news_uk-43030705 |
|
£10,000 proposed for everyone under 55 - BBC News | 2018-02-16 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The government should give £10,000 to every citizen under 55, a report suggests. | Business | What would you do with £10,000?
The government should give £10,000 to every citizen under 55, a report suggests.
The Royal Society for the encouragement of the Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) said it could pave the way to everyone getting a basic state wage.
The idea sees two payments of £5,000 paid over two years, but certain state benefits and tax reliefs would be removed at the same time.
The RSA said it would compensate workers for the way jobs are changing.
The money would help to steer UK citizens through the 2020s, "as automation replaces many jobs, climate change hits and more people face balancing employment with social care", the report said.
Payments would come from a British sovereign wealth fund in the form of two annual £5,000 dividends, the RSA proposes.
The payments would not be means tested, and applicants would only have to demonstrate how they intended to use the money.
Anthony Painter, director of the RSA's Action and Research Centre, said: "The simple fact is that too many households are highly vulnerable to a shock in a decade of disruption, with storm clouds on the horizon if automation, Brexit and an ageing population are mismanaged.
"Without a real change in our thinking, neither tweaks to the welfare state nor getting people into work alone, when the link between hard work and fair pay has broken, will help working people meet the challenges ahead."
A Government spokesperson said: "Our priority is to have a welfare system that supports those who work and cares for those who can't, while being fair to the taxpayer.
"Providing a universal basic income would not allow for the same targeted support that is tailored to meet individual needs."
But the RSA The report says the fund could help people: "A low-skilled worker might reduce their working hours to attain skills enabling career progression.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. A pilot scheme in Finland is giving 2,000 unemployed people an income, instead of benefits
"The fund could provide the impetus to turn an entrepreneurial idea into a reality. It could be the support that enables a carer to be there for a loved one."
The fund would be built from public debt, levies on untaxed corporate assets and investments in long term infrastructure projects, and be similar to Norway's $1 trillion sovereign wealth fund.
As the dividends would replace payments such as Child Benefit, Tax Credits and Jobseeker's Allowance, the savings for the government could also be ploughed into the fund.
Anyone receiving the "dividends" would not be able to claim any tax allowances, which the RSA says would act as a disincentive to wealthier earners wanting to apply for the handout.
In all, the RSA puts the cost of the scheme at £14.5bn a year if it is fully subscribed to, and a total of £462bn over 13 years, more than half of which would be paid for by government savings.
The Labour Party has said it is looking into similar arguments for a Universal Basic Income (UBI).
Jonathan Reynolds MP, Labour's shadow Treasury minister, said: "This new report from the RSA raises the right questions about the future of work and the long-term challenges we face, including making sure automation and the changing nature of work deliver a fairer, more prosperous society."
Scotland is considering piloting UBI schemes in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Fife and North Ayrshire.
The RSA report suggests that options for funding a full UBI included a tax on wealth, levies on companies' assets, and a tax on tech firms - such as Amazon, Facebook and Apple - using or transferring people's data.
The history of UBI can be dated back to Thomas Paine's essay, Agrarian Justice, where he proposes the idea as part of a social security system.
More recently the idea has been put into practice in limited ways. For instance, in Alaska all residents have been entitled since 1982 to a yearly cash dividend from the Alaska Permanent Fund.
Finland is half way through a two year nationwide pilot scheme, giving 2,000 unemployed Finns a monthly income of €560 (£497) which continues even if they find work.
Scotland has provided funding for four local authorities to look into the idea.
In the US one Democrat presidential nominee hopeful, Andrew Yang is proposing his version of UBI, a $1,000 a month "Freedom Dividend".
Even so, some economists believe full UBI can't work.
Brexit campaigner Patrick Minford from Cardiff University's Business School said UBI is "not a workable scheme because it's far too expensive".
"It creates a tremendous tax, a disincentive for the average person further up the income scale who's paying for it all."
There are questions over how much of a social security system UBI would replace.
Would citizens still be able to claim disability allowance or help with housing?
The RSA believes that properly done UBI would help people get into work, give them an opportunity to rethink their lives and contribute to better health and wellbeing.
Others claim it would be a disincentive.
However, a report by the National Bureau of Economic Research into the Alaska Permanent Fund concluded that "it does not significantly decrease aggregate employment".
A report by the OECD into UBI said that its effect would be hugely different depending on the circumstances of each individual and the existing tax and benefits systems.
UBI could also be ruinously expensive for governments and provide limited benefit for the poor, it said.
According to the OECD report, if the UK were to fund UBI only with money saved by abolishing the existing benefits system it would lead to higher levels of poverty.
It adds: "However, even in the case where taxes are raised significantly to pay for [UBI] it does not significantly reduce poverty." | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43078920 | news_business-43078920 |
|
May: New security deal should be effective by next year - BBC News | 2018-02-16 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The prime minister calls for a new post-Brexit partnership on security in a speech in Munich. | UK Politics | This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Theresa May: "Those who threaten our security would like nothing more than to see us fractured"
Theresa May has called for a new "deep and special partnership" to ensure the UK and EU can continue to work together on security after Brexit.
She said new arrangements in foreign and defence policy cooperation should be effective by next year.
In a speech to the Munich Security Conference the prime minister said the UK would remain committed to Europe's security after leaving the EU.
New security arrangements have yet to be negotiated for after Brexit.
Theresa May said that, without cooperation, the UK would no longer be able to help the European police agency Europol as it currently does or extradite suspects as quickly.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
To maintain coordination on security Theresa May said the UK and EU should continue to work together on sanctions, operations on the ground and developing capabilities in defence, cyber and space.
The prime minister warned that "rigid institutional restrictions or deep-seated ideology" should not jeopardise the security of UK citizens.
"We must do whatever is most practical and pragmatic in ensuring our collective security," she added.
She said the UK and EU's enemies would "like nothing better than to see us fractured".
President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker said the "security bridge between the UK and the EU would still be maintained" but added "you cannot mix it up with other issues."
Theresa May noted that the EU had comprehensive relationships with other countries on trade and argued that there is "no legal or operational reason" why similar agreements could not be reached on security.
During talks with Angela Merkel on Friday, Mrs May said both sides need to be "bold and ambitious" in framing their future relations.
The German chancellor said that while the UK could not replicate its existing membership outside the EU, she wanted relations to be "as close as possible".
EU member states currently work closely in the fight against organised crime and terrorism.
Key initiatives include the European Arrest Warrant - under which suspects can be speedily extradited between member states - Europol, the EU intelligence agency, and the Schengen Information System of real-time alerts about suspects.
The UK says that while the legal framework for its membership of these arrangements will end when it leaves the EU in March 2019, it wants to draw up new working arrangements - which ministers have described as being "as close to the status quo as possible".
Mrs Merkel said she was "curious not frustrated" about the UK's approach
In her speech, Mrs May pointed to the arrest of suspected terrorists and operations against people traffickers as examples of the benefits of cooperation across borders.
The moderator at the event, Wolfgang Ischinger, said that the UK's decision to leave the EU was "extremely regrettable" and that "everything would be so much easier if you stayed."
The Lib Dem's defence spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said it was "high time" the prime minister said "what she wants and what she is willing to give way on."
Theresa May has spent months calling for a deep and special economic partnership with the EU after Brexit and now her focus turns to security.
Again she's asking for a unique arrangement.
Britain will be outside the EU, a "third" country, and it would be unprecedented for the current close cooperation to continue. But the thrust of the British government's argument is that we should be a special case.
The UK is offering its substantial resources (the second largest defence budget in NATO) and expertise in counter terrorism.
The prime minister wants a treaty to enshrine what Downing Street describes as the real, tangible benefits of cooperation, and says failure to sign up will play into the hands of our enemies who'd like nothing more than to see Europe divided.
Her warning to EU leaders is blunt. Don't let your deep seated ideology put Europe's citizens in danger.
Mrs May has consistently said that she won't use security as a bargaining chip, that her offer is "unconditional" but that's no guarantee that the EU would simply accept a request from the UK to continue to be a part of Europol or the European Arrest Warrant.
Her hope is that the EU takes a practical, pragmatic approach because they accept that continuing to work together is mutually beneficial.
Earlier this year the outgoing head of Europol, Rob Wainwright, told the BBC Brexit would mean the UK losing influence on cross-border policing and security work.
"We will find other ways of influencing, more informal ways, but they will be less direct, less pronounced and probably less successful than they are now," he said.
Mrs May's speech is one of a series dubbed "the road to Brexit" with her government under pressure to set out in detail what it wants life outside the EU to look like. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43088246 | news_uk-politics-43088246 |
|
Wigan Athletic 1-0 Manchester City - BBC Sport | 2018-02-20 | None | Wigan Athletic end Manchester City's hopes of a Quadruple as Will Grigg's goal secures a famous FA Cup win. | null | Last updated on .From the section FA Cup
Wigan Athletic ended Manchester City's hopes of a clean sweep of trophies with a stunning upset in their FA Cup fifth-round tie.
The League One side survived virtually constant pressure from the Premier League leaders, eventually capitalising on Fabian Delph's controversial first-half red card when Will Grigg struck 11 minutes from time.
The striker's low finish capped a night of drama at the DW Stadium, with City's Fernandinho wasting a fine chance shortly before Delph was dismissed for a heavy challenge on Max Power.
The incident led to a heated argument between City boss Pep Guardiola and opposite number Paul Cook in the tunnel at half-time.
And there were unedifying scenes at full-time, too, with City striker Sergio Aguero involved in an altercation with one of the many home fans who invaded the pitch.
City threw everything at their hosts both before and after Grigg's goal - a guided shot from 20 yards - and Danilo's header was gratefully held by Christian Walton in the game's final attack.
Wigan host Southampton in the quarter-finals on the weekend of 17-18 March
• None Read more: Just how big was Wigan's win?
The full-time whistle sparked scenes of celebration from the home fans. City supporters, in contrast, were visibly angered - and objects were thrown onto the pitch from the away end once the players had departed.
That could not tarnish Wigan's night, though, as they beat City in this competition for the third time in six seasons.
The Latics may have fallen two divisions since beating the Blues in the 2013 final at Wembley, but they remain something of a bogey side for them.
City had 83% of possession and spent long spells in the Wigan half, with home right-back Nathan Byrne producing a standout performance as the visitors regularly raided down the left.
Chey Dunkley made 13 clearances - more than the entire City team - while his fellow centre-back Dan Burn marshalled the defensive unit superbly.
Grigg's task as a lone striker appeared thankless as he touched the ball less than any player who completed 90 minutes.
But one of those 19 touches will live long in the memory - his placed finished past Claudio Bravo.
City's defeat means three Premier League sides have been knocked out of this year's FA Cup at the DW Stadium.
Another - Southampton - visit in the next round. Mauricio Pellegrino's men will be fully aware the spirit that carried Wigan all the way to victory at Wembley five years ago lives on.
Guardiola, who said his side "gave absolutely everything", refused to comment in detail about the red card, and his subsequent clash with Cook.
The dismissal did not change the flow of the game, as City dominated even with a numerical disadvantage, but the decision did prompt a half-time reshuffle with Leroy Sane replaced by Kyle Walker.
Delph seemed stunned to be shown the second red card of his career, after sliding in for a 50-50 ball. The challenge was robust but did not appear malicious and he will now miss Sunday's League Cup final against Arsenal.
Referee Anthony Taylor took his yellow card out and began writing on it, before changing it for a red card instead.
Cook's angry gesticulations after the tackle appeared to irritate Guardiola, and the pair continued a heated debate in the tunnel, with staff from both sides attempting to keep things under control.
Match of the Day pundit Jermaine Jenas said the decision was "strange", adding: "I really don't think the tackle was that strong. I feel he won enough of the ball, it wasn't two-footed."
City may well feel aggrieved, but they found the target just five times from 27 attempts, as the finishing that has made them England's highest-scoring team eluded them.
It seemed unthinkable that a side boasting nine goals in their past two games - and a 16-point lead at the top of the Premier League - would succumb to just a third defeat in 42 matches.
And City's defeat is perhaps all the more surprising as it arrives during Wigan's worst run of form this season. Cook's side came into the fixture having lost back-to-back league games for the first time in the campaign.
But their spirit and commitment derailed a City side seen by some as the best of the Premier League era.
Talk of an unprecedented Quadruple had intensified in recent weeks, although Guardiola always maintained such an achievement would be "impossible". He was proved right in spectacular circumstances.
This was no hard-fought exit at the hands of a European force, but a shock that will go down in FA Cup folklore.
City must now attempt instead to chase a Treble, starting with their Wembley final against the Gunners on Sunday.
Man of the match - Will Grigg
• None Grigg scored his seventh goal in this season's FA Cup - more than any other player. His goal came from Wigan's only shot in the second half.
• None Guardiola's side failed to score for only the third time this season, with Wolves in the EFL Cup and Crystal Palace in the Premier League also keeping them at bay.
• None City have been knocked out of the FA Cup by a side from the third tier or lower for the first time since the third round in 2004-05 (1-0 v Oldham).
• None Delph's sending-off was the ninth in all competitions for City under Guardiola - only Watford (10) have had more among Premier League clubs in that time.
Wigan boss Paul Cook: "It feels great. It's such a severe test. They're such a strong side and move the ball so well. We had to ride our luck at times and the sending-off is always a big incident.
"Our lads deserve credit for their work. Some of the blocks they made were outstanding and to beat Man City you have to do that."
Manchester City boss Pep Guardiola: "Congratulations for Wigan for the qualification. We did absolutely everything, we made a mistake and this kind of game is like a final. OK, we accept the defeat. Congratulations to the winner."
Manchester City face Arsenal in the League Cup final at Wembley on Sunday (16:30 GMT). Wigan host League One's bottom club Rochdale on Saturday (15:00).
• None Attempt saved. Danilo (Manchester City) header from the centre of the box is saved in the top right corner. Assisted by Kevin De Bruyne with a cross.
• None Attempt blocked. Ilkay Gündogan (Manchester City) header from the centre of the box is blocked. Assisted by Claudio Bravo with a headed pass.
• None Attempt blocked. Fernandinho (Manchester City) header from the centre of the box is blocked. Assisted by Bernardo Silva with a cross.
• None Attempt blocked. Bernardo Silva (Manchester City) left footed shot from outside the box is blocked. Assisted by Kevin De Bruyne.
• None Attempt blocked. Danilo (Manchester City) right footed shot from outside the box is blocked. Assisted by Kyle Walker.
• None Attempt saved. Bernardo Silva (Manchester City) left footed shot from outside the box is saved in the bottom right corner.
• None Bernardo Silva (Manchester City) wins a free kick on the right wing.
• None Attempt blocked. Aymeric Laporte (Manchester City) left footed shot from the left side of the box is blocked. Assisted by John Stones. Navigate to the next page Navigate to the last page | http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43027542 | rt_football_43027542 |
|
May returns from China to Brexit tensions - BBC News | 2018-02-02 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The prime minister's promotion of "Global Britain" on her trip to China will do little to dispel tensions at home. | UK Politics | This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. In full: Theresa May on Brexit tensions and China
Theresa May believes her trip to China has made her slogan "Global Britain" come alive.
Hands shaken, businesses going home with new deals in their pockets that she says will bring jobs to the UK.
But she simply refused to accept that her next round of deal-making with the EU will require a choice between a closely-bound relationship with Brussels or a more dramatic break.
She told me she did not see those as alternatives and insisted she has spelled out what she really wants from the deal.
Mrs May said: "We will be out there ensuring the deal we get delivers on what the British people want. That's what this is about and I know what the British people want as well is good jobs for themselves and their children, and that's why it is important for me to be here in China where businesses have been signing deals."
Her comments will do little to dispel the tension at home where there are growing calls for her to be more specific about her ambition.
With disagreement in cabinet and from top to bottom in the Conservative party over the direction to take, Theresa May seems not ready yet to have the argument over which way to go, in public at least.
The prime minister also made it plain she has no intention of walking away from her post any time soon. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42914493 | news_uk-politics-42914493 |
|
Ministers talking about how to get more cash into NHS - BBC News | 2018-03-21 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | You won't hear it from Philip Hammond in his spring statement but things are moving behind the scenes. | UK Politics | There won't be a red box brandished on the steps of Number 11, a pint won't be up a penny or down a couple, and the chancellor certainly won't have to reach for a stiffener under the despatch box, like some of his predecessors who had a whiskey stashed there for the odd sip or two to get through a marathon Parliamentary statement.
What there also will not be in Philip Hammond's spring statement are grand gestures of new spending; no big cheques being signed by Mr Hammond to portion out your money.
With the balance of the books improving, the chancellor might sound a bit cheerier than at his last big outing.
The public spending numbers appear much healthier than before Christmas.
Unless he undergoes a personality transplant overnight, however, he's hardly going to be chucking money about with abandon.
Expect instead a focus on paying down the debt and taking a "balanced approach" - that's the government's code for carrying on with tight public spending to pay off the public debt.
The argument over the deficit may be over, mostly.
But the government wants now to focus on the debt.
The Hammond case is that we might have cleared the overdraft, but we still have a hefty mortgage that needs to be paid down.
But just because Tuesday's spring statement will be skimpy, it doesn't mean there aren't bigger conversations about the future of the public purse going on.
In fact, senior figures in government have told me there are discussions going on in government about one of the biggest political priorities of all - the NHS.
Several senior sources say that, at the end of January, the cabinet discussed ways of getting more money into the health service in the long term.
That included the foreign secretary's by now familiar argument about the hoped-for but disputed Brexit dividend.
But more intriguingly for a Conservative government, I'm told that the cabinet discussed the possibility of tax rises to fund more spending for the NHS, even a hypothecated tax, as spelled out by senior MPs like Nick Boles.
This does seem to be rather a change of heart.
For months last year, and on the general election trail, the prime minister maintained, time and again, that the NHS has the money that it needs - the funds that it requested.
With the opposition and senior Tories calling for a long-term look at the levels of cash, the line seemed to stay the same.
In January this year, the prime minister repeated that "we have put money in that was asked for in that review, and we've actually put some extra money in, in the spring statement and the Budget last year to deal with this.
"You keep talking about the money but actually what you also need to look at is how the NHS works."
Behind closed doors however, that position is shifting.
One cabinet minister told me "most of us accept now that something has to happen - we have to find a way".
Another said: "It's hard to see how healthcare won't need more money".
A different cabinet minister accepted that "conversations are very live" about the best way to make sure that the NHS is getting what it needs.
There is no consensus in government yet about the right way to go.
Number 10 isn't suddenly about to turn the spending taps on and flood the health service with money.
But at the highest levels of government there is a growing acceptance that the NHS will need more cash, even if the government is far from settling when or how. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43381133 | news_uk-politics-43381133 |
|
Will Gompertz review: Civilisations on BBC Two ★★☆☆☆ - BBC News | 2018-03-03 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Nearly 50 years after Kenneth Clark's landmark series, does Civilisations move the story on? | Entertainment & Arts | You know how it is with cooking, or painting or sculpting - the art is in knowing when to stop.
Great artists of the kitchen or the studio appreciate there is a very fine line between making one more tiny adjustment that takes their creation from excellent to sublime, or conversely, risks turning it into a messy failure.
By adding a single pluralising letter to the classic BBC art history series Civilisation (1969), the programme makers of Civilisations opened up the tantalising possibility of producing a new TV series that didn't simply match its singular predecessor, but was much better.
Kenneth Clark being filmed for his landmark Civilisation series
You can see the sense in the idea. Instead of an old-fashioned, patriarchal, white, western, male view of human cultures and creativity, why not make a show that acknowledges there are different civilisations and different views, which can be put across by different presenters? (In this case, three TV-ready, scarf-wearing academics: Mary Beard, David Olusoga and Simon Schama.)
Great. In theory. But in practice, well...
It turns out adding that extra "s" has gone and over-egged the pudding. For all its faults (partial, dogmatic, occasionally dismissive), the Kenneth Clark written and presented originals had a clarity, structure, and coherent argument that made them fascinating to watch and easy to follow.
In contrast, from the programmes I have seen, Civilisations is more confused and confusing than a drunk driver negotiating Spaghetti Junction in the rush hour.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Simon Schama travels to the civilisations of Petra.
Like Simon Schama's gyrating hands, which often seem to be enjoying their own private silent disco, large chunks of the individually authored films are all over the place.
The series starts with Schama - who has "always felt at home in the past" - showing us library footage of an Islamic State wrecking crew in Mosul destroying ancient art and artefacts.
He tells us the grisly story of how they brutally murdered the 82-year-old Syrian scholar Khaled al-Asaad for withholding information from them as to the whereabouts of the antiquities under his curatorial care in Palmyra.
"The record of human history brims over with the rage to destroy," the historian tells us with his passion dial turned up all the way to 11 (it rarely dips below 10).
There is no mention made of similarly barbaric acts that have taken place over millennia - on occasion perpetrated by a civilisation much closer to home - or an explanation as to the cultural rationale behind the actions of those wielding the sledgehammers in this instance.
No time for nuance, I suppose, the show must go on, so we can "see the world and our place in it in a different light".
Next comes the elevator pitch for the whole series delivered by our presenter with movie trailer-type hyperbole: "We are the art-making animal and this is what we've made!"
Music swells, titles roll, and we're off - back to the beginning and the caves of South Africa, where we are shown a 77,000-year-old block of red ochre with the "oldest deliberately decorative [human] marks ever discovered".
This is "the beginning of culture", Schama tells us, but he doesn't dwell. Moments later we're travelling through time and space like Doctor Who in a sci-fi remake of Treasure Hunt, touching down around 40,000 years later in northern Spain to visit El Castillo Cave.
Hand Stencils found in the Cave of El Castillo in Spain
Here, both the programme and the presenter start to settle down and enjoy what they've brought us to see: cave paintings and hand stencils.
Apparently similar images have been found "as far apart as Indonesia and Patagonia", which is interesting. But then frustrating as no explanation is forthcoming to enlighten us as to why that might be.
We are told: "These hand stencils do what nearly all art that would follow would aspire to. Firstly, they want to be seen by others. And then they want to endure beyond the life of the maker."
Really? Was that actually the motivation behind our stencil-making ancestor? Was he or she honestly most concerned with artistic ego and posterity? Were the painted hands even intended as art? Could they not have been a functional way-finding device or a ritualistic mark or part of a magical spell?
As we know from his previous docs, Schama's on-screen charisma and infectious enthusiasm make him very good televisual company. But his warmth and energy cannot conceal the problems with this first episode and the series in general, which is the absence of an intellectual argument with a discernible through line.
These are patchwork programmes with rambling narratives that promise much but deliver little in way of fresh insight or surprising connections.
Co-presenter Mary Beard at the Colossi of Memnon in Luxor, Egypt
Mary Beard's episode, How Do We Look, is particularly disappointing because the premise is so enticing, as is the prospect of one of our foremost thinkers on matters cultural giving us a new perspective.
Sadly, other than a couple of memorable TV moments when Beard encounters an ancient statue for the first time, we are offered little to excite our imaginations.
We don't get the alluded-to update on Clark's Eurocentric views or on John Berger's Walter Benjamin-inspired Ways of Seeing series.
There is no substantial new polemic with which to wrestle. Instead we are served a tepid dish of the blindingly obvious (art isn't just about the created object but also about how we perceive it), and the downright silly (an ancient story about a young man who supposedly ejaculated on a nude sculpture of Aphrodite thousands of years ago, which Beard describes with great theatricality as rape - "don't forget Aphrodite [the stone statue] never consented").
David Olusoga is altogether more measured and less mannered than his fellow presenters. His two films - one exploring the meeting of cultures between the 15th and 18th Centuries, the other looking at the enlightenment and industrialisation - benefit from his inquisitive nature and relaxed style.
If the scripts in the series are far from being literary masterpieces, the camerawork is of the highest quality throughout - although there are too many stylised shots of out-of-focus presenters with their backs to us.
But when trained on art and artefacts, the new technology and techniques at the 21st Century TV director's disposal provide us with plenty of delicious visual treats (the images from Simon Schama's trip to Petra are stunning).
Ultimately though, Civilisations feels like a series made by committee: a terrific-sounding idea on paper that I suspect was a lot harder to realise in practice.
The result is a well-intentioned, well-funded series that has top TV talent in all departments but which ended up being less than the sum of its parts. A case of too many cooks, maybe?
David Olusoga with Gauguin's Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going? at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-43132334 | news_entertainment-arts-43132334 |
|
Reality Check: Brexit can be win-win for UK and Europe, says Theresa May - BBC News | 2018-03-03 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | What were the key passages in Theresa May's big speech on Brexit at the Mansion House? | UK Politics | Theresa May has delivered her long-awaited speech on Brexit, giving more details of what she wants from the UK's future trade arrangements with the European Union.
Here are some of the key lines from the speech.
There was a time when government ministers were suggesting that this was going to be the easiest negotiation in history.
That rhetoric has gone. The prime minister suggested that there would be difficult days ahead, and inevitable points of disagreement.
The bottom line is that Mrs May still intends to take the UK out of the single market and the customs union.
But she emphasised that both sides stand to gain from the successful negotiation of a new partnership, whereas the EU still sees Brexit not as a win-win but as a lose-lose.
After the uproar of the past couple of days, the prime minister decided that she needed to address Northern Ireland early on.
It was a re-statement of what was agreed last December - no hard border with the Republic, but no customs border with the rest of the UK either.
The trouble is there wasn't much detail about how that circle can be squared. Later in the speech she did speak about the use of technology at the border and a streamlined customs arrangement or even a new-style customs partnership (but not a customs union).
Scepticism about the UK position in Dublin, and elsewhere in Europe, won't have eased all that much.
Yes, the prime minister says to the EU, you have a point - we can't just pick off the good bits (although there will be those who argue that she tries to do just that later in the speech).
But there was an honest appraisal here of the "hard facts" - notably that market access will be less than it is now, and that the UK will still have to take account, in some respects, of the rulings of the European Court of Justice.
It was a realistic appraisal of where any successful negotiation is likely to end. On the other hand, the prime minister insisted that the UK will still want to demonstrate that it has taken back control of its money, its border, and its laws.
There's nothing wrong with being ambitious, but there will be those who point out that the broadest and deepest possible partnership anywhere in the world today is enshrined in the EU's single market and customs union.
It was striking in this speech how much of the current relationship Mrs May wants to keep - staying close, for example, to EU regulatory agencies, to environmental and consumer protection laws, and to EU policies on state aid and fair competition.
But the prime minister also reserved the right to diverge from EU policies where necessary. In Brussels and elsewhere, that will still be seen as cherry-picking, and will be unacceptable to EU negotiators who are determined to protect the integrity of the single market.
This was important. A bonfire of EU regulations is not going to happen. And if the UK can successfully negotiate a new model of associate membership of EU agencies, that regulate chemicals, pharmaceuticals and the aviation industry, large sections of UK business will breathe a sigh of relief.
Mrs May offered to pay for access to these agencies, and much of the expertise the EU relies upon is based in the UK. But there will still be disagreements about judicial oversight and the role of the European Court of Justice.
It is another reminder of how much there is to negotiate in an extraordinarily short period of time, and why a transition period after Brexit will be so important.
Mrs May called for a bold and creative agreement on services - a sector of over-riding importance to the UK economy.
She mentioned two sectors in particular - broadcasting and financial services - that have never been properly covered in a free trade agreement before.
Her argument is a familiar one - restricting access in all areas of economic activity will hurt you as much as it hurts us.
She spoke of the UK and the EU maintaining the same regulations over time while accepting there would be "consequences" (loss of market access) if the UK chose a different path.
On the one hand, it doesn't sound like "ambitious managed divergence" and that may not be acceptable to some supporters of Brexit in the UK.
On the other hand, it does mean the UK sticking to some EU rules and not others - and that will not be acceptable in other capitals around Europe.
Or as the prime minister said in her speech: "This is a negotiation and neither of us can have exactly what we want."
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43258480 | news_uk-politics-43258480 |
|
Theresa May speech: Were the facts hard enough? - BBC News | 2018-03-03 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The prime minister gave more details of her Brexit plans - but were they enough? | UK Politics | Yes, it was a long speech. Yes, the prime minister added a layer of detail to her Brexit plans.
Yes, there were nuggets in there about how the negotiations might proceed, including, without much fanfare, what seemed to be a statement that the EU commission would help to find a solution the Irish border question, one of the most vexed of all.
Yes, it did not provide encyclopaedic levels of information about exactly what the UK would propose. Yes, there were holes, only a few paragraphs on the biggest bit of the UK economy, services. Yes, there are still fundamental contradictions in the UK position.
And yes, the Tory infighting of recent weeks that's simmered down today will return at the next moment of decision. One senior Tory told me we might have given up on cake and eating it, ''but we're now asking for half the cake''.
And there was nothing today that suddenly revealed a real change in the government's thinking. That gives her critics cause for concern, and EU sources are emollient, rather than immediately won over.
But the message that Theresa May wanted, and arguably needed to get across, was way beyond any of the detailed arguments that lead the Tory party, the EU, or both, down a cul-de-sac. This was not intended to be the final word.
What the prime minister endeavoured to do instead was to say to the EU, let's do a deal. It won't be easy, I'm confessing to my party and the public that I won't get everything they want, but I get it, and now, after everything that's happened, let's talk.
It is legitimate of course to ask why it has taken so long for the prime minister to put that forward. Well, the EU didn't want to talk about trade initially, wanting to sort out the cash first of all.
And there have always been internal suspicions of her aims in the Tory party that have made moving forward extremely fraught. Her survival has been contingent.
But some of this comes down to the prime minister, fond of asking for more and more briefing, more and more alternatives and discussion in committees, who is reluctant to do anything in a hurry. In the coming days much will be written along the lines of ''what took her so long''?
The hope in No 10 is that the EU will welcome her newly pragmatic admission that we can't, after all that cake, really have it all. And importantly, after a fevered bout of internal jockeying, Theresa May today has been willing to tell both wings of her party they will have to compromise.
Adding some detail to her approach she more firmly than before told Brexiteers they can't dictate all the terms. And there was a message to Conservative Remainers too that she won't back down on her central intentions to leave the single market and customs union.
And for today, it seems enough. Both sides in the Tory tug-of-war have welcomed her carefully phrased lines. But accepting warnings of coming compromises is not the same as swallowing them when they happen.
If, and likely when, the European Union pushes back her proposal, Theresa May's 'hard facts' will become harder choices for the Conservative Party.
But today, she was a leader in an almost impossible political position straining to show what might just work. Politics is about principle, yes, but first and foremost what is possible. No 10 hopes that today, the prime minister will have shown the EU that is something she understands. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43265458 | news_uk-politics-43265458 |
|
Sex abuse victim 'vindicated' after High Court win - BBC News | 2018-03-03 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Three women groomed into sex work as teenagers, fought for the right to not reveal their convictions. | UK | Three women, who say they were groomed into prostitution as teenagers, have won a High Court battle which means they will not have to tell future employers about their soliciting.
Fiona Broadfoot said it was a disgrace that she had carried these convictions, while no men who had "bought and used" her had faced any consequences.
The Home Office said it was considering the court's decision.
Ms Broadfoot, one of the claimants who waived her anonymity in this case, said it had been a long fight, but "worth it".
"Finally, I feel like a weight has been lifted off my shoulders - it's a vindication," she added.
The women successfully argued that the disclosure of convictions for working in the sex trade many years ago was disproportionate and a breach of their Article 8 Human Rights - the right to a private life.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Fiona Broadfoot spoke to the BBC's Today programme before the ruling, about why her convictions for soliciting have stopped her from moving on
The ruling would bring about real change for sex trade survivors "who should never have been criminalised in the first place", their lawyer Harriet Wistrich said.
Ms Broadfoot, who said she was a child when first put on the streets, said she had carried "eight pages" of convictions all her life.
The judgment means that any convictions for soliciting will now be "filtered out" when it comes to DBS checks - although how this will be done is still to be determined.
This Twitter post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser. View original content on Twitter The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Skip twitter post by nia This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Twitter’s cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
The ruling was welcomed by the founding leader of the Women's Equality Party, Sophie Walker, who credited the "hard work and bravery" of Ms Broadfoot.
Ms Wistrich also praised her clients' "courage and determination".
"Unfortunately, the court were not persuaded by our argument that the practice discriminates against women or is in breach of duties with regard to trafficked women," she said. "We will be seeking permission to appeal in relation to those broader points."
A Home Office spokesperson said: "The protection of children and other vulnerable groups remains a key priority of this government and the Disclosure and Barring scheme is a vital part of these efforts." | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43261021 | news_uk-43261021 |
|
Not time to nitpick on Brexit - Jacob Rees-Mogg - BBC News | 2018-03-03 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The Tory MP warns fellow Brexiteers "everyone will have to give up something" after Theresa May's speech. | UK Politics | This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Theresa May's full Brexit speech where she said: "We chose to leave, we have a responsibility to help find a solution"
Brexiteers will have some concerns with Theresa May's latest Brexit speech but "now is not the time to nitpick", Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg has said.
Writing in the Daily Telegraph, the prominent Eurosceptic praised the prime minister and urged the EU to respond with "wisdom and not aggression".
On Friday, Mrs May warned "no-one will get everything they want" from talks.
EU officials are now scrutinising Mrs May's speech ahead of a fresh round of negotiations next week.
Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, told the BBC's Today programme the prime minister had shown in her speech it was possible to have "frictionless trade" with the European Union while leaving the single market and the customs union.
Speaking at London's Mansion House, Mrs May set out the UK's hopes for a future EU economic partnership, calling for "pragmatic common sense" in negotiations.
Single market access would be "less than it is now", she said, and the UK would have to pay into some EU agencies.
But she said she would not threaten to walk out of talks and in a message to the EU added: "Let's get on with it."
She said all sides of the argument had to now face "hard facts".
Mr Rees-Mogg praised her "good speech", saying it delivered on the government's promise to take the UK out of the customs union, the single market and the European Court of Justice.
"There are inevitably a few small points that will concern Leave campaigners but we must all recognise that everyone will have to give up something to get a deal, so now is not the time to nitpick," he wrote.
Mrs May's address was also cautiously welcomed by pro-European Conservatives.
Writing in the same paper, Tory Remainer Nicky Morgan said her speech was a "welcome dose of realism".
"The EU can't say they don't know what the UK wants anymore," she added.
Mr Hunt told the BBC Mrs May had successfully brought Leavers and Remainers together.
She had explained in the speech, he said, how there would be "pragmatic alignment of our regulations" that would be of the same high standards as in European countries, but on a voluntary basis.
Parliament would have the final say and the UK could always choose to have less market access.
He said he was certain the negotiations would "go to the wire".
Speaking on BBC's Newsnight the vice-president of the European Parliament, the Irish MEP Mairead McGuinness, said the speech showed the realities of Brexit "were dawning" in the UK.
She said some of Mrs May's proposals amounted to the UK wanting "to be part of the European Union" Not time to nitpick on Brexit - Rees-Moggin all but name.
Irish prime minister Leo Varadkar said he feared the constraints of leaving the customs union and the single market have not been fully recognised by Mrs May's government.
"Brexit is due to happen in a little over 12 months, so time is short," he said.
In her speech, Mrs May said she was confident remaining differences over a draft EU legal agreement could be resolved, allowing trade talks to get under way.
She said life would be different for the UK outside the EU's single market: "In certain ways, our access to each other's markets will be less than it is now."
The UK could not expect to "enjoy all the benefits without all of the obligations" of membership.
Another "hard fact" would be the UK would still continue to be affected by EU law and some decisions of the European Court of Justice - such as the ECJ rules on whether EU agreements are legal.
However, she stressed the "jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the UK must end".
The UK may choose to remain "in step" with EU regulations in areas like state aid and competition, in order to get "good access" to markets, she said.
The hard fact for the EU was that the UK would want its own bespoke trade deal, not an "off-the-shelf model".
BBC political correspondent Alex Forsyth said "the real test will be whether this speech was enough to convince critics that Mrs May's ambition for Brexit is credible and achievable without alienating her own MPs". | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43266509 | news_uk-politics-43266509 |
|
Are 'cryonic technicians' the key to immortality? - BBC News | 2018-03-17 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Freezing the deceased in the hope of one day reviving them could become a mainstream service, advocates say. | Business | Technology is changing the way we work and the jobs we do. Will artificial intelligence and robots relieve us of humdrum tasks, making our working lives easier, or will they take our jobs away altogether? As part of our Future of Work series, we look at the cryonics technicians - who are trying to help their clients cheat death.
Are you open minded about the future? Do you have a medical background and can you complete tasks under time pressure?
Are you comfortable working in the presence of a dead body?
This is not the job description for a Victorian grave snatcher.
Instead, it's the ideal attributes of a cryonics technician; someone who preserves the bodies of the recently deceased in the hope they will one day be revived.
Advocates describe it as an "ambulance to the future". They say that as medical science develops, these technicians could become a common sight in our hospitals, purporting to offer believers a second chance at life.
However, most highly doubt it will work.
Cryonics seeks to freeze someone after they have legally died in order to keep their body and mind as undamaged as possible. This aims to buy the patient time until future medical science can bring them back to life, and cure them of whatever it is they died from.
Second chance? Cryonics attempts to protect the body from decay by storing it at extremely low temperatures
As soon as the patient dies, the clock is ticking to start the procedure. The heart has stopped pumping and the brain is no longer receiving oxygen, meaning within minutes it will lose the ability to make new memories, and soon after that the cells will begin to die.
This means the technician must get to work immediately after the individual is declared legally dead, cooling their body in an ice bath in order to slow down the process of degeneration.
BBC News is looking at how technology is changing the way we work, and how it is creating new job opportunities.
After this blood is drained from the body and replaced with cryoprotectant agents - similar to antifreeze - in an attempt to stop ice crystals forming in the blood cells.
The body is then placed in a storage tank and brought down to the temperature of liquid nitrogen (-196C) in an attempt to preserve the organs and tissue.
While cryonics has been practised since the 1970s, only the US and Russia actually have small storage facilities.
In the US state of Michigan, the Cryonics Institute has about 2,000 living people signed up, and 165 patients who have already gone through the process.
Dennis Kowalski is a paramedic by training, which he says is a perfect fit for the cryonics procedure
Dennis Kowalski is the institute's president and performs some of the cryonic procedures. By day, he is a paramedic.
"The training to become a paramedic is perfect to become a standby in cryonics," he says.
"You also need someone with a funeral director's licence (because you are still legally handling dead bodies), experience running a perfusion pump, and basic surgical skills."
The Cryonics Institute is a co-operative with just three full-time members of staff, but Mr Kowalski thinks this will grow as medical science evolves.
So far just 5,000 people around the globe have signed up but the numbers are growing so funeral homes may start to offer this as an option, he says.
"Artificial intelligence, genetic modification, stem cell engineering - all these fields are vindicating what we are doing, which is giving people the greatest opportunity possible."
Dr Anders Sandberg has elected to have his head cryonically preserved after death, even though he puts the chance of revival at only 3%
One of the 5,000 is Dr Anders Sandberg, a senior research fellow at Oxford University's Future of Humanity Institute.
He is on the board of the Brain Preservation Foundation and has elected to have only his head preserved after death, even though he estimates a success rate of just 3%.
Like Mr Kowalski, he argues the skills needed to become a cryonics technician are already in use in many medical professions.
"Right now cryonics feels a little too cold or impersonal and it relies on the admission that it is uncertain, but I do think it will grow.
"In the future, wouldn't having a cryogenicist at the hospital make sense? When you do heart or brain surgery you lower the body temperature to buy more time and I imagine that over time we will start doing more low temperature surgery.
"This is a job that you might want to do if you started out as a nurse or a perfusion specialist. It would not be a big leap from a technical standpoint, only from a social one, as it's using arguments from within medicine.
"There's a lot of resistance to overcome but from a practical perspective it makes sense and might save us from a lot of wasteful medicine."
Although they sound similar, cryonics and cryogenics are viewed very differently by the scientific community.
Cryonics specifically relates to the preservation of the human body after death. Most supporters of the process admit they do not know if or when the technology will exist to revive people, or whether the techniques used to prepare the body for storage will have worked.
Cryogenics has many applications in present day medicine, and can be used in stem cell research
Cryogenics, on the other hand, has many applications in today's society. It involves the freezing of matter at temperatures of -150C or lower. In medicine, this includes the freezing of embryos, eggs, sperm, skin, and tissue in order to preserve them for future use.
Clive Coen, professor of neuroscience at King's College, London, suggests applying validated cryogenic techniques to the brain or whole body is doomed to failure.
That's because the application of antifreeze during the preservation process fails to reach all of the brain, and it would be impossible to defrost each part of the body at the same time, he says
"Advocates of cryonics are naive in comparing their wishful thinking with the successes achieved in storing loosely packed cells - such as sperm - at low temperatures.
"And they shouldn't forget that any resuscitation process that isn't instantaneous will merely set the process of decay running again."
Cryogenicists are currently working on freezing other organs
But Prof Coen says cryogenics is an exciting field ripe for expansion.
Although the brain is far too complex, cryogenicists are currently working on freezing other organs. This could revolutionise the process of transplantation, which would no longer have to take place immediately.
"People are tremendously hard at work in this field trying to store organs such as the kidney, and even the heart on a long term basis. That would be a tremendous boon to our health and wellbeing," Prof Coen says.
"But a whole body? Forget it."
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43259902 | news_business-43259902 |
|
Ministers talking about how to get more cash into NHS - BBC News | 2018-03-13 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | You won't hear it from Philip Hammond in his spring statement but things are moving behind the scenes. | UK Politics | There won't be a red box brandished on the steps of Number 11, a pint won't be up a penny or down a couple, and the chancellor certainly won't have to reach for a stiffener under the despatch box, like some of his predecessors who had a whiskey stashed there for the odd sip or two to get through a marathon Parliamentary statement.
What there also will not be in Philip Hammond's spring statement are grand gestures of new spending; no big cheques being signed by Mr Hammond to portion out your money.
With the balance of the books improving, the chancellor might sound a bit cheerier than at his last big outing.
The public spending numbers appear much healthier than before Christmas.
Unless he undergoes a personality transplant overnight, however, he's hardly going to be chucking money about with abandon.
Expect instead a focus on paying down the debt and taking a "balanced approach" - that's the government's code for carrying on with tight public spending to pay off the public debt.
The argument over the deficit may be over, mostly.
But the government wants now to focus on the debt.
The Hammond case is that we might have cleared the overdraft, but we still have a hefty mortgage that needs to be paid down.
But just because Tuesday's spring statement will be skimpy, it doesn't mean there aren't bigger conversations about the future of the public purse going on.
In fact, senior figures in government have told me there are discussions going on in government about one of the biggest political priorities of all - the NHS.
Several senior sources say that, at the end of January, the cabinet discussed ways of getting more money into the health service in the long term.
That included the foreign secretary's by now familiar argument about the hoped-for but disputed Brexit dividend.
But more intriguingly for a Conservative government, I'm told that the cabinet discussed the possibility of tax rises to fund more spending for the NHS, even a hypothecated tax, as spelled out by senior MPs like Nick Boles.
This does seem to be rather a change of heart.
For months last year, and on the general election trail, the prime minister maintained, time and again, that the NHS has the money that it needs - the funds that it requested.
With the opposition and senior Tories calling for a long-term look at the levels of cash, the line seemed to stay the same.
In January this year, the prime minister repeated that "we have put money in that was asked for in that review, and we've actually put some extra money in, in the spring statement and the Budget last year to deal with this.
"You keep talking about the money but actually what you also need to look at is how the NHS works."
Behind closed doors however, that position is shifting.
One cabinet minister told me "most of us accept now that something has to happen - we have to find a way".
Another said: "It's hard to see how healthcare won't need more money".
A different cabinet minister accepted that "conversations are very live" about the best way to make sure that the NHS is getting what it needs.
There is no consensus in government yet about the right way to go.
Number 10 isn't suddenly about to turn the spending taps on and flood the health service with money.
But at the highest levels of government there is a growing acceptance that the NHS will need more cash, even if the government is far from settling when or how. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43381133 | news_uk-politics-43381133 |
|
EU trade deal must include financial services, says Hammond - BBC News | 2018-03-07 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Philip Hammond tells 'sceptics' an agreement is in the 'mutual interest' of the UK and the EU. | Business | Chancellor Philip Hammond has told European leaders that it is in the "mutual interest" of both the UK and the EU to include financial services in a free trade agreement.
In a speech, Mr Hammond set out his argument against "sceptics", saying it is possible to reach a deal.
But EU president Donald Tusk flat out rejected the UK proposals.
The EU's chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, has argued that such a deal had never been done before.
But Mr Hammond said the EU has in the past attempted similar agreements.
In December, Mr Barnier said: "There is not a single trade agreement that is open to financial services. It doesn't exist."
Mr Hammond said on Wednesday that the EU itself tried to include financial services on trade deals with the US and Canada.
He said: "If it could be done with Canada or the USA... it could be done with the UK."
The Chancellor stressed: "I am clear not only that it is possible to include financial services within a trade deal but that it is very much in our mutual interest to do so."
However, European Union president Donald Tusk issued guidelines on Wednesday telling EU negotiators that the UK will have to settle for a more conventional free trade agreement, such as the EU's deal with Canada.
The UK's stance on leaving the single market means the City having to settle for more limited access to European markets, he said.
"I fully understand and of course I respect Theresa May's [political] objective - to demonstrate at any price that Brexit could be a success and was the right choice.
"But sorry, that is not our objective," Mr Tusk added.
The EU's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier says a trade deal including financial services "does not exist".
Mr Hammond said: "The EU is a very skilled negotiator... they've negotiated agreements with many countries. They are very skilled and very disciplined in the way they carry out their negotiation, and it doesn't surprise me remotely that what they've set out this morning is a very tough position.
"That's what any competent, skilled and experienced negotiator would do. I expect that we will have a deep and constructive engagement with them, and I hope that what I've set out here this afternoon will contribute to the discussion that we'll be having."
On Tuesday, French economy minister Bruno Le Maire told the BBC: "Financial services cannot be in a free trade agreement, for many reasons, for reasons of stability, for the sake of supervision because there are some very specific rules for financial services."
He said that the "best solution", would be for a system of "equivalence" where both sides recognised each other's standards.
But Mr Hammond said: "It is time to address the sceptics who say a trade deal including financial services cannot be done because it has never been done before.
"To them I say 'every trade deal the EU has ever done has been unique'.
"The EU has never negotiated the same arrangement twice. It has bespoke relationships with Turkey, Canada, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland."
In his speech on UK-EU co-operation post-Brexit, the Chancellor referred to past attempts at forging a free trade agreement between the US and Europe.
"The EU itself pursued ambitious financial services co-operation in its proposals for TTIP [the now aborted Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership]," Mr Hammond said.
"Which it described as a partnership that would be: 'more than a traditional free trade agreement'."
Mr Hammond argued that if the EU tried it before with a nation which doesn't have regulatory alignment on financial services - America - then surely it can do so with a country that it at present does - the UK.
But the Chancellor also said a lot more than that.
Because the person who proposed "regulatory co-operation" on financial services as part of the EU-US free trade negotiations was one Michel Barnier.
Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell said: "The Chancellor has shown his hand, and it is clear he is looking for a TTIP type deal as his blueprint.
"Yet those negotiations took nearly four years and collapsed, which is why a transition period is critical."
Mr Hammond also said: "A trade deal between the UK and the EU must start from the reality of today, that our economies, including in financial services, are interconnected, that our regulatory frameworks are identical."
Stephen Jones, chief executive of UK Finance, the trade body that represents the UK financial services sector, said: "Thousands of customers and businesses in Europe rely on access to financial services from the UK. It is in everyone's interests for this vital cross-border trade to continue." | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43300202 | news_business-43300202 |
|
Morrisons profits jump despite cost rises - BBC News | 2018-03-14 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The UK's fourth-biggest supermarket chain sees profits and sales rise despite higher costs. | Business | Morrisons, the UK's fourth-biggest supermarket, said annual profits jumped 11% as its turnaround programme continues.
The chain made underlying pre-tax profits of £374m in the year to 4 February, £37m higher than in 2016.
Like-for-like sales, which strip out stores open for less than a year, were 2.8% higher excluding fuel.
The retailer said performance was strong despite the "challenges" of higher import costs.
Revenues rose £1bn to £17.3bn and chairman Andrew Higginson said Morrisons was now entering its third consecutive year of growth.
However, by the close of trading in London, its shares were 4.86% lower.
ETX Capital analyst Neil Wilson said there was a "sense that this kind of growth will be difficult to maintain, but this has been the argument for some time and has continually been wrong".
Morrisons announced a special dividend of 4p per share, which the firm said reflected its good progress and expectations for continued growth.
One of the chain's priorities is to become more competitive. At Christmas, it said a basket of key items was the same price as the same time last year despite higher costs.
Last month, Morrisons announced it would cut 1,500 middle management jobs.
Laith Khalaf, a Hargreaves Lansdown analyst, said the supermarket's largely UK supply chain had helped to "keep prices competitive, in a market where the falling pound has increased the cost of imported food".
Although margins had slipped slightly, he said rising sales had helped bolster the bottom line, with the higher profits attributed to lower borrowing costs.
Mr Khalaf added: "Morrisons is carving out a place in the winner's camp. On top of improved performance in its retail outlets, the group is also laying the foundations of a wholesale business, with deals in place to supply McColl's newsagents, as well as the expanding Amazon Prime grocery offering." | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43397497 | news_business-43397497 |
|
Reality Check: Brexit can be win-win for UK and Europe, says Theresa May - BBC News | 2018-03-04 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | What were the key passages in Theresa May's big speech on Brexit at the Mansion House? | UK Politics | Theresa May has delivered her long-awaited speech on Brexit, giving more details of what she wants from the UK's future trade arrangements with the European Union.
Here are some of the key lines from the speech.
There was a time when government ministers were suggesting that this was going to be the easiest negotiation in history.
That rhetoric has gone. The prime minister suggested that there would be difficult days ahead, and inevitable points of disagreement.
The bottom line is that Mrs May still intends to take the UK out of the single market and the customs union.
But she emphasised that both sides stand to gain from the successful negotiation of a new partnership, whereas the EU still sees Brexit not as a win-win but as a lose-lose.
After the uproar of the past couple of days, the prime minister decided that she needed to address Northern Ireland early on.
It was a re-statement of what was agreed last December - no hard border with the Republic, but no customs border with the rest of the UK either.
The trouble is there wasn't much detail about how that circle can be squared. Later in the speech she did speak about the use of technology at the border and a streamlined customs arrangement or even a new-style customs partnership (but not a customs union).
Scepticism about the UK position in Dublin, and elsewhere in Europe, won't have eased all that much.
Yes, the prime minister says to the EU, you have a point - we can't just pick off the good bits (although there will be those who argue that she tries to do just that later in the speech).
But there was an honest appraisal here of the "hard facts" - notably that market access will be less than it is now, and that the UK will still have to take account, in some respects, of the rulings of the European Court of Justice.
It was a realistic appraisal of where any successful negotiation is likely to end. On the other hand, the prime minister insisted that the UK will still want to demonstrate that it has taken back control of its money, its border, and its laws.
There's nothing wrong with being ambitious, but there will be those who point out that the broadest and deepest possible partnership anywhere in the world today is enshrined in the EU's single market and customs union.
It was striking in this speech how much of the current relationship Mrs May wants to keep - staying close, for example, to EU regulatory agencies, to environmental and consumer protection laws, and to EU policies on state aid and fair competition.
But the prime minister also reserved the right to diverge from EU policies where necessary. In Brussels and elsewhere, that will still be seen as cherry-picking, and will be unacceptable to EU negotiators who are determined to protect the integrity of the single market.
This was important. A bonfire of EU regulations is not going to happen. And if the UK can successfully negotiate a new model of associate membership of EU agencies, that regulate chemicals, pharmaceuticals and the aviation industry, large sections of UK business will breathe a sigh of relief.
Mrs May offered to pay for access to these agencies, and much of the expertise the EU relies upon is based in the UK. But there will still be disagreements about judicial oversight and the role of the European Court of Justice.
It is another reminder of how much there is to negotiate in an extraordinarily short period of time, and why a transition period after Brexit will be so important.
Mrs May called for a bold and creative agreement on services - a sector of over-riding importance to the UK economy.
She mentioned two sectors in particular - broadcasting and financial services - that have never been properly covered in a free trade agreement before.
Her argument is a familiar one - restricting access in all areas of economic activity will hurt you as much as it hurts us.
She spoke of the UK and the EU maintaining the same regulations over time while accepting there would be "consequences" (loss of market access) if the UK chose a different path.
On the one hand, it doesn't sound like "ambitious managed divergence" and that may not be acceptable to some supporters of Brexit in the UK.
On the other hand, it does mean the UK sticking to some EU rules and not others - and that will not be acceptable in other capitals around Europe.
Or as the prime minister said in her speech: "This is a negotiation and neither of us can have exactly what we want."
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43258480 | news_uk-politics-43258480 |
|
Not time to nitpick on Brexit - Jacob Rees-Mogg - BBC News | 2018-03-04 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The Tory MP warns fellow Brexiteers "everyone will have to give up something" after Theresa May's speech. | UK Politics | This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Theresa May's full Brexit speech where she said: "We chose to leave, we have a responsibility to help find a solution"
Brexiteers will have some concerns with Theresa May's latest Brexit speech but "now is not the time to nitpick", Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg has said.
Writing in the Daily Telegraph, the prominent Eurosceptic praised the prime minister and urged the EU to respond with "wisdom and not aggression".
On Friday, Mrs May warned "no-one will get everything they want" from talks.
EU officials are now scrutinising Mrs May's speech ahead of a fresh round of negotiations next week.
Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, told the BBC's Today programme the prime minister had shown in her speech it was possible to have "frictionless trade" with the European Union while leaving the single market and the customs union.
Speaking at London's Mansion House, Mrs May set out the UK's hopes for a future EU economic partnership, calling for "pragmatic common sense" in negotiations.
Single market access would be "less than it is now", she said, and the UK would have to pay into some EU agencies.
But she said she would not threaten to walk out of talks and in a message to the EU added: "Let's get on with it."
She said all sides of the argument had to now face "hard facts".
Mr Rees-Mogg praised her "good speech", saying it delivered on the government's promise to take the UK out of the customs union, the single market and the European Court of Justice.
"There are inevitably a few small points that will concern Leave campaigners but we must all recognise that everyone will have to give up something to get a deal, so now is not the time to nitpick," he wrote.
Mrs May's address was also cautiously welcomed by pro-European Conservatives.
Writing in the same paper, Tory Remainer Nicky Morgan said her speech was a "welcome dose of realism".
"The EU can't say they don't know what the UK wants anymore," she added.
Mr Hunt told the BBC Mrs May had successfully brought Leavers and Remainers together.
She had explained in the speech, he said, how there would be "pragmatic alignment of our regulations" that would be of the same high standards as in European countries, but on a voluntary basis.
Parliament would have the final say and the UK could always choose to have less market access.
He said he was certain the negotiations would "go to the wire".
Speaking on BBC's Newsnight the vice-president of the European Parliament, the Irish MEP Mairead McGuinness, said the speech showed the realities of Brexit "were dawning" in the UK.
She said some of Mrs May's proposals amounted to the UK wanting "to be part of the European Union" Not time to nitpick on Brexit - Rees-Moggin all but name.
Irish prime minister Leo Varadkar said he feared the constraints of leaving the customs union and the single market have not been fully recognised by Mrs May's government.
"Brexit is due to happen in a little over 12 months, so time is short," he said.
In her speech, Mrs May said she was confident remaining differences over a draft EU legal agreement could be resolved, allowing trade talks to get under way.
She said life would be different for the UK outside the EU's single market: "In certain ways, our access to each other's markets will be less than it is now."
The UK could not expect to "enjoy all the benefits without all of the obligations" of membership.
Another "hard fact" would be the UK would still continue to be affected by EU law and some decisions of the European Court of Justice - such as the ECJ rules on whether EU agreements are legal.
However, she stressed the "jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the UK must end".
The UK may choose to remain "in step" with EU regulations in areas like state aid and competition, in order to get "good access" to markets, she said.
The hard fact for the EU was that the UK would want its own bespoke trade deal, not an "off-the-shelf model".
BBC political correspondent Alex Forsyth said "the real test will be whether this speech was enough to convince critics that Mrs May's ambition for Brexit is credible and achievable without alienating her own MPs". | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43266509 | news_uk-politics-43266509 |
|
Australia ball-tampering row: The key questions facing Australian cricket - BBC Sport | 2018-03-26 | None | Who was involved? Are Australia out of control? We try to answer the key questions after Saturday's ball-tampering. | null | Australian cricket is mired in the biggest scandal to hit the Test game since three Pakistan players were caught spot-fixing at Lord's in 2010.
The pictures from the third day of the third Test against South Africa of Cameron Bancroft rubbing what we were later told was yellow tape against the ball and then hiding it down the front of his trousers were only outdone on the scale of extraordinary by the news conference that followed.
Bancroft and then captain Steve Smith came clean. It was a premeditated and calculated plan to alter the condition of the ball.
There is a debate to be had on the severity of ball-tampering as a cricketing crime. It is nothing new for bowlers and fielders to attempt to conjure something from the leather by fair means or foul.
That, though, is for another day. Right now, the ferocity of the backlash against Smith, his team and its management has left a number of Australian cricketing giants fighting for their jobs and the governing body of the sport down under wondering how to repair its shattered reputation.
Who was involved in the ball-tampering plot?
From what has happened so far, we know Smith, vice-captain David Warner and Bancroft are conspirators. But how many other players are in the "leadership group" referred to by Smith? Was substitute fielder Peter Handscomb, seen on a walkie-talkie and then passing a message to Bancroft, also in on the plot?
There are also questions around coach Darren Lehmann. Smith said only players were involved, but is that to be believed? If not, and Lehmann genuinely didn't know, why not? Is it worse to be in on the plan, or to be so out of control that you are unaware your team is about to do something so brazenly stupid, damaging and beyond the laws of the game? His future is also on the line.
Former Australia fast bowler Jason Gillespie told Sky Sports: "Until we've heard from Lehmann, we won't know any more. He hasn't fronted the media yet - everyone is waiting for that.
"It's hard to think there isn't going to be a fall-out and a big change in personnel. It appears there's going to be some big changes on and off the field.
"The Australia side has to have a deep reflection on how they go about the game, how they're perceived in the wider cricketing world. That perception isn't good, that's the brutal reality."
In the short term, Australia need a captain for the fourth and final Test following the one-match ban handed to Smith by the International Cricket Council.
It seems unlikely that can be Warner who, like Smith, was removed from his role for the rest of the third Test by Cricket Australia for being part of the "leadership group" that cooked up the plan.
If there are further bans to be dished out by CA, how would that affect the match in Johannesburg, which is due to begin on Friday? Might the majority of a new squad have to be scrambled to South Africa?
After that, there are decisions to be made on the long-term futures of Smith, Warner and any other players or coaches involved.
Should their immediate admission be admired, or was it naive?
Smith and Bancroft have form as a news-conference double act. It was the same pair who lampooned Jonny Bairstow's 'headbutt' after the first Ashes Test in Brisbane.
It is quite an effort to pull off a second memorable performance, but this time for quite different reasons.
On the one hand, it can be said they should be applauded for facing the music right away. They came clean, rather than choosing to hide. They admitted what they did was wrong and promised it would never happen again.
But did they have much choice? The evidence against Bancroft was overwhelming, played and replayed not only on TV, but on big screens inside the ground, causing him to "panic", in his own words.
Once Bancroft was in the dock, it was only right Smith joined him. It would have been grossly unfair to ask a team-mate or coach to explain what happened on their behalf.
Both men said the attempt to alter the ball did not work because the umpires did not opt to change it. If that was offered as a defence, Smith followed up by saying Australia had made a "poor choice".
In amongst the contrition came the most pertinent question - were they sorry they had cheated, or sorry they had been caught?
"If we weren't caught, I'd still feel incredibly bad about it," said Smith, who also insisted it had never happened before.
When that was put to Stuart Broad, the England pace bowler said he had seen no evidence of ball-tampering during the Ashes. He did wonder, though, why Australia, with such a talented pace attack, would need to move from the method that defeated his team 4-0.
"Look at the Ashes series we've just played, look through all of those Test matches and they reverse swing the ball sometimes in conditions you wouldn't expect the ball to reverse," said Broad.
"I don't understand why they've changed their method for this one game."
Did Cricket Australia go far enough with Smith and Warner?
Some have suggested Australia should have forfeited the match, but that was a fanciful notion that would have punished spectators for the actions of the players.
In the middle of a Test, it is hard to see what more Cricket Australia could have done. Indeed, there is an argument to say that, from the other side of the world and without all the facts, CA was hasty in even acting so soon, but the weight of public opinion forced its hand.
For Smith, though, to be temporarily replaced as skipper by wicketkeeper Tim Paine midway through a Test is a remarkable fall from grace.
Little more than two months ago, he was the toast of the nation, having batted England into submission in the Ashes, held the urn aloft in Sydney and then been named Australian of the Year by The Australian newspaper.
Now he is a clinging to a role often referred to as the second most important job in Australia, behind that of the prime minister, by his fingernails. And even PM Malcolm Turnbull has expressed his outrage.
Before Smith was removed as skipper for the third Test, Cricket Australia chief executive James Sutherland would only go as far as to say the batsman was "currently" the captain.
The likes of Kevin Pietersen, Simon Katich and government agency the Australia Sports Commission have called for Smith to go, while predecessor Michael Clarke has said he would be open to returning to the job "if asked by the right people".
Former wicketkeeper Adam Gilchrist said Australian cricket is the "laughing stock" of the sporting world.
"I'm stunned and shocked, embarrassed and sad," he told BBC Radio 5 live.
Are Australia out of control?
It may be a stretch to say the men in baggy green caps have gone feral, but this is the latest and most serious violation of an unwritten cricketing moral code that Australia claim to adhere to.
Cast your mind back to the Ashes and talk of "the line" - the mythical barrier which separates what is acceptable on a cricket field to what is not. Australia insisted it was not crossed, but some English voices disagreed.
It seems a moveable line. Take Warner as an example. Never short of a word, all is fair game until Proteas wicketkeeper Quinton de Kock fires back with comments that cross "the line", resulting in ugly scenes during the first Test in South Africa.
The series has been played in an unpleasantly hostile atmosphere and nobody can condone the reported comments from some fans towards Warner or any Australian player about their wives, partners or families.
However, it seemed a little rich for Lehmann to be complaining when, before the 2013-14 Ashes, he asked the home supporters to "give it" to Broad in the hope he "cries and goes home".
And what of the perceived hounding of South Africa captain Faf du Plessis when he was accused of ball-tampering on his side's last tour of Australia? Or when England's James Anderson faced similar claims in December?
It has been suggested the tension of this series has played a part in pushing Smith and his team towards this error of judgement.
Still, what goes around comes around, and sympathy for Australia will not run deep.
"They've set themselves as this higher than high, pious team who look down at everyone and set the benchmark for what is right and what is wrong in cricket," said former England off-spinner Graeme Swann.
"Everyone that's played against them knows that's an absolute joke." | http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/43535282 | rt_cricket_43535282 |
|
BBC game challenges young people to spot "fake news" - BBC News | 2018-03-15 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Young people can play the role of a newsroom journalist, making their own decisions on what is true or false in the new BBC iReporter interactive game. | Family & Education | The iReporter game can be used by pupils in lessons and complements English and citizenship
Can you separate the fact from the fiction?
The new interactive BBC iReporter game - aimed at youngsters aged 11 to 18 - gives you the chance to take on the role of a journalist in the BBC newsroom.
It is a "choose your own adventure" game, created by Aardman Animations, which challenges you to make your own decisions on which sources, political claims, social media comments and pictures should be trusted as you contribute to the day's news output.
Which should be published, which should be checked and which should be discarded?
The game is part of a BBC initiative to help young people identify false stories by giving students and teachers resources to use in classrooms across the UK.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. An introduction to different types of fake and false information
The resources also look at the issues of trust. In an era when people get their information from a much wider range of sources, how do young people gain confidence in deciding what they should trust?
Hints and tips on how to spot false information on social media and online are included, as well as lesson plans for teachers to use in school.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. A guide to help you decide which sources to trust and which not to
The BBC has also teamed up with the Centre for Argument Technology at the University of Dundee to create the "Evidence Toolkit" - a programme aimed at 16-to-18-year-olds.
It combines complex algorithms and archive material from BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze to help students identify the claims made and the reasoning in any news article and how the two are connected.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. If you want to be sure a story is right, check the evidence.
Professor Chris Reed, director of the centre, said: "Dissecting news articles to determine their anatomy and figure out how they're working is a delicate business.
"The Evidence Toolkit equips users with a set of razor-sharp tools to go about it."
John Lawrence, lead developer on the project, explained: "The Toolkit employs state-of-the-art artificial intelligence techniques for argument mining. This is the first time AI has been unleashed on understanding the reasoning in news articles."
Amol Rajan is the BBC's media editor and was previously editor of the Independent newspaper.
Let me tell you how I decide whether or not I can trust a news source. First of all, have they shown a commitment to accuracy over a long period of time? Have they consistently got things right?
And the second thing - which is related - is: do they admit when they get things wrong? You know, if you put your hand up and say 'Sorry, I made an error, there were factual mistakes in the piece that we published', then people like me are much more likely to believe you when you say another time that you got things right.
Numbers are often used to tell all sorts of stories too. They can help show the scale of a particular problem or issue, illustrating whether it's big or small.
In this short animation you'll learn how just because a number looks big doesn't mean it really is and that a really small number might turn out to be much bigger than it first appears.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. When looking at news stories remember to take a close look at what the numbers are doing
A BBC Live Lesson on sorting fact from fiction aimed at pupils aged 11 to 14 and complements both citizenship and English school curriculums is also available is also available to watch online here.
Presented by BBC Breakfast's Naga Munchetty, who will introduce experts from HuffPost UK and the independent fact-checking organisation Full Fact.
All the more online resources and lessons plans. are available for teachers and educators via www.bbc.co.uk/realnews | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/school-report-43391188 | news_school-report-43391188 |
|
Inspector Darren McKie guilty of wife's murder - BBC News | 2018-03-23 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Det Con Leanne McKie, 39, was found strangled in Poynton Lake, Cheshire, in September. | Manchester | This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Darren McKie tried to use his police knowledge to cover his tracks
A police inspector has been found guilty of murdering his wife and dumping her body in a lake.
Darren McKie, 43, denied murdering his wife Leanne but admitted manslaughter towards the end of his trial.
Mrs McKie, 39, a detective constable, was found strangled in Poynton Lake in Cheshire on 29 September.
Jurors at Chester Crown Court deliberated for almost two days before reaching a majority verdict. McKie will be sentenced on Tuesday.
The couple, who both worked for Greater Manchester Police (GMP), had financial problems and owed more than £100,000, the court heard.
They had appeared to be a "perfect family" but were really living "well beyond their means", prosecutors said.
The father-of-three, who had 20 years of police service, strangled his wife after she discovered he had made a joint application for a £54,000 loan without her consent.
Leanne and Darren McKie both worked for Greater Manchester Police
McKie had forged his wife's signature repeatedly, using her warrant number and wage documents for the application, the jury heard.
Prosecutor Nigel Power QC told the court: "What produced the argument that led to her death was that he'd been found out in committing serious criminal offences."
The court heard McKie had left work at Stretford police station abruptly at about 11:30 GMT on the day of his wife's death, after receiving a text message from her revealing she had discovered the loan application.
Mr Power said McKie then "determinedly strangled his wife to death", involving significant force for at least a minute.
Leanne McKie's body was found in shallow water in Poynton Lake
In the hours that followed, the inspector showed a surveyor into his home and was said to have laughed with parents on the school run.
Police believe Mrs McKie's body was either under the stairs or in the boot of their car when the surveyor arrived.
He was twice spotted walking towards Wilmslow, where the family lived, by patrol officers in the hours before Mrs McKie's body was discovered in shallow water at Poynton Lake.
During the second sighting, at 02:15 GMT, the officers noticed he was not wearing shoes.
His trainers were later found in a wheelie bin with traces of his wife's blood on them, as well as soil from the lake area.
In his closing speech, Mr Power said the inspector went on to play a "game of cat and mouse" with police.
Darren McKie, pictured arriving at Chester Crown Court during his trial
Mckie tried to cover his tracks by not carrying his mobile phone in an attempt to prevent police tracing his movements.
He also sent text messages to his wife's phone in the hours after her death, and showed "no emotion" in police custody.
The jury rejected McKie's defence barrister's suggestion that the killing had not been intentional and was a "terrible, terrible mistake".
Det Supt Aaron Duggan, who led the investigation, said: "This is a very tragic case, we have got three children here who have been left without a mother - and sadly also a father - because of his actions.
"I think he has completely distanced himself from the reality of what he has done. I think it's very very sad that he's waited until all the evidence has been presented before he has admitted his guilt.
"We can't lose sight of the fact that it has involved two police officers but we haven't treated the case any differently because of that."
McKie's trainers were found in a wheelie bin with traces of his wife's blood on them
Det Insp Adam Waller said McKie had "used the knowledge gained as a police officer to try and systematically cover his tracks" with the aim of creating the impression that his wife had been murdered by somebody else.
"He is a coward and refused to admit responsibility for his actions throughout," he said.
In a statement, Mrs McKie's family said "justice had been served" but there were "no winners in this trial".
"Our lives will never be the same again. We have lost our beautiful daughter and our grandchildren have lost their beloved mummy," they added.
GMP Deputy Chief Constable Ian Pilling said the force had "lost a colleague and much-loved friend".
He added: "Leanne was a hard-working officer who showed the utmost professionalism. She worked as a detective in the serious sexual offences unit and supported victims when they were at their most vulnerable."
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-43493327 | news_uk-england-manchester-43493327 |
|
Alfie Evans: Decision to remove life support upheld by judge - BBC News | 2018-03-06 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The Court of Appeal rules doctors can stop treating seriously ill 21-month-old Alfie Evans. | Liverpool | Alfie is in a "semi-vegetative state" and has a mystery illness
The parents of a seriously ill toddler have lost their appeal against a High Court decision to end his life support.
A judge ruled last month that doctors at Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool can stop treating 21-month-old Alfie Evans against the wishes of his parents Kate James and Tom Evans.
They want to take him abroad for treatment for his mystery illness but doctors said it would be "futile".
Judges at London's Court of Appeal said they could appeal at the Supreme Court.
Alfie's parents, from Bootle, Merseyside, were not at the hearing in London but Mr Evans said afterwards he would challenge the decision at the Supreme Court.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Tom Evans says: "Alfie's not ready so we're not ready to let go"
He said: "Some people might think why didn't they just end it there?
"But how can you end it when you've got a two-year-old boy who's fighting as hard as you could ever picture him.
"At this moment, Alfie's not ready so we're not ready to let go."
Alfie is in a "semi-vegetative state" and has an undiagnosed degenerative neurological condition.
Announcing the decision at the Court of Appeal, Mrs Justice King said Alfie's parents were "unable to accept what movements in Alfie they see are not positive responses".
Medical evidence showed that Alfie was "deeply comatose" and "to all intents and purposes unaware of his surroundings", she said.
Mrs Justice King said Alfie's father wanted to move him to a hospital in Rome then, if necessary, to a hospital in Munich.
She added he was passionate and wanted to "fight on with Alfie's Army" but she said he had "no clear plan".
Alder Hey Children's Hospital said in a statement: "Today the Court of Appeal upheld the judgement from the High Court that continued active treatment is not in Alfie's best interest.
"We understand that this is a very difficult time for Alfie's family and we will continue to work with them to agree the most appropriate palliative care plan for Alfie."
Mr Justice Anthony Hayden said following a hearing at Liverpool Civil and Family Court he accepted medical evidence that showed further treatment was "futile" and gave doctors permission to provide palliative care only for Alfie.
The hospital was set to withdraw ventilation on 23 February before his parents challenged the decision.
Alfie's parents want to take him to a hospital in Rome
Mrs Justice King said Mr Justice Hayden had considered all evidence presented to him and he "could not have done more to ensure father and mother had every opportunity to express their views and have them taken into consideration".
She said his approach had been gentle and he could not have given the couple greater respect.
But she said the best interests of the child had to prevail.
She added he had been "meticulous and thorough" and had weighed all arguments raised.
Barrister Stephen Knafler QC, who is leading Alfie's parents' legal team, had said "the state" had wrongly interfered with "parental choice".
He said Alfie's parents wanted to move him to the Vatican-linked Bambino Gesu Paediatric Hospital in Rome but Mr Justice Hayden's ruling had prevented them from doing that.
Alfie's parents have until 16:00 GMT on Thursday to put a formal request to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision.
An appeal by the parents of Isaiah Haastrup - a severely disabled boy at the centre of a life-support treatment dispute in London - has been dismissed at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43302765 | news_uk-england-merseyside-43302765 |
|
BBC game challenges young people to spot "fake news" - BBC News | 2018-03-16 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Young people can play the role of a newsroom journalist, making their own decisions on what is true or false in the new BBC iReporter interactive game. | Family & Education | The iReporter game can be used by pupils in lessons and complements English and citizenship
Can you separate the fact from the fiction?
The new interactive BBC iReporter game - aimed at youngsters aged 11 to 18 - gives you the chance to take on the role of a journalist in the BBC newsroom.
It is a "choose your own adventure" game, created by Aardman Animations, which challenges you to make your own decisions on which sources, political claims, social media comments and pictures should be trusted as you contribute to the day's news output.
Which should be published, which should be checked and which should be discarded?
The game is part of a BBC initiative to help young people identify false stories by giving students and teachers resources to use in classrooms across the UK.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. An introduction to different types of fake and false information
The resources also look at the issues of trust. In an era when people get their information from a much wider range of sources, how do young people gain confidence in deciding what they should trust?
Hints and tips on how to spot false information on social media and online are included, as well as lesson plans for teachers to use in school.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. A guide to help you decide which sources to trust and which not to
The BBC has also teamed up with the Centre for Argument Technology at the University of Dundee to create the "Evidence Toolkit" - a programme aimed at 16-to-18-year-olds.
It combines complex algorithms and archive material from BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze to help students identify the claims made and the reasoning in any news article and how the two are connected.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. If you want to be sure a story is right, check the evidence.
Professor Chris Reed, director of the centre, said: "Dissecting news articles to determine their anatomy and figure out how they're working is a delicate business.
"The Evidence Toolkit equips users with a set of razor-sharp tools to go about it."
John Lawrence, lead developer on the project, explained: "The Toolkit employs state-of-the-art artificial intelligence techniques for argument mining. This is the first time AI has been unleashed on understanding the reasoning in news articles."
Amol Rajan is the BBC's media editor and was previously editor of the Independent newspaper.
Let me tell you how I decide whether or not I can trust a news source. First of all, have they shown a commitment to accuracy over a long period of time? Have they consistently got things right?
And the second thing - which is related - is: do they admit when they get things wrong? You know, if you put your hand up and say 'Sorry, I made an error, there were factual mistakes in the piece that we published', then people like me are much more likely to believe you when you say another time that you got things right.
Numbers are often used to tell all sorts of stories too. They can help show the scale of a particular problem or issue, illustrating whether it's big or small.
In this short animation you'll learn how just because a number looks big doesn't mean it really is and that a really small number might turn out to be much bigger than it first appears.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. When looking at news stories remember to take a close look at what the numbers are doing
A BBC Live Lesson on sorting fact from fiction aimed at pupils aged 11 to 14 and complements both citizenship and English school curriculums is also available is also available to watch online here.
Presented by BBC Breakfast's Naga Munchetty, who will introduce experts from HuffPost UK and the independent fact-checking organisation Full Fact.
All the more online resources and lessons plans. are available for teachers and educators via www.bbc.co.uk/realnews | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/school-report-43391188 | news_school-report-43391188 |
|
Spy row stokes Labour's foreign policy divisions - BBC News | 2018-03-16 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The Labour leader faces a balancing act over the reaction to the Skripal poisoning in Salisbury, says Laura Kuenssberg. | UK Politics | Mr Corbyn's foreign policy views are a cause for discomfort among some in his party
Like every intriguing spy story, there is a thrilling sub-plot, with its own twists and turns.
In this real life case, the political sub-plot in the Labour Party has just taken another one.
Yesterday, Jeremy Corbyn, for the second time this week, upset many of his own MPs who were concerned about the tone and attitude that he was taking towards the awful events in Salisbury.
For many of his internal critics, what they see as a hesitance to pin the blame on Russia, hits a raw nerve - their discomfort at Mr Corbyn's long-held beliefs on foreign policy, and concerns that he has allowed himself to be too close, or seen to be too close to some causes, and to be accused of picking the wrong international friends.
And there was particular concern about the comments of Mr Corbyn's official spokesman, a crucial member of his team, who in a briefing to journalists yesterday referred not just to the case of the Skripals but to problems with the intelligence over Weapons of Mass Destruction and Iraq.
The feeling among many Labour MPs was frankly: now is not the time to make those kinds of arguments.
Now is, they would say, the time to stand alongside the government. This is not, many argue, a party political issue, but an issue of national security.
Whether there is specific direct proof that there was Russian state involvement in the attack or not, the majority of MPs in the House of Commons agree that there is enough evidence and a pattern of behaviour that make this an appropriate moment to take some diplomatic moves against the Putin regime.
While not opposing those specific actions, Mr Corbyn's tone and reaction to those moves have cracked open Labour's political truce.
His comments have stoked worries about the leader's foreign policy views that have been one of the sources of division in the Labour Party since he became its top pick.
And worries that sometimes give rise to a crude interpretation by the Conservative Party, accusing him of being a "sympathiser" to Russia.
Sergei Skripal, 66, and his daughter Yulia, 33, remain in a "critical but stable" condition
That is, of course, completely disputed by his team. Mr Corbyn has many times criticised Mr Putin's record on human rights.
They balk at any suggestion whatsoever that he is somehow on Russia's "side". And for the Labour leader's tight top team, it is entirely logical that he should be calling at least for a pause, before rushing to judgement in this case on what exactly has happened.
Moreover, for the Labour leader's legions of supporters, it is precisely his willingness to question the political orthodoxy that is part of his appeal.
In that way, it is entirely logical for him to double down in an article for The Guardian that he wrote this afternoon, invoking the mistakes over intelligence on Iraq, calling on people not to rush to judgement before arriving at any verdicts when it comes to the Skripal poisoning.
It is quite a balancing act. The tradition in UK politics, rightly or wrongly, is that the two main parties stick together on foreign policy, as much as possible.
But indeed, one of Mr Corbyn's appeals to many of his supporters, is that he rejects that idea of bipartisanship when it comes to our relations around the globe.
He and his close team believe that he was right on issues like Iraq and Afghanistan and that in a moment like this, it is vital to ask questions.
However for some in his own party in Westminster, this time, it's a cause for concern and regret.
Rightly or wrongly, the majority of MPs including Labour front benchers, are satisfied with the government's explanation so far that the intelligence points to Russian involvement. The majority view, is that Russia's response and pattern of behaviour suggests that it is proper to assign the blame.
Yet, in its most simple terms, the Labour leader is not yet willing to point the finger directly.
But many in his party are ready to make that choice. And for the Labour Party this crisis has exposed again the divisions inside. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43424301 | news_uk-politics-43424301 |
|
Are 'cryonic technicians' the key to immortality? - BBC News | 2018-03-16 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Freezing the deceased in the hope of one day reviving them could become a mainstream service, advocates say. | Business | Technology is changing the way we work and the jobs we do. Will artificial intelligence and robots relieve us of humdrum tasks, making our working lives easier, or will they take our jobs away altogether? As part of our Future of Work series, we look at the cryonics technicians - who are trying to help their clients cheat death.
Are you open minded about the future? Do you have a medical background and can you complete tasks under time pressure?
Are you comfortable working in the presence of a dead body?
This is not the job description for a Victorian grave snatcher.
Instead, it's the ideal attributes of a cryonics technician; someone who preserves the bodies of the recently deceased in the hope they will one day be revived.
Advocates describe it as an "ambulance to the future". They say that as medical science develops, these technicians could become a common sight in our hospitals, purporting to offer believers a second chance at life.
However, most highly doubt it will work.
Cryonics seeks to freeze someone after they have legally died in order to keep their body and mind as undamaged as possible. This aims to buy the patient time until future medical science can bring them back to life, and cure them of whatever it is they died from.
Second chance? Cryonics attempts to protect the body from decay by storing it at extremely low temperatures
As soon as the patient dies, the clock is ticking to start the procedure. The heart has stopped pumping and the brain is no longer receiving oxygen, meaning within minutes it will lose the ability to make new memories, and soon after that the cells will begin to die.
This means the technician must get to work immediately after the individual is declared legally dead, cooling their body in an ice bath in order to slow down the process of degeneration.
BBC News is looking at how technology is changing the way we work, and how it is creating new job opportunities.
After this blood is drained from the body and replaced with cryoprotectant agents - similar to antifreeze - in an attempt to stop ice crystals forming in the blood cells.
The body is then placed in a storage tank and brought down to the temperature of liquid nitrogen (-196C) in an attempt to preserve the organs and tissue.
While cryonics has been practised since the 1970s, only the US and Russia actually have small storage facilities.
In the US state of Michigan, the Cryonics Institute has about 2,000 living people signed up, and 165 patients who have already gone through the process.
Dennis Kowalski is a paramedic by training, which he says is a perfect fit for the cryonics procedure
Dennis Kowalski is the institute's president and performs some of the cryonic procedures. By day, he is a paramedic.
"The training to become a paramedic is perfect to become a standby in cryonics," he says.
"You also need someone with a funeral director's licence (because you are still legally handling dead bodies), experience running a perfusion pump, and basic surgical skills."
The Cryonics Institute is a co-operative with just three full-time members of staff, but Mr Kowalski thinks this will grow as medical science evolves.
So far just 5,000 people around the globe have signed up but the numbers are growing so funeral homes may start to offer this as an option, he says.
"Artificial intelligence, genetic modification, stem cell engineering - all these fields are vindicating what we are doing, which is giving people the greatest opportunity possible."
Dr Anders Sandberg has elected to have his head cryonically preserved after death, even though he puts the chance of revival at only 3%
One of the 5,000 is Dr Anders Sandberg, a senior research fellow at Oxford University's Future of Humanity Institute.
He is on the board of the Brain Preservation Foundation and has elected to have only his head preserved after death, even though he estimates a success rate of just 3%.
Like Mr Kowalski, he argues the skills needed to become a cryonics technician are already in use in many medical professions.
"Right now cryonics feels a little too cold or impersonal and it relies on the admission that it is uncertain, but I do think it will grow.
"In the future, wouldn't having a cryogenicist at the hospital make sense? When you do heart or brain surgery you lower the body temperature to buy more time and I imagine that over time we will start doing more low temperature surgery.
"This is a job that you might want to do if you started out as a nurse or a perfusion specialist. It would not be a big leap from a technical standpoint, only from a social one, as it's using arguments from within medicine.
"There's a lot of resistance to overcome but from a practical perspective it makes sense and might save us from a lot of wasteful medicine."
Although they sound similar, cryonics and cryogenics are viewed very differently by the scientific community.
Cryonics specifically relates to the preservation of the human body after death. Most supporters of the process admit they do not know if or when the technology will exist to revive people, or whether the techniques used to prepare the body for storage will have worked.
Cryogenics has many applications in present day medicine, and can be used in stem cell research
Cryogenics, on the other hand, has many applications in today's society. It involves the freezing of matter at temperatures of -150C or lower. In medicine, this includes the freezing of embryos, eggs, sperm, skin, and tissue in order to preserve them for future use.
Clive Coen, professor of neuroscience at King's College, London, suggests applying validated cryogenic techniques to the brain or whole body is doomed to failure.
That's because the application of antifreeze during the preservation process fails to reach all of the brain, and it would be impossible to defrost each part of the body at the same time, he says
"Advocates of cryonics are naive in comparing their wishful thinking with the successes achieved in storing loosely packed cells - such as sperm - at low temperatures.
"And they shouldn't forget that any resuscitation process that isn't instantaneous will merely set the process of decay running again."
Cryogenicists are currently working on freezing other organs
But Prof Coen says cryogenics is an exciting field ripe for expansion.
Although the brain is far too complex, cryogenicists are currently working on freezing other organs. This could revolutionise the process of transplantation, which would no longer have to take place immediately.
"People are tremendously hard at work in this field trying to store organs such as the kidney, and even the heart on a long term basis. That would be a tremendous boon to our health and wellbeing," Prof Coen says.
"But a whole body? Forget it."
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43259902 | news_business-43259902 |
|
Reality Check: Brexit can be win-win for UK and Europe, says Theresa May - BBC News | 2018-03-02 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | What were the key passages in Theresa May's big speech on Brexit at the Mansion House? | UK Politics | Theresa May has delivered her long-awaited speech on Brexit, giving more details of what she wants from the UK's future trade arrangements with the European Union.
Here are some of the key lines from the speech.
There was a time when government ministers were suggesting that this was going to be the easiest negotiation in history.
That rhetoric has gone. The prime minister suggested that there would be difficult days ahead, and inevitable points of disagreement.
The bottom line is that Mrs May still intends to take the UK out of the single market and the customs union.
But she emphasised that both sides stand to gain from the successful negotiation of a new partnership, whereas the EU still sees Brexit not as a win-win but as a lose-lose.
After the uproar of the past couple of days, the prime minister decided that she needed to address Northern Ireland early on.
It was a re-statement of what was agreed last December - no hard border with the Republic, but no customs border with the rest of the UK either.
The trouble is there wasn't much detail about how that circle can be squared. Later in the speech she did speak about the use of technology at the border and a streamlined customs arrangement or even a new-style customs partnership (but not a customs union).
Scepticism about the UK position in Dublin, and elsewhere in Europe, won't have eased all that much.
Yes, the prime minister says to the EU, you have a point - we can't just pick off the good bits (although there will be those who argue that she tries to do just that later in the speech).
But there was an honest appraisal here of the "hard facts" - notably that market access will be less than it is now, and that the UK will still have to take account, in some respects, of the rulings of the European Court of Justice.
It was a realistic appraisal of where any successful negotiation is likely to end. On the other hand, the prime minister insisted that the UK will still want to demonstrate that it has taken back control of its money, its border, and its laws.
There's nothing wrong with being ambitious, but there will be those who point out that the broadest and deepest possible partnership anywhere in the world today is enshrined in the EU's single market and customs union.
It was striking in this speech how much of the current relationship Mrs May wants to keep - staying close, for example, to EU regulatory agencies, to environmental and consumer protection laws, and to EU policies on state aid and fair competition.
But the prime minister also reserved the right to diverge from EU policies where necessary. In Brussels and elsewhere, that will still be seen as cherry-picking, and will be unacceptable to EU negotiators who are determined to protect the integrity of the single market.
This was important. A bonfire of EU regulations is not going to happen. And if the UK can successfully negotiate a new model of associate membership of EU agencies, that regulate chemicals, pharmaceuticals and the aviation industry, large sections of UK business will breathe a sigh of relief.
Mrs May offered to pay for access to these agencies, and much of the expertise the EU relies upon is based in the UK. But there will still be disagreements about judicial oversight and the role of the European Court of Justice.
It is another reminder of how much there is to negotiate in an extraordinarily short period of time, and why a transition period after Brexit will be so important.
Mrs May called for a bold and creative agreement on services - a sector of over-riding importance to the UK economy.
She mentioned two sectors in particular - broadcasting and financial services - that have never been properly covered in a free trade agreement before.
Her argument is a familiar one - restricting access in all areas of economic activity will hurt you as much as it hurts us.
She spoke of the UK and the EU maintaining the same regulations over time while accepting there would be "consequences" (loss of market access) if the UK chose a different path.
On the one hand, it doesn't sound like "ambitious managed divergence" and that may not be acceptable to some supporters of Brexit in the UK.
On the other hand, it does mean the UK sticking to some EU rules and not others - and that will not be acceptable in other capitals around Europe.
Or as the prime minister said in her speech: "This is a negotiation and neither of us can have exactly what we want."
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43258480 | news_uk-politics-43258480 |
|
Theresa May speech: Were the facts hard enough? - BBC News | 2018-03-02 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The prime minister gave more details of her Brexit plans - but were they enough? | UK Politics | Yes, it was a long speech. Yes, the prime minister added a layer of detail to her Brexit plans.
Yes, there were nuggets in there about how the negotiations might proceed, including, without much fanfare, what seemed to be a statement that the EU commission would help to find a solution the Irish border question, one of the most vexed of all.
Yes, it did not provide encyclopaedic levels of information about exactly what the UK would propose. Yes, there were holes, only a few paragraphs on the biggest bit of the UK economy, services. Yes, there are still fundamental contradictions in the UK position.
And yes, the Tory infighting of recent weeks that's simmered down today will return at the next moment of decision. One senior Tory told me we might have given up on cake and eating it, ''but we're now asking for half the cake''.
And there was nothing today that suddenly revealed a real change in the government's thinking. That gives her critics cause for concern, and EU sources are emollient, rather than immediately won over.
But the message that Theresa May wanted, and arguably needed to get across, was way beyond any of the detailed arguments that lead the Tory party, the EU, or both, down a cul-de-sac. This was not intended to be the final word.
What the prime minister endeavoured to do instead was to say to the EU, let's do a deal. It won't be easy, I'm confessing to my party and the public that I won't get everything they want, but I get it, and now, after everything that's happened, let's talk.
It is legitimate of course to ask why it has taken so long for the prime minister to put that forward. Well, the EU didn't want to talk about trade initially, wanting to sort out the cash first of all.
And there have always been internal suspicions of her aims in the Tory party that have made moving forward extremely fraught. Her survival has been contingent.
But some of this comes down to the prime minister, fond of asking for more and more briefing, more and more alternatives and discussion in committees, who is reluctant to do anything in a hurry. In the coming days much will be written along the lines of ''what took her so long''?
The hope in No 10 is that the EU will welcome her newly pragmatic admission that we can't, after all that cake, really have it all. And importantly, after a fevered bout of internal jockeying, Theresa May today has been willing to tell both wings of her party they will have to compromise.
Adding some detail to her approach she more firmly than before told Brexiteers they can't dictate all the terms. And there was a message to Conservative Remainers too that she won't back down on her central intentions to leave the single market and customs union.
And for today, it seems enough. Both sides in the Tory tug-of-war have welcomed her carefully phrased lines. But accepting warnings of coming compromises is not the same as swallowing them when they happen.
If, and likely when, the European Union pushes back her proposal, Theresa May's 'hard facts' will become harder choices for the Conservative Party.
But today, she was a leader in an almost impossible political position straining to show what might just work. Politics is about principle, yes, but first and foremost what is possible. No 10 hopes that today, the prime minister will have shown the EU that is something she understands. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43265458 | news_uk-politics-43265458 |
|
Storm Emma: It's -4C outside yet some homeless people are choosing street over shelter - BBC News | 2018-03-02 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Homeless people tell us about what it is like to sleep outside during extremely cold weather. | UK | Tim has a green cover over his tent in an effort to hide it from passers-by
Tim, 22, has been calling a snowy field beside a motorway in north-west London home for the past two years.
He lives in a tent that struggles to stay still against the wind on this bitterly cold night. He has an old duvet to keep himself warm and a green tarpaulin to remain as inconspicuous as possible.
The sub-zero weather that has swept across the UK has not helped his plight.
Tim sleeps rough in a field next to this motorway
When temperatures fall below freezing, local authorities have a duty to provide emergency shelter for anyone who is sleeping rough.
Tim is standing on the frosty ground in his bare feet. He appears to have frost and snow in his hair.
"I think it's mould to be honest. I haven't got anywhere to shower, so that's how it's become unfortunately."
Tim was standing on the ground in his bare feet in -4°C
Tim is one of the 4,751 people estimated to be sleeping rough in England, according to government figures. That is 15% more than last year.
He says his local council has refused to offer him housing, as it believes he has made himself intentionally homeless. Tim says he has been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, a condition that makes it difficult for him to live with other people.
"I've lived in house-shares before and have fallen out with people. They say that's my own fault."
Alan is a 42-year-old military veteran who has been sleeping rough for four years.
He says he copes with the cold by turning to alcohol: "I have a drink now and again… I don't do needles - I can show you my arms if you want. I don't deal with that rubbish. I just drink. It just gets me to sleep."
His hands tremble violently as he attempts to roll a cigarette.
"I would love to have a night in a shelter," says the former Army man, who went on to work as, among other things, a window cleaner. But he points out that when temperatures edge above zero again, he would be back out on the streets.
He previously rejected homeless shelters because of the violence.
"It's rife because no-one's managing these things properly. I've been told by a lot of homeless people you're probably better off out here than you are in there."
Alan says he usually chooses to sleep in doorways because he doesn't like to bother people.
He's aware of the risks and mentions the homeless man who, last month, was found dead in Westminster, central London.
"Of course I am frightened of dying. I'm not worried about being attacked, the only thing that's going to hurt me is the weather."
Many rough sleepers become used to their situation and refuse help, support workers say
Even during extreme weather rough sleepers are afraid of accepting support, says Jamie Shovlin, an assistant support worker at homeless charity Thames Reach.
"Some people get used to the streets - we call it entrenchment. They're committed to the streets, it's what they know.
"The longer they're out, the more difficult it is to convince them to come off the streets because what you're going to be able to offer them is not necessarily going to be what they want, [or] what they expect."
Mr Shovlin and his colleagues spend the nights during extreme weather seeking out homeless people who are often referred to them by members of the public, and convincing them to visit a shelter.
This process takes time and even sub-zero temperatures or the risk of death is not enough to convince many homelesss people that they want to receive help.
"They might have entered into a similar situation previously and had a bad experience, so you're offering them an unknown situation, whereas their current argument would be they know how to deal with the streets," he says.
Eventually, Mr Shovlin manages to convince Alan to come with him to a nearby shelter.
He insists that he is fine and that -4°C is manageable.
"It's quite cold but I'm all right because I've got a duvet, and that helps a lot."
Alan and Tim's names have been changed.
Sorry, your browser cannot display this map
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43230787 | news_uk-43230787 |
|
Sex abuse victim 'vindicated' after High Court win - BBC News | 2018-03-02 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Three women groomed into sex work as teenagers, fought for the right to not reveal their convictions. | UK | Three women, who say they were groomed into prostitution as teenagers, have won a High Court battle which means they will not have to tell future employers about their soliciting.
Fiona Broadfoot said it was a disgrace that she had carried these convictions, while no men who had "bought and used" her had faced any consequences.
The Home Office said it was considering the court's decision.
Ms Broadfoot, one of the claimants who waived her anonymity in this case, said it had been a long fight, but "worth it".
"Finally, I feel like a weight has been lifted off my shoulders - it's a vindication," she added.
The women successfully argued that the disclosure of convictions for working in the sex trade many years ago was disproportionate and a breach of their Article 8 Human Rights - the right to a private life.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Fiona Broadfoot spoke to the BBC's Today programme before the ruling, about why her convictions for soliciting have stopped her from moving on
The ruling would bring about real change for sex trade survivors "who should never have been criminalised in the first place", their lawyer Harriet Wistrich said.
Ms Broadfoot, who said she was a child when first put on the streets, said she had carried "eight pages" of convictions all her life.
The judgment means that any convictions for soliciting will now be "filtered out" when it comes to DBS checks - although how this will be done is still to be determined.
This Twitter post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser. View original content on Twitter The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Skip twitter post by nia This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Twitter’s cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
The ruling was welcomed by the founding leader of the Women's Equality Party, Sophie Walker, who credited the "hard work and bravery" of Ms Broadfoot.
Ms Wistrich also praised her clients' "courage and determination".
"Unfortunately, the court were not persuaded by our argument that the practice discriminates against women or is in breach of duties with regard to trafficked women," she said. "We will be seeking permission to appeal in relation to those broader points."
A Home Office spokesperson said: "The protection of children and other vulnerable groups remains a key priority of this government and the Disclosure and Barring scheme is a vital part of these efforts." | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43261021 | news_uk-43261021 |
|
Will May's big Brexit speech move things on? - BBC News | 2018-03-02 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Theresa May will try to show the EU that her aims are credible and to bring the UK together in her big speech. | UK Politics | Fed up with the same old arguments? Feel like every day's news is a repeat of the clashes between Leave and Remain from 2016?
Surely not, readers of this blog, who, I'm sure, trace every twist and turn with enormous enthusiasm? (OK, maybe not every single day).
Well, on Friday, cabinet ministers and Number 10 hope that it will feel like things are finally moving on.
After more than a year of the UK government being accused of aiming for an unrealistic shopping list from Brussels, hoping for lots of cake and eating every last crumb, on Friday - to employ the exhausted metaphor - a member of the Cabinet told me it will feel like "Theresa May being honest with the public", complete with some "hard truths".
For the prime minister there are two priorities.
Can Mrs May persuade the EU that she "gets it"?
The first, to show the European Union that what she wants is credible, that despite all the Tory infighting, the different demands from various factions in her party, that she gets it.
"We know what we want and we understand your principles, we have a shared interest in getting this right," she'll say.
For months on the EU side there has been hunger for more acknowledgement from the UK that we cannot have everything and keep all the benefits of the EU membership that we fancy, with none of the cost.
To that end, I understand that there will be much more than just language that promises a sense of realism but detail, including proposals potentially to keep associate membership of various European agencies in sectors of the economy like aviation or the pharmaceutical industry.
One minister said: "We will have to abide by the rules to get maximum access" to the markets.
Politically that's impossible for Theresa May at home, without the other element of what sound like increasingly detailed proposals: The right to do our own thing after Brexit, and have that assurance spelt out explicitly when we leave.
It's expected the prime minister will outline more clearly her proposals for a system of independent arbitration so that the UK is no longer subject to the direct judgements of the European Court.
She will, it's said, rule out a situation where the UK has to follow EU law with no say, as a simple "rule taker".
We would theoretically therefore, have the right to choose not to be bound by EU rules where it doesn't suit.
There are still huge questions over whether this whole approach is acceptable to the EU at all. The broad aim of "managed divergence" has been pushed back many times.
But an admission from Theresa May that she won't get things all her own way could start to shift the dial.
With the EU's tone hardening in recent days, insiders say the UK needs to show some of the government's red lines can fade to pink, if there is to be real progress in the talks.
Will there be anything like the level of detail, or potential compromise spelled out that Brussels wants?
Will Mr Barnier's team suddenly determine that the UK's approach is now workable?
It is unlikely, surely, that one speech can suddenly transform the situation.
But senior figures in government are hopeful this will be a step forward, even if it is "incremental", as one minister described it, that can get the wheels moving again.
At the Cabinet meeting on Thursday every member present was invited to chip in their views, and Theresa May indicated that she would go away and perhaps make some final tweaks to the script.
What won't change, even if a few of the phrases are sharpened or softened up, is the second priority she is trying to achieve.
Alongside the message to the EU, is a message to the country.
Don't expect new solutions to the Irish border, in the PM's speech
It's not just in the Conservative Party that the debate over Brexit has been brutal. Whether online or in real life, the tone has often been ugly, words and accusations hurled around like confetti, MPs being sent death threats, a passionate coarseness to the debate.
Surely for most people, however they voted, that's not just divisive and unpleasant, but a total turn-off.
In the speech therefore, the prime minister will try to bring the country together, to move on from those important, but tired arguments between Leave and Remain.
I'm told she'll emphasise her commitment to the union too, and you're unlikely to lose a bet if you guess that she'll evoke her first big speech on the steps of Downing Street, her hope to use the referendum as a moment for bigger social change for the country.
There is a danger of course with any "big speech", that has been much anticipated, much discussed before a word has been uttered.
Can it live up to its billing? Will it be heard as the prime minister intends it?
Don't expect any new details or solutions to the Irish border, or the clamour for the customs union.
The EU and Theresa May's opponents may well still feel irked that she has not untangled what they see as contradictions.
But Number 10 hopes the speech will make a difference, and allow the fraught negotiations to move to the next phase.
• None Tusk asks May for 'better' border idea | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43250039 | news_uk-politics-43250039 |
|
Manchester United 2-1 Tottenham Hotspur - BBC Sport | 2018-04-21 | None | Manchester United reach a record-equalling 20th FA Cup final with victory over Tottenham at Wembley. | null | Last updated on .From the section FA Cup
Ander Herrera's winner sent Manchester United into a record-equalling 20th FA Cup final and condemned Tottenham to their eighth successive defeat at this stage of the competition.
Spurs started at a ferocious pace and fully deserved the early lead they took after only 11 minutes when Dele Alli slid home a finish from Christian Eriksen's cross after Davinson Sanchez's long pass opened up Manchester United's defence.
Jose Mourinho's side survived the siege and levelled on 24 minutes, Wembley specialist Alexis Sanchez rising to direct an athletic header across Spurs keeper Michel Vorm from Paul Pogba's perfect cross for his eighth goal in eight appearances at the stadium.
Eric Dier's deflected shot hit the post on the stroke of half-time but Spurs had lost vital momentum and Herrera's crisp low finish just after the hour set up an FA Cup final date for United with Chelsea or Southampton on 19 May.
It left Spurs suffering more FA Cup semi-final pain and with a losing sequence stretching back to their win in the last four against Arsenal here in 1991 - and Pochettino still without a trophy after four seasons at the club.
• None Man Utd v Tottenham: How you rated the players
• None Analysis: 'Tottenham will be accused of choking until they prove otherwise'
Manchester United's style has been criticised on a number of levels this season - but the character and resilience in Jose Mourinho's side is beyond question.
In recent weeks alone, they have come from behind to beat Chelsea at Old Trafford then recovered from 2-0 deficits to win at Crystal Palace and, most notably, at Premier League champions Manchester City.
And they needed to call on all those reserves in the face of an opening salvo from Spurs that was fierce in its intensity and pressing, as well as bringing that opening goal from Dele Alli.
United held on, with moments of good fortune, and grasped the lifeline that came with a cheap concession of possession from Spurs, a perfect cross from Paul Pogba and an athletic header from Sanchez to beat Michel Vorm in the 24th minute.
Spurs were still left cursing their luck when Eric Dier's shot deflected off Chris Smalling to hit the foot of the post - and when ruthlessness and a clinical edge was required it was United who provided it.
It came courtesy of Ander Herrera's low finish and gave United an advantage they never seriously looked like relinquishing.
Mourinho, now on course for another trophy after lifting the League Cup and Europa League in his first season at Manchester United last term, prides himself on his ability to inject the strengths winners require into his players.
And his Manchester United players showed that at Wembley.
Tottenham must wonder when they will ever win another FA Cup semi-final - or indeed be rewarded with a trophy for all the obvious fine work manager Mauricio Pochettino has done.
This was their eighth successive FA Cup semi-final defeat, the longest sequence of losses in the history of the competition and stretching back to the victory over Arsenal at the old Wembley in 1991.
And as expectations rise and Pochettino's side progresses, so those losses get more painful and this will feel as bad as any others coming after the way they also lost here to Chelsea 12 months ago.
The usual "Spursy" argument will be made - the team that somehow never gets across the line - and there will come a point when this undoubtedly talented side must back up the bouquets it gets with actual trophies, the true currency of success.
Pochettino's side flew out of the blocks but simply could not put United away and there was an air of desperation and frustration about their work once Herrera put Mourinho's side in front and time started to ebb away.
Questions must also be asked of Pochettino's decision to persist with Michel Vorm in goal and keep first-choice Hugo Lloris on the bench. It is harsh to place defeat solely at Vorm's door but he certainly could have done better with Herrera's winner.
Harry Kane could not find his usual sure touch and Son Heung-min, superb this season, had one of those days when nothing went right.
The wait goes on without a trophy for both Spurs and Pochettino, who has now had four full seasons at the club.
It is something they must change soon to shed the tag of the team that always falters with the finishing line in sight.
Alexis Sanchez has struggled to make a serious impact since his January switch from Arsenal to Manchester United - but the Chilean showed perfect timing to demonstrate his class on the Wembley stage he loves.
When he showed great strength and athleticism to direct Pogba's cross back across Vorm for that vital equaliser, it was Sanchez's eighth goal for club and country at Wembley in eight appearances.
Sanchez is also still on course for a third FA Cup win, having won the trophy twice previously at Arsenal, scoring in victorious finals against Aston Villa and Chelsea.
Here, this was Sanchez at his best - busy, dangerous, revelling in the fight and making the crucial contribution that has become his Wembley trademark.
Eyebrows were raised when Mourinho ignored the pace of Anthony Martial and Marcus Rashford in his starting line-up - but he was rewarded with the industry of Jesse Lingard, Romelu Lukaku and Sanchez - with the latter delivering a man-of-the-match performance.
What they said - manager reaction
Manchester United manager Jose Mourinho, speaking to BBC Sport:"We deserve it. If we split the match into periods we were the best team for many of these periods. Even when they had the ball when we were winning we were totally in control.
"We lost control after the 1-0. At half-time we spoke - we came back late for the second half because we spoke a lot - and organised ourselves.
"We should ask ourselves why there are too many critics on all of us? We can finish second [in the Premier League] by getting six points. To do that with all the fantastic teams we play against will be an achievement for a club that couldn't do it for a few years now.
"And it will be a fourth final in three years. So, maybe too much criticism."
Tottenham boss Mauricio Pochettino, speaking to BBC Sport:"I think every defeat is bad. It's difficult to accept but of course we are disappointed we are out and cannot achieve the final.
"We competed but not enough to win. We dominated the first half and were much better than Manchester United.
"United defended very well and so deep. We are disappointed because we are so close. We need to think, move on, finish the season and try to finish in the top four.
"I think we need to understand where we have come from. It's easy to talk about winning trophies.
"To win a trophy when you face a side like Manchester United, Chelsea or Manchester City is not easy. But the most important thing is we are able to compete."
• None The Red Devils have reached the FA Cup final in two of the last three seasons, having failed to reach the showpiece in eight consecutive seasons previously.
• None Tottenham have not lost a single Premier League game in which they have led this season, but have now been eliminated from their three other competitions this season in games in which they took the lead (2-3 v West Ham in the League Cup, 1-2 v Juventus in the Champions League).
• None Spurs also extended their record run of consecutive FA Cup semi-final defeats to eight, last winning one in 1991.
• None Romelu Lukaku has been directly involved in 14 goals in his last 12 FA Cup appearances (12 goals, two assists), including seven in five for Manchester United.
• None Manchester United midfielder Paul Pogba has now recorded 12 assists in all competitions this season - twice as many as he registered last season.
• None Christian Eriksen has had a hand in 10 goals in his last six FA Cup appearances for Spurs (three goals, seven assists).
• None Manchester United midfielder Ander Herrera has scored in each of his last two FA Cup games, as many as he had in his previous 15 in the competition.
• None Jose Mourinho has reached his sixth major domestic final in England (two FA Cup, four League Cup), winning each of his previous five.
• None Attempt blocked. Victor Wanyama (Tottenham Hotspur) right footed shot from outside the box is blocked. Assisted by Erik Lamela.
• None Delay over. They are ready to continue.
• None Delay in match Nemanja Matic (Manchester United) because of an injury.
• None Ander Herrera (Manchester United) is shown the yellow card for a bad foul.
• None Attempt missed. Victor Wanyama (Tottenham Hotspur) header from very close range is too high. Assisted by Erik Lamela with a cross following a set piece situation.
• None Attempt missed. Lucas Moura (Tottenham Hotspur) right footed shot from outside the box is high and wide to the right. Assisted by Dele Alli.
• None Marcus Rashford (Manchester United) has gone down, but that's a dive. Navigate to the next page Navigate to the last page | http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43762296 | rt_football_43762296 |
|
Facebook's Zuckerberg fires back at Apple's Tim Cook - BBC News | 2018-04-03 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Mark Zuckerberg says it is "extremely glib" to suggest Facebook does not care about its users. | Technology | Mr Zuckerberg has seen shares in his company fall steeply since the start of the Cambridge Analytical scandal
Facebook's chief executive has defended his leadership following criticism from his counterpart at Apple.
Mark Zuckerberg said it was "extremely glib" to suggest that because the public did not pay to use Facebook that the firm did not care about them.
Last week, Apple's Tim Cook said it was an "invasion of privacy" to traffic in users' personal lives.
And when asked what he would do if he were Mr Zuckerberg, Mr Cook replied: "I wouldn't be in that situation."
Facebook has faced intense criticism after it emerged that it had known for years that Cambridge Analytica had harvested data from about 50 million of its users, but had relied on the political consultancy to self-certify that it had deleted the information.
Channel 4 News has since reported that at least some of the data in question is still in circulation despite Cambridge Analytica insisting it had destroyed the material.
Mr Zuckerberg was asked about Mr Cook's comments during a lengthy interview given to news site Vox about the privacy scandal.
He also acknowledged that Facebook was still not transparent enough about some of the choices it had taken, and floated the idea of an independent panel being able to override some of its decisions.
Mr Cook has spoken in public twice since Facebook's data-mining controversy began.
Tim Cook had said he would not have let himself be in Mr Zuckerberg's current situation
On 23 March, he took part in the China Development Forum in Beijing.
"I think that this certain situation is so dire and has become so large that probably some well-crafted regulation is necessary," news agency Bloomberg quoted him as saying in response to a question about the social network's problems.
"The ability of anyone to know what you've been browsing about for years, who your contacts are, who their contacts are, things you like and dislike and every intimate detail of your life - from my own point of view it shouldn't exist."
Then in an interview with MSNBC and Recode on 28 March, Mr Cook said: "I think the best regulation is no regulation, is self-regulation. However, I think we're beyond that here."
During this second appearance - which has yet to be broadcast in full - he added: "We could make a tonne of money if we monetised our customer, if our customer was our product. We've elected not to do that... Privacy to us is a human right."
Apple makes most of its profits from selling smartphones, tablets and other computers, as well as associated services such as online storage and its various media stores.
This contrasts with other tech firms whose profits are largely derived from advertising, including Google, Twitter and Facebook.
Facebook's reputation has been tarnished by the Cambridge Analytica revelations
Mr Zuckerberg had previously told CNN that he was "open" to new regulations.
But he defended his business model when questioned about Mr Cook's views, although he mentioned neither Apple nor its leader by name.
"I find that argument, that if you're not paying that somehow we can't care about you, to be extremely glib and not at all aligned with the truth," he said.
"The reality here is that if you want to build a service that helps connect everyone in the world, then there are a lot of people who can't afford to pay."
He added: "I think it's important that we don't all get Stockholm syndrome and let the companies that work hard to charge you more convince you that they actually care more about you, because that sounds ridiculous to me."
Mr Zuckerberg also defended his leadership by invoking Amazon's chief executive.
"I make all of our decisions based on what's going to matter to our community and focus much less on the advertising side of the business," he said.
"I thought Jeff Bezos had an excellent saying: "There are companies that work hard to charge you more, and there are companies that work hard to charge you less."
Elsewhere in the 49-minute interview, Mr Zuckerberg said he hoped to make Facebook more "democratic" by giving members a chance to challenge decisions its own review team had taken about what content to permit or ban.
Eventually, he said, he wanted something like the "Supreme Court", in which people who did not work for the company made the ultimate call on what was acceptable speech.
Mr Zuckerberg also responded to recent criticism from a UN probe into allegations of genocide against the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar.
Hundreds of thousands of Rohingya Muslims have fled Myanmar
Last month, one of the human rights investigators said Facebook had "turned into a beast" and had "played a determining role" in stirring up hatred against the group.
Mr Zuckerberg claimed messages had been sent "to each side of the conflict" via Facebook Messenger, attempting to make them go to the same locations to fight.
But he added that the firm had now set up systems to detect such activity.
"We stop those messages from going through," he added.
"But this is certainly something that we're paying a lot of attention to."
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43619410 | news_technology-43619410 |
|
Apple Watch provides murder case clues - BBC News | 2018-04-03 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Motion and heart rate data from a smartwatch has been presented in court as part of a murder trial. | Technology | Police in Australia have presented data gathered from an Apple Watch as evidence in a murder trial.
Grandmother Myrna Nilsson was wearing the device when she was killed in 2016.
Her daughter-in-law Caroline Nilsson is accused of staging an ambush, after claiming she was tied up by a group of men who entered the house.
But data from the victim's smartwatch suggests that she was ambushed as she arrived home, and died hours earlier than Ms Nilsson claims.
Ms Nilsson told police that her mother-in-law had been followed home by a group of men in a car.
According to ABC News, Ms Nilsson said her mother-in-law had argued with the men outside the house for about 20 minutes, but she did not hear the fatal attack because she was in the kitchen with the door closed.
A neighbour called the police when Ms Nilsson emerged from the house gagged and distressed after 22:00.
Ms Nilsson says the attackers had tied her up and that she had made her way out of the house as soon as they had left.
But prosecutor Carmen Matteo said evidence from the victim's smartwatch suggested Ms Nilsson had staged the home invasion.
The body of 57-year-old Myrna Nilsson was found in the laundry room of her home in Valley View, Adelaide, in September 2016.
"The evidence from the Apple Watch is a foundational piece of evidence for demonstrating the falsity of the defendant's account to police," said Ms Matteo.
"A watch of this type… contains sensors capable of tracking the movement and rate of movement of the person wearing it... it also measures the heart rate."
The prosecution alleged that the watch had recorded data consistent with a person going into shock and losing consciousness.
"The deceased must have been attacked at around 6:38pm and had certainly died by 6:45pm," she said.
"If that evidence is accepted, it tends to contradict the accused's version of an argument occurring between the deceased and these men outside the laundry for a period of up to 20 minutes.
"Her emergence from the house was well after 10:00pm and if the Apple Watch evidence is accepted, that is over three hours after the attack on the deceased."
Magistrate Oliver Koehn denied Ms Nilsson bail based on the "apparent strength of the prosecution's case". The trial will continue in June. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43629255 | news_technology-43629255 |
|
Conservationists use astronomy software to save species - BBC News | 2018-04-03 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Researchers use astronomical techniques used to study distant stars to survey endangered species. | Science & Environment | Elephants are easier to spot from the heat they give off.
Researchers are using astronomical techniques used to study distant stars to survey endangered species.
The team of scientists is developing a system to automatically identify animals using a camera that has been mounted on a drone.
It is able to identify them from the heat they give off, even when vegetation is in the way.
Details of the system were presented at the annual meeting of the European Astronomical Society in Liverpool, UK.
The idea was developed by Serge Wich, a conservationist at Liverpool John Moores University, and Dr Steve Longmore, an astrophysicist at the same university. He says that the system has the potential to greatly improve the accuracy of monitoring endangered species and so help save endangered species.
"Conservation is not only about the numbers of animals but also about political will and local community supporting conservation. But better data always helps to move good arguments forward. Solid data on what is happening to animal populations is the foundation of all conservation efforts".
Astronomers routinely identify the size and age of stars from infrared images. Now the technique is being used to identify animals
Currently, conservationists estimate numbers of endangered species by physically counting them or the signs they leave.
This is an inexact science, as the animals can be in areas inaccessible to observers. Further problems can arise if species have migrated to another area since the previous census. Signs of their presence, such as abandoned nests, rely on assumptions such as the number of animals that share the nest and the frequency with which the species build and abandon their nests.
The process is time consuming, expensive and inaccurate. So Dr Wich developed a system to monitor them using infrared cameras mounted on drones.
Trials at Chester Zoo and Knowsley Safari Park showed that the system could pick up animals on the ground from the heat they gave off, even through tree cover.
Each species has its own unique pattern of heat distributed accross its body.
But the problem was that they couldn't always identify the species - especially when they were far away. Dr Wich needed a system that could identify different species from their heat signatures.
He explained his problem to his neighbour, Dr Steve Longmore, while chatting over the fence. The neighbour was an astronomer and he explained that he knew someone who identified the size and age of far away stars from their heat signatures.
"I collaborated with quite a few people during my career but astrophysicists were not on my list of potential collaborators," Dr Wich told BBC News.
"But here we are. It shows how the serendipity of how science works."
Conservationist Serge Wich tests out his system in South Africa
Dr Wich worked with astrophysicist Dr Claire Burke, also at Liverpool John Moores University. She told BBC News that her work in identifying the most massive galaxies in the Universe from the light they emit helped her devise software that could identify different types of animal from the pattern of the heat they give off.
Each species, she said, has distinct warmer and colder areas that are unique.
"When we look at animals in the thermal infrared, we're looking at their body heat and they glow in the footage. That glow is very similar to the way that stars and galaxies in space glow," Dr Burke explained.
"So we can apply techniques and software used in astronomy for decades to automatically detect and measure this glow".
The system can also give information about the health of animals. If an animal is injured then that part of the animal's body will be glowing brighter than the rest. Similarly, diseased animals also have a different heat profile, according to Dr Burke.
"The real advantage this gives you is that if you know how many animals you have and where they are and what kind of health they are in, then you can you can formulate a good conservation strategy for looking after them," she said.
"And if you can track them as well, then you can tell what they need to survive and thrive and this helps us. If, for example, we needed to relocate animal because its habitat was being destroyed then you would know better what it needed to be relocated to."
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43546429 | news_science-environment-43546429 |
|
Does Theresa May need MPs to approve UK action in Syria? - BBC News | 2018-04-13 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Ben Wright on the politics of one of the hardest judgements a prime minister has to make. | UK Politics | This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. The US president has said "nothing's off the table" - so what options are on the table?
As Theresa May weighs up what role - if any - the UK should have in military action against Syria, the question of parliamentary approval will need addressing. So far this week the prime minister has side-stepped it.
Much will depend on the scale and timing of the missile strike the United States seems poised to launch in response to the apparent chemical weapons attack last week.
Theresa May certainly could agree to launch UK missiles from a Royal Navy submarine or RAF jets without MPs giving the green light first. Because, while the recent practice has been for governments to win the backing of parliament before UK military action it is only a convention to do so and a recent one at that.
In March 2003 the Blair government's move to secure the approval of MPs in advance of the Iraq invasion was the first time the decision to go to war had been given to parliament. That established a precedent that has been followed since and Theresa May will be acutely aware of how events played out.
Of most relevance today is the Commons vote David Cameron held in August 2013 on a motion agreeing to potential UK military action against President Assad in Syria following the use of chemical weapons.
MPs were recalled from their summer recess, a debate was held and the government lost the division by 13 votes. Labour opposed the motion but so did 30 Tory MPs and 9 Lib Dems - who were then part of the coalition.
The vote was a political and diplomatic disaster for David Cameron and the US had to shelve its plans for military action. Five years on, there is no chance Theresa May will risk a re-run of that. If she does seek parliamentary approval she will only do so if she knows she can get it.
Mrs May might find other votes more encouraging.
For instance, in 2011 the Commons voted overwhelmingly in favour of military action in Libya by 557 to 13. Crucially, that vote came soon after UK, US and France carried out air strikes against the Libyan forces to enforce a UN-mandated no-fly zone. MPs are currently away on recess and there is no sign a parliamentary recall is brewing.
So if the UK does decide to take part in US-led action in Syria it is possible MPs are asked to vote after the missiles have been launched.
Two other votes are relevant. In September 2014 MPs voted by 524 to 43 to sanction UK air strikes against Islamic State forces in Iraq. In December 2015 David Cameron returned to the Commons to seek authorisation to extend the strikes against IS into Syrian territory. Jeremy Corbyn instructed Labour MPs to vote against the motion but 66 of his own MPs, including front benchers, voted with the government and the motion was passed by 397 votes to 223.
So how might House of Commons arithmetic add up if Theresa May took a new motion to MPs asking them to approve military action against President Assad now? Remember, Parliament has never given its backing to military action against the Syrian government, only to air strikes against Islamic State forces based in the country.
Clearly a lot would depend on the wording and scope of the motion.
While there is cross-party revulsion at the apparent use of chemical weapons in Syria many MPs are likely to have concerns about the ramifications that could follow military action, not least a possible confrontation with Russia.
Unlike David Cameron, Theresa May is running a minority government with a working majority of just 13. All votes are potentially dicey. Of those 30 Tory MPs who voted against military action in 2013, 23 are still in the Commons.
It is almost impossible to imagine Jeremy Corbyn instructing his MPs to vote for air strikes. But it is also a safe bet a section of the parliamentary Labour Party would ignore him again.
These are some of the political considerations Theresa May will be mulling over.
Jeremy Corbyn has already said parliament must have a vote. Parliament "should always be given a say on any military action", he said on Wednesday.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
The Iraq vote in 2003 set a precedent and the UK's experience of the conflict that followed frames this argument. But it is not parliament's right to decide when Britain goes to war.
The ability for a prime minister to take military action is one of their royal prerogatives. A government is allowed to use that power on behalf of the Crown.
Over the last decade or so ministers have thought about introducing legislation that would enshrine that convention in law but the idea of a War Powers Act has always been abandoned.
Governments do not want to surrender their power to deploy Britain's armed forces and they don't want their hands tied by parliament.
In the end, Theresa May will have to make a political judgement. One of the hardest a prime minister can face. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43731390 | news_uk-politics-43731390 |
|
Cliff Richard case: BBC had 'strong reasons' to name singer - BBC News | 2018-04-25 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | BBC director of news, Fran Unsworth, tells a High Court the story was in the public interest. | UK | The BBC's director of news and current affairs has said there were "strong reasons" to name Sir Cliff Richard during a police inquiry into him.
Fran Unsworth told the High Court that while the story would cause "distress" to Sir Cliff, it was "in the public interest."
Sir Cliff is suing the BBC for naming him and broadcasting helicopter footage of police searching his home in 2014.
He says broadcasting the images was a "very serious invasion" of privacy.
Sir Cliff, 77, who denied an historic sexual assault allegation, was not arrested or charged as the result of the South Yorkshire Police investigation.
Giving evidence on Wednesday, Ms Unsworth - who was then deputy director of BBC News - told Mr Justice Mann: "I was aware it would cause serious distress to Sir Cliff, but I had to weigh up the public interest consideration."
Sir Cliff's barrister, Justin Rushbrooke QC, asked about the consideration of the "indelible stain" such an allegation would leave on Sir Cliff's character.
"It certainly occurred (to me) this was a fairly momentous thing we were doing with a high profile person concerned, but there were strong reasons the BBC should do this," Ms Unsworth replied.
She added that there were "strong public interest arguments" in naming suspects who were part of a police investigation.
She told the court that defamation was the "most significant legal issue".
"We were concerned about privacy impact, but I thought that was an editorial matter as opposed to a legal matter," she added.
Fran Unsworth was deputy director of BBC news at the time of the coverage
Asked whether helicopter footage showing the inside of Sir Cliff's home was intrusive, Ms Unsworth said that Sir Cliff was not in the property and that "shots were of policemen and quite blurred".
Ms Unsworth did not accept it was disproportionately intrusive, adding: "It would be impossible to broadcast it without it being an enormous story. "
She did, however, say use of live footage "was a mistake".
She told Judge Mann the justification of using a helicopter was "the inability to record it pictorially effectively any other way".
Ms Unsworth said it was the first time the BBC had named an individual before arrest in connection with a minor.
"We understood he would have been arrested if at the property," she added.
Questioned on the BBC's decision to report the investigation, Ms Unsworth said: "We had firm information given to us by South Yorkshire Police...
"My instincts tell me that had it emerged that the BBC had chosen to ignore that story in full knowledge of it, the public audiences would have had questions about our role... it would have looked potentially as though we were not covering this story because Sir Cliff was a high profile individual."
She added: "I thought it surprising South Yorkshire Police had given this level of access and I thought that was worth showing the public."
Ms Unsworth said the BBC did receive criticism for naming Sir Cliff after the coverage.
Judge Mann also heard from another witness, Joanne Beattie, a former press officer for South Yorkshire Police.
She confirmed she rang BBC News reporter Dan Johnson the day before the search, to tell him it was being carried out the following morning in Berkshire.
Sir Cliff has said the coverage "smeared" his name. He is suing the BBC over the misuse of private information and breaking data protection rules.
The BBC disputes his allegations and says the BBC report on the police inquiry was in the public interest.
In 2014 South Yorkshire Police searched Sir Cliff's flat in Sunningdale, Berkshire while investigating an allegation the singer sexually assaulted a boy under the age of 16 in Sheffield in 1985.
In June 2016 it was announced he would not face any charges.
South Yorkshire Police has settled its own case with Sir Cliff by paying him £400,000 and argues that the BBC should pay a share of this because its actions were "far more causative of the damage suffered". | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43892359 | news_uk-43892359 |
|
Manchester United 2-1 Tottenham Hotspur - BBC Sport | 2018-04-22 | None | Manchester United reach a record-equalling 20th FA Cup final with victory over Tottenham at Wembley. | null | Last updated on .From the section FA Cup
Ander Herrera's winner sent Manchester United into a record-equalling 20th FA Cup final and condemned Tottenham to their eighth successive defeat at this stage of the competition.
Spurs started at a ferocious pace and fully deserved the early lead they took after only 11 minutes when Dele Alli slid home a finish from Christian Eriksen's cross after Davinson Sanchez's long pass opened up Manchester United's defence.
Jose Mourinho's side survived the siege and levelled on 24 minutes, Wembley specialist Alexis Sanchez rising to direct an athletic header across Spurs keeper Michel Vorm from Paul Pogba's perfect cross for his eighth goal in eight appearances at the stadium.
Eric Dier's deflected shot hit the post on the stroke of half-time but Spurs had lost vital momentum and Herrera's crisp low finish just after the hour set up an FA Cup final date for United with Chelsea or Southampton on 19 May.
It left Spurs suffering more FA Cup semi-final pain and with a losing sequence stretching back to their win in the last four against Arsenal here in 1991 - and Pochettino still without a trophy after four seasons at the club.
• None Man Utd v Tottenham: How you rated the players
• None Analysis: 'Tottenham will be accused of choking until they prove otherwise'
Manchester United's style has been criticised on a number of levels this season - but the character and resilience in Jose Mourinho's side is beyond question.
In recent weeks alone, they have come from behind to beat Chelsea at Old Trafford then recovered from 2-0 deficits to win at Crystal Palace and, most notably, at Premier League champions Manchester City.
And they needed to call on all those reserves in the face of an opening salvo from Spurs that was fierce in its intensity and pressing, as well as bringing that opening goal from Dele Alli.
United held on, with moments of good fortune, and grasped the lifeline that came with a cheap concession of possession from Spurs, a perfect cross from Paul Pogba and an athletic header from Sanchez to beat Michel Vorm in the 24th minute.
Spurs were still left cursing their luck when Eric Dier's shot deflected off Chris Smalling to hit the foot of the post - and when ruthlessness and a clinical edge was required it was United who provided it.
It came courtesy of Ander Herrera's low finish and gave United an advantage they never seriously looked like relinquishing.
Mourinho, now on course for another trophy after lifting the League Cup and Europa League in his first season at Manchester United last term, prides himself on his ability to inject the strengths winners require into his players.
And his Manchester United players showed that at Wembley.
Tottenham must wonder when they will ever win another FA Cup semi-final - or indeed be rewarded with a trophy for all the obvious fine work manager Mauricio Pochettino has done.
This was their eighth successive FA Cup semi-final defeat, the longest sequence of losses in the history of the competition and stretching back to the victory over Arsenal at the old Wembley in 1991.
And as expectations rise and Pochettino's side progresses, so those losses get more painful and this will feel as bad as any others coming after the way they also lost here to Chelsea 12 months ago.
The usual "Spursy" argument will be made - the team that somehow never gets across the line - and there will come a point when this undoubtedly talented side must back up the bouquets it gets with actual trophies, the true currency of success.
Pochettino's side flew out of the blocks but simply could not put United away and there was an air of desperation and frustration about their work once Herrera put Mourinho's side in front and time started to ebb away.
Questions must also be asked of Pochettino's decision to persist with Michel Vorm in goal and keep first-choice Hugo Lloris on the bench. It is harsh to place defeat solely at Vorm's door but he certainly could have done better with Herrera's winner.
Harry Kane could not find his usual sure touch and Son Heung-min, superb this season, had one of those days when nothing went right.
The wait goes on without a trophy for both Spurs and Pochettino, who has now had four full seasons at the club.
It is something they must change soon to shed the tag of the team that always falters with the finishing line in sight.
Alexis Sanchez has struggled to make a serious impact since his January switch from Arsenal to Manchester United - but the Chilean showed perfect timing to demonstrate his class on the Wembley stage he loves.
When he showed great strength and athleticism to direct Pogba's cross back across Vorm for that vital equaliser, it was Sanchez's eighth goal for club and country at Wembley in eight appearances.
Sanchez is also still on course for a third FA Cup win, having won the trophy twice previously at Arsenal, scoring in victorious finals against Aston Villa and Chelsea.
Here, this was Sanchez at his best - busy, dangerous, revelling in the fight and making the crucial contribution that has become his Wembley trademark.
Eyebrows were raised when Mourinho ignored the pace of Anthony Martial and Marcus Rashford in his starting line-up - but he was rewarded with the industry of Jesse Lingard, Romelu Lukaku and Sanchez - with the latter delivering a man-of-the-match performance.
What they said - manager reaction
Manchester United manager Jose Mourinho, speaking to BBC Sport:"We deserve it. If we split the match into periods we were the best team for many of these periods. Even when they had the ball when we were winning we were totally in control.
"We lost control after the 1-0. At half-time we spoke - we came back late for the second half because we spoke a lot - and organised ourselves.
"We should ask ourselves why there are too many critics on all of us? We can finish second [in the Premier League] by getting six points. To do that with all the fantastic teams we play against will be an achievement for a club that couldn't do it for a few years now.
"And it will be a fourth final in three years. So, maybe too much criticism."
Tottenham boss Mauricio Pochettino, speaking to BBC Sport:"I think every defeat is bad. It's difficult to accept but of course we are disappointed we are out and cannot achieve the final.
"We competed but not enough to win. We dominated the first half and were much better than Manchester United.
"United defended very well and so deep. We are disappointed because we are so close. We need to think, move on, finish the season and try to finish in the top four.
"I think we need to understand where we have come from. It's easy to talk about winning trophies.
"To win a trophy when you face a side like Manchester United, Chelsea or Manchester City is not easy. But the most important thing is we are able to compete."
• None The Red Devils have reached the FA Cup final in two of the last three seasons, having failed to reach the showpiece in eight consecutive seasons previously.
• None Tottenham have not lost a single Premier League game in which they have led this season, but have now been eliminated from their three other competitions this season in games in which they took the lead (2-3 v West Ham in the League Cup, 1-2 v Juventus in the Champions League).
• None Spurs also extended their record run of consecutive FA Cup semi-final defeats to eight, last winning one in 1991.
• None Romelu Lukaku has been directly involved in 14 goals in his last 12 FA Cup appearances (12 goals, two assists), including seven in five for Manchester United.
• None Manchester United midfielder Paul Pogba has now recorded 12 assists in all competitions this season - twice as many as he registered last season.
• None Christian Eriksen has had a hand in 10 goals in his last six FA Cup appearances for Spurs (three goals, seven assists).
• None Manchester United midfielder Ander Herrera has scored in each of his last two FA Cup games, as many as he had in his previous 15 in the competition.
• None Jose Mourinho has reached his sixth major domestic final in England (two FA Cup, four League Cup), winning each of his previous five.
• None Attempt blocked. Victor Wanyama (Tottenham Hotspur) right footed shot from outside the box is blocked. Assisted by Erik Lamela.
• None Delay over. They are ready to continue.
• None Delay in match Nemanja Matic (Manchester United) because of an injury.
• None Ander Herrera (Manchester United) is shown the yellow card for a bad foul.
• None Attempt missed. Victor Wanyama (Tottenham Hotspur) header from very close range is too high. Assisted by Erik Lamela with a cross following a set piece situation.
• None Attempt missed. Lucas Moura (Tottenham Hotspur) right footed shot from outside the box is high and wide to the right. Assisted by Dele Alli.
• None Marcus Rashford (Manchester United) has gone down, but that's a dive. Navigate to the next page Navigate to the last page | http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43762296 | rt_football_43762296 |
|
Syria air strikes: Were they legal? - BBC News | 2018-04-14 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Legal justifications can be made, but do they stack up? Law Professor Marc Weller looks at the arguments. | Middle East | This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Missiles are launched from a ship in an unknown location and French Rafale jets take off
The justifications put forward by the US, UK and France for the air strikes in Syria have focused on the need to maintain the international prohibition against the use of chemical weapons, to degrade President Assad's chemical weapons arsenal and to deter further chemical attacks against civilians in Syria.
Prime Minister Theresa May argued that the UK has always stood up for the defence of global rules and standards in the national interest of the UK and of the organised international community as a whole.
However, in its formal legal defence of the operation issued some time later, the UK government rather emphasises the need to protect the population of Syria from further harm.
Legally, the claim to enforce international law on chemical weapons by violent means would return the world to the era before the advent of the UN Charter. The Charter allows states to use force in self-defence and, arguably, for the protection of populations threatened by extermination at the hands of their own government. The use of force for broader purposes of maintaining international security is also possible. However, such action is subject to the requirement of a mandate from the UN Security Council.
This arrangement tries to balance the need of states to preserve their security in the face of an actual or imminent attack through self-defence when strictly necessary with the need to ensure that force cannot be used as a routine tool of international politics. Hence, international law since 1945 precludes military strikes in retaliation - to teach other states a lesson, as it were - or by way of reprisal. Reprisals are acts that are in principle unlawful, but they can be excused because they aim to force a state back into compliance with its international obligations.
Hence, in 1981 Israel was condemned by the UN Security Council when it attacked the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq. Israel had argued that it might contribute to the production of weapons of mass destruction in the future. A US attack against an alleged chemical weapons facility in Sudan in 1998 in response to US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania was also criticised.
"Righteous power" in the words of President Trump - to deter "the production, spread and use of chemical weapons"
In this instance, the three states mounting the air strikes have taken it upon themselves to force Syria into compliance with its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Syria joined the Convention in 2013 as part of the diplomatic settlement that followed the failure of the UK, and the US, to go through with threatened air attacks after gruesome chemical attacks in Eastern Ghouta. The Convention prohibits the production, possession and use of chemical weapons. No fewer than 192 states have signed.
Syria was also subjected to additional duties contained in mandatory Security Council resolution 2118, reinforcing these obligations and providing for the destruction of its chemical weapons stockpile. In an impressive example of international co-operation, also involving Russia, this was largely achieved a year later, by September 2014.
However, since then, there have been some 40 recorded instances of alleged chemical weapons use in Syria. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has the ability to dispatch fact-finding missions to determine whether such weapons have actually been used.
A special joint mechanism was set up by the OPCW and the Security Council with a mandate to assign responsibility for such uses. However, after the mechanism pointed the finger at the Assad government last year, Russia vetoed its renewal.
An attempt to establish a new mechanism empowered to determine responsibility for the latest use of chemical weapons in Douma failed this week, again due to a Russian veto in the Security Council. Russia's own proposed investigatory mechanism, which was opposed by the Western states and others, would have lacked that power.
Supporters of President Assad were defiant after the air strikes
The three states intervening in Syria now argue that there was no prospect of obtaining a mandate from the Council to confront chemical weapons use by Syria. In striking Syria, they claim to have fulfilled an international public order function of defending the credibility of the prohibition of the use of chemical weapons in general terms, and enforcing Syria's obligations in particular.
This argument is somewhat reminiscent of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, supposedly to enforce Baghdad's disarmament obligations imposed by the Security Council in the absence of clear Security Council authorisation. Moreover, in April of last year, President Trump launched 59 cruise missiles against the Syrian air-base at Shayrat. It was claimed that the installation had been involved in a chemical attack in the town of Khan Sheikhun, again to restrain further chemical weapons use.
The blockage in the Security Council on Syria opens up some space for this kind of argument. The Chemical Weapons Convention provides for referral of grave instances such as the Douma attack to the Security Council for enforcement action. But the Council could not even agree on a mechanism to establish responsibility, not to speak of more decisive action to repress future uses of such weapons.
The claim of the three states involved to act instead of the Council, as the world's enforcement agent of a highly important international rule, is of course being resisted by some. Russia has already asserted that the attacks flagrantly violate the prohibition of the use of force. The UN secretary general has also emphasised the need to respect the primacy of the Security Council.
The arrogation of the functions of the Council by a group of states claiming to act in the common interest therefore reflects the reality of the present, little Cold War between Russia and the West. The breakdown of the consensus that facilitates the operation of collective security necessarily results in unilateral acts and, in consequence, further division.
In addition to the general interest in maintaining the obligation to refrain from chemical weapons use, Mrs May also referred to the protection of civilians from further chemical attacks to alleviate further humanitarian suffering. This, in fact, is a stronger and more persuasive legal argument in favour of the strikes.
In fact, the formal legal argument put forward by the UK government sometime after the prime minister addressed the nation does not rely on the claim to enforce the terms of the chemical weapons convention or of resolution 2118.
In 2013, when the use of force was expected after the Ghouta attack, the UK already expressly invoked the doctrine of humanitarian intervention. A good argument has been made that states can act in cases of overwhelming humanitarian necessity that cannot be addressed by any other means to protect populations in danger of imminent destruction.
The doctrine of forcible humanitarian action gained credence throughout the 1990s when it was applied to rescue the Kurds of northern Iraq and the Marsh Arabs in the south of Iraq from destruction by Saddam Hussein. It was later employed unopposed in cases including Liberia and Sierra Leone.
However, international division about its application emerged in the wake of the operation on behalf of the Kosovo Albanians of 1999.
Since then, the UN has embraced the concept that international action can be taken to rescue a population under immediate threat. However, the doctrine of responsibility to protect (R2P) was narrowed down to cover operations mandated by the Security Council. Still, a number of states claim a right to act when the Council cannot.
Innocent civilians at risk of destruction should not pay the price for a political blockage at UN headquarters in New York. Others, including Russia and China, oppose humanitarian intervention.
The application of this doctrine is not restricted to uses of chemical weapons against civilian populations. However, given the uncontrollable and indiscriminate effect of chemical weapons, their use against civilians offers perhaps the clearest trigger for the application of this doctrine.
In this instance, the UK points to the history of repeated uses of chemical weapons by the Syrian government, adding that it is "highly likely" that further such attacks would follow. Given the failure of previous attempts to rein in this practice, and the present blockage in the Security Council, it is argued that no means other than the use of force were available to secure the humanitarian objective of the operation.
Moreover, it is asserted the force used was strictly limited and specifically targeted at objects connected with the objective of degrading the capacity to launch future chemical attacks and deterring such attacks in the future. These arguments conform to the legal requirements for humanitarian intervention.
It could also be argued that the attacks aim to preserve the national security of the states involved in the attacks, by way of an extensive right to self-defence. Diluting the protection stemming from the prohibition of the use of chemical weapons in recent practice posed a threat to all states.
Of course, every state may defend itself, under some circumstances even before an armed attack aimed at it has landed on its territory. But the attack must be imminent, leaving no choice of means and the response must be proportionate to the attack.
In the run-up to the Iraq war of 2003, there was the famous 45-minute claim concerning Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction. Laying the ground for an argument of anticipatory self-defence against a strike that might come in the future, the UK argued that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction might reach UK military bases in Cyprus with minimum warning.
But there was no evidence that Baghdad was contemplating such an attack and the argument was abandoned. Similarly, there is no suggestion in this instance that Syria was preparing to launch an attack against the US, UK or France.
Marc Weller is Professor of International Law in the University of Cambridge and the editor of the Oxford University Press Handbook on the Use of Force in International Law. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43766556 | news_world-middle-east-43766556 |
|
Syria air strikes: Will West's attack sway Syria's Assad? - BBC News | 2018-04-14 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Double the firepower with new allies - but is it enough to stop Assad's chemical weapon use? | Middle East | This was a heavier strike than a year ago - three targets rather than one.
Then, the US acted alone; this time it was joined by its French and British allies.
More than double the number of weapons were fired against Syrian targets than last year - a little more than 120 in all.
But the fundamental question remains the same.
Was this enough to achieve what the Americans say was their goal - to deter President Bashar al-Assad from using chemical weapons again?
Since April a year ago Syria's torment has not ended. But two fundamental things have changed.
Firstly, the Assad regime has effectively won its war and terrorising civilians has played a key part in its strategy.
President Assad may not control all of Syrian territory. But backed by Russia and Iran, there is nobody that can really stand against him. It is shortages of manpower, equipment and capacity that prevent him re-establishing wider control.
Syrians wave Iranian, Russian and Syrian flags after the western strikes
Secondly, relations between Washington and Moscow - and between Russia and the West more generally - have deteriorated significantly, to the extent that senior international officials are now talking of a new Cold War.
This was the context in which President Trump determined to send his punitive message to the Assad regime. And this is the context in which they will have received it.
Will they be cowed or defiant? Will public bluster conceal a more fundamental re-think on the part of Mr Assad? Might Russia, whatever its spokesmen say, have a stern word with the Syrian leader? And if they did, would it have any effect?
Watching this crisis unfold from the United States, I found it both perplexing and in many ways worrying.
There seemed to be a lack of focus and clarity on the part of the Trump administration. Hardly surprising, perhaps, when the president himself was increasingly bogged down in his own domestic difficulties as allegations and recriminations about alleged past affairs and misbehaviour returned to haunt him.
At times he seemed more likely to strike out at the US justice system than at President Assad. Indeed over the past week, while much of the rest of the world worried about what Mr Trump might do about Syria, the media here has been dominated, absorbed and fascinated, in equal measure, by Mr Trump's difficulties almost to the exclusion of all else.
President Trump's rhetoric suggested a major military strike against the Assad regime. In the event what has taken place falls far short of that. So what conclusion might Moscow and Damascus draw?
The Pentagon seems to have gone out of its way to avoid both civilian and "foreign" casualties - for that read "Russians".
The three targets hit were chosen both for their central role in the chemical weapons programme but also because the risk of collateral damage was smallest.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff noted at a subsequent briefing that the US had a list of other targets which it did not choose to strike this time. The clear message is that if the Assad regime resorts to chemical weapons again then more strikes will follow.
But again, since last April there have been a number of other alleged chemical weapons attacks, generally using chlorine gas. But until now the US did not strike again. So what message did this send?
An explosion seen in the night sky over Damascus
Now the hope is that Mr Assad will change his behaviour. But what about the wider Syrian conflict? This brutal war shows no sign of ending. Many have pointed out that it is barrel bombs, artillery and bullets that are responsible for the overwhelming bulk of the deaths and mutilations in Syria, not chemical weapons, and yet it is these that prompt Western action.
There is a good measure of truth in this sentiment, though for historical and cultural reasons chemical weapons have a particular horror in the West in the wake of their use in World War One. The treaty banning them is an important disarmament agreement and its weakening threatens to unwind years of progress.
But the wider question is to what extent these latest strikes change the picture in Syria? Do they bring the conflict any closer to an end? Sadly the answer is almost certainly no.
Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis briefed the media after the strikes took place
Only a short while ago - much to his generals' horror - Mr Trump spoke about pulling all US troops out of Syria. Only days later he seemed to be threatening a major military intervention. There has been no consistency in the Trump administration's position.
There is simply no clear strategy to help bring the war to an end. Indeed one of the arguments for keeping US troops in Syria to bolster their local allies like the Kurds, was in fact to keep the Assad regime and its Iranian backers off-balance.
Constraining Iran is about the only unifying theme in the Trump administration's approach, but even this has not been raised to the level of a coherent strategy. In his statement after the strikes the President again asserted that the US was not seeking an indefinite presence in Syria.
His hope was clearly that as others shouldered the burden (who?) the US might walk away. But this was followed by a catch-all statement about the intractability of the region and its problems, which hardly suggests a desire for a long-term engagement.
If these are the signals coming from Washington, then why should Russia worry?
It has, through its military, and political support for the Assad regime, re-established itself as a significant diplomatic actor in the region. Russia, of course warned the US and its allies not to strike Syria. So in the wake of this attack what might Russia do?
In Syria itself, it might seek to further undermine Washington's already weak position but it is not going to war with the Americans - such fears, barring some extraordinary disaster, were always, probably, far-fetched.
US Defence Secretary James Mattis has already hinted at Russia's likely response noting that "we fully expect a significant disinformation campaign over the coming days by those who have aligned themselves with the Assad regime".
Indeed this campaign has in many ways already begun, with the Russians - who now have forces in the area where the recent chemical attack is alleged to have occurred - insisting first that there was no sign of a chemical attack and then, more recently, that the whole thing was staged by foreign agents to discredit Mr Assad and Moscow.
This is the same Russia that is accepted by most Western governments to have been behind the attempted assassination of a former Russian intelligence officer and his daughter in the English city of Salisbury, using a nerve agent. It is the same Russia that has tried to influence the US and other recent elections. It is President Putin's Russia that has seized part of Ukraine. One could go on. The misinformation battle has already been joined.
There is indeed a new sort of Cold War developing. It may not risk nuclear annihilation, but because of that it is in many ways more direct and unpredictable, with Moscow taking much greater risks than it might have done in the past.
Russia is not a global superpower like the Soviet Union. It no longer has an ideology that gathers support from liberation movements around the world. It is fundamentally a middle-ranking regional power with a significant nuclear arsenal and a relatively weak economy. But it knows how to wield influence and how to conduct information warfare. And Mr Putin is determined to defend Russia's interests - as he sees them - wherever he is able.
A missile destined for Syria is launched from a French vessel in the Mediterranean
Mostly this means in Russia's near-abroad, that is countries close to its borders that have been traditional Russian spheres of interest - such as Georgia or Ukraine. Syria is almost an honorary member of the near-abroad, affording Russia an entry point to regain its influence in a region that still matters. Russia's star is rising and Washington's influence is in many ways on the wane.
And this matters. For instability in the region is growing. The ripples from a previous US administration's decision to remove Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq are still spreading. Iran was the principal benefactor of that decision. It has become a formidable regional player.
Its growing influence in Syria risks a major conflict with Israel. Recently, Israel is believed to have struck at a Syrian base which was home to an Iranian facility.
Tensions are rising. The region's many fault-lines risk merging.
And the US, British and French attacks over-night have inevitably thrown another pebble into the pool. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43764344 | news_world-middle-east-43764344 |
|
Facebook's Zuckerberg fires back at Apple's Tim Cook - BBC News | 2018-04-04 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Mark Zuckerberg says it is "extremely glib" to suggest Facebook does not care about its users. | Technology | Mr Zuckerberg has seen shares in his company fall steeply since the start of the Cambridge Analytical scandal
Facebook's chief executive has defended his leadership following criticism from his counterpart at Apple.
Mark Zuckerberg said it was "extremely glib" to suggest that because the public did not pay to use Facebook that the firm did not care about them.
Last week, Apple's Tim Cook said it was an "invasion of privacy" to traffic in users' personal lives.
And when asked what he would do if he were Mr Zuckerberg, Mr Cook replied: "I wouldn't be in that situation."
Facebook has faced intense criticism after it emerged that it had known for years that Cambridge Analytica had harvested data from about 50 million of its users, but had relied on the political consultancy to self-certify that it had deleted the information.
Channel 4 News has since reported that at least some of the data in question is still in circulation despite Cambridge Analytica insisting it had destroyed the material.
Mr Zuckerberg was asked about Mr Cook's comments during a lengthy interview given to news site Vox about the privacy scandal.
He also acknowledged that Facebook was still not transparent enough about some of the choices it had taken, and floated the idea of an independent panel being able to override some of its decisions.
Mr Cook has spoken in public twice since Facebook's data-mining controversy began.
Tim Cook had said he would not have let himself be in Mr Zuckerberg's current situation
On 23 March, he took part in the China Development Forum in Beijing.
"I think that this certain situation is so dire and has become so large that probably some well-crafted regulation is necessary," news agency Bloomberg quoted him as saying in response to a question about the social network's problems.
"The ability of anyone to know what you've been browsing about for years, who your contacts are, who their contacts are, things you like and dislike and every intimate detail of your life - from my own point of view it shouldn't exist."
Then in an interview with MSNBC and Recode on 28 March, Mr Cook said: "I think the best regulation is no regulation, is self-regulation. However, I think we're beyond that here."
During this second appearance - which has yet to be broadcast in full - he added: "We could make a tonne of money if we monetised our customer, if our customer was our product. We've elected not to do that... Privacy to us is a human right."
Apple makes most of its profits from selling smartphones, tablets and other computers, as well as associated services such as online storage and its various media stores.
This contrasts with other tech firms whose profits are largely derived from advertising, including Google, Twitter and Facebook.
Facebook's reputation has been tarnished by the Cambridge Analytica revelations
Mr Zuckerberg had previously told CNN that he was "open" to new regulations.
But he defended his business model when questioned about Mr Cook's views, although he mentioned neither Apple nor its leader by name.
"I find that argument, that if you're not paying that somehow we can't care about you, to be extremely glib and not at all aligned with the truth," he said.
"The reality here is that if you want to build a service that helps connect everyone in the world, then there are a lot of people who can't afford to pay."
He added: "I think it's important that we don't all get Stockholm syndrome and let the companies that work hard to charge you more convince you that they actually care more about you, because that sounds ridiculous to me."
Mr Zuckerberg also defended his leadership by invoking Amazon's chief executive.
"I make all of our decisions based on what's going to matter to our community and focus much less on the advertising side of the business," he said.
"I thought Jeff Bezos had an excellent saying: "There are companies that work hard to charge you more, and there are companies that work hard to charge you less."
Elsewhere in the 49-minute interview, Mr Zuckerberg said he hoped to make Facebook more "democratic" by giving members a chance to challenge decisions its own review team had taken about what content to permit or ban.
Eventually, he said, he wanted something like the "Supreme Court", in which people who did not work for the company made the ultimate call on what was acceptable speech.
Mr Zuckerberg also responded to recent criticism from a UN probe into allegations of genocide against the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar.
Hundreds of thousands of Rohingya Muslims have fled Myanmar
Last month, one of the human rights investigators said Facebook had "turned into a beast" and had "played a determining role" in stirring up hatred against the group.
Mr Zuckerberg claimed messages had been sent "to each side of the conflict" via Facebook Messenger, attempting to make them go to the same locations to fight.
But he added that the firm had now set up systems to detect such activity.
"We stop those messages from going through," he added.
"But this is certainly something that we're paying a lot of attention to."
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43619410 | news_technology-43619410 |
|
Amazon adverts banned for 'misleading' customers over savings - BBC News | 2018-04-04 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The Advertising Standards Authority says Amazon misled customers over savings on electronic devices. | UK | Four Amazon adverts for electronic devices have been banned for "misleading" customers over potential savings.
The adverts, all from July 2017, highlighted savings of up £300 compared with recommended retail prices (RRPs).
But complaints the RRPs were misleading and unsubstantiated were upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority.
Amazon admitted one advert was an "error" but said the other RRPs were in line with listings on other sites.
The adverts flagged up savings of £220 on an LG smart TV, £193 on a ViewSonic monitor, £300 on an MSI laptop and £185 on a Philips electronic toothbrush.
Amazon said the saving for the TV had been calculated incorrectly but argued that the RRPs used in the other three adverts were similar to prices displayed on other retail websites or by sellers on Amazon Marketplace.
Amazon's argument was rejected by the advertising regulator and the complaints that all four adverts were "misleading" and unsubstantiated were upheld.
The ASA said that consumers would understand the reference to an RRP to mean that the advertised product was generally sold at the stated price across the market.
However, the ASA checked the prices that the monitor - listed with an RRP of £752 but available for £559 - had been sold at over the previous six weeks.
They found it had been sold at the higher price for nine days, then at a lower price for 14 days, then again at the higher price for two days, and after that, at a lower price for 16 days.
The ASA said the price fluctuations "did not demonstrate that Amazon usually sold the product at the higher price of £752".
Similar inconsistencies were found in the RRPs for the other products.
An ASA statement read: "We told Amazon to ensure that future references to RRPs reflected the price at which the products concerned were generally sold, and to ensure that they held adequate evidence to substantiate their savings claims."
An Amazon spokesman said: "Our customers come to Amazon and expect to find low prices and incredible deals, and we work hard to provide both all year long."
Amazon was one of three companies criticised last year by consumer group Which? after a year-long investigation into "Black Friday" prices found that many deals advertised on the day were cheaper or the same price at other times of year.
Which? advised shoppers to "look at the price, not the 'saving'." | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43640335 | news_uk-43640335 |
|
Brexit: Ministers suffer first defeat on EU Withdrawal Bill - BBC News | 2018-04-18 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Peers back a proposal that seeks to retain the option of a customs union with the EU. | UK Politics | Lord Patten was among two dozen Conservative peers to defy the party whip
Peers have defeated the government on the issue of staying in a UK-EU customs union after Brexit.
Lords voted by 348 to 225 in favour of a plan requiring ministers to report on steps to negotiate a continued union.
Backing it, ex-EU Commissioner Lord Patten said the UK would be worse off unless current arrangements continued.
But Brexit minister Lord Callanan said it required the government to report on the steps taken towards an objective it has "clearly ruled out".
Number 10 argues that remaining in the customs union would prevent the UK from signing third-party trade agreements with countries across the world.
Lord Callanan signalled the government's intention to overturn the measures at a later stage, saying before the vote it had no intention to "reflect further" on the matter.
The defeat is the first of several expected as the House of Lords - in which the government does not have a majority - debates the government's flagship EU Withdrawal Bill in detail.
The bill will end the supremacy of EU law in the UK while ensuring existing laws passed since the UK's entry in 1973 continue to apply.
A total of 24 Conservatives voted against the government on the customs union amendment, including former ministers Lord Heseltine, Lord Lansley and Lord Willetts.
Serving notice that he would be a serial rebel during the bill's passage, the former EU commissioner said: "There are times in one's political career where what is alleged to be party loyalty comes way behind trying to stand up for the national interest."
However, former Conservative Chancellor Lord Lawson said Lord Patten was putting forward a "political argument dressed up as a trade argument" and it amounted to a "wrecking amendment".
Remaining in a customs union while leaving the EU would leave the UK in a "quasi-colonial" status, he said.
"I can see there are political reason for remaining in the EU, but I think the political reasons for leaving are much stronger. But what it is absolute nonsense to suggest is that there is an economic case for what is being proposed."
The former chancellor said the financial arguments were "economic nonsense"
Lord Forsyth went further, suggesting it was a plot by "Remainers in this House, who are the majority, who refuse to accept the verdict of the British people - and I believe they are playing with fire".
"I say to colleagues in this House, 'Have a care to what we are doing.' We are an unelected house, and this amendment [is] part of a campaign which is putting peers against the people."
Tory MP and Remain supporter Anna Soubry tweeted that the Lords had "put their country first", and called on her colleagues in the Commons to back them when the amendment returns.
This Twitter post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser. View original content on Twitter The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Skip twitter post by Anna Soubry MP This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Twitter’s cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
Labour's Chuka Umunna also praised the vote, saying it had given the House of Commons a "great opportunity" to discuss the impact of leaving the customs union.
This Twitter post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser. View original content on Twitter The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Skip twitter post 2 by Chuka Umunna This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Twitter’s cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
But a statement from the Department for Exiting the EU said the fundamental purpose of the bill was to prepare the UK's statute book for exit day, not about the terms of departure.
"This amendment does not commit the UK to remaining in a customs union with the EU, it requires us to make a statement in Parliament explaining the steps we've taken," a spokesman said.
"Our policy on this subject is very clear. We are leaving the customs union and will establish a new and ambitious customs arrangement with the EU while forging new trade relationships with our partners around the world."
Peers turned out in force on Wednesday to wrestle with a question the government insists is settled - whether or not the UK should form a customs union with the EU after Brexit.
It is one of the government's negotiating red lines that Britain must not remain in any sort of customs union.
However, Labour believes the creation of a new union would keep goods flowing freely without tariffs and provide a workable solution to the Irish border issue.
Many Tory peers strongly criticised Wednesday's amendment as an attempt by Remain supporters in the Lords to wreck the Bill and tie the hands of negotiators.
But a number of Conservatives, combined with opposition parties, inflicted a heavy defeat on the government and the issue will now have to return to the House of Commons.
What will be crucial then is how many Tory MPs align with Labour to try and force a change to the government's policy.
The government also lost a vote against a second amendment aimed at ensuring that existing protections from EU law cannot be changed - except by primary legislation - which would require any changes to go through both the Commons and the Lords.
Lord Callanan said the government had already taken steps to address concerns around employment, equality, and health and safety laws, "potentially in ways that are even stronger than the amendment".
But Labour's Lady Hayter, who proposed the change, said there were "parts of the government that appear a bit more deregulation obsessed".
After the debate, peers voted by 314 to 217 in favour of the amendment.
Other potential flashpoints in the bill include amendments relating to Northern Ireland and a plan to scrap the government's decision to fix Brexit for 23:00 GMT on 29 March, 2019. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43812360 | news_uk-politics-43812360 |
|
Alfie Evans: Father begs Pope Francis to 'save our son' - BBC News | 2018-04-18 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Tom Evans is asking the Pope to intervene in the legal battle about ending his son's life support. | Liverpool | This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
The father of terminally ill toddler Alfie Evans has met Pope Francis, begging him to "save our son".
Tom Evans has flown to Rome asking the Pope to intervene in the legal battle about ending 23-month-old Alfie's life support.
It comes after the family lost the latest appeal for his treatment to continue at Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool.
Mr Evans said: "Your Holiness, save our son" and asked for asylum for Alfie.
Mr Evans, 21, and Kate James, 20, have so far had all appeals against a High Court ruling in February to withdraw his life support and take him to Rome for treatment rejected.
The Court of Appeal dismissed a fresh appeal by the couple on Monday and they have applied to the Supreme Court to consider their case.
Mr Evans posted on Facebook: "Last night I jumped on a plane and come to Vatican Rome to meet the Pope.
"Alfie we will do everything for you."
He met with the Pope before his general audience when he highlighted Alfie's plight and asked the crowd to pray for him.
Vatican News reported Pope Francis said "it is our duty to do all that is possible to safeguard life" during his address.
He said cases like Alfie's were "very painful and complex" and asked that "every sick person may always be respected in their dignity and cared for in an appropriate way for their condition... and with great respect for life."
Earlier this month the Pope tweeted support for the sick toddler and called for all sides to work together for what is best for Alfie.
Andrea Williams, from the Christian Legal Centre which is representing Alfie's family, confirmed Mr Evans had asked the Pope for asylum for his son during the meeting at the Vatican.
"When every avenue has been shut down in this country it shows he won't give up.
"He wants his son to be given a chance to live which is being denied when there are places prepared to look after him."
The Catholic Church in England and Wales has said Alfie should only be taken to Italy for treatment if a British court decides an "exception" should be made.
It added recent criticism of Alder Hey hospital was "unfounded".
Tom Evans and Kate James want to take Alfie to Rome
The Supreme Court which refused to consider the parents case in March said it was examining the latest application to overrule Monday's Court of Appeal decision.
The Court of Appeal judges explained they dismissed the latest challenge because it was the same legal argument - albeit with a different legal term - they made in February and March and moving him to a hospital in Italy was "contrary to his best interests".
The judges said: "The application of a different legal label... does not change the fact that the court has already determined the issues which the parents now seek, again, to advance.
"Their views, their rights do not take precedence and do not give them an 'unfettered right' to make choices and exercise rights on behalf of Alfie."
The judges said Alfie was not being "detained" in hospital or "deprived of his liberty... the doctrine of habeas corpus."
Alder Hey Children's Hospital has said continuing to treat Alfie, who has an undiagnosed degenerative neurological condition, was "inhumane" and "futile".
It said taking him abroad for treatment was "expressly not in his best interests", adding: "Our priority is to continue providing Alfie with the best care possible." | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43807453 | news_uk-england-merseyside-43807453 |
|
Facebook's Zuckerberg fires back at Apple's Tim Cook - BBC News | 2018-04-05 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Mark Zuckerberg says it is "extremely glib" to suggest Facebook does not care about its users. | Technology | Mr Zuckerberg has seen shares in his company fall steeply since the start of the Cambridge Analytical scandal
Facebook's chief executive has defended his leadership following criticism from his counterpart at Apple.
Mark Zuckerberg said it was "extremely glib" to suggest that because the public did not pay to use Facebook that the firm did not care about them.
Last week, Apple's Tim Cook said it was an "invasion of privacy" to traffic in users' personal lives.
And when asked what he would do if he were Mr Zuckerberg, Mr Cook replied: "I wouldn't be in that situation."
Facebook has faced intense criticism after it emerged that it had known for years that Cambridge Analytica had harvested data from about 50 million of its users, but had relied on the political consultancy to self-certify that it had deleted the information.
Channel 4 News has since reported that at least some of the data in question is still in circulation despite Cambridge Analytica insisting it had destroyed the material.
Mr Zuckerberg was asked about Mr Cook's comments during a lengthy interview given to news site Vox about the privacy scandal.
He also acknowledged that Facebook was still not transparent enough about some of the choices it had taken, and floated the idea of an independent panel being able to override some of its decisions.
Mr Cook has spoken in public twice since Facebook's data-mining controversy began.
Tim Cook had said he would not have let himself be in Mr Zuckerberg's current situation
On 23 March, he took part in the China Development Forum in Beijing.
"I think that this certain situation is so dire and has become so large that probably some well-crafted regulation is necessary," news agency Bloomberg quoted him as saying in response to a question about the social network's problems.
"The ability of anyone to know what you've been browsing about for years, who your contacts are, who their contacts are, things you like and dislike and every intimate detail of your life - from my own point of view it shouldn't exist."
Then in an interview with MSNBC and Recode on 28 March, Mr Cook said: "I think the best regulation is no regulation, is self-regulation. However, I think we're beyond that here."
During this second appearance - which has yet to be broadcast in full - he added: "We could make a tonne of money if we monetised our customer, if our customer was our product. We've elected not to do that... Privacy to us is a human right."
Apple makes most of its profits from selling smartphones, tablets and other computers, as well as associated services such as online storage and its various media stores.
This contrasts with other tech firms whose profits are largely derived from advertising, including Google, Twitter and Facebook.
Facebook's reputation has been tarnished by the Cambridge Analytica revelations
Mr Zuckerberg had previously told CNN that he was "open" to new regulations.
But he defended his business model when questioned about Mr Cook's views, although he mentioned neither Apple nor its leader by name.
"I find that argument, that if you're not paying that somehow we can't care about you, to be extremely glib and not at all aligned with the truth," he said.
"The reality here is that if you want to build a service that helps connect everyone in the world, then there are a lot of people who can't afford to pay."
He added: "I think it's important that we don't all get Stockholm syndrome and let the companies that work hard to charge you more convince you that they actually care more about you, because that sounds ridiculous to me."
Mr Zuckerberg also defended his leadership by invoking Amazon's chief executive.
"I make all of our decisions based on what's going to matter to our community and focus much less on the advertising side of the business," he said.
"I thought Jeff Bezos had an excellent saying: "There are companies that work hard to charge you more, and there are companies that work hard to charge you less."
Elsewhere in the 49-minute interview, Mr Zuckerberg said he hoped to make Facebook more "democratic" by giving members a chance to challenge decisions its own review team had taken about what content to permit or ban.
Eventually, he said, he wanted something like the "Supreme Court", in which people who did not work for the company made the ultimate call on what was acceptable speech.
Mr Zuckerberg also responded to recent criticism from a UN probe into allegations of genocide against the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar.
Hundreds of thousands of Rohingya Muslims have fled Myanmar
Last month, one of the human rights investigators said Facebook had "turned into a beast" and had "played a determining role" in stirring up hatred against the group.
Mr Zuckerberg claimed messages had been sent "to each side of the conflict" via Facebook Messenger, attempting to make them go to the same locations to fight.
But he added that the firm had now set up systems to detect such activity.
"We stop those messages from going through," he added.
"But this is certainly something that we're paying a lot of attention to."
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43619410 | news_technology-43619410 |
|
Syria air strikes: Will West's attack sway Syria's Assad? - BBC News | 2018-04-15 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Double the firepower with new allies - but is it enough to stop Assad's chemical weapon use? | Middle East | This was a heavier strike than a year ago - three targets rather than one.
Then, the US acted alone; this time it was joined by its French and British allies.
More than double the number of weapons were fired against Syrian targets than last year - a little more than 120 in all.
But the fundamental question remains the same.
Was this enough to achieve what the Americans say was their goal - to deter President Bashar al-Assad from using chemical weapons again?
Since April a year ago Syria's torment has not ended. But two fundamental things have changed.
Firstly, the Assad regime has effectively won its war and terrorising civilians has played a key part in its strategy.
President Assad may not control all of Syrian territory. But backed by Russia and Iran, there is nobody that can really stand against him. It is shortages of manpower, equipment and capacity that prevent him re-establishing wider control.
Syrians wave Iranian, Russian and Syrian flags after the western strikes
Secondly, relations between Washington and Moscow - and between Russia and the West more generally - have deteriorated significantly, to the extent that senior international officials are now talking of a new Cold War.
This was the context in which President Trump determined to send his punitive message to the Assad regime. And this is the context in which they will have received it.
Will they be cowed or defiant? Will public bluster conceal a more fundamental re-think on the part of Mr Assad? Might Russia, whatever its spokesmen say, have a stern word with the Syrian leader? And if they did, would it have any effect?
Watching this crisis unfold from the United States, I found it both perplexing and in many ways worrying.
There seemed to be a lack of focus and clarity on the part of the Trump administration. Hardly surprising, perhaps, when the president himself was increasingly bogged down in his own domestic difficulties as allegations and recriminations about alleged past affairs and misbehaviour returned to haunt him.
At times he seemed more likely to strike out at the US justice system than at President Assad. Indeed over the past week, while much of the rest of the world worried about what Mr Trump might do about Syria, the media here has been dominated, absorbed and fascinated, in equal measure, by Mr Trump's difficulties almost to the exclusion of all else.
President Trump's rhetoric suggested a major military strike against the Assad regime. In the event what has taken place falls far short of that. So what conclusion might Moscow and Damascus draw?
The Pentagon seems to have gone out of its way to avoid both civilian and "foreign" casualties - for that read "Russians".
The three targets hit were chosen both for their central role in the chemical weapons programme but also because the risk of collateral damage was smallest.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff noted at a subsequent briefing that the US had a list of other targets which it did not choose to strike this time. The clear message is that if the Assad regime resorts to chemical weapons again then more strikes will follow.
But again, since last April there have been a number of other alleged chemical weapons attacks, generally using chlorine gas. But until now the US did not strike again. So what message did this send?
An explosion seen in the night sky over Damascus
Now the hope is that Mr Assad will change his behaviour. But what about the wider Syrian conflict? This brutal war shows no sign of ending. Many have pointed out that it is barrel bombs, artillery and bullets that are responsible for the overwhelming bulk of the deaths and mutilations in Syria, not chemical weapons, and yet it is these that prompt Western action.
There is a good measure of truth in this sentiment, though for historical and cultural reasons chemical weapons have a particular horror in the West in the wake of their use in World War One. The treaty banning them is an important disarmament agreement and its weakening threatens to unwind years of progress.
But the wider question is to what extent these latest strikes change the picture in Syria? Do they bring the conflict any closer to an end? Sadly the answer is almost certainly no.
Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis briefed the media after the strikes took place
Only a short while ago - much to his generals' horror - Mr Trump spoke about pulling all US troops out of Syria. Only days later he seemed to be threatening a major military intervention. There has been no consistency in the Trump administration's position.
There is simply no clear strategy to help bring the war to an end. Indeed one of the arguments for keeping US troops in Syria to bolster their local allies like the Kurds, was in fact to keep the Assad regime and its Iranian backers off-balance.
Constraining Iran is about the only unifying theme in the Trump administration's approach, but even this has not been raised to the level of a coherent strategy. In his statement after the strikes the President again asserted that the US was not seeking an indefinite presence in Syria.
His hope was clearly that as others shouldered the burden (who?) the US might walk away. But this was followed by a catch-all statement about the intractability of the region and its problems, which hardly suggests a desire for a long-term engagement.
If these are the signals coming from Washington, then why should Russia worry?
It has, through its military, and political support for the Assad regime, re-established itself as a significant diplomatic actor in the region. Russia, of course warned the US and its allies not to strike Syria. So in the wake of this attack what might Russia do?
In Syria itself, it might seek to further undermine Washington's already weak position but it is not going to war with the Americans - such fears, barring some extraordinary disaster, were always, probably, far-fetched.
US Defence Secretary James Mattis has already hinted at Russia's likely response noting that "we fully expect a significant disinformation campaign over the coming days by those who have aligned themselves with the Assad regime".
Indeed this campaign has in many ways already begun, with the Russians - who now have forces in the area where the recent chemical attack is alleged to have occurred - insisting first that there was no sign of a chemical attack and then, more recently, that the whole thing was staged by foreign agents to discredit Mr Assad and Moscow.
This is the same Russia that is accepted by most Western governments to have been behind the attempted assassination of a former Russian intelligence officer and his daughter in the English city of Salisbury, using a nerve agent. It is the same Russia that has tried to influence the US and other recent elections. It is President Putin's Russia that has seized part of Ukraine. One could go on. The misinformation battle has already been joined.
There is indeed a new sort of Cold War developing. It may not risk nuclear annihilation, but because of that it is in many ways more direct and unpredictable, with Moscow taking much greater risks than it might have done in the past.
Russia is not a global superpower like the Soviet Union. It no longer has an ideology that gathers support from liberation movements around the world. It is fundamentally a middle-ranking regional power with a significant nuclear arsenal and a relatively weak economy. But it knows how to wield influence and how to conduct information warfare. And Mr Putin is determined to defend Russia's interests - as he sees them - wherever he is able.
A missile destined for Syria is launched from a French vessel in the Mediterranean
Mostly this means in Russia's near-abroad, that is countries close to its borders that have been traditional Russian spheres of interest - such as Georgia or Ukraine. Syria is almost an honorary member of the near-abroad, affording Russia an entry point to regain its influence in a region that still matters. Russia's star is rising and Washington's influence is in many ways on the wane.
And this matters. For instability in the region is growing. The ripples from a previous US administration's decision to remove Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq are still spreading. Iran was the principal benefactor of that decision. It has become a formidable regional player.
Its growing influence in Syria risks a major conflict with Israel. Recently, Israel is believed to have struck at a Syrian base which was home to an Iranian facility.
Tensions are rising. The region's many fault-lines risk merging.
And the US, British and French attacks over-night have inevitably thrown another pebble into the pool. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43764344 | news_world-middle-east-43764344 |
|
Brexit: Senior MPs to force customs union vote - BBC News | 2018-04-23 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | A cross-party group of MPs aims to increase pressure for a Brexit customs union deal. | UK Politics | A powerful cross-party group of MPs is to force a vote on a customs union next week in the House of Commons.
The Liaison Committee, made up of Labour, Conservative and SNP committee chairmen, has tabled a debate calling for "an effective customs union".
Theresa May has pledged to leave the current customs union after Brexit.
Downing Street believes that trying to replicate it when the UK leaves the EU would stop the country from being able to sign its own trade deals.
The news about the Commons vote comes the day after the House of Lords inflicted a defeat on the government over the customs union issue.
The government had hoped to avoid a vote on the issue in the Commons until next month.
But the MPs, including Yvette Cooper, Nicky Morgan, Sarah Wollaston, and Hilary Benn, have secured a debate that will force the issue.
BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg said that although a vote would not be binding on the government, it will ratchet up the pressure on No 10 to shift its position if the Commons agrees.
Conservative backbencher Anna Soubry said that it would "not be a meaningful vote at all" but the debate would be important.
She said the "crunch question" was whether the government would have sufficient MPs prepared to overturn the Lords amendments to the EU Withdrawal Bill, when it returned to the Commons.
She told BBC Radio 4's World at One programme the Lords vote had asked the government only to "explore" a customs union.
"There is an increasing number of Conservative MPs... who are worried and now understand the benefits of us having a customs arrangement, not just for the benefit of manufacturers in particular in our country... but also for peace in Northern Ireland.
"I do hope the government will look at the numbers - but look at the strength of the argument - do the right thing and that is not to seek to whip Conservative members of Parliament to take out this eminently sensible and hugely reasonable amendment that the Lords passed last night."
Shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer said the Lords defeat on Wednesday should prompt the prime minister to change her approach.
He said: "There's a growing view, I think probably a majority view in Parliament now, that it's in our national interests and economic interests to stay in a customs union with the EU.
"We've got a huge manufacturing sector in the UK that needs to be protected, with many goods going over borders many, many times, and we need to protect that."
Environment Secretary Michael Gove told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the government might face a battle in the Commons to overturn the Lords vote.
He said: "It is the case that there are lots of potential future votes - given the arithmetic in the House of Commons, given the fact that we don't have a majority - which are always going to rely on the persuasive powers of ministers to get colleagues to support the Government."
The Liaison Committee members calling for the motion also include the SNP's Angus McNeil, Lib Dem Norman Lamb, Labour MP Meg Hillier, Conservative Bob Neil, Labour's Rachel Reeves and the SNP's Pete Wishart. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43821737 | news_uk-politics-43821737 |
|
Brexit: Government insists UK will leave customs union - BBC News | 2018-04-23 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The government rules out a U-turn on customs after a House of Lords defeat on its Brexit bill. | UK Politics | This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. What is the EU customs union?
The government has restated its commitment to leaving the EU's custom union - ahead of a symbolic vote on the issue this week.
Last Wednesday, the government suffered defeat on the EU Withdrawal Bill in the House of Lords on the issue of staying in a UK-EU customs union after Brexit.
And MPs will get their own chance to debate the issue on Thursday.
But a senior Downing Street source told the BBC the government's position would not change.
"We will not be staying in the customs union or joining a customs union," the source said.
BBC assistant political editor Norman Smith said Downing Street's move was an attempt to reassure Brexiteers worried about a U-turn following the Lords defeat and pressure from the EU.
A customs union is when countries agree to apply the same taxes on imports to goods from outside the union.
This means when goods have cleared customs in one country, they can be shipped to others in the union without further tariffs being imposed.
If the UK remains part of the customs union, it would be unable to strike trade deals with countries around the world.
Enter the word or phrase you are looking for
But supporters say it would help to keep an open border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Labour has called for the UK to join a new customs union post-Brexit, saying it would leave the current one but negotiate a treaty afterwards that would "do the work of the customs union".
But speaking on a visit to a business in the West Midlands, Mrs May said leaving the customs union would allow the UK to strike new trade deals around the world, adding that she was seeking a "frictionless" border with the EU.
Brexit-supporting former minister John Whittingdale told BBC News Thursday's non-binding vote would be "a piece of theatre" but would have "no significance at all".
But he predicted pressure for the government when the EU Withdrawal Bill returned to the House of Commons in the coming weeks, saying reversing peers' amendments could prove "more challenging".
More crunch votes are expected when Remain-supporting MPs try to amend the trade and customs bills to put more pressure on the government to negotiate a customs union.
Theresa May has made leaving the customs union central to her whole approach to Brexit.
Downing Street's decision to reiterate its long-held position demonstrates concern at the top of government.
This week's debate will be purely symbolic and will not tie the government's hands.
But it could give an indication of the opposition the prime minister might face in a crunch vote on the issue next month.
With sabre-rattling from both sides of the argument, Downing Street felt sufficiently worried to clarify its position overnight.
The House of Lords is continuing its examination of the government's key EU Withdrawal Bill this week.
Last week's amendment would not necessarily keep the UK in the customs union - but would commit ministers to reporting on steps to negotiate a continued union.
Meanwhile the Times reports that Theresa May is facing pressure from Brexit-supporting ministers on the customs issue.
The report focuses on one of the two possible options put forward by Mrs May last month that would involve the UK imposing the same checks as the EU when goods arrive at its borders that are destined for the EU.
The Times said Brexit Secretary David Davis, International Trade Secretary Liam Fox, and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson were concerned this would "encourage Brussels to press for Britain to stay in a customs union after Brexit".
Mr Fox said the UK's trade policy would be "infinitely adaptable" in a speech where he promised the financial industry the government would "make it easier to do business overseas".
The UK, he said, would use its "economic and diplomatic influence" around the world to remove barriers and "spread prosperity to every corner of the globe".
He added: "Whatever one's view on the referendum result, it must be acknowledged that, outside the EU, this country will enjoy a new degree of economic agility." | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43860453 | news_uk-politics-43860453 |
|
Brexit: Ministers suffer first defeat on EU Withdrawal Bill - BBC News | 2018-04-23 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Peers back a proposal that seeks to retain the option of a customs union with the EU. | UK Politics | Lord Patten was among two dozen Conservative peers to defy the party whip
Peers have defeated the government on the issue of staying in a UK-EU customs union after Brexit.
Lords voted by 348 to 225 in favour of a plan requiring ministers to report on steps to negotiate a continued union.
Backing it, ex-EU Commissioner Lord Patten said the UK would be worse off unless current arrangements continued.
But Brexit minister Lord Callanan said it required the government to report on the steps taken towards an objective it has "clearly ruled out".
Number 10 argues that remaining in the customs union would prevent the UK from signing third-party trade agreements with countries across the world.
Lord Callanan signalled the government's intention to overturn the measures at a later stage, saying before the vote it had no intention to "reflect further" on the matter.
The defeat is the first of several expected as the House of Lords - in which the government does not have a majority - debates the government's flagship EU Withdrawal Bill in detail.
The bill will end the supremacy of EU law in the UK while ensuring existing laws passed since the UK's entry in 1973 continue to apply.
A total of 24 Conservatives voted against the government on the customs union amendment, including former ministers Lord Heseltine, Lord Lansley and Lord Willetts.
Serving notice that he would be a serial rebel during the bill's passage, the former EU commissioner said: "There are times in one's political career where what is alleged to be party loyalty comes way behind trying to stand up for the national interest."
However, former Conservative Chancellor Lord Lawson said Lord Patten was putting forward a "political argument dressed up as a trade argument" and it amounted to a "wrecking amendment".
Remaining in a customs union while leaving the EU would leave the UK in a "quasi-colonial" status, he said.
"I can see there are political reason for remaining in the EU, but I think the political reasons for leaving are much stronger. But what it is absolute nonsense to suggest is that there is an economic case for what is being proposed."
The former chancellor said the financial arguments were "economic nonsense"
Lord Forsyth went further, suggesting it was a plot by "Remainers in this House, who are the majority, who refuse to accept the verdict of the British people - and I believe they are playing with fire".
"I say to colleagues in this House, 'Have a care to what we are doing.' We are an unelected house, and this amendment [is] part of a campaign which is putting peers against the people."
Tory MP and Remain supporter Anna Soubry tweeted that the Lords had "put their country first", and called on her colleagues in the Commons to back them when the amendment returns.
This Twitter post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser. View original content on Twitter The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Skip twitter post by Anna Soubry MP This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Twitter’s cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
Labour's Chuka Umunna also praised the vote, saying it had given the House of Commons a "great opportunity" to discuss the impact of leaving the customs union.
This Twitter post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser. View original content on Twitter The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Skip twitter post 2 by Chuka Umunna This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Twitter’s cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
But a statement from the Department for Exiting the EU said the fundamental purpose of the bill was to prepare the UK's statute book for exit day, not about the terms of departure.
"This amendment does not commit the UK to remaining in a customs union with the EU, it requires us to make a statement in Parliament explaining the steps we've taken," a spokesman said.
"Our policy on this subject is very clear. We are leaving the customs union and will establish a new and ambitious customs arrangement with the EU while forging new trade relationships with our partners around the world."
Peers turned out in force on Wednesday to wrestle with a question the government insists is settled - whether or not the UK should form a customs union with the EU after Brexit.
It is one of the government's negotiating red lines that Britain must not remain in any sort of customs union.
However, Labour believes the creation of a new union would keep goods flowing freely without tariffs and provide a workable solution to the Irish border issue.
Many Tory peers strongly criticised Wednesday's amendment as an attempt by Remain supporters in the Lords to wreck the Bill and tie the hands of negotiators.
But a number of Conservatives, combined with opposition parties, inflicted a heavy defeat on the government and the issue will now have to return to the House of Commons.
What will be crucial then is how many Tory MPs align with Labour to try and force a change to the government's policy.
The government also lost a vote against a second amendment aimed at ensuring that existing protections from EU law cannot be changed - except by primary legislation - which would require any changes to go through both the Commons and the Lords.
Lord Callanan said the government had already taken steps to address concerns around employment, equality, and health and safety laws, "potentially in ways that are even stronger than the amendment".
But Labour's Lady Hayter, who proposed the change, said there were "parts of the government that appear a bit more deregulation obsessed".
After the debate, peers voted by 314 to 217 in favour of the amendment.
Other potential flashpoints in the bill include amendments relating to Northern Ireland and a plan to scrap the government's decision to fix Brexit for 23:00 GMT on 29 March, 2019. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43812360 | news_uk-politics-43812360 |
|
Brexit: Ministers suffer first defeat on EU Withdrawal Bill - BBC News | 2018-04-19 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Peers back a proposal that seeks to retain the option of a customs union with the EU. | UK Politics | Lord Patten was among two dozen Conservative peers to defy the party whip
Peers have defeated the government on the issue of staying in a UK-EU customs union after Brexit.
Lords voted by 348 to 225 in favour of a plan requiring ministers to report on steps to negotiate a continued union.
Backing it, ex-EU Commissioner Lord Patten said the UK would be worse off unless current arrangements continued.
But Brexit minister Lord Callanan said it required the government to report on the steps taken towards an objective it has "clearly ruled out".
Number 10 argues that remaining in the customs union would prevent the UK from signing third-party trade agreements with countries across the world.
Lord Callanan signalled the government's intention to overturn the measures at a later stage, saying before the vote it had no intention to "reflect further" on the matter.
The defeat is the first of several expected as the House of Lords - in which the government does not have a majority - debates the government's flagship EU Withdrawal Bill in detail.
The bill will end the supremacy of EU law in the UK while ensuring existing laws passed since the UK's entry in 1973 continue to apply.
A total of 24 Conservatives voted against the government on the customs union amendment, including former ministers Lord Heseltine, Lord Lansley and Lord Willetts.
Serving notice that he would be a serial rebel during the bill's passage, the former EU commissioner said: "There are times in one's political career where what is alleged to be party loyalty comes way behind trying to stand up for the national interest."
However, former Conservative Chancellor Lord Lawson said Lord Patten was putting forward a "political argument dressed up as a trade argument" and it amounted to a "wrecking amendment".
Remaining in a customs union while leaving the EU would leave the UK in a "quasi-colonial" status, he said.
"I can see there are political reason for remaining in the EU, but I think the political reasons for leaving are much stronger. But what it is absolute nonsense to suggest is that there is an economic case for what is being proposed."
The former chancellor said the financial arguments were "economic nonsense"
Lord Forsyth went further, suggesting it was a plot by "Remainers in this House, who are the majority, who refuse to accept the verdict of the British people - and I believe they are playing with fire".
"I say to colleagues in this House, 'Have a care to what we are doing.' We are an unelected house, and this amendment [is] part of a campaign which is putting peers against the people."
Tory MP and Remain supporter Anna Soubry tweeted that the Lords had "put their country first", and called on her colleagues in the Commons to back them when the amendment returns.
This Twitter post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser. View original content on Twitter The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Skip twitter post by Anna Soubry MP This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Twitter’s cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
Labour's Chuka Umunna also praised the vote, saying it had given the House of Commons a "great opportunity" to discuss the impact of leaving the customs union.
This Twitter post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser. View original content on Twitter The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Skip twitter post 2 by Chuka Umunna This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Twitter’s cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
But a statement from the Department for Exiting the EU said the fundamental purpose of the bill was to prepare the UK's statute book for exit day, not about the terms of departure.
"This amendment does not commit the UK to remaining in a customs union with the EU, it requires us to make a statement in Parliament explaining the steps we've taken," a spokesman said.
"Our policy on this subject is very clear. We are leaving the customs union and will establish a new and ambitious customs arrangement with the EU while forging new trade relationships with our partners around the world."
Peers turned out in force on Wednesday to wrestle with a question the government insists is settled - whether or not the UK should form a customs union with the EU after Brexit.
It is one of the government's negotiating red lines that Britain must not remain in any sort of customs union.
However, Labour believes the creation of a new union would keep goods flowing freely without tariffs and provide a workable solution to the Irish border issue.
Many Tory peers strongly criticised Wednesday's amendment as an attempt by Remain supporters in the Lords to wreck the Bill and tie the hands of negotiators.
But a number of Conservatives, combined with opposition parties, inflicted a heavy defeat on the government and the issue will now have to return to the House of Commons.
What will be crucial then is how many Tory MPs align with Labour to try and force a change to the government's policy.
The government also lost a vote against a second amendment aimed at ensuring that existing protections from EU law cannot be changed - except by primary legislation - which would require any changes to go through both the Commons and the Lords.
Lord Callanan said the government had already taken steps to address concerns around employment, equality, and health and safety laws, "potentially in ways that are even stronger than the amendment".
But Labour's Lady Hayter, who proposed the change, said there were "parts of the government that appear a bit more deregulation obsessed".
After the debate, peers voted by 314 to 217 in favour of the amendment.
Other potential flashpoints in the bill include amendments relating to Northern Ireland and a plan to scrap the government's decision to fix Brexit for 23:00 GMT on 29 March, 2019. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43812360 | news_uk-politics-43812360 |
|
Sugar tax is already producing results - BBC News | 2018-04-06 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | A levy on sugary drinks will not raise as much as thought because makers are changing their recipes. | Health | It will be a major change in health and tax policy. On 6 April the UK will join the small number of countries which have introduced a tax on sugary drinks as part of an anti-obesity policy.
Shoppers will pay 18p or 24p per litre extra depending on how much extra sugar has been added to the drink.
So are retailers and manufacturers in revolt and is the Treasury looking forward to a tax windfall to help prop up the public finances?
The answer, intriguingly, is no to both questions.
Rather than waiting to see how customers react to the tax - known officially as the soft drinks industry levy - companies have already started altering their recipes.
The fine print of Treasury budget documents reveals that the revenue from the levy will be a lot less than was first forecast.
The simple explanation is that there will be fewer drinks than anticipated on sale above the threshold for paying the levy.
When the Chancellor at the time George Osborne announced in 2016 there would be a tax on sugary drinks, the expected revenue was about £500m a year.
A year later the expected yield had fallen to £385m.
In the Budget documents in November 2017 the anticipated figure had dropped again to £275m per year from the launch date in April this year.
Treasury mandarins might be expected to be frustrated that their anticipated tax take has fallen.
But in this case it is being hailed as a success as it reflects the fact that companies have been cutting the sugar content of their products.
The aim of the policy is to reduce consumption of sugar and if companies can do that by changing drink recipes ahead of the levy taking effect then that, so the argument goes, is a good outcome.
Irn Bru will contain less sugar
The maker of the iconic Scottish drink Irn Bru has stopped making the original full-sugar version.
The sugar content will be cut to just below the levy threshold as part of what the company AG Barr said was part of a "long-standing sugar reduction programme".
The company said it expected 99% of its drinks range, including other brands, to be below the threshold by the time it comes into force.
There has been adverse reaction to the new Irn Bru, however, from some customers who have been stockpiling the original product.
Britvic is another manufacturer to have cut added sugar across its product range.
The company, whose product range includes Robinson's, J2O and Fruit Shoot, has pursued this policy since 2013 and says that by 6 April, 94% of its brand portfolio will be exempt from the sugar levy.
Ribena and Lucozade, owned by the Japanese company Suntory, has also moved to cut sugar.
Peter Harding, chief operating officer, said: "Over the past 16 months, we have reduced the sugar content of our core portfolio by 50%.
"Our nutritionists and research and development team have been working extremely hard to ensure our products still taste great, while containing significantly less sugar."
In simple terms these companies are reacting to their markets.
They don't want their customers to have to fork out more for their favourite soft drinks from 6 April and they also sense people need help doing the "right thing" when shopping for their families.
If shoppers want healthy options then it is in the interest of retailers and manufacturers to supply them.
All this comes at a time of shifting opinion in Downing Street.
Theresa May was instinctively against the idea of policies which might be seen as "anti-business" when she became prime minister in July 2016.
The government's childhood obesity strategy was watered down under Mrs May and was widely criticised when it was unveiled in August of that year.
Restrictions on TV advertising of high calorie food and supermarket promotions were not included in the strategy.
But the prime minister and her Downing Street advisers are now understood to be more sympathetic to a bolder anti-obesity plan.
Advertising restrictions are back on the agenda and are being considered - there may be announcements this summer.
Food manufacturers have signed up to a voluntary sugar reformulation plan and accepted a calorie reduction target without complaint and that has emboldened ministers.
How consumers react when full sugar drinks go up in price from 6 April remains to be seen.
But what is already clear is that the proposed levy has had an impact on the content.
And that may spur the government into more action on obesity.
• None Sugar tax: How will it work? | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43372295 | news_health-43372295 |
|
Does Theresa May need MPs to approve UK action in Syria? - BBC News | 2018-04-12 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Ben Wright on the politics of one of the hardest judgements a prime minister has to make. | UK Politics | This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. The US president has said "nothing's off the table" - so what options are on the table?
As Theresa May weighs up what role - if any - the UK should have in military action against Syria, the question of parliamentary approval will need addressing. So far this week the prime minister has side-stepped it.
Much will depend on the scale and timing of the missile strike the United States seems poised to launch in response to the apparent chemical weapons attack last week.
Theresa May certainly could agree to launch UK missiles from a Royal Navy submarine or RAF jets without MPs giving the green light first. Because, while the recent practice has been for governments to win the backing of parliament before UK military action it is only a convention to do so and a recent one at that.
In March 2003 the Blair government's move to secure the approval of MPs in advance of the Iraq invasion was the first time the decision to go to war had been given to parliament. That established a precedent that has been followed since and Theresa May will be acutely aware of how events played out.
Of most relevance today is the Commons vote David Cameron held in August 2013 on a motion agreeing to potential UK military action against President Assad in Syria following the use of chemical weapons.
MPs were recalled from their summer recess, a debate was held and the government lost the division by 13 votes. Labour opposed the motion but so did 30 Tory MPs and 9 Lib Dems - who were then part of the coalition.
The vote was a political and diplomatic disaster for David Cameron and the US had to shelve its plans for military action. Five years on, there is no chance Theresa May will risk a re-run of that. If she does seek parliamentary approval she will only do so if she knows she can get it.
Mrs May might find other votes more encouraging.
For instance, in 2011 the Commons voted overwhelmingly in favour of military action in Libya by 557 to 13. Crucially, that vote came soon after UK, US and France carried out air strikes against the Libyan forces to enforce a UN-mandated no-fly zone. MPs are currently away on recess and there is no sign a parliamentary recall is brewing.
So if the UK does decide to take part in US-led action in Syria it is possible MPs are asked to vote after the missiles have been launched.
Two other votes are relevant. In September 2014 MPs voted by 524 to 43 to sanction UK air strikes against Islamic State forces in Iraq. In December 2015 David Cameron returned to the Commons to seek authorisation to extend the strikes against IS into Syrian territory. Jeremy Corbyn instructed Labour MPs to vote against the motion but 66 of his own MPs, including front benchers, voted with the government and the motion was passed by 397 votes to 223.
So how might House of Commons arithmetic add up if Theresa May took a new motion to MPs asking them to approve military action against President Assad now? Remember, Parliament has never given its backing to military action against the Syrian government, only to air strikes against Islamic State forces based in the country.
Clearly a lot would depend on the wording and scope of the motion.
While there is cross-party revulsion at the apparent use of chemical weapons in Syria many MPs are likely to have concerns about the ramifications that could follow military action, not least a possible confrontation with Russia.
Unlike David Cameron, Theresa May is running a minority government with a working majority of just 13. All votes are potentially dicey. Of those 30 Tory MPs who voted against military action in 2013, 23 are still in the Commons.
It is almost impossible to imagine Jeremy Corbyn instructing his MPs to vote for air strikes. But it is also a safe bet a section of the parliamentary Labour Party would ignore him again.
These are some of the political considerations Theresa May will be mulling over.
Jeremy Corbyn has already said parliament must have a vote. Parliament "should always be given a say on any military action", he said on Wednesday.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
The Iraq vote in 2003 set a precedent and the UK's experience of the conflict that followed frames this argument. But it is not parliament's right to decide when Britain goes to war.
The ability for a prime minister to take military action is one of their royal prerogatives. A government is allowed to use that power on behalf of the Crown.
Over the last decade or so ministers have thought about introducing legislation that would enshrine that convention in law but the idea of a War Powers Act has always been abandoned.
Governments do not want to surrender their power to deploy Britain's armed forces and they don't want their hands tied by parliament.
In the end, Theresa May will have to make a political judgement. One of the hardest a prime minister can face. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43731390 | news_uk-politics-43731390 |
|
Russian spy poisoning: Nerve agent inspectors back UK - BBC News | 2018-04-12 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The international chemical weapons watchdog confirms the UK's analysis of the nerve agent in Salisbury. | UK | In the days after the poisoning, specialist officers wore protective suits at the scene in Salisbury
The international chemical weapons watchdog has confirmed the UK's analysis of the type of nerve agent used in the Russian ex-spy poisoning.
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons did not name the nerve agent as Novichok, but said it agreed with the UK's findings on its identity.
Russia, which denies it was behind the attack in Salisbury, called the allegations an "anti-Russian campaign".
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said: "There can be no doubt what was used."
He added: "There remains no alternative explanation about who was responsible - only Russia has the means, motive and record."
But Maria Zakharova, from the Russian Foreign Ministry, said the allegations in relation to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal were a "clear anti-Russian campaign, the like of which we have not seen in the world for a long time in terms of its scale and lack of principles".
She accused the British authorities of ignoring the "norms of international law, the principles and laws of diplomacy, the elementary rules of human ethics".
And she claimed no one except for British authorities had seen the Skripals for more than a month.
She drew comparisons with the case of Alexander Litvinenko, the ex-KGB agent who died in 2006 in London, adding that at least a photograph of Litvinenko had appeared after his poisoning.
A team from the OPCW visited the UK on 19 March, 15 days after the Skripals were found slumped on a park bench in Salisbury and taken to hospital, along with a police officer who was among the first on the scene.
Ms Skripal was discharged from hospital on Monday but the 33-year-old has said her father is "still seriously ill".
Sergei Skripal remains in hospital but his daughter Yulia has been discharged
The OPCW said it received information about the medical conditions of the Skripals and Det Sgt Nick Bailey, it collected their blood samples, and it gathered samples from the site in Salisbury.
Mr Johnson said the UK had invited the OPCW to test the samples "to ensure strict adherence to international chemical weapons protocols".
UK inspectors from the defence research facility at Porton Down in Wiltshire first identified the nerve agent as belonging to the Novichok group.
The name Novichok means "newcomer" in Russian, and applies to a group of nerve agents developed by the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s.
Novichok's existence was revealed by chemist Dr Vil Mirzayanov in the 1990s, via Russian media. He says the nerve agents were designed to escape detection by international inspectors.
Novichok agents are liquids, although others are thought to exist in solid form and could be dispersed as an ultra-fine powder.
Some of the agents are also said to be "binary weapons", meaning the nerve agent is typically stored as two less toxic chemical ingredients that are easier to handle.
When these are mixed, they react to produce the active toxic agent which can cause convulsions, shortness of breath, profuse sweating and nausea.
The OPCW does identify the toxic chemical by its complex formula but only in the classified report that has not been made public.
In its summary, which has been published online, the report notes the toxic chemical was of "high purity".
The BBC's diplomatic correspondent James Landale said: "This is understood to strengthen the argument that this substance came from Russia because it is more likely to have been created by a state actor with the capability to make the nerve agent."
The report does not name the source of the nerve agent, a subject which is beyond the remit of the inspectors.
The UK has called for a UN Security Council meeting on the OPCW report, likely to be held next week. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43741140 | news_uk-43741140 |
|
Syria air strikes: Will West's attack sway Syria's Assad? - BBC News | 2018-04-16 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Double the firepower with new allies - but is it enough to stop Assad's chemical weapon use? | Middle East | This was a heavier strike than a year ago - three targets rather than one.
Then, the US acted alone; this time it was joined by its French and British allies.
More than double the number of weapons were fired against Syrian targets than last year - a little more than 120 in all.
But the fundamental question remains the same.
Was this enough to achieve what the Americans say was their goal - to deter President Bashar al-Assad from using chemical weapons again?
Since April a year ago Syria's torment has not ended. But two fundamental things have changed.
Firstly, the Assad regime has effectively won its war and terrorising civilians has played a key part in its strategy.
President Assad may not control all of Syrian territory. But backed by Russia and Iran, there is nobody that can really stand against him. It is shortages of manpower, equipment and capacity that prevent him re-establishing wider control.
Syrians wave Iranian, Russian and Syrian flags after the western strikes
Secondly, relations between Washington and Moscow - and between Russia and the West more generally - have deteriorated significantly, to the extent that senior international officials are now talking of a new Cold War.
This was the context in which President Trump determined to send his punitive message to the Assad regime. And this is the context in which they will have received it.
Will they be cowed or defiant? Will public bluster conceal a more fundamental re-think on the part of Mr Assad? Might Russia, whatever its spokesmen say, have a stern word with the Syrian leader? And if they did, would it have any effect?
Watching this crisis unfold from the United States, I found it both perplexing and in many ways worrying.
There seemed to be a lack of focus and clarity on the part of the Trump administration. Hardly surprising, perhaps, when the president himself was increasingly bogged down in his own domestic difficulties as allegations and recriminations about alleged past affairs and misbehaviour returned to haunt him.
At times he seemed more likely to strike out at the US justice system than at President Assad. Indeed over the past week, while much of the rest of the world worried about what Mr Trump might do about Syria, the media here has been dominated, absorbed and fascinated, in equal measure, by Mr Trump's difficulties almost to the exclusion of all else.
President Trump's rhetoric suggested a major military strike against the Assad regime. In the event what has taken place falls far short of that. So what conclusion might Moscow and Damascus draw?
The Pentagon seems to have gone out of its way to avoid both civilian and "foreign" casualties - for that read "Russians".
The three targets hit were chosen both for their central role in the chemical weapons programme but also because the risk of collateral damage was smallest.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff noted at a subsequent briefing that the US had a list of other targets which it did not choose to strike this time. The clear message is that if the Assad regime resorts to chemical weapons again then more strikes will follow.
But again, since last April there have been a number of other alleged chemical weapons attacks, generally using chlorine gas. But until now the US did not strike again. So what message did this send?
An explosion seen in the night sky over Damascus
Now the hope is that Mr Assad will change his behaviour. But what about the wider Syrian conflict? This brutal war shows no sign of ending. Many have pointed out that it is barrel bombs, artillery and bullets that are responsible for the overwhelming bulk of the deaths and mutilations in Syria, not chemical weapons, and yet it is these that prompt Western action.
There is a good measure of truth in this sentiment, though for historical and cultural reasons chemical weapons have a particular horror in the West in the wake of their use in World War One. The treaty banning them is an important disarmament agreement and its weakening threatens to unwind years of progress.
But the wider question is to what extent these latest strikes change the picture in Syria? Do they bring the conflict any closer to an end? Sadly the answer is almost certainly no.
Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis briefed the media after the strikes took place
Only a short while ago - much to his generals' horror - Mr Trump spoke about pulling all US troops out of Syria. Only days later he seemed to be threatening a major military intervention. There has been no consistency in the Trump administration's position.
There is simply no clear strategy to help bring the war to an end. Indeed one of the arguments for keeping US troops in Syria to bolster their local allies like the Kurds, was in fact to keep the Assad regime and its Iranian backers off-balance.
Constraining Iran is about the only unifying theme in the Trump administration's approach, but even this has not been raised to the level of a coherent strategy. In his statement after the strikes the President again asserted that the US was not seeking an indefinite presence in Syria.
His hope was clearly that as others shouldered the burden (who?) the US might walk away. But this was followed by a catch-all statement about the intractability of the region and its problems, which hardly suggests a desire for a long-term engagement.
If these are the signals coming from Washington, then why should Russia worry?
It has, through its military, and political support for the Assad regime, re-established itself as a significant diplomatic actor in the region. Russia, of course warned the US and its allies not to strike Syria. So in the wake of this attack what might Russia do?
In Syria itself, it might seek to further undermine Washington's already weak position but it is not going to war with the Americans - such fears, barring some extraordinary disaster, were always, probably, far-fetched.
US Defence Secretary James Mattis has already hinted at Russia's likely response noting that "we fully expect a significant disinformation campaign over the coming days by those who have aligned themselves with the Assad regime".
Indeed this campaign has in many ways already begun, with the Russians - who now have forces in the area where the recent chemical attack is alleged to have occurred - insisting first that there was no sign of a chemical attack and then, more recently, that the whole thing was staged by foreign agents to discredit Mr Assad and Moscow.
This is the same Russia that is accepted by most Western governments to have been behind the attempted assassination of a former Russian intelligence officer and his daughter in the English city of Salisbury, using a nerve agent. It is the same Russia that has tried to influence the US and other recent elections. It is President Putin's Russia that has seized part of Ukraine. One could go on. The misinformation battle has already been joined.
There is indeed a new sort of Cold War developing. It may not risk nuclear annihilation, but because of that it is in many ways more direct and unpredictable, with Moscow taking much greater risks than it might have done in the past.
Russia is not a global superpower like the Soviet Union. It no longer has an ideology that gathers support from liberation movements around the world. It is fundamentally a middle-ranking regional power with a significant nuclear arsenal and a relatively weak economy. But it knows how to wield influence and how to conduct information warfare. And Mr Putin is determined to defend Russia's interests - as he sees them - wherever he is able.
A missile destined for Syria is launched from a French vessel in the Mediterranean
Mostly this means in Russia's near-abroad, that is countries close to its borders that have been traditional Russian spheres of interest - such as Georgia or Ukraine. Syria is almost an honorary member of the near-abroad, affording Russia an entry point to regain its influence in a region that still matters. Russia's star is rising and Washington's influence is in many ways on the wane.
And this matters. For instability in the region is growing. The ripples from a previous US administration's decision to remove Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq are still spreading. Iran was the principal benefactor of that decision. It has become a formidable regional player.
Its growing influence in Syria risks a major conflict with Israel. Recently, Israel is believed to have struck at a Syrian base which was home to an Iranian facility.
Tensions are rising. The region's many fault-lines risk merging.
And the US, British and French attacks over-night have inevitably thrown another pebble into the pool. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43764344 | news_world-middle-east-43764344 |
|
Facebook's Zuckerberg fires back at Apple's Tim Cook - BBC News | 2018-04-02 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Mark Zuckerberg says it is "extremely glib" to suggest Facebook does not care about its users. | Technology | Mr Zuckerberg has seen shares in his company fall steeply since the start of the Cambridge Analytical scandal
Facebook's chief executive has defended his leadership following criticism from his counterpart at Apple.
Mark Zuckerberg said it was "extremely glib" to suggest that because the public did not pay to use Facebook that the firm did not care about them.
Last week, Apple's Tim Cook said it was an "invasion of privacy" to traffic in users' personal lives.
And when asked what he would do if he were Mr Zuckerberg, Mr Cook replied: "I wouldn't be in that situation."
Facebook has faced intense criticism after it emerged that it had known for years that Cambridge Analytica had harvested data from about 50 million of its users, but had relied on the political consultancy to self-certify that it had deleted the information.
Channel 4 News has since reported that at least some of the data in question is still in circulation despite Cambridge Analytica insisting it had destroyed the material.
Mr Zuckerberg was asked about Mr Cook's comments during a lengthy interview given to news site Vox about the privacy scandal.
He also acknowledged that Facebook was still not transparent enough about some of the choices it had taken, and floated the idea of an independent panel being able to override some of its decisions.
Mr Cook has spoken in public twice since Facebook's data-mining controversy began.
Tim Cook had said he would not have let himself be in Mr Zuckerberg's current situation
On 23 March, he took part in the China Development Forum in Beijing.
"I think that this certain situation is so dire and has become so large that probably some well-crafted regulation is necessary," news agency Bloomberg quoted him as saying in response to a question about the social network's problems.
"The ability of anyone to know what you've been browsing about for years, who your contacts are, who their contacts are, things you like and dislike and every intimate detail of your life - from my own point of view it shouldn't exist."
Then in an interview with MSNBC and Recode on 28 March, Mr Cook said: "I think the best regulation is no regulation, is self-regulation. However, I think we're beyond that here."
During this second appearance - which has yet to be broadcast in full - he added: "We could make a tonne of money if we monetised our customer, if our customer was our product. We've elected not to do that... Privacy to us is a human right."
Apple makes most of its profits from selling smartphones, tablets and other computers, as well as associated services such as online storage and its various media stores.
This contrasts with other tech firms whose profits are largely derived from advertising, including Google, Twitter and Facebook.
Facebook's reputation has been tarnished by the Cambridge Analytica revelations
Mr Zuckerberg had previously told CNN that he was "open" to new regulations.
But he defended his business model when questioned about Mr Cook's views, although he mentioned neither Apple nor its leader by name.
"I find that argument, that if you're not paying that somehow we can't care about you, to be extremely glib and not at all aligned with the truth," he said.
"The reality here is that if you want to build a service that helps connect everyone in the world, then there are a lot of people who can't afford to pay."
He added: "I think it's important that we don't all get Stockholm syndrome and let the companies that work hard to charge you more convince you that they actually care more about you, because that sounds ridiculous to me."
Mr Zuckerberg also defended his leadership by invoking Amazon's chief executive.
"I make all of our decisions based on what's going to matter to our community and focus much less on the advertising side of the business," he said.
"I thought Jeff Bezos had an excellent saying: "There are companies that work hard to charge you more, and there are companies that work hard to charge you less."
Elsewhere in the 49-minute interview, Mr Zuckerberg said he hoped to make Facebook more "democratic" by giving members a chance to challenge decisions its own review team had taken about what content to permit or ban.
Eventually, he said, he wanted something like the "Supreme Court", in which people who did not work for the company made the ultimate call on what was acceptable speech.
Mr Zuckerberg also responded to recent criticism from a UN probe into allegations of genocide against the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar.
Hundreds of thousands of Rohingya Muslims have fled Myanmar
Last month, one of the human rights investigators said Facebook had "turned into a beast" and had "played a determining role" in stirring up hatred against the group.
Mr Zuckerberg claimed messages had been sent "to each side of the conflict" via Facebook Messenger, attempting to make them go to the same locations to fight.
But he added that the firm had now set up systems to detect such activity.
"We stop those messages from going through," he added.
"But this is certainly something that we're paying a lot of attention to."
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43619410 | news_technology-43619410 |
|
Ken Livingstone to quit Labour amid anti-Semitism row - BBC News | 2018-05-21 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The ex-London mayor, suspended over anti-Semitism claims, says he is "sorry for offence he caused". | UK Politics | This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Ken Livingstone: "It's better for Labour if I resign"
Ken Livingstone has said he is resigning from the Labour Party.
The ex-London mayor has been suspended since 2016 in a row over allegations of anti-Semitism following comments he made about Hitler and Zionism.
Mr Livingstone said he did not accept he was guilty of anti-Semitism or bringing Labour into disrepute but his case had become a "distraction" for the party and its political ambitions.
Jeremy Corbyn said it was a sad moment but it was the "right thing to do".
Mr Livingstone, an ally of Mr Corbyn, has always maintained that comments he made about the Nazi leader supporting a Jewish homeland when he first came to power in the early 1930 were historically accurate.
Speaking in April 2016, Mr Livingstone, who was defending MP Naz Shah over claims she had made anti-Semitic social media posts, said: "When Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews."
Despite his decision to resign from the party, Mr Livingstone said on Monday he "did not accept" the allegation that he was "in any way guilty of anti-Semitism".
He added that he "abhorred" anti-Semitism and was "truly sorry" that his historical arguments had "caused offence and upset in the Jewish community".
"I am loyal to the Labour Party and to Jeremy Corbyn," he said in a statement. "However, any further disciplinary action against me may drag on for months or even years, distracting attention from Jeremy's policies.
"I am therefore, with great sadness, leaving the Labour Party."
A spokesman for the Campaign Against Antisemitism said Mr Corbyn's decision to describe Mr Livingstone's resignation as "sad" had merely "rubbed salt into the wound".
The group called for Mr Corbyn to apologise and added: "The Labour Party's anti-Semitism problem seems to be growing, not receding."
This Twitter post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser. View original content on Twitter The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Skip twitter post by Luciana Berger This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Twitter’s cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
Speaking later on BBC Radio 5 live, Mr Livingstone said his decision had come after he was warned "some of the old right wingers" in Labour's National Executive Committee had again been planning to call for his expulsion from the party.
Labour MP Ruth Smeeth described Mr Livingstone's decision to resign as "welcome" but added his "toxic views" should have resulted in his expulsion from the party "years ago".
Ilford North Labour MP Wes Streeting added: "We must now make it clear that he will never be welcome to return."
Last week, shadow attorney general Baroness Chakrabarti called for Mr Livingstone's expulsion - signalling to some that the party leadership had now turned against him.
He was awaiting a fresh disciplinary process due to start this week.
This Twitter post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser. View original content on Twitter The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Skip twitter post 2 by Tulip Siddiq This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Twitter’s cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
Mr Livingstone was expelled from Labour in 2000 after challenging the party's official candidate in the mayoral contest but returned to the fold later.
BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg said Mr Livingstone's departure from the party would be a relief to Mr Corbyn.
"Mr Corbyn wants people to believe that he is taking anti-Semitism seriously. While Mr Livingstone was still a member that was challenging to say the least," she said.
"Although he and Mr Corbyn were fellow political travellers for years, he had long passed the point of being helpful to his old friend."
"After much consideration, I have decided to resign from the Labour Party.
The ongoing issues around my suspension from the Labour Party have become a distraction from the key political issue of our time - which is to replace a Tory government overseeing falling living standards and spiralling poverty, while starving our schools and the NHS of the vital resources they need.
We live in dangerous times and there are many issues I wish to speak up on and contribute my experience from running London... from the need for real action to tackle climate change, to opposing Trump's war-mongering, to the need to end austerity and invest in our future here in Britain.
I do not accept the allegation that I have brought the Labour Party into disrepute - nor that I am in any way guilty of anti-Semitism. I abhor anti-Semitism, I have fought it all my life and will continue to do so.
I also recognise that the way I made a historical argument has caused offence and upset in the Jewish community. I am truly sorry for that.
Under Labour's new general secretary I am sure there will be rapid action to expel anyone who genuinely has anti-Semitic views.
I am loyal to the Labour Party and to Jeremy Corbyn. However any further disciplinary action against me may drag on for months or even years, distracting attention from Jeremy's policies.
I am therefore, with great sadness, leaving the Labour Party.
We desperately need an end to Tory rule, and a Corbyn-led government to transform Britain and end austerity.
I will continue to work to this end, and I thank all those who share this aim and who have supported me in my own political career." | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44196298 | news_uk-politics-44196298 |
|
Acid death man 'told former partner to kill herself' - BBC News | 2018-05-03 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Berlinah Wallace denies murder and applying a corrosive fluid to Mark van Dongen in Bristol in 2015. | Bristol | Berlinah Wallace (right) said she and Mark van Dongen argued after he told her he had slept with another woman
A man who had sulphuric acid thrown over him said his former partner should kill herself by drinking acid while he watched, a court has heard.
Berlinah Wallace, 48, denies murder and applying a corrosive fluid to Mark van Dongen, 29, in Bristol in 2015.
He ended his life in a Belgian euthanasia clinic 15 months later.
Ms Wallace told Bristol Crown Court Mr van Dongen fetched a bottle of acid from the kitchen during an argument the day before he was allegedly attacked.
Under questioning by Richard Smith QC, for the defence, Ms Wallace said she and Mr van Dongen had argued after he told her he had slept with another woman.
"I said 'why don't you just kill me', because I can't have any peace with him," Ms Wallace told the court.
"He said I should kill myself. He went into the kitchen and came back with the acid and put it on the table.
"He said 'there you go, you kill yourself - I'll watch'."
Ms Wallace told the court Mr van Dongen had got her a glass of water for her to take her medication.
She said she tried to leave the flat after the pair "bickered" and he tried to stop her physically from leaving.
"I asked him to stop, he didn't. I wanted something to hit him with.
"I reached for something, got a cup, turned around and threw the water at him."
Mr Smith asked: "Did you know what was in the glass?"
"No I didn't. I thought it was water. I just wanted him to stop because he was hurting me," Ms Wallace replied.
She told the jury Mr van Dongen said "ooh, you threw acid at me", and as she turned around while trying to run away she saw "smoke or something" coming from him.
"He was saying 'it hurts, it hurts', she said.
She told the court Mr van Dongen had a shower and then left the flat.
Previously she told the court she had bought a bottle of sulphuric acid in order to clear drains and to "distress" fabric.
Mr van Dongen was left paralysed from the neck down and lost his left leg, ear and eye following the alleged attack in the early hours of 23 September 2015.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-43988075 | news_uk-england-bristol-43988075 |
|
Stormy Daniels and Trump: Should the president be worried? - BBC News | 2018-05-03 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The adult film actress says she had sex with the president. What will this do for his political career? | US & Canada | This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
A porn star has given details in a television interview of an alleged affair with the US president. What impact might this have on Donald Trump?
Like kids waiting for Santa to come down the chimney, how can the expectation and anticipation ever live up to the reality?
And so it was with Stormy.
There were "watch parties" as friends gathered a la Superbowl or Oscars, with bowls of nachos and popcorn lined up on coffee tables. Bars were offering Dark and Stormy cocktails in honour of the eponymous star of the show. Like so much else in this presidency it was reality TV on steroids.
I confess I had been with friends and we discussed what would be the worst thing she could say. What if she brought on to set three 12-year-old blond-haired boys with comb-overs and red ties that went below their waist?
In the event there was nothing of the sort. Stormy Daniels seemed poised throughout the interview. She detailed a night in Lake Tahoe where she says she had sex with the president, without too much salacious detail.
Yes, a bit of light-hearted slap and tickle. But the way she described it, it was more saucy end-of-the-pier show than it was Fifty Shades of Grey.
Some people were glued to it
She is whip smart (to coin a phrase). And with a quick wit. I thought one of the killer lines was when she recalled that Donald Trump is alleged to have said: "You are smart, just like my daughter." (I can't imagine Ivanka taking kindly to that).
Stormy was very quick to point out their encounter was consensual, and that she was making no #MeToo-style complaint. On social media most of the discussion seemed to be about the size of her pupils during the interview. They were huge, and normally when you are under blinding camera lights they are pinpoints.
The interview also suffered because quite a lot of things had been offered as teasers before it aired. I knew she was going to allege that she had been threatened. Her lawyer had said as much in an earlier interview. And we knew all about the $130,000 (£91,000) non-disclosure agreement.
Also, it wasn't an affair - it was one night only. So when I finished watching I thought: "Well, there really isn't that much there."
And the biggest tease of all - the picture posted on social media by Stormy's lawyer of a CD or DVD, with the caption "If a picture is worth a thousand words, how much is this worth…?"
There was no explanation.
It was gratingly and somewhat too-clever-by-half left unexplained. Is it bluff, or is it real? Is it the secret weapon, only to be detonated in extremis? Whatever it is, the viewer was left none the wiser.
So a big yawn, and nothing like as exciting as the Kansas vs Duke basketball game that went into extra time, thus delaying the airing of the 60 Minutes interview.
But hang on. This isn't a woman making allegations about some two-bit soap star. This is about the man who is now president of the United States.
And yes, there is a lot of he said, she said - but isn't a "she said" that some goon threatened her as she was taking her infant child out of a car seat that unless she dropped the Trump allegations, kind of alarming? And her claims of repeated attempts to silence her? And then there is the one undisputed fact in all this.
Donald Trump's lawyer paid her $130,000. You don't do that because you're worried that Stormy might reveal she had tea with Mr Trump at a golf tournament in Lake Tahoe or that she met him at a vodka launch in California.
Does that payment pass the smell test? Are we to believe that this philanthropic, beneficent great big softie of an attorney just dishes out suitcases of $100 bills to anyone passing by? "Here you are young lady, go and buy yourself a lovely new mink coat, courtesy of me…"
You don't have to believe every word that Stormy Daniels uttered (although most people I've spoken to - and by no means all anti-Trump - think she came across as credible), and she admits that she lied in putting her name to the denial of an affair. There are uncomfortable questions for her conduct and her motives. But surely the burden is on the president to explain why she was paid that money, and with such stringent conditions attached.
Again, as I say, if it was just a cup of tea and a little chat about appearing on Celebrity Apprentice, why would you want her silenced?
Which brings us to consequences. There is a legal argument over whether this payment breaks campaign finance laws. I am no scholar in this matter, but isn't this a payment to benefit the Trump campaign? Surely it strains credulity that the payment, made 11 days before polling, was some kind of weird coincidence.
Her silence certainly did help his campaign. The rockiest moment of Mr Trump's bid for the White House had come earlier with the publication of the Access Hollywood tape when he was heard making lewd comments about what he could do to women. Fresh disclosures from a former porn star would have certainly whipped up a Stormy storm.
Complaints have been made to the Federal Election Commission and to the Justice Department. That is awkward, but wheels there move slowly - and what is the worst that is going to happen? A fine? A slap on the wrists? Perhaps more dangerous is that this might prick the interest of the special counsel, Robert Mueller, looking into allegations of Russian collusion and the Trump campaign.
And before you rightly say to me: "Huh? What's Stormy got to do with Russian cyber-hacking?" it's worth pointing out what happened with the special prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, who was appointed to investigate Bill Clinton.
Sorry, we're having trouble displaying this content. View original content on Twitter The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
It started as an inquiry into an Arkansas land deal, and ended with the perjury committed by the president over his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Mr Mueller might be investigating Russia, but if he's going through a dark room with his torch/flashlight and trips over something else, the thing that he accidentally kicked over can easily become the subject of investigation.
Another thing. In Washington we move from story to story with lightning speed. Everything is here today gone tomorrow. I honestly struggle to remember which story I covered two days ago, such is the breathless pace. Stormy Daniels has been in the news for weeks now.
It may not affect the Trump core of supporters. But the 52% of white, college educated women who voted for him in 2016? The evangelicals? The independents? Old-school Republicans? There are important mid-term elections coming up in November, remember.
There's been no response from the president since the interview and all calls to his press office refer us to previous White House statements denying the relationship took place.
Stormy Daniels was interviewed by Anderson Cooper for CBS News 60 Minutes
So a final question - does Mr Trump care or is he just brushing this off?
He boasts about what a great counter puncher he is. And we've seen it again and again. Theresa May criticises him over retweeting anti Muslim videos - and biff - he hits back.
Meryl Streep dares to question him - and thwack, she's an overrated actor. His enemies are mercilessly assailed: weak, pathetic, useless, snivelling, lying, low-energy, little.
And of Stormy Daniels he has not tweeted a single word.
• None 'I was threatened over Trump affair' Video, 00:00:51'I was threatened over Trump affair' | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43545618 | news_world-us-canada-43545618 |
|
London killings: No easy answers to gun and knife crime - BBC News | 2018-05-07 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Cuts to police budgets may be less relevant than cuts to mental health provision. | UK | The deliberate killing of one human being by another is a crime that defies easy characterisation.
Among the more than 50 tragedies that make up the current spike in homicides in the capital this year are some that may be premeditated or gang-related, but most will be unpredictable acts of violence in moments of mental anguish, involving a victim and a perpetrator who are well known to each other - family disputes or an argument between friends.
By far the most likely year of life in which we might be unlawfully killed is not in our teens or early 20s but our first year - babies under one are more than twice as likely to be murdered as a 20-year-old.
That is why it is far too simplistic to draw a direct link between the number of killings and the number of Bobbies on the beat. Cuts to police budgets may be less relevant than cuts to mental health provision.
In tackling gang activity, there is good evidence that a psychiatric health approach may be more effective than a tough criminal justice response, which can thwart individual acts of violence, but may also infect communities with resentment and distrust - the breeding ground of gangsters.
Analysis of a survey of more than 4,600 young men in the UK, published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, found those involved with gangs showed "inordinately high levels of psychiatric morbidity, placing a heavy burden on mental health services".
The authors concluded that "healthcare professionals may have an important role in promoting desistence from gang activity".
Separate research involving long and detailed interviews with 16 men on death row in the US found all had experienced family violence. Fourteen of the men had been "severely physically abused as children by a family member".
Three of them had been beaten unconscious. Twelve of the death row inmates had been diagnosed with traumatic brain injury.
The World Health Organization in Europe found a similar link: "Exposure to violence and mental trauma in childhood is associated with atypical neurodevelopment and subsequent information-processing biases, leading to poor attachment, aggression and violent behaviour. Children who experience neglect and maltreatment from parents are at greater risk for aggressive and antisocial behaviour and violent offending in later life."
Killing can be contagious. The murder of one young person can raise fear levels on the street, making it more likely others will carry weapons to protect themselves. And more likely they will use them.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Fact checking murder statistics in London vs New York
In the US and increasingly in the UK, in places like Glasgow, agencies are successfully reducing gang violence by treating it in the same way they'd respond to a public health emergency, looking to disrupt the spread of a deadly virus.
Karyn McCluskey, a former director of Violence Reduction Unit set up by Strathclyde police, says it is about identifying the people at risk.
"We need to interrupt because some people are very angry and sometimes they'll be on their phone, plotting their revenge," she says.
"Often these are people that need to be rehoused, who need drug addiction services, so it's about connecting them to all the other services that are out there and staying with them."
The general murder rate, though, is immune to quick and easy interventions. Declining for centuries, it is a reflection of deeper trends - society's relationship to violence and the mental resilience of a population.
Back in the Middle Ages, according to analysis of English coroners' records and 'eyre rolls' (accounts of visits by justice officials), the rate was around 35/100,000. This is equivalent to the homicide level in contemporary Colombia or the Congo.
From the middle of the 16th Century, the homicide rate starts to fall steeply, a dramatic reduction in risk that is maintained for 200 years. The development of a statutory justice system is often cited - but it was also a period in which society found alternative ways of dealing with dispute and discontent.
For Europe's elite, the duel emerged as a controlled and respectable way of responding to an insult against one's honour. Spontaneous violence became disreputable for gentlemen of standing while personal discipline and restraint were seen as the marks of a civilised individual.
The murder rate continued to fall, if less steeply, during the 19th and 20th Centuries as state control and social policies increased. It was also partly a consequence of young men being given a substitute for interpersonal violence to demonstrate their masculinity - organised sport.
Boxing, for example, developed from bare-knuckled no-holds-barred brawls to disciplined contests governed by a strict code and overseen by a referee. The 'Queensbury Rules', introduced into British boxing in 1867, became shorthand for sportsmanship and fair play. Society at all levels increasingly valued the virtue of self-control.
Close study of the vital signs of British society reveal a slight rise in the homicide rate over the past 50 years, but in historical terms the figures are still so low that a single appalling occurrence - a terrorist attack or the murderous activity of a serial killer like Dr Harold Shipman - can skew the data.
In international terms, the UK is among the less likely spots to be murdered: our homicide rate is broadly in line with other European nations (a little higher than Germany but slightly lower than France) and roughly a quarter of the level in the US.
It is right to be alarmed by the spate of tragic murders in London this year, but just as the cause of such killings are complex, the solutions to societal violence are complex too. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43655748 | news_uk-43655748 |
|
YouTuber Alison Chabloz guilty over anti-Semitic songs - BBC News | 2018-05-25 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Alison Chabloz, from Derbyshire, claimed the Holocaust was "just a bunch of lies" in her songs. | Derby | Alison Chabloz had claimed the prosecution was an attempt to limit her free speech
A blogger has been found guilty of broadcasting anti-Semitic songs on YouTube.
Alison Chabloz, 54, from Glossop, Derbyshire, wrote and performed three songs about Nazi persecution, including one about the young diarist Anne Frank.
Chabloz claimed the Holocaust was "a bunch of lies" and referred to Auschwitz as a "theme park".
She was warned she may be jailed at her sentencing on 14 June. There was scuffle outside court.
There were several heated arguments outside court
Chabloz was convicted of two counts of sending an offensive, indecent or menacing message through a public communications network.
She was further convicted of a third charge relating to a song on YouTube.
District Judge John Zani, sitting at Westminster Magistrates' Court, said the offences were serious and "the custody threshold may well have been passed."
When the verdict was given supporters of Chabloz shouted "shame" from the public gallery.
Chabloz was released on bail on the condition she was placed on a night curfew at her home and does not leave England and Wales.
When Chabloz left court there was a scuffle and heated arguments outside, before police arrived to keep the peace.
Police arrived to keep the peace after a scuffle outside court
The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism initially brought a private prosecution against Chabloz, before the Crown Prosecution Service took over.
Gideon Falter, the group's chairman, said: "Alison Chabloz has dedicated herself over the course of years to inciting others to hate Jews, principally by claiming that the Holocaust was a hoax perpetrated by Jews to defraud the world.
"She is now a convicted criminal. This verdict sends a strong message that in Britain Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories will not be tolerated."
A CPS spokesman said it first became aware of the private prosecution in December 2016 when Alison Chabloz's solicitors asked the CPS to take it over and stop it.
However, in 2017, the CPS determined the case should continue and Alison Chabloz was prosecuted.
Alison Chabloz previously told the court she wanted put across her "political, artistic, creative point"
Chabloz, who describes herself as a Holocaust revisionist, said her music was "satire" and had previously told the court there was "no proof" gas chambers were used to kill Jewish people in World War Two.
However, prosecutors said three of Chabloz's songs, including one which referred to the notorious Nazi death camp Auschwitz as a "theme park", were criminally offensive.
Another song included a section set to the tune of a popular Jewish song Hava Nagila.
The defence had told Judge Zani his ruling would set a precedent on the exercise of free speech.
Chabloz had claimed many Jewish people found her songs funny and that no-one was forced to listen to them.
Follow BBC East Midlands on Facebook, on Twitter, or on Instagram. Send your story ideas to [email protected].
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-44253085 | news_uk-england-derbyshire-44253085 |
|
Ken Livingstone to quit Labour amid anti-Semitism row - BBC News | 2018-05-22 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The ex-London mayor, suspended over anti-Semitism claims, says he is "sorry for offence he caused". | UK Politics | This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Ken Livingstone: "It's better for Labour if I resign"
Ken Livingstone has said he is resigning from the Labour Party.
The ex-London mayor has been suspended since 2016 in a row over allegations of anti-Semitism following comments he made about Hitler and Zionism.
Mr Livingstone said he did not accept he was guilty of anti-Semitism or bringing Labour into disrepute but his case had become a "distraction" for the party and its political ambitions.
Jeremy Corbyn said it was a sad moment but it was the "right thing to do".
Mr Livingstone, an ally of Mr Corbyn, has always maintained that comments he made about the Nazi leader supporting a Jewish homeland when he first came to power in the early 1930 were historically accurate.
Speaking in April 2016, Mr Livingstone, who was defending MP Naz Shah over claims she had made anti-Semitic social media posts, said: "When Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews."
Despite his decision to resign from the party, Mr Livingstone said on Monday he "did not accept" the allegation that he was "in any way guilty of anti-Semitism".
He added that he "abhorred" anti-Semitism and was "truly sorry" that his historical arguments had "caused offence and upset in the Jewish community".
"I am loyal to the Labour Party and to Jeremy Corbyn," he said in a statement. "However, any further disciplinary action against me may drag on for months or even years, distracting attention from Jeremy's policies.
"I am therefore, with great sadness, leaving the Labour Party."
A spokesman for the Campaign Against Antisemitism said Mr Corbyn's decision to describe Mr Livingstone's resignation as "sad" had merely "rubbed salt into the wound".
The group called for Mr Corbyn to apologise and added: "The Labour Party's anti-Semitism problem seems to be growing, not receding."
This Twitter post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser. View original content on Twitter The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Skip twitter post by Luciana Berger This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Twitter’s cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
Speaking later on BBC Radio 5 live, Mr Livingstone said his decision had come after he was warned "some of the old right wingers" in Labour's National Executive Committee had again been planning to call for his expulsion from the party.
Labour MP Ruth Smeeth described Mr Livingstone's decision to resign as "welcome" but added his "toxic views" should have resulted in his expulsion from the party "years ago".
Ilford North Labour MP Wes Streeting added: "We must now make it clear that he will never be welcome to return."
Last week, shadow attorney general Baroness Chakrabarti called for Mr Livingstone's expulsion - signalling to some that the party leadership had now turned against him.
He was awaiting a fresh disciplinary process due to start this week.
This Twitter post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser. View original content on Twitter The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Skip twitter post 2 by Tulip Siddiq This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Twitter’s cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
Mr Livingstone was expelled from Labour in 2000 after challenging the party's official candidate in the mayoral contest but returned to the fold later.
BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg said Mr Livingstone's departure from the party would be a relief to Mr Corbyn.
"Mr Corbyn wants people to believe that he is taking anti-Semitism seriously. While Mr Livingstone was still a member that was challenging to say the least," she said.
"Although he and Mr Corbyn were fellow political travellers for years, he had long passed the point of being helpful to his old friend."
"After much consideration, I have decided to resign from the Labour Party.
The ongoing issues around my suspension from the Labour Party have become a distraction from the key political issue of our time - which is to replace a Tory government overseeing falling living standards and spiralling poverty, while starving our schools and the NHS of the vital resources they need.
We live in dangerous times and there are many issues I wish to speak up on and contribute my experience from running London... from the need for real action to tackle climate change, to opposing Trump's war-mongering, to the need to end austerity and invest in our future here in Britain.
I do not accept the allegation that I have brought the Labour Party into disrepute - nor that I am in any way guilty of anti-Semitism. I abhor anti-Semitism, I have fought it all my life and will continue to do so.
I also recognise that the way I made a historical argument has caused offence and upset in the Jewish community. I am truly sorry for that.
Under Labour's new general secretary I am sure there will be rapid action to expel anyone who genuinely has anti-Semitic views.
I am loyal to the Labour Party and to Jeremy Corbyn. However any further disciplinary action against me may drag on for months or even years, distracting attention from Jeremy's policies.
I am therefore, with great sadness, leaving the Labour Party.
We desperately need an end to Tory rule, and a Corbyn-led government to transform Britain and end austerity.
I will continue to work to this end, and I thank all those who share this aim and who have supported me in my own political career." | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44196298 | news_uk-politics-44196298 |
|
Real Madrid 3-1 Liverpool - BBC Sport | 2018-05-26 | None | Gareth Bale scores two goals - including a stunning overhead kick - as Real Madrid beat Liverpool to win the Champions League for the third year in a row. | null | Last updated on .From the section European Football
Gareth Bale scored one of European football's great goals to help Real Madrid overcome Liverpool and win their third successive Champions League title as goalkeeper Loris Karius suffered a personal nightmare.
Bale made his mark on another Champions League final with a magnificent overhead kick to put Real 2-1 up after 64 minutes.
Liverpool had already suffered the devastating blow of losing top scorer Mohamed Salah midway through the first half - with a shoulder injury sustained in a challenge with Real Madrid captain Sergio Ramos - when calamity struck for Karius.
Six minutes after half-time, the German inexplicably threw the ball against Karim Benzema, who was not even challenging with urgency, and watched in horror as the ball rolled behind him into the net.
Liverpool recovered from the shock to equalise through Sadio Mane before Bale stepped off the bench to score his wonder goal.
There was to be no comeback from Liverpool this time and Karius's misery was complete when he fumbled Bale's hopeful 30-yard shot behind him to seal Real's win.
It sealed Real's record 13th win in this competition, and their fourth in five seasons to give coach Zinedine Zidane this third triumph in three years.
For Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp, it was disappointment again - he lost his third successive final since arriving at Anfield, having suffered defeats in the League Cup and Europa League finals of 2016.
• None Bale to have talks about Real future
• None Bale the best I've seen - Giggs
When the story of this Champions League final is told from a Liverpool perspective, it will be the tale of Karius' nightmare alongside that of Salah's injury.
The 24-year-old German has been shown huge faith by Klopp, who brought him in from Mainz and made him first choice ahead of Simon Mignolet.
He has never fully convinced and on this, the biggest night in Liverpool's recent history, he had the sort of night to leave you wondering how he will rebuild his Anfield career.
Karius inexplicably threw a clearance against Benzema for Real Madrid's opener before fumbling Bale's speculative, long-range effort into the net to snuff out any hopes of a comeback.
The keeper lay flat on the turf at the final whistle, being consoled by Real Madrid's players before apologising tearfully in front of Liverpool's fans.
Klopp clearly rates Karius but there are too many holes in his technique. That, along with his temperament, must be questioned after a complete horror show here in Kiev.
The whole emphasis of the final shifted as Salah slumped to the turf for a second time after realising he could not carry on with the shoulder injury sustained in the tangle with Ramos.
Liverpool had started well and Real's deep defending hinted at the apprehension they were felt faced with the attacking trio of Salah, Roberto Firmino and Sadio Mane.
As Salah left the pitch, inconsolable and in tears, even Liverpool's fans were temporarily hushed and it was clear Real had suddenly been given fresh impetus.
Liverpool, with the magnificent Mane leading the fight, showed commendable heart but they had been robbed of their world-class talisman who, before his substitution, had scored 33% of their goals in all competitions.
It will be the great unknown as to what might have happened had Salah stayed on but there is no question his departure was a savage blow to Liverpool and a lift for Real Madrid.
Bale's Real Madrid future has been under constant scrutiny this season - a quirk at a club that lives by its own rules.
The Welshman did not even make the starting line-up here and only emerged just after the hour - but within two minutes he scored one of the great Champions League goals, an overhead kick that was a triumph of athleticism and technique, and begged the question as to how Real could even contemplate life without him.
As for Bale's second goal, make no mistake - when he took on that long-range shot, he would have been street-smart enough to know Karius was living on his nerves after his earlier error.
Bale delivered a reminder, if it were needed that he remains a world-class player.
It may just have been an expensive night for suitors such as Manchester United as his display here will have added millions to any potential transfer fee.
When asked about his future after the game, Bale told BT Sport: "I need to be playing week in, week out and that has not happened this season.
"I had an injury five, six weeks in but have been fit ever since. I have to sit down with my agent in the summer and discuss it."
Zinedine Zidane has joined Liverpool's Bob Paisley and his Real Madrid predecessor Carlo Ancelotti in the elite ranks of managers to win this tournament three times - but added extra gloss by becoming the first to win it in three successive seasons.
Zidane has often been damned with faint praise about his abilities and record, despite his Champions League invincibility, by those who claim he simply keeps an outstanding team on track but he makes a nonsense of that with his tactical approach, handling of world-class players (and world-class egos) and a very happy knack of making decisive substitutions.
Three Champions League wins in three seasons ends all argument about his greatness as a coach. He is in charge of a team who know how to get the job done.
'This team is magnificent' - what they said
Real Madrid boss Zinedine Zidane, speaking to BT Sport: "Great emotions. To lift three Champions League trophies with this club, this team is magnificent. We don't quite realise what we have achieved yet.
"We are going to enjoy the moment. We had a complicated season but to finish with this makes us really happy.
"I have had a little bit of time to think about what this means. This is the status of this club. It is a legendary club, one that has won 13 Champions Leagues and I am happy to be a part of its history too."
Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp: "The plan is only to play to win, nothing else, not a lot to say. We started well and played exactly like we wanted to.
"The situation with Sergio Ramos [and Mohamed Salah] looked really bad and it was a shock for the team, we lost the positive momentum and they immediately came up.
"We dropped deep and we could not get to Luka Modric or Toni Kroos. We had to run and work, we did that and half-time came. What can I say about the goals? We scored one, they scored three."
A first in 42 years - the stats
• None English teams have suffered a defeat in their past seven UEFA club competition finals against Spanish opposition (four Champions League finals and three UEFA Cup/Europa League finals).
• None Jurgen Klopp has lost six of his seven major finals as manager, only winning the DFB-Pokal with Borussia Dortmund in 2012.
• None Real Madrid started with the same XI as in the 2016-17 Champions League final; the first time a team has started with the same 11 players in different European Cup/Champions League finals (excluding replays).
• None Karim Benzema has scored four goals against Liverpool in the Champions League; no player has managed more (also four for Didier Drogba).
• None Liverpool became the first team in history to see three players score 10-plus goals in a single Champions League season (Salah 10, Firmino 10, Mane 10).
• None Sadio Mane is only the fourth African player to score in a European Cup/Champions League final and the first since Didier Drogba for Chelsea v Bayern Munich in 2012. The other two were by Samuel Eto'o for Barcelona in both 2009 and 2006, and Rabah Madjer for Porto in 1987.
• None Mane became the third Liverpool player to score 20-plus goals in all competitions this season (Salah 44 goals and Firmino 27 goals); the last time that three players hit the 20-goal mark for the club in a single campagn was 1981-82 (Dalglish, McDermott and Rush).
• None Attempt blocked. Adam Lallana (Liverpool) left footed shot from the centre of the box is blocked.
• None Goal! Real Madrid 3, Liverpool 1. Gareth Bale (Real Madrid) left footed shot from outside the box to the top right corner. Assisted by Marcelo. Navigate to the next page Navigate to the last page | http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44258022 | rt_football_44258022 |
|
Northern Ireland: UK cabinet 'spat' over unsolved killings inquiry - BBC News | 2018-05-08 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Ministers raise concerns over plans to introduce a new body to look into unsolved Troubles crimes. | UK Politics | The new unit will take over the work of the Historical Enquiries Team
Cabinet ministers have raised concerns over plans to introduce a new body that would investigate unsolved killings from the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
Introducing a new "Historical Investigations Unit" was a major part of the 2014 Stormont House agreement.
It was agreed then to create a new independent body to deal with killings where there had been no prosecutions.
But several ministers told colleagues on Tuesday that the proposal was unacceptable in its current form.
In what has been described as a "spat", Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson is understood to have raised concerns that military veterans might not have enough protections under the proposed system.
Another minister who expressed worries said there had not been a huge argument, but that it had been made clear to the government that it had to do more to make sure that former military personnel weren't unfairly targeted, or dragged through the courts.
One cabinet source told the BBC: "This has got catastrophe written all over it for the government and will carry very little sympathy with the majority of the British public who won't be able to get their heads round us not getting behind our veterans."
But others familiar with the process said that the new HIU would "end the current witch hunt" where veterans and former police officers are already hit disproportionately, providing a new system that is fair, independent and proportionate. Figures obtained by the BBC challenge the claim that investigations are unfairly focused on the security forces.
The defence secretary is understood to have raised objections
It is hoped the proposed unit would be able to investigate terrorist killings more vigorously than under the current piecemeal system. The plan was also included in the Tories' Northern Irish election manifesto.
A source said: "We want to find a way forward and we believe that the right way is to consult on this. Leaving the status quo as it exists is to let down our armed forces, as the current system it hits our armed forces disproportionately."
They suggested the idea of providing a statute of limitation for veterans would be legally impossible.
A Number 10 source said it was hoped the consultation would be carried out "expeditiously" although they would not be drawn on a date.
The Northern Ireland Office has circulated a draft consultation document on "legacy" matters to the main Stormont parties.
It is understood the draft does not contain a controversial suggestion for a so-called statute of limitations.
It would have prevented the prosecution of former soldiers for offences connected to the Troubles. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44048593 | news_uk-politics-44048593 |
|
PM's portrait taken down after Oxford student protests - BBC News | 2018-05-08 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | A picture of Theresa May is removed at the University of Oxford to save it from protesting students. | Family & Education | Theresa May's portrait has had to be taken down at Oxford University
A picture of Theresa May has been taken down at the University of Oxford to protect it from protests by students.
The picture of the prime minister, part of a celebration of women who had studied at the university, had been "obscured" by critical messages.
The portrait had been "plastered" with messages about issues including immigration, Windrush and Brexit.
A university spokesman said removing Theresa May's picture was "absolutely not done to make a political point".
Instead, the university authorities say, the picture had been taken down to keep it safe from "mainly humorous satirical messages".
Protesters had used Twitter to say that the university should not be putting up pictures of Mrs May - making reference to the Windrush scandal.
This Twitter post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser. View original content on Twitter The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Skip twitter post by Andrew Dwyer This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Twitter’s cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
This Twitter post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser. View original content on Twitter The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Skip twitter post 2 by NotAllGeographers This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Twitter’s cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
The Universities Minister Sam Gyimah entered the argument on Twitter, saying it was "utterly ridiculous" that "even portraits are being no-platformed".
He said the university faculty "should get a grip" and "put the portrait back in a more prominent place".
Mrs May's government last week promised to protect free speech in university - and above her portrait in Oxford an invitation had been added: "Free space - share your thoughts."
Messages added to the picture included "school of geography and hostile environment?" and a picture of Mrs May and Donald Trump captioned "complicit relationship".
This Twitter post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser. View original content on Twitter The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Skip twitter post 3 by Sam Gyimah MP This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Twitter’s cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
The picture was on display at the university's school of geography, as part of a series of portraits of "outstanding female graduates" from the department.
"It has now been taken down and will be re-displayed so it can be seen as intended," said a statement from the university.
"We remain proud of her success and that of all the graduates celebrated in the display." | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-44046322 | news_education-44046322 |
|
Matthew Moseley: Oswaldtwistle shooting killer jailed - BBC News | 2018-05-08 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Matthew Moseley, 50, handed a shotgun to his son and urged him to "tell them you've done it". | Lancashire | Prosecutors said Moseley, 50, fired the shotgun but handed it to his son saying: "Tell them you've done it."
A father who pressured his 14-year-old son into taking the blame for a murder he had committed has been jailed.
Matthew Moseley, 50, shot Lee Holt in the chest when he tried to get into his home last October.
After he fired the shotgun, Moseley handed it to his son, saying: "Tell them you've done it."
Moseley, who had denied murder, was given a life sentence at Preston Crown Court and ordered to serve at least 26 years in jail.
Jurors heard Mr Holt had gone to confront Moseley at his home in Oswaldtwistle, near Accrington, amid a long-running dispute between the men's children.
Moseley opened his front door and fired a Beretta semi-automatic shotgun at Mr Holt, the jury was told.
His son made a fake confession and Moseley stayed silent as the teenager was arrested and led away in handcuffs.
Despite the boy changing his account, Moseley maintained his innocence and said he had knocked the gun from his son's hands.
In a covert recording of a prison van conversation, Moseley said to his son: "You are a minor. You can't go to any jail.
"Self-defence for you and you didn't know what you were doing. Me, different ball game. And that is the way we have got to go with this."
Passing sentence, Mr Justice Simon Bryan told Moseley there was "no possible justification" for his actions, nor any suggestion he acted in self-defence.
Lee Holt had gone to confront Moseley about an argument between the men's sons
"How any father could do that to their son is difficult enough to comprehend but what is truly incomprehensible is the cynical way in which you sought to manipulate, and pressurise, your son into accepting responsibility for the shooting and death of Lee Holt.
"You allowed your son to be arrested and questioned on suspicion of murder when all along you knew you had shot [him].
"Your continual denial of guilt resulted in him having to give evidence against his own father and members of Lee Holt's family having to relive the terrible events of the night in question."
Richard Littler, defending, said his client was a hard-working family man who reacted in a "bizarre fashion" in the heat of the moment when there was "kicking, banging and threats" made at his front door.
Det Ch Insp Jill Johnston from Lancashire Police said Moseley's sentence was "nothing less than he deserves".
There were "no winners" in the case, she said, as the Holt family "lost a dearly loved father, son, partner, brother and uncle", while Moseley's son must "try and build a life for himself knowing his dad is in prison after trying to blame him".
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-44038892 | news_uk-england-lancashire-44038892 |
|
Real Madrid 3-1 Liverpool - BBC Sport | 2018-05-27 | None | Gareth Bale scores two goals - including a stunning overhead kick - as Real Madrid beat Liverpool to win the Champions League for the third year in a row. | null | Last updated on .From the section European Football
Gareth Bale scored one of European football's great goals to help Real Madrid overcome Liverpool and win their third successive Champions League title as goalkeeper Loris Karius suffered a personal nightmare.
Bale made his mark on another Champions League final with a magnificent overhead kick to put Real 2-1 up after 64 minutes.
Liverpool had already suffered the devastating blow of losing top scorer Mohamed Salah midway through the first half - with a shoulder injury sustained in a challenge with Real Madrid captain Sergio Ramos - when calamity struck for Karius.
Six minutes after half-time, the German inexplicably threw the ball against Karim Benzema, who was not even challenging with urgency, and watched in horror as the ball rolled behind him into the net.
Liverpool recovered from the shock to equalise through Sadio Mane before Bale stepped off the bench to score his wonder goal.
There was to be no comeback from Liverpool this time and Karius's misery was complete when he fumbled Bale's hopeful 30-yard shot behind him to seal Real's win.
It sealed Real's record 13th win in this competition, and their fourth in five seasons to give coach Zinedine Zidane this third triumph in three years.
For Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp, it was disappointment again - he lost his third successive final since arriving at Anfield, having suffered defeats in the League Cup and Europa League finals of 2016.
• None Bale to have talks about Real future
• None Bale the best I've seen - Giggs
When the story of this Champions League final is told from a Liverpool perspective, it will be the tale of Karius' nightmare alongside that of Salah's injury.
The 24-year-old German has been shown huge faith by Klopp, who brought him in from Mainz and made him first choice ahead of Simon Mignolet.
He has never fully convinced and on this, the biggest night in Liverpool's recent history, he had the sort of night to leave you wondering how he will rebuild his Anfield career.
Karius inexplicably threw a clearance against Benzema for Real Madrid's opener before fumbling Bale's speculative, long-range effort into the net to snuff out any hopes of a comeback.
The keeper lay flat on the turf at the final whistle, being consoled by Real Madrid's players before apologising tearfully in front of Liverpool's fans.
Klopp clearly rates Karius but there are too many holes in his technique. That, along with his temperament, must be questioned after a complete horror show here in Kiev.
The whole emphasis of the final shifted as Salah slumped to the turf for a second time after realising he could not carry on with the shoulder injury sustained in the tangle with Ramos.
Liverpool had started well and Real's deep defending hinted at the apprehension they were felt faced with the attacking trio of Salah, Roberto Firmino and Sadio Mane.
As Salah left the pitch, inconsolable and in tears, even Liverpool's fans were temporarily hushed and it was clear Real had suddenly been given fresh impetus.
Liverpool, with the magnificent Mane leading the fight, showed commendable heart but they had been robbed of their world-class talisman who, before his substitution, had scored 33% of their goals in all competitions.
It will be the great unknown as to what might have happened had Salah stayed on but there is no question his departure was a savage blow to Liverpool and a lift for Real Madrid.
Bale's Real Madrid future has been under constant scrutiny this season - a quirk at a club that lives by its own rules.
The Welshman did not even make the starting line-up here and only emerged just after the hour - but within two minutes he scored one of the great Champions League goals, an overhead kick that was a triumph of athleticism and technique, and begged the question as to how Real could even contemplate life without him.
As for Bale's second goal, make no mistake - when he took on that long-range shot, he would have been street-smart enough to know Karius was living on his nerves after his earlier error.
Bale delivered a reminder, if it were needed that he remains a world-class player.
It may just have been an expensive night for suitors such as Manchester United as his display here will have added millions to any potential transfer fee.
When asked about his future after the game, Bale told BT Sport: "I need to be playing week in, week out and that has not happened this season.
"I had an injury five, six weeks in but have been fit ever since. I have to sit down with my agent in the summer and discuss it."
Zinedine Zidane has joined Liverpool's Bob Paisley and his Real Madrid predecessor Carlo Ancelotti in the elite ranks of managers to win this tournament three times - but added extra gloss by becoming the first to win it in three successive seasons.
Zidane has often been damned with faint praise about his abilities and record, despite his Champions League invincibility, by those who claim he simply keeps an outstanding team on track but he makes a nonsense of that with his tactical approach, handling of world-class players (and world-class egos) and a very happy knack of making decisive substitutions.
Three Champions League wins in three seasons ends all argument about his greatness as a coach. He is in charge of a team who know how to get the job done.
'This team is magnificent' - what they said
Real Madrid boss Zinedine Zidane, speaking to BT Sport: "Great emotions. To lift three Champions League trophies with this club, this team is magnificent. We don't quite realise what we have achieved yet.
"We are going to enjoy the moment. We had a complicated season but to finish with this makes us really happy.
"I have had a little bit of time to think about what this means. This is the status of this club. It is a legendary club, one that has won 13 Champions Leagues and I am happy to be a part of its history too."
Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp: "The plan is only to play to win, nothing else, not a lot to say. We started well and played exactly like we wanted to.
"The situation with Sergio Ramos [and Mohamed Salah] looked really bad and it was a shock for the team, we lost the positive momentum and they immediately came up.
"We dropped deep and we could not get to Luka Modric or Toni Kroos. We had to run and work, we did that and half-time came. What can I say about the goals? We scored one, they scored three."
A first in 42 years - the stats
• None English teams have suffered a defeat in their past seven UEFA club competition finals against Spanish opposition (four Champions League finals and three UEFA Cup/Europa League finals).
• None Jurgen Klopp has lost six of his seven major finals as manager, only winning the DFB-Pokal with Borussia Dortmund in 2012.
• None Real Madrid started with the same XI as in the 2016-17 Champions League final; the first time a team has started with the same 11 players in different European Cup/Champions League finals (excluding replays).
• None Karim Benzema has scored four goals against Liverpool in the Champions League; no player has managed more (also four for Didier Drogba).
• None Liverpool became the first team in history to see three players score 10-plus goals in a single Champions League season (Salah 10, Firmino 10, Mane 10).
• None Sadio Mane is only the fourth African player to score in a European Cup/Champions League final and the first since Didier Drogba for Chelsea v Bayern Munich in 2012. The other two were by Samuel Eto'o for Barcelona in both 2009 and 2006, and Rabah Madjer for Porto in 1987.
• None Mane became the third Liverpool player to score 20-plus goals in all competitions this season (Salah 44 goals and Firmino 27 goals); the last time that three players hit the 20-goal mark for the club in a single campagn was 1981-82 (Dalglish, McDermott and Rush).
• None Attempt blocked. Adam Lallana (Liverpool) left footed shot from the centre of the box is blocked.
• None Goal! Real Madrid 3, Liverpool 1. Gareth Bale (Real Madrid) left footed shot from outside the box to the top right corner. Assisted by Marcelo. Navigate to the next page Navigate to the last page | http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44258022 | rt_football_44258022 |
|
Student loan rates absurd, say MPs - BBC News | 2018-05-11 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | The inflation measure used to set loans on tuition fees is "grossly unfair", says a committee of MPs. | Family & Education | The measure used to set interest rates on student loans is flawed and unfair, say MPs
The inflation measure used to set interest rates on student loans is "absurd", says a report from MPs.
The government uses RPI - the Retail Prices Index - which the Treasury Select Committee says is "flawed" and should be "abandoned".
The rise in that measure will push interest rates on student loans for tuition fees up to 6.3% in the autumn.
The Department for Education defended the continuing use of RPI, saying it provided "consistency over time".
Nicky Morgan, who chairs the committee, said the use of RPI for loan repayments, which "normally gives a higher rate of inflation", appears "grossly unfair".
The DFE, responding to the MPs' criticism, acknowledged that "the flaws in the RPI measure of inflation are well understood", but said that a review of tuition fees and loans was currently under way and the outcome could not be "pre-judged".
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Five things you should know about your student loan debt
This review is due to report in early 2019. And until then student loans will continue to be set using RPI.
This is despite an official warning about the use of RPI earlier this year from the national statistician, John Pullinger, who said: "We do not think it is a good measure of inflation and discourage its use."
The Treasury Select Committee says that student loans should be set against the Consumer Prices Index (CPI), which is currently a percentage point lower than RPI.
It strongly rejected the government's argument to stick with RPI.
"Continuing to use a measure that it readily admits is flawed, on the grounds of consistency, is absurd," Mrs Morgan, herself a former education secretary, said.
"It guarantees that student loan interest rates will be consistently flawed."
The interest rates for loans, which begin to be charged as soon as students start at university, are set at the level of RPI in March, plus 3%.
Nicky Morgan says the use of RPI for interest on student loans is "grossly unfair"
With an RPI measure of 3.3%, it means that for the next academic year interest rates will be up to 6.3%, although students do not have to begin repayments until they have graduated and are earning over £25,000 per year.
The CPI rate for March was 2.3%.
The report from MPs says interest charges are too high and there has been no "persuasive explanation" for why student loan interest should be so much higher than market rates, the government's own cost of borrowing or the rate of inflation.
The MPs also challenged the application of interest rates while students were still at university, saying the government should reconsider such "punitive measures". | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-44067717 | news_education-44067717 |
|
Trump barred from blocking Twitter users by judge - BBC News | 2018-05-23 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | A judge rules that blocking access to the president's tweets violates free speech. | US & Canada | Mr Trump - seen through a phone - speaks from the Oval Office at the White House
US President Donald Trump may not "block" Twitter users from viewing his online profile due to their political beliefs, a judge in New York has ruled.
District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in Manhattan said that blocking access to his @realDonaldTrump account would be a violation of the right to free speech.
The lawsuit against Mr Trump and other White House officials stems from his decision to bar several online critics.
The White House has yet to comment on the judge's ruling.
The case was brought by The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University on behalf of seven Twitter users who had been blocked by Mr Trump for criticising him or mocking him online.
Mr Trump's Twitter account has steadily grown since taking over the US presidency
On Wednesday the judge agreed with their argument that the social media platform qualifies as a "designated public forum" granted to all US citizens.
"This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, 'block' a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States," the judge said in her opinion.
"The answer to both questions is no."
The judge rejected argument by Mr Trump's lawyers that the "First Amendment does not apply in this case and that the President's personal First Amendment interests supersede those of plaintiffs".
Mr Trump has over 52 million followers on Twitter, his preferred social media platform which he joined in March 2009.
He often eschews the official US presidential Twitter account, @POTUS, as well as his own White House press office, to make official announcements.
One of the people that Mr Trump blocked, Holly O'Reilly, who uses the account @AynRandPaulRyan, was blocked last May after posting a GIF of Mr Trump meeting with Pope Francis.
The photo, which some said showed the Pope glaring at Mr Trump, was captioned: "This is pretty much how the whole world sees you."
Shortly after being blocked, she told Time Magazine that "it's like FDR took my radio away", referring to Franklin Delano Roosevelt - the World War Two-era president who spoke directly to Americans with his so-called fireside chats.
Earlier in the trial, Judge Buchwald suggested the president, who was not in court, could simply mute the accounts he does not want to see.
People on Twitter are unable to see or respond to tweets from accounts that block them.
But if Mr Trump muted an account, he would not see that user's tweets but the user could still see and respond to his.
It's unclear if Mr Trump will now unblock his critics, but the judge hinted the president could face legal action if he did not comply with the ruling.
She wrote that "because all government officials are presumed to follow the law once the judiciary has said what the law is, we must assume that the President [and his social media director] will remedy the blocking we have held to be unconstitutional".
When it comes to Twitter, the First Amendment grants the American people the right to speak about the President - but it doesn't force him to listen.
While the court has ruled the blocking is unconstitutional, it said the ability to mute a person was not - and so the safe space nurtured by the president and his social media team will remain mostly intact. As I type this, he follows just 46 people, mostly family and Fox News presenters.
For many of those he blocked, it's become a badge of honour - a #blockedbytrump topic sprung up as a way of celebrating being shut out by The Donald.
But Trump's tweets are a major means by which the president communicates with his people. However history looks back at what is happening within his administration today, tweets will form a crucial part of that record.
And while some have argued that anyone blocked by Trump can see his tweets by just logging out, that doesn't necessarily give the whole picture. One tweet sent on Wednesday does not appear in the feed for logged-out users, for example, as it is a "reply".
Blocking also prevents people from replying to or quoting what was said.
The bigger impact here, however, is that this ruling applies to all public officials in the US.
And so it won't just be Mr Trump thumbing through and unblocking those who he deems unsavoury. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44232226 | news_world-us-canada-44232226 |
|
Irish abortion referendum: The people travelling #HomeToVote - BBC News | 2018-05-23 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Voters returned home from across the world to cast their ballot in Friday's historic referendum. | Europe | This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Meet the women who travelled #HomeToVote on Friday
Irish voters from around the world returned to cast their ballots in Friday's referendum on whether or not to repeal the country's Eighth Amendment. That clause in the Irish constitution in effect outlaws abortion by giving equal rights to the unborn.
The #HomeToVote hashtag has trended on Twitter for most of the weekend, as men and women shared their journeys home.
From car shares, to offers of beds for the night, the movement was propelled by social media. A similar movement also took off ahead of the 2015 vote that legalised same-sex marriage.
People on both sides of the argument travelled back to vote, but the movement was spearheaded by the London-Irish Abortion Rights Campaign - a pro-choice group that tried to mobilise an estimated 40,000 eligible emigrants.
The Eighth Amendment came into being after a 1983 referendum, so no-one under the age of 54 has voted on this before. For many, the vote was touted as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to have their say on women's reproductive rights.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. A warm welcome for people travelling #HometoVote in Dublin
Thousands of Irish women travel every year for abortion procedures in Britain. For women who made the reverse trip to vote Yes to repeal the Eighth, the journey held a lot of symbolism.
"I think of it every time I've travelled to and from the UK; it's always on my mind," 21-year-old student Bláithín Carroll said before boarding her plane back.
Bláithín Carroll says the vote is a chance for Ireland to "really progress" as a modern country
Karen Fahy, 26, and Maria Mcentee, 24. travelled back from London to vote against the change.
They argue that young women opposed to abortion have been stigmatised for their views in the run-up to the referendum and believe many others like them have kept their opinions quiet.
"A lot of people don't want to get involved in the polarising debates online," Maria said. "But you can kind of infer who is voting no, because they'll be the people who don't have repeal stickers on their picture or post things about repeal."
The 24-year-old said she had always been "a bit indifferent" to the abortion issue until she saw a campaign video showing a procedure.
Karen Fahy (left) and Maria Mcentee (right) are a part of London-Irish United for Life
Currently living in the UK where abortion is legal (except in Northern Ireland), Karen said she had concerns about the proposal presenting abortion as "the first and only choice" for women with unplanned pregnancies.
"I don't want to see that coming to Ireland, and I think we can do a lot better," she said. "We should be investing and providing support for women in crisis pregnancies."
"In those very difficult situations when there's a very severe disability, we should provide more child benefit and support women in education."
Abortion is only currently allowed in Ireland when the woman's life is at risk, and not in cases of rape, incest or foetal-fatal abnormality (FFA).
Clara Kumagi, a keen repealer, has taken time off work in Tokyo to travel back thousands of miles to cast her vote. She was already on her way back there by Friday afternoon.
"I want to live in a country where I feel safe, where I know that I have the autonomy to make decisions about my own body," the 29-year-old said.
Clara says she always knew she wanted to return #HomeToVote to repeal, after being ineligible for the 2015 equal marriage ballot
"For me, the act of travelling was something that I felt was important to do. How many kilometres do Irish women travel every year? For me 10,000km felt like the least I could do."
Her student brother also travelled travelling back from Stockholm to vote. Irish men living as far away as Buenos Aires and Africa have posted online about their journeys home. Pro-repeal men have shared their support for the movement using the #MenForYes hashtag.
Mother-of-three Amy Fitzgerald, 38, took three flights to return to Ireland from Prince Edward Island in Canada.
Amy's flights were a birthday present bought by husband Padraig, whom she describes as her "favourite feminist"
"There's always people who will need an abortion," she said, reacting to accusations that the proposed new law could lead to abortion "on demand" as a back-up to contraception.
The government's proposed abortion bill would allow unrestricted terminations up to 12 weeks, with allowances made afterward on health grounds.
"No-one wants one until you actually need one. No little girl dreams of having one," Amy said.
Irish actress Lauryn Canny, 19, who travelled back from LA to vote, said that that concern over abortion access loomed over her teenage years.
She recalls being "constantly terrified" of the risks of having sex while growing up.
"I remember one of my friends said: Well if I got pregnant, I would just commit suicide. I couldn't tell my Mam," she says.
Lauryn (second left) pictured with her sisters and mother, said every vote would count
"I have two baby sisters now, and they're six and seven, and I just really hope that when they are growing up they feel safer and feel like they're growing up in a more compassionate Ireland that will care for them if they're in crisis."
Lauryn was able to afford flights after her grandmother organised a "whip-round" to raise money.
Student Sarah Gillespie, 21, travelled back from the US to vote - but for the other side.
She felt so strongly about the issue that she cut short her time studying abroad in Pennsylvania to return to Ireland to canvas for a No vote.
Physics student Sarah rearranged her flights home to canvas against the repeal
She describes herself as a feminist, but believes the rights of the unborn should be considered too.
Having previously voted for marriage equality, she wants people to recognise that the issues are different, and that No voters were not simply voting according to strict religious beliefs.
"I would never judge or get angry at a woman who went abroad, I just wish there was better support here," Sarah said.
She hoped that, whatever the result, people respected the outcome.
Unlike in other countries, most eligible voters outside Ireland had to physically travel back to cast their ballot.
Only those who have lived away for less than 18 months were legally entitled to take part in the referendum.
Because of that rule, Oxford University lecturer Jennifer Cassidy was ineligible to vote - but campaigned for repeal. Those ineligible used the #BeMyYes hashtag to encourage support for Yes.
The 31-year-old helped support the motion, alongside a number of Irish students
"I understand it to an extent - Ireland has a huge global community and policing that would be difficult," she said.
"But it seems illogical and counter-intuitive to the Irish narrative, which is one of emigrating for a while and then coming home."
Oxford University was one of several UK institutions whose student unions offered to help subsidise travel.
Under the current system, people are not routinely removed from Ireland's electoral register, so polling cards were being sent to the family homes of emigrants who were no longer eligible.
It was feared that if the result was close, people may have complained about the #HomeToVote movement and whether everyone was actually legal to vote. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44223949 | news_world-europe-44223949 |
|
Gavin Grimm trans bathroom lawsuit backed by federal judge - BBC News | 2018-05-23 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Gavin Grimm, who has been fighting his former high school's policy for years, says he feels relief. | US & Canada | Gavin Grimm filed a lawsuit after his high school prevented him from using the men's bathroom
A US judge has ruled that federal law protects a transgender student's right to use the bathroom corresponding to his gender identity.
In the latest legal twist to a long-running case, a Virginia court rejected Gloucester County school board's bid to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Gavin Grimm, a student who has since graduated.
Mr Grimm sued after his school barred him from using the men's bathroom.
He said he felt an "incredible sense of relief" after the ruling.
"After fighting this policy since I was 15 years old, I finally have a court decision saying that what the Gloucester County School Board did to me was wrong and it was against the law," he said.
Mr Grimm's case has been the most prominent in the debate over which bathroom transgender people should be permitted to use, a debate that has come to the forefront of LGBT rights over the past few years.
This decision does not completely end his case, but the judge on Tuesday ordered the school board to arrange a settlement conference within 30 days.
"The district court's ruling vindicates what Gavin has been saying from the beginning," said Joshua Block, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
US district judge Arenda Wright Allen's ruling said the school's argument was "resoundingly unpersuasive", and she refused to throw out Mr Grimm's claim as the school had requested.
Mr Grimm sued Gloucester High School in July 2015, saying its policy of making him use a separate unisex bathroom violated the following:
The school had initially allowed him to use the men's bathroom after he explained he had transitioned to male.
But several adults complained about the the move, and the school's principal said he would from then on have to use newly installed single-person bathrooms.
Many places in the US now have gender-neutral bathrooms
The lawsuit made its way up to the US Supreme Court after a series of cases in Virginia.
The country's highest court agreed to take the suit after an appeals court ruled in favour of Mr Grimm following a directive from then-President Barack Obama, saying federal law protects transgender bathroom rights.
But the US Supreme Court reversed its decision after President Donald Trump rescinded his predecessor's guidelines. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44219769 | news_world-us-canada-44219769 |
|
A grenade lobbed into the customs union debate - BBC News | 2018-05-01 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | A leaked document suggests a powerful group of senior Brexiteers sees this week's deliberations as a "breaking point". | UK Politics | As if it wasn't tense enough, 30 pages of arguments against part of the government's policy have emerged, an ultimatum from senior Brexiteers who see this week's deliberations over customs arrangements as a "breaking point".
It will hardly have been welcome in No 10's inboxes on Sunday afternoon, days before the Cabinet Brexit Committee was due to meet and also, worth noting, just days before the local elections, where the Tories are already expecting to do badly.
The document, which I understand has been seen by Brexiteer Cabinet ministers, lobs a grenade into a meeting where it was already expected that some would urge Theresa May to drop one part of her plan.
As I wrote last week there is deep scepticism even among some Remainers in Westminster about how viable the customs partnership is.
Another source memorably remarked that the prime minister is more or less the "last person left in Whitehall" who believes it might work.
While No 10 knows very well that proposal has never been popular with Tory Brexiteers, on whose support the majority-less prime minister depends.
Their calculations have always had to take in the likelihood of if and when the dozens of backbench Eurosceptics would rebel.
But the leak of this document suggests the seriousness with which the powerful, if minority group, takes this issue.
A senior Tory said "the customs partnership is the breaking point", suggesting that if No 10 doesn't do their bidding, they could withhold their support.
Of course the stakes are high on all sides, tempers are hot, and it is not certain that they would deliver on those kinds of threats.
But Theresa May warned in her Mansion House Speech that the UK won't get everything it wants in the EU negotiations.
The time when she has to say that forcefully in negotiations with her own party may be coming fast.
The question is whether that's feasible, one former minister said that Theresa May "already isn't leading the party".
Another told me it's like "the politicians have all gone missing". | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43970943 | news_uk-politics-43970943 |
|
Northern Ireland: UK cabinet 'spat' over unsolved killings inquiry - BBC News | 2018-05-09 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Ministers raise concerns over plans to introduce a new body to look into unsolved Troubles crimes. | UK Politics | The new unit will take over the work of the Historical Enquiries Team
Cabinet ministers have raised concerns over plans to introduce a new body that would investigate unsolved killings from the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
Introducing a new "Historical Investigations Unit" was a major part of the 2014 Stormont House agreement.
It was agreed then to create a new independent body to deal with killings where there had been no prosecutions.
But several ministers told colleagues on Tuesday that the proposal was unacceptable in its current form.
In what has been described as a "spat", Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson is understood to have raised concerns that military veterans might not have enough protections under the proposed system.
Another minister who expressed worries said there had not been a huge argument, but that it had been made clear to the government that it had to do more to make sure that former military personnel weren't unfairly targeted, or dragged through the courts.
One cabinet source told the BBC: "This has got catastrophe written all over it for the government and will carry very little sympathy with the majority of the British public who won't be able to get their heads round us not getting behind our veterans."
But others familiar with the process said that the new HIU would "end the current witch hunt" where veterans and former police officers are already hit disproportionately, providing a new system that is fair, independent and proportionate. Figures obtained by the BBC challenge the claim that investigations are unfairly focused on the security forces.
The defence secretary is understood to have raised objections
It is hoped the proposed unit would be able to investigate terrorist killings more vigorously than under the current piecemeal system. The plan was also included in the Tories' Northern Irish election manifesto.
A source said: "We want to find a way forward and we believe that the right way is to consult on this. Leaving the status quo as it exists is to let down our armed forces, as the current system it hits our armed forces disproportionately."
They suggested the idea of providing a statute of limitation for veterans would be legally impossible.
A Number 10 source said it was hoped the consultation would be carried out "expeditiously" although they would not be drawn on a date.
The Northern Ireland Office has circulated a draft consultation document on "legacy" matters to the main Stormont parties.
It is understood the draft does not contain a controversial suggestion for a so-called statute of limitations.
It would have prevented the prosecution of former soldiers for offences connected to the Troubles. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44048593 | news_uk-politics-44048593 |
|
PM's portrait taken down after Oxford student protests - BBC News | 2018-05-09 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | A picture of Theresa May is removed at the University of Oxford to save it from protesting students. | Family & Education | Theresa May's portrait has had to be taken down at Oxford University
A picture of Theresa May has been taken down at the University of Oxford to protect it from protests by students.
The picture of the prime minister, part of a celebration of women who had studied at the university, had been "obscured" by critical messages.
The portrait had been "plastered" with messages about issues including immigration, Windrush and Brexit.
A university spokesman said removing Theresa May's picture was "absolutely not done to make a political point".
Instead, the university authorities say, the picture had been taken down to keep it safe from "mainly humorous satirical messages".
Protesters had used Twitter to say that the university should not be putting up pictures of Mrs May - making reference to the Windrush scandal.
This Twitter post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser. View original content on Twitter The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Skip twitter post by Andrew Dwyer This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Twitter’s cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
This Twitter post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser. View original content on Twitter The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Skip twitter post 2 by NotAllGeographers This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Twitter’s cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
The Universities Minister Sam Gyimah entered the argument on Twitter, saying it was "utterly ridiculous" that "even portraits are being no-platformed".
He said the university faculty "should get a grip" and "put the portrait back in a more prominent place".
Mrs May's government last week promised to protect free speech in university - and above her portrait in Oxford an invitation had been added: "Free space - share your thoughts."
Messages added to the picture included "school of geography and hostile environment?" and a picture of Mrs May and Donald Trump captioned "complicit relationship".
This Twitter post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser. View original content on Twitter The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Skip twitter post 3 by Sam Gyimah MP This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Twitter’s cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
The picture was on display at the university's school of geography, as part of a series of portraits of "outstanding female graduates" from the department.
"It has now been taken down and will be re-displayed so it can be seen as intended," said a statement from the university.
"We remain proud of her success and that of all the graduates celebrated in the display." | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-44046322 | news_education-44046322 |
|
Trump barred from blocking Twitter users by judge - BBC News | 2018-05-24 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | A judge rules that blocking access to the president's tweets violates free speech. | US & Canada | Mr Trump - seen through a phone - speaks from the Oval Office at the White House
US President Donald Trump may not "block" Twitter users from viewing his online profile due to their political beliefs, a judge in New York has ruled.
District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in Manhattan said that blocking access to his @realDonaldTrump account would be a violation of the right to free speech.
The lawsuit against Mr Trump and other White House officials stems from his decision to bar several online critics.
The White House has yet to comment on the judge's ruling.
The case was brought by The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University on behalf of seven Twitter users who had been blocked by Mr Trump for criticising him or mocking him online.
Mr Trump's Twitter account has steadily grown since taking over the US presidency
On Wednesday the judge agreed with their argument that the social media platform qualifies as a "designated public forum" granted to all US citizens.
"This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, 'block' a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States," the judge said in her opinion.
"The answer to both questions is no."
The judge rejected argument by Mr Trump's lawyers that the "First Amendment does not apply in this case and that the President's personal First Amendment interests supersede those of plaintiffs".
Mr Trump has over 52 million followers on Twitter, his preferred social media platform which he joined in March 2009.
He often eschews the official US presidential Twitter account, @POTUS, as well as his own White House press office, to make official announcements.
One of the people that Mr Trump blocked, Holly O'Reilly, who uses the account @AynRandPaulRyan, was blocked last May after posting a GIF of Mr Trump meeting with Pope Francis.
The photo, which some said showed the Pope glaring at Mr Trump, was captioned: "This is pretty much how the whole world sees you."
Shortly after being blocked, she told Time Magazine that "it's like FDR took my radio away", referring to Franklin Delano Roosevelt - the World War Two-era president who spoke directly to Americans with his so-called fireside chats.
Earlier in the trial, Judge Buchwald suggested the president, who was not in court, could simply mute the accounts he does not want to see.
People on Twitter are unable to see or respond to tweets from accounts that block them.
But if Mr Trump muted an account, he would not see that user's tweets but the user could still see and respond to his.
It's unclear if Mr Trump will now unblock his critics, but the judge hinted the president could face legal action if he did not comply with the ruling.
She wrote that "because all government officials are presumed to follow the law once the judiciary has said what the law is, we must assume that the President [and his social media director] will remedy the blocking we have held to be unconstitutional".
When it comes to Twitter, the First Amendment grants the American people the right to speak about the President - but it doesn't force him to listen.
While the court has ruled the blocking is unconstitutional, it said the ability to mute a person was not - and so the safe space nurtured by the president and his social media team will remain mostly intact. As I type this, he follows just 46 people, mostly family and Fox News presenters.
For many of those he blocked, it's become a badge of honour - a #blockedbytrump topic sprung up as a way of celebrating being shut out by The Donald.
But Trump's tweets are a major means by which the president communicates with his people. However history looks back at what is happening within his administration today, tweets will form a crucial part of that record.
And while some have argued that anyone blocked by Trump can see his tweets by just logging out, that doesn't necessarily give the whole picture. One tweet sent on Wednesday does not appear in the feed for logged-out users, for example, as it is a "reply".
Blocking also prevents people from replying to or quoting what was said.
The bigger impact here, however, is that this ruling applies to all public officials in the US.
And so it won't just be Mr Trump thumbing through and unblocking those who he deems unsavoury. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44232226 | news_world-us-canada-44232226 |
|
Irish abortion referendum: The people travelling #HomeToVote - BBC News | 2018-05-24 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Voters returned home from across the world to cast their ballot in Friday's historic referendum. | Europe | This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Meet the women who travelled #HomeToVote on Friday
Irish voters from around the world returned to cast their ballots in Friday's referendum on whether or not to repeal the country's Eighth Amendment. That clause in the Irish constitution in effect outlaws abortion by giving equal rights to the unborn.
The #HomeToVote hashtag has trended on Twitter for most of the weekend, as men and women shared their journeys home.
From car shares, to offers of beds for the night, the movement was propelled by social media. A similar movement also took off ahead of the 2015 vote that legalised same-sex marriage.
People on both sides of the argument travelled back to vote, but the movement was spearheaded by the London-Irish Abortion Rights Campaign - a pro-choice group that tried to mobilise an estimated 40,000 eligible emigrants.
The Eighth Amendment came into being after a 1983 referendum, so no-one under the age of 54 has voted on this before. For many, the vote was touted as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to have their say on women's reproductive rights.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. A warm welcome for people travelling #HometoVote in Dublin
Thousands of Irish women travel every year for abortion procedures in Britain. For women who made the reverse trip to vote Yes to repeal the Eighth, the journey held a lot of symbolism.
"I think of it every time I've travelled to and from the UK; it's always on my mind," 21-year-old student Bláithín Carroll said before boarding her plane back.
Bláithín Carroll says the vote is a chance for Ireland to "really progress" as a modern country
Karen Fahy, 26, and Maria Mcentee, 24. travelled back from London to vote against the change.
They argue that young women opposed to abortion have been stigmatised for their views in the run-up to the referendum and believe many others like them have kept their opinions quiet.
"A lot of people don't want to get involved in the polarising debates online," Maria said. "But you can kind of infer who is voting no, because they'll be the people who don't have repeal stickers on their picture or post things about repeal."
The 24-year-old said she had always been "a bit indifferent" to the abortion issue until she saw a campaign video showing a procedure.
Karen Fahy (left) and Maria Mcentee (right) are a part of London-Irish United for Life
Currently living in the UK where abortion is legal (except in Northern Ireland), Karen said she had concerns about the proposal presenting abortion as "the first and only choice" for women with unplanned pregnancies.
"I don't want to see that coming to Ireland, and I think we can do a lot better," she said. "We should be investing and providing support for women in crisis pregnancies."
"In those very difficult situations when there's a very severe disability, we should provide more child benefit and support women in education."
Abortion is only currently allowed in Ireland when the woman's life is at risk, and not in cases of rape, incest or foetal-fatal abnormality (FFA).
Clara Kumagi, a keen repealer, has taken time off work in Tokyo to travel back thousands of miles to cast her vote. She was already on her way back there by Friday afternoon.
"I want to live in a country where I feel safe, where I know that I have the autonomy to make decisions about my own body," the 29-year-old said.
Clara says she always knew she wanted to return #HomeToVote to repeal, after being ineligible for the 2015 equal marriage ballot
"For me, the act of travelling was something that I felt was important to do. How many kilometres do Irish women travel every year? For me 10,000km felt like the least I could do."
Her student brother also travelled travelling back from Stockholm to vote. Irish men living as far away as Buenos Aires and Africa have posted online about their journeys home. Pro-repeal men have shared their support for the movement using the #MenForYes hashtag.
Mother-of-three Amy Fitzgerald, 38, took three flights to return to Ireland from Prince Edward Island in Canada.
Amy's flights were a birthday present bought by husband Padraig, whom she describes as her "favourite feminist"
"There's always people who will need an abortion," she said, reacting to accusations that the proposed new law could lead to abortion "on demand" as a back-up to contraception.
The government's proposed abortion bill would allow unrestricted terminations up to 12 weeks, with allowances made afterward on health grounds.
"No-one wants one until you actually need one. No little girl dreams of having one," Amy said.
Irish actress Lauryn Canny, 19, who travelled back from LA to vote, said that that concern over abortion access loomed over her teenage years.
She recalls being "constantly terrified" of the risks of having sex while growing up.
"I remember one of my friends said: Well if I got pregnant, I would just commit suicide. I couldn't tell my Mam," she says.
Lauryn (second left) pictured with her sisters and mother, said every vote would count
"I have two baby sisters now, and they're six and seven, and I just really hope that when they are growing up they feel safer and feel like they're growing up in a more compassionate Ireland that will care for them if they're in crisis."
Lauryn was able to afford flights after her grandmother organised a "whip-round" to raise money.
Student Sarah Gillespie, 21, travelled back from the US to vote - but for the other side.
She felt so strongly about the issue that she cut short her time studying abroad in Pennsylvania to return to Ireland to canvas for a No vote.
Physics student Sarah rearranged her flights home to canvas against the repeal
She describes herself as a feminist, but believes the rights of the unborn should be considered too.
Having previously voted for marriage equality, she wants people to recognise that the issues are different, and that No voters were not simply voting according to strict religious beliefs.
"I would never judge or get angry at a woman who went abroad, I just wish there was better support here," Sarah said.
She hoped that, whatever the result, people respected the outcome.
Unlike in other countries, most eligible voters outside Ireland had to physically travel back to cast their ballot.
Only those who have lived away for less than 18 months were legally entitled to take part in the referendum.
Because of that rule, Oxford University lecturer Jennifer Cassidy was ineligible to vote - but campaigned for repeal. Those ineligible used the #BeMyYes hashtag to encourage support for Yes.
The 31-year-old helped support the motion, alongside a number of Irish students
"I understand it to an extent - Ireland has a huge global community and policing that would be difficult," she said.
"But it seems illogical and counter-intuitive to the Irish narrative, which is one of emigrating for a while and then coming home."
Oxford University was one of several UK institutions whose student unions offered to help subsidise travel.
Under the current system, people are not routinely removed from Ireland's electoral register, so polling cards were being sent to the family homes of emigrants who were no longer eligible.
It was feared that if the result was close, people may have complained about the #HomeToVote movement and whether everyone was actually legal to vote. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44223949 | news_world-europe-44223949 |
|
Koreas summit: Will historic talks lead to lasting peace? - BBC News | 2018-05-12 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Dr John Nilsson-Wright looks at the outcome of talks between North and South Korea's leaders. | Asia | This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Friday's dramatic meeting between South Korean President Moon Jae-in and his North Korean counterpart, Chairman Kim Jong-un, represents an unambiguous historic breakthrough at least in terms of the image of bilateral reconciliation and the emotional uplift it has given to South Korea public opinion.
Whether the agreement announced at the meeting - the new Panmunjeom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity and Unification of the Korean Peninsula - offers, in substance, the right mix of concrete measures to propel the two Koreas and the wider international community towards a lasting peace remains an open question.
The symbolic impact of a North Korean leader setting foot for the first time on South Korean soil cannot be underestimated.
Mr Kim's bold decision to stride confidently into nominally hostile territory reflects the young dictator's confidence and acute sense of political theatre and expertly executed timing.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
His clever, seemingly spontaneous gesture to President Moon to reciprocate his step into the South by having him join him for an instance in stepping back into the North was an inspired way of asserting the equality of the two countries and their leaders.
It also, by blurring the boundary between the two countries, hinted at the goal of unification that both Seoul and Pyongyang have long sought to realise.
The rest of the day was full of visual firsts and a set of cleverly choreographed images of the two leaders chatting informally and intimately in the open air - deliberately advancing a powerful new narrative of the two Koreas as agents of their own destiny.
Handshakes, broad smiles and bear hugs have amplified this message of Koreans determining their own future, in the process offsetting past memories of a peninsula all too often dominated by the self-interest of external great powers, whether China, Japan, or more recently, during the Cold War, the United States and the former Soviet Union.
The two leaders' joint statements before the international media were another pitch perfect moment for Mr Kim to challenge the world's preconceptions.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Kim Jong-un issues his pledge for peace with South Korea
In an instance, Mr Kim's confident and relaxed announcement to the press dispelled the picture of a remote, rigid, autocratic leader in favour of a normal, humanised statesman, intent on working to advance the cause of peace and national reconciliation.
A cynic might see this as both a simple propaganda victory for Mr Kim, and also his attempt to lock in place the nuclear and missile advances the North has already achieved by calling for "phased…disarmament" - by intentionally downplaying the expectation of immediate progress while emphasising the need for step-by-step negotiations.
The joint declaration echoes the themes of past accords, including the previous Korean leaders summits of 2000 and 2007, and an earlier 1991 bilateral Reconciliation and Non-Aggression agreement.
Plans to establish joint liaison missions, military dialogue and confidence building measures, economic co-operation, and the expansion of contact between the citizens of the two countries have featured in earlier agreements.
However, Friday's declaration is more specific in its proposals, with the two countries pledging, for example, "to cease all hostile acts against each other in every domain, including land, sea and air…" and providing a series of key dates for the early implementation by both sides of a raft of new confidence building measures.
These include the cessation of "all hostile acts" near the demilitarised zone by 1 May, the start of bilateral military talks in May, joint participation by the two Koreas in the 2018 Asian Games, the re-establishment of family reunions by 15 August, and, perhaps most importantly of all, a return visit to the North by President Moon by as soon as the autumn of this year.
Committing to early, albeit incremental, steps in the direction of peace, appears to be motivated by the Korean leaders' wish to foster an irresistible sense of momentum and urgency.
The declaration also calls for future peace treaty talks involving the two Koreas, together with one or both of China and the US.
The logic of binding external actors into a definite - but evolving - timetable for progress on key issues is that it lowers the risk of conflict on the peninsula - something both Koreas are keen to avoid and which they have long had reason to fear given the past bellicose language of a "fire and fury" Donald Trump.
Playing for time is a viable option, given that President Moon is at the start of his five-year presidency - a marked contrast to the summits of 2000 and 2007, when the respective leaders of the South, Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun, were already well into their presidential terms.
Mr Moon can count, therefore, on repeat meetings with Mr Kim, and the two men appear genuinely interested in sustaining their dialogue and making progress on the wide-ranging set of initiatives included in the declaration.
Mr Kim's own statements at the summit have also been a vocal argument in favour of identity politics, given his stress on "one nation, one language, one blood", and his repeated rejection of any future conflict between the Koreas - two themes that will have played well with a South Korean public that traditionally is sympathetic to a narrative of self-confident, although not necessarily strident, nationalism.
President Trump says he will continue to exert maximum pressure on North Korea
For all of the stress on Koreans determining their common future, there is no escaping the decisive importance of the US.
The much anticipated Trump-Kim summit in May or early June will be critical in testing the sincerity of the North's commitment to a peaceful settlement.
Pyongyang's professed commitment to "denuclearisation" is likely to be very different from Washington's demand for "comprehensive, verifiable and irreversible" nuclear disarmament.
Not only will the Trump-Kim summit be a way of measuring the gap between the US and North Korea on this issue; it will also be an important opportunity to gauge how far the US has developed its own strategy for narrowing the differences with the North.
President Moon has cleverly and repeatedly allowed Mr Trump to assume credit for the breakthrough in inter-Korean relations, recognising perhaps that boosting the US president's ego is the best way of minimising the risk of war and keeping Mr Trump engaged in dialogue with the North.
Whatever the long-term, substantive outcome from the Panmunjeom summit, the event has memorably showcased the political astuteness, diplomatic agility and strategic vision of both Korean leaders.
The dramatic events of Friday are a reminder that personality and leadership are key ingredients in effecting historical change, sometimes allowing relatively small powers to advance their interests in spite of the competing interests of larger, more influential states.
Dr John Nilsson-Wright is Senior Research Fellow for Northeast Asia, Asia-Pacific Programme at Chatham House and a senior lecturer in Japanese Politics and International Relations at the University of Cambridge | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-43932032 | news_world-asia-43932032 |
|
Koreas summit: Will historic talks lead to lasting peace? - BBC News | 2018-05-16 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Dr John Nilsson-Wright looks at the outcome of talks between North and South Korea's leaders. | Asia | This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Friday's dramatic meeting between South Korean President Moon Jae-in and his North Korean counterpart, Chairman Kim Jong-un, represents an unambiguous historic breakthrough at least in terms of the image of bilateral reconciliation and the emotional uplift it has given to South Korea public opinion.
Whether the agreement announced at the meeting - the new Panmunjeom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity and Unification of the Korean Peninsula - offers, in substance, the right mix of concrete measures to propel the two Koreas and the wider international community towards a lasting peace remains an open question.
The symbolic impact of a North Korean leader setting foot for the first time on South Korean soil cannot be underestimated.
Mr Kim's bold decision to stride confidently into nominally hostile territory reflects the young dictator's confidence and acute sense of political theatre and expertly executed timing.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
His clever, seemingly spontaneous gesture to President Moon to reciprocate his step into the South by having him join him for an instance in stepping back into the North was an inspired way of asserting the equality of the two countries and their leaders.
It also, by blurring the boundary between the two countries, hinted at the goal of unification that both Seoul and Pyongyang have long sought to realise.
The rest of the day was full of visual firsts and a set of cleverly choreographed images of the two leaders chatting informally and intimately in the open air - deliberately advancing a powerful new narrative of the two Koreas as agents of their own destiny.
Handshakes, broad smiles and bear hugs have amplified this message of Koreans determining their own future, in the process offsetting past memories of a peninsula all too often dominated by the self-interest of external great powers, whether China, Japan, or more recently, during the Cold War, the United States and the former Soviet Union.
The two leaders' joint statements before the international media were another pitch perfect moment for Mr Kim to challenge the world's preconceptions.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Kim Jong-un issues his pledge for peace with South Korea
In an instance, Mr Kim's confident and relaxed announcement to the press dispelled the picture of a remote, rigid, autocratic leader in favour of a normal, humanised statesman, intent on working to advance the cause of peace and national reconciliation.
A cynic might see this as both a simple propaganda victory for Mr Kim, and also his attempt to lock in place the nuclear and missile advances the North has already achieved by calling for "phased…disarmament" - by intentionally downplaying the expectation of immediate progress while emphasising the need for step-by-step negotiations.
The joint declaration echoes the themes of past accords, including the previous Korean leaders summits of 2000 and 2007, and an earlier 1991 bilateral Reconciliation and Non-Aggression agreement.
Plans to establish joint liaison missions, military dialogue and confidence building measures, economic co-operation, and the expansion of contact between the citizens of the two countries have featured in earlier agreements.
However, Friday's declaration is more specific in its proposals, with the two countries pledging, for example, "to cease all hostile acts against each other in every domain, including land, sea and air…" and providing a series of key dates for the early implementation by both sides of a raft of new confidence building measures.
These include the cessation of "all hostile acts" near the demilitarised zone by 1 May, the start of bilateral military talks in May, joint participation by the two Koreas in the 2018 Asian Games, the re-establishment of family reunions by 15 August, and, perhaps most importantly of all, a return visit to the North by President Moon by as soon as the autumn of this year.
Committing to early, albeit incremental, steps in the direction of peace, appears to be motivated by the Korean leaders' wish to foster an irresistible sense of momentum and urgency.
The declaration also calls for future peace treaty talks involving the two Koreas, together with one or both of China and the US.
The logic of binding external actors into a definite - but evolving - timetable for progress on key issues is that it lowers the risk of conflict on the peninsula - something both Koreas are keen to avoid and which they have long had reason to fear given the past bellicose language of a "fire and fury" Donald Trump.
Playing for time is a viable option, given that President Moon is at the start of his five-year presidency - a marked contrast to the summits of 2000 and 2007, when the respective leaders of the South, Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun, were already well into their presidential terms.
Mr Moon can count, therefore, on repeat meetings with Mr Kim, and the two men appear genuinely interested in sustaining their dialogue and making progress on the wide-ranging set of initiatives included in the declaration.
Mr Kim's own statements at the summit have also been a vocal argument in favour of identity politics, given his stress on "one nation, one language, one blood", and his repeated rejection of any future conflict between the Koreas - two themes that will have played well with a South Korean public that traditionally is sympathetic to a narrative of self-confident, although not necessarily strident, nationalism.
President Trump says he will continue to exert maximum pressure on North Korea
For all of the stress on Koreans determining their common future, there is no escaping the decisive importance of the US.
The much anticipated Trump-Kim summit in May or early June will be critical in testing the sincerity of the North's commitment to a peaceful settlement.
Pyongyang's professed commitment to "denuclearisation" is likely to be very different from Washington's demand for "comprehensive, verifiable and irreversible" nuclear disarmament.
Not only will the Trump-Kim summit be a way of measuring the gap between the US and North Korea on this issue; it will also be an important opportunity to gauge how far the US has developed its own strategy for narrowing the differences with the North.
President Moon has cleverly and repeatedly allowed Mr Trump to assume credit for the breakthrough in inter-Korean relations, recognising perhaps that boosting the US president's ego is the best way of minimising the risk of war and keeping Mr Trump engaged in dialogue with the North.
Whatever the long-term, substantive outcome from the Panmunjeom summit, the event has memorably showcased the political astuteness, diplomatic agility and strategic vision of both Korean leaders.
The dramatic events of Friday are a reminder that personality and leadership are key ingredients in effecting historical change, sometimes allowing relatively small powers to advance their interests in spite of the competing interests of larger, more influential states.
Dr John Nilsson-Wright is Senior Research Fellow for Northeast Asia, Asia-Pacific Programme at Chatham House and a senior lecturer in Japanese Politics and International Relations at the University of Cambridge | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-43932032 | news_world-asia-43932032 |
|
University racism 'complacency' warning - BBC News | 2018-05-16 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | Baroness Amos, the UK's first black woman university head, criticises "deep-seated prejudices". | Family & Education | There are warnings universities do not see the "day-to-day racism" on campus
Universities are being accused of "complacency" over a lack of senior black academics and lower achievement among ethnic minority students.
Baroness Amos, the UK's first black woman university head, says there are "deep-seated prejudices and stereotypes which need to be overcome".
"Not even 1% of UK professors are black," she will tell a conference on university leadership.
The Office for Students says tackling such "gaps" should be a priority.
Speaking ahead of the conference, Baroness Amos, director of the School of Oriental and African Studies (Soas), in London, said universities liked to see themselves as "inclusive and internationalist".
But she said there has been "anger and frustration" among ethnic minority academic staff at their under-representation in senior jobs and the achievement gap for ethnic minority students.
Baroness Amos was the UK's first black female university head when she became director of Soas
She will address the Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) Leadership for Higher Education Summit on Wednesday, organised by Advance HE, a new agency that will promote equal opportunities in universities.
Some of the examples of gaps in representation and achievement to be presented are:
Baroness Amos says that conversations about racism are difficult, because the debate often "degenerates" into arguments about whether individuals or viewpoints are racist.
But that misses the bigger picture of deep-rooted, "insidious", institutional prejudice.
"As a black person I know how hard it is to explain the pernicious and debilitating impact of day-to-day racism," she says.
"Many of us don't talk about it, but that doesn't mean it's not there."
There is much "rhetoric" about inclusivity and equality in universities, says Baroness Amos, which could cause "complacency" and a "slow pace of change".
"University leaders need to acknowledge that we are not doing enough," she says.
Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of the Office for Students, says the new watchdog recognises "gaps in outcomes between students in certain ethnic groups".
"Addressing these gaps, so that students from all backgrounds are able not just to get into higher education, but get on too, is a priority for the Office for Students," said Ms Dandridge, who will also address the conference.
There have been a series of recent claims of racism on campuses.
Earlier this month Exeter University expelled students after allegations of "vile" racist language online.
The National Union of Students has claimed that universities can be "more concerned about their reputation" than tackling racism. | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-44125777 | news_education-44125777 |
|
A grenade lobbed into the customs union debate - BBC News | 2018-05-02 | https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews | A leaked document suggests a powerful group of senior Brexiteers sees this week's deliberations as a "breaking point". | UK Politics | As if it wasn't tense enough, 30 pages of arguments against part of the government's policy have emerged, an ultimatum from senior Brexiteers who see this week's deliberations over customs arrangements as a "breaking point".
It will hardly have been welcome in No 10's inboxes on Sunday afternoon, days before the Cabinet Brexit Committee was due to meet and also, worth noting, just days before the local elections, where the Tories are already expecting to do badly.
The document, which I understand has been seen by Brexiteer Cabinet ministers, lobs a grenade into a meeting where it was already expected that some would urge Theresa May to drop one part of her plan.
As I wrote last week there is deep scepticism even among some Remainers in Westminster about how viable the customs partnership is.
Another source memorably remarked that the prime minister is more or less the "last person left in Whitehall" who believes it might work.
While No 10 knows very well that proposal has never been popular with Tory Brexiteers, on whose support the majority-less prime minister depends.
Their calculations have always had to take in the likelihood of if and when the dozens of backbench Eurosceptics would rebel.
But the leak of this document suggests the seriousness with which the powerful, if minority group, takes this issue.
A senior Tory said "the customs partnership is the breaking point", suggesting that if No 10 doesn't do their bidding, they could withhold their support.
Of course the stakes are high on all sides, tempers are hot, and it is not certain that they would deliver on those kinds of threats.
But Theresa May warned in her Mansion House Speech that the UK won't get everything it wants in the EU negotiations.
The time when she has to say that forcefully in negotiations with her own party may be coming fast.
The question is whether that's feasible, one former minister said that Theresa May "already isn't leading the party".
Another told me it's like "the politicians have all gone missing". | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43970943 | news_uk-politics-43970943 |