10th March
With one day to go until the end of voting in the 2010 Union elections, cakes and flyers are being dished out in equal proportion across campus with campaigners trying to secure every possible vote for their candidate. The elections got underway on Monday with speeches at the Union, the building itself a critical part of the election with candidates for every post having to explain how they will help run a union without a home. After the speeches at hustings, I spoke about the elections with the two current holders of perhaps the most visible sabbatical roles: Courier Editor and Student President.
First Dave Coverdale, currently at the helm of the Courier, said why he thought it was important every student vote in the elections.
-------------------CLIP1: coverdale-whyvote-------------------------------
With his tenure coming to a close in the summer term, I also asked, the Courier being different every year, whether this year’s policy of actively printing provocative and controversial articles has been worthwhile, I myself taking objection to what I viewed an explicitly racists and sexist comment made by a section editor in the previous issue. Though he agreed that article was over the line, Mr Coverdale maintained that an opinionated comment section was important to the paper.
-------------------CLIP2: coverdale-controversy---------------------------
The sabbatical position of Courier Editor is one of the most hotly contested in these year’s elections, with four section editors and the current deputy editor in contention. But given the paper’s commitment to independence, I asked whether, given its close ties with the union, it should in fact be a union position?
-----------------CLIP3: coverdale-independent----------------------------
The question of the paper’s neutrality was highlighted a few issues back, with another student union officer being given the leading comment article to respond to comments critical of the union, made in an article in the previous issue. I asked Mr Coverdale whether this was a balanced response.
----------------CLIP4: coverdale-articlenotprinted-----------------------
I later spoke to Andriana Georgiou, Student president, and started by asking her what she would say to those who think the elections are just popularity contests.
---------------CLIP5: Georgiou-popularity---------------------------------
With such varied responsibilities including with both student and staff committees and the union’s trustees board, as well as running these very elections, I asked Miss Georgiou what she was most proud of so far in her year in office.
--------------CLIP6: Georgiou-proud----------------------------------------
Sealing the union’s redevelopment was very significant this year but I asked the president how students would cope without a student hub, the union being closed from November until the end of the next academic year.
--------------Clip7: Georgiou-nounion--------------------------------
I finally asked whether she thought that union had gotten its message across this year. Both the president and the student support officer supported taking a No Platform Policy to potential campaigning on campus by racist groups such as the BNP and Combat-18 but it was eventually rejected at the union council.
----------------CLIP8: Georgiou-message-----------------------------------------
To vote go to vote.ncl.ac.uk. Voting closes at 2pm tomorrow.
by Alex Bishop
There has been a recent “explosion” of right-wing extremists and militias in the United States due to anger over the economy and increasing hostility towards Barack Obama. The increase is also due to their ideas being more widely spread because of their acceptance by prominent politicians and some within the mass media, for example the Fox News presenter, Glenn Beck.
The Southern Poverty Law Centre, which is a prominent civil rights group, said that the number of extremist groups has almost tripled from 149 in 2008 to 512 last year. The report states that extremist groups “came roaring back to life last year” and it is “a cause for grave concern.” The report includes incidents of rightwing extremists murdering six law enforcement officers and others who have been arrested over alleged plots to assassinate Obama. One man is being charged with the murder of two black people and the plan to kill as many Jews as possible on the day after Obama’s inauguration. More recently, many people have been arrested in a series of bomb cases.
A Republican national committee document which was obtained by Politico last week states plans to have "an aggressive campaign capitalising on 'fear' of President Barack Obama" to raise election funds.
Right-wing extremists and militias are planning a march next month, allegedly supporting the right to carry guns.
by Rosie Libell
Controversy has surrounded the Conservative Party’s deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft this past week after he was accused of ‘systematic tax avoidance’, following concerns over his ‘non-dom’ status as well as avoiding VAT payments on polls that he bankrolled for the Conservatives.
Ashcroft first caused a stir in Parliament when it emerged that his ‘non-dom’ status meant that he has avoided as much as £127 million worth of tax payments. Many MPs have submitted questions to the Treasury, due to be answered this week, regarding how exactly Lord Ashcroft is able to claim ‘non-dom’ status as a long-term resident of the UK whose parents were both UK citizens.
Questions have also been raised over his nomination for a peerage in 2000, after it was revealed that the Tories’ then-leader, William Hague, received personal assurances from Ashcroft that he would become a permanent UK resident within 12 months of receiving the peerage. Ashcroft revealed last Monday that he had renegotiated the terms of his peerage with the honours scrutiny committee, exchanging the term ‘permanent’ for ‘long-term’ to allow him to retain his ‘non-dom’ status, and thus avoid full British tax payments.
Lord Ashcroft has been able to claim ‘non-dom’ status due to holding a Belize passport, having lived there for three years as a child. It is now the location of many of the billionaire businessman’s interests. Ashcroft himself stated in his 2005 biography that these interests have been "exempt from certain taxes for 30 years."
The revelations have not only brought Ashcroft’s suitability for public office under scrutiny, but also payments that he has made to, and indeed for, the Conservative Party. Leading up to the 2005 general elections, Ashcroft commissioned opinion polls through YouGov and Populus on behalf of the Conservatives. The total cost of these polls is estimated to have been around £250,000. Ashcroft instructed the polling companies to mark the invoices as ‘export’ orders from outside the EU – meaning that up to £40,000 in VAT payments was avoided. This is despite Ashcroft being a resident in Britain at the time and claiming to have personally paid for the polls.
Lord Ashcroft has also donated in excess of £5.1 million to the Tories since 2003 through his company, Bearwood Corporate Services, though the findings of an investigation by the Electoral Commission last week declared these donations legal.
A Conservative spokesman has announced that Ashcroft has said he will stand down as deputy chairman after the elections, and as such would not hold a ministerial post.
The Conservatives have said that party leader David Cameron only became aware of Lord Ashcroft’s ‘non-dom’ status last month, and he has reacted strongly to the allegations, claiming that since he has been leader of the party, debts, including those owed to Ashcroft, have been massively reduced. He also suggested that some of Labour’s funders might be guilty of employing similar tax avoidance strategies.
In addition to the parliamentary questions put to the Treasury, the Public Administration Committee is set to hold a one-off inquiry into Lord Ashcroft’s tax affairs and peerage on 18 March, the findings of which could potentially harm the Conservatives’ preparations for the looming general election.
by James Willows-Chamberlin
The Chilcot enquiry into the Iraq War continued last week as the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown appeared before it. Brown came prepared to face allegations that the war could have been avoided and that there was a lack of funding for troops. He did however denie this and said he wanted to counter any impression that he did not see the military as priority.
BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson told BBC News: "Gordon Brown's aim appeared to be to look and sound different from Tony Blair, whilst simultaneously opening up no gap of substance with him and the decisions he took.", ultimately aiming for the 'Diplomatic route'.
Georgina Pattinson, assistant editor for 'BBC democracy live' was at the enquiry and claims there was a real feeling of tension as Brown defended decisions made.
Ex-military leaders accused Brown of keeping defence spending tight during his 10 years at the treasury with some suggesting this had a knock-on-effect on force's equipment. In response to this, Brown said he had largely restricted his involvement in the run up to war to financial matters, and he had assured Tony Blair at an early stage that he would not try to block military options "on the grounds of cost". He further insisted that UK forces had been given all the equipment they had asked for . He told the panel that "At any point, commanders were able to ask for equipment that they needed and I know of no occasion when they were turned down,"
In response to claims that it was wrong to go to war with Iraq, Brown told the enquiry it was "right". He claimed during 2002 and early 2003 he met the intelligence service 5 times and was given information "which lead [him] to believe that Iraq was a threat that had to be dealt with by the actions of the international community". Such intelligence briefings persuaded him that Iraq was a threat and in breach of UN resolutions. That it had to be dealt with as such "rogue states" could not be allowed to flout international law. Brown has also insisted that he was never kept in the dark by Tony Blair despite not being aware of some developments.
Brown has acknowledged that there are important lessons to be learnt from the way Iraq descended into chaos following the invasion which is why this enquiry is so important. He added that "It was one of my regrets that I wasn't able to be more successful in pushing the Americans on this issue - that the planning for reconstruction was essential, just the same as planning for the war."
Brown further claimed that "There will be other states, rogue states, that need to change and we need to ensure civilian support as well as military support to do what's necessary when a broken state has to be rebuilt."
by Katie Sibson
After being refused entry into the UK in February 2009, Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, managed to enter the UK last Friday in order to screen his controversial anti-Islam short film, ‘Fitna’ in the House of Lords. Wilders obtained entry into the UK on grounds of freedom of speech but it is debatable whether he should be able to express views which are racist and, in the words of the Dutch Prime Minister, have “no purpose other than to offend”.
Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, who first prevented Wilders’ entry into the UK, said that his film had the potential to “threaten community harmony and therefore public safety.” This is surely true; Wilders’ views offend many people and therefore major outrage and protest was likely to cause danger and spark conflict. To go back on this decision and to allow racist opinions to be expressed seems absurd.
The opening shots of the film show a copy of the Qu’ran and footage of the 9/11 attacks in New York as well as the bombings in Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005. When posted online in 2008, ‘Fitna’ caused outrage amongst Muslims. Wilders has expressed opinions which are highly controversial and denounce Islam explicitly, telling The Independent “I believe Islam is a violent and dangerous religion and even a retarded culture.” Wilders is no stranger to controversy; he has needed twenty four hour protection due to his shocking views for the past five years.
Wilders was invited to the UK by Baroness Cox and UK Independence Party leader, Lord Pearson. Although these politicians have not said that they support Wilders beliefs, their association with the Dutch politician makes their own political motives appear suspicious. Lord Pearson has called Islam a “world domination movement” and when challenged about the radical beliefs of the UK Independence Party, he replied with “is it radical to wish to protect British society and our Judeo-Christian culture from the growing influence of radical Islam?” In relation to Pearson’s comment, it seems that Wilder himself is trying for “world domination” by travelling around the world to screen his film. By showing his film in multiple countries, Wilders is trying to fuel racism globally.
Lord Pearson’s remarks reveal that the same racism expressed in the Netherlands by Wilders is unfortunately present in the UK. Pearson claims that he was not targeting moderate Muslims but to target Islam alone is unfair and racist. There is a danger with any radical religious group and to make Muslims publicly into scapegoats is prejudiced and unjust. Wilders uses selective information in order to persecute Muslims.
Wilders’ film goes against all morals; I cannot accept Wilders claims that he is trapped by political correctness. Racism should not be tolerated and by letting Wilders enter the UK in order to screen the film, the UK appears to be giving racism and Islamaphobia a platform. Hate between religions and races should not be promoted and for this reason, the ban on Wilders’ film, in my opinion, should not have been lifted. Also, by screening the film in the House of Lords, politicians, who are supposed to be influential people in society, appear to be condoning Wilders opinions.
There is enough hate already in the multicultural cities in this country and it seems that the film only arouses more. Wilders’ film does not expose the truth; it is based on illegal racist opinion and conjures the idea that Islam is related to terrorism. The film does not reveal anything factual or proven, only Wilders’ controversial beliefs. To feed racism is unacceptable and this is precisely what Wilders seems to be aiming to do.
The earlier ban on Wilders entry into the UK seems valid due to his comments on Islam last February; “I have a problem with Islamic ideology, the Islamic culture, because I feel that the more Islam that we get in our societies, the less freedom that we get.” Wilders leads the ‘Freedom Party’ in the Netherlands but doesn’t promote equality in freedom by targeting Muslims solely. Muslims are living by their own faith which does not prevent anyone else from having a freedom.
Wilders has been made an example of outright racism by the British government and Members of Unite Against Fascism waited for two hours to protest. The fact that many people have been shocked by Wilders comments provides awareness that racism is wrong. However, members of English Defence League also greeted Wilders, revealing a worrying support for his opinions.
Everyone has the right to a freedom of speech but I would argue that there is never any room for the expression of racist opinions. There is a difference between freedom of speech and racism, where hurt is intended. Wilders is awaiting trial in his own country for discrimination and fermenting hatred. Although innocent until proven guilty, it is clear that Wilders is not afraid to articulate his controversial racist opinions. It is also frightening that Wilders’ Dutch political party has recently made major gains in local elections in the Netherlands. It is now the biggest party in the city of Almere and the second largest in The Hague, which is the country’s political capital.
by Bethany Sissons
A controversial issue this week has been the decision for MPs to receive a 1.5% pay rise in three weeks time. The proposal has provoked a public outrage, bitter debate, and even a declaration on one BBC comment forum of the need for ‘a new Guy Fawkes.’ The latter extreme reaction aside, the objections of the good citizens of the UK seem quite justified. MPs have more than enough to live on already. They have expense accounts (which you may have heard a bit about recently). They have staff to help them. And if they chose a career in public service, surely it’s not the generous pay cheque that matters to them the most?
All these things aside, one question remains. What MP in their right mind is actually going to accept the extra cash? Number 10 announced on Friday that Labour ministers would be turning down the pay rise, and the opposition has been quick to do the same. With public opinion of MPs now plunging to the depths usually reserved for child molesters or traffic wardens, you’d be surprised to see any of them stand up in front of 2.6 million unemployed voters in three weeks’ time and say ‘yes please’ to an extra thousand pounds a year. Any who do should probably be sectioned.
The three main parties have all made commitments to impose pay freezes as a means of reducing the budget deficit, but seem to have conveniently left themselves out of this. Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison, has given one of the most simple and sensible responses to the issue, saying ‘it does not seem right that MPs can get a 1.5% pay increase worth £1000 a year[… ] when low paid workers […]will get nothing, because their pay is being frozen.’ This, in my view, is bettered only by the summary given by one MP, who described the pay increase as an ‘absolute cock up.’
One of the problems in arguments about MP salaries is that people use the phrase ‘if they worked for a company’ or ‘in any other job....’ But that’s exactly it - being an MP isn’t like any other job. Politicians are there to represent us; to do what’s best for us. And sometimes that means making sacrifices in difficult times. To accept more money right now sends out the simple message that it’s wages first, people second. The gap between the public and the so called ‘political classes’ is widening, and this isn’t helped when it’s the lower paid workers who suffer the consequences of politicians’ own incompetence. Yes, we know it’s all PR when leaders try to seem as though they understand, and share our plight. But it will be a dark day when MPs simply stop caring whether we trust them or not. Yes, the detailed run down in the tabloids of who claimed what was tedious, but we cannot stop holding our politicians accountable simply because we’re bored. Just because we’re no longer shocked by greed or inappropriate behavior doesn’t mean that it should be allowed to go on. We are creating an environment in which actual enmity exists between the elected and the electorate, which makes no sense in any form of democracy.
I, for one, would appreciate the gesture of turning down a pay rise, even if it only a gesture. Pretence, in this case, is, in itself, a courtesy. One thousand pounds per MP per year isn’t going to make a huge difference either way – I don’t think it would be sorely missed by either the taxpayer or the employee in question.
Following a period of almost no trust in our representatives, taking the money would send the message that they are not sorry. Following a pay rise with an election campaign would insult our intelligence, and erode the sense of genuine choice and trust that we need to have if we want people to get out and vote.
If people are going to judge parties by their policies in the coming months, they need to see them as separate, and focus on something other than the monetary misdemeanors that they have in common. This simple gesture of solidarity with everyone who is struggling right now, or facing a pay freeze in the future could help us move on. It would go some way to forming an apology for the last year or so. Most importantly, it would mean that real political issues and values, not lists of figures, are what the coming election is decided on.
by Sarah Firby
Monday, 26 April 2010
3rd March
Barack Obama addressed a priority issue for his government last week in a bipartisan summit on healthcare reform. Both parties in the US have agreed that reform is needed to curb the rapidly rising cost of health insurance, however there have been disagreements on how coverage should be extended.
In his weekly address on the White House blog, Obama emphasised the need for co-operation and bipartisanship in the issue. But the meeting, according to Obama, became a ‘very partisan battle,’ and a barbed exchange with John McCain, in which the president reminded him that they were not campaigning any more, provided evidence of this.
Republican Senator Lamar Alexander called on the Democrats to start again, saying that the US is too complicated and decentralised for a comprehensive bill to work. He, and other Republicans, challenged the democrats to renounce plans to ram the bill through, however after a year of bickering on the issue, the Democrats pointedly refused to do so.
In spite of this attempt to bring together the two parties, it seems that Obama will have to try to push through the legislation with Democrats alone. Under the process of a reconciliation, a version of the bill passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve will be voted on, with a second bill which could include points sought by the house and others set out by Obama. If this vote fails, the White House will resort to a scaled down set of proposals for health reform that would fall far short of Obama’s hopes.
by Sarah Firby
UKIP’s MEP, Nigel Farage, has caused fury in European Parliament and Belgium after verbally attacking the EU president.
Farage told the EU president, Hermann Van Rompuy, that he had “the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low grade bank clerk.” Farage said that it is Van Rompuy’s “intention to be the quiet assassin of European democracy and of the European nation states” and went on to criticise Van Rompuy’s homeland of Belgium; saying it “is pretty much a non-country.”
It is understood that Farage, who stood down as the UK Independence Party leader in September 2009, is trying to get suspended. His apparent aim is to increase publicity for when he challenges Jon Bercow in the general election in a bid to become the new Speaker. After being asked by The Times if he was trying to get banned, Farage said “You make your own mind up, mate.” It has also been said that his comments were deliberate to boost ratings for Farage’s appearance on the BBC’s Question Time.
In response to criticism, Farage said that Belgium is “very sweet and rather pretty but I cannot apologise for the fact that Belgium is a completely artificial construction and a mistake.” The head of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek, said that Farage’s outburst was “completely undignified”.
Following a meeting with Buzek yesterday, Farage was asked to apologise for his comments. His response, however, was that "the only people I'm going to apologise to are bank clerks the world over - if I've offended them then I'm very sorry indeed."
by Rosie Libell
The Conservative Party’s Director of Communications and Planning, Andy Coulson, has been put under the microscope after investigations have revealed that the News of the World hired illegally-operating private detectives whilst he was editor of the paper.
Reports show that the News of the World employed four private-eye investigators whilst Coulson was either editor or deputy-editor of the paper, all of whom have since received criminal convictions. Furthermore, one investigator, who is currently on trial for a violent crime, was rehired by the paper having served a seven-year prison sentence for blackmail. The reporter was well-known to Coulson, since his first period of employment came at the time when he was deputy editor.
Coulson held the position of editor of the News of the World between 2003 and 2007, but resigned after royal reporter Clive Goodman was jailed for illegally intercepting phone messages. By resigning, Coulson prevented a thorough investigation into the so-called ‘phone hacking scandal’ by the Press Complaints Commission, despite him denying all knowledge of certain employees’ activities. He was appointed to his current position as the Conservatives’ communications director in July 2007, and party leader David Cameron has said that he is satisfied that Coulson was not aware of Clive Goodman’s activities.
However, Coulson has been put under scrutiny once again in light of a scathing report published last week by the government’s Culture, Media, and Sport Committee. The report said that it was ‘inconceivable’ that other employees at News of the World were unaware of the illegal activities that its journalists were involved in. 19 people have been identified as victims of phone hacking, though it is feared that the actual number is greater, with mobile phone companies finding more than 100 customers whose voicemail was accessed.
Despite lacking any evidence that Coulson was aware that the phone hacking was taking place, the report has been met with concern by MPs, with some calling for Coulson’s parliamentary right to be revoked. There is a great demand from opposition MPs within the House of Commons for more information and a full judicial inquiry into the affair, which could yet prove extremely damaging to the Tories’ election campaign.
by James Willows-Chamberlin
The new assisted suicide policy released last week will not open the door to euthanasia, said Director of Prosecutions Keir Starmer. In fact, some believe it lessens the chances of legalisation. So why have the changes been so well received?
In introducing the policy, Starmer emphasised that those aiding suicide can still face prosecution but the newly introduced six mitigating factors will help decide which cases should be brought to court, when weighed against those sixteen supporting prosecution on a case-by-case basis. He stressed that they will not make the prosecution of an individual less likely, saying, “The policy has not been relaxed or tightened but there has been a change of focus."
The shift of focus to which he is referring, as represented across the six mitigating factors, is from the condition of the victim to the motive of the suspect; for instance if ‘The suspect was wholly motivated by compassion’ and if the suspect had tried to dissuade the victim from taking action that would lead to their suicide. Consensus appears to be therefore, that if assistance can proven to be on compassionate grounds, prosecution is highly unlikely.
Debbie Purdy, whose success at the House of Lords last year lead to the redefining of the policy, is among many who have praised the new guidelines.
The multiple-sclerosis sufferer wanted to know whether her husband could be prosecuted if he helped take her to the Dignitas euthanasia –clinic in Switzerland. It was found that the lack of clarity in defining under what circumstances her husband could face prosecution must be rectified by the now completed policy on assisted suicide. Purdy praised the new policy but said that the fifty year old law against assisted suicide still needed updating, to one that is “Appropriate for the 21st century world”.
‘Dying in Dignity’ patron the author Sir Terry Pratchett, has said he welcomes the policy and its focus on those assisting the suicide saying “I think we're going as far as we can go without legislation", although the organisation’s chief executive said the group will of course still continue campaigning for a change in the law.
A draft copy of the mitigating factors was released in September and most notably absent from the final version is the condition of the suspect being a family member, likely to be in response to public fears those suffering could be manipulated by their relatives.
The confirmation of the policy comes just weeks after the Nottinghamshire film maker Ray Gosling announced on an edition of BBC’s Inside out that he had assisted in the suicide of a former lover who was suffering from AIDS and had asked Gosling to act should the pain become insufferable. Gosling was arrested on suspicion of murder and has since identified to police, the man whose request he granted. In view of the new policy clarification, it seems unlikely that his case will be taken to court, a move called for by the group Care Not Killing, but is by no means certain.
Keir Starmer and the crown prosecution service have succeeded in the daunting task of creating a set of guidelines which is both respectful and adheres to common sense. Placing focus on he or she who assists the suicide is entirely logical given that it is them that has the potential to be prosecuted. And by removing emphasis from the condition of the suffering, it removes the possible insulting notion that those suffering severe illnesses lose protection from the law. But they remain guidelines – an argument for both those supporting the legalisation and those against. No matter what care or precision is taken in drawing them, they still lack the clarity a law would provide in distinguishing between the compassionate action taken in accordance with the sufferer and the fearful possibility that such a circumstance could be forced upon someone.
by Alex Bishop
Lads' magazines such as Zoo and Nuts should be made top shelf titles with age restrictions on their sale, a report commissioned by the Home Office recommended last week.
The 130-page study argues that ‘lads’ mag’ culture promotes soft porn at pocket-money prices, and are part of a detrimental media landscape that is sexualising boys and girls at an increasingly early age.
The report suggests computer games, easily accessible pornography and the use of sexual slogans in advertising and branding strongly influencing the behaviour of children.
Its author, Dr Linda Papadopoulos, a clinical psychologist at London Metropolitan University, said: "It is a drip, drip effect. Look at porn stars, and look how an average girl now looks. It's seeped into everyday life: fake breasts, fuck-me shoes ... We are hypersexualising girls."
The report was commissioned last year by the then home secretary, Jacqui Smith, as part of a Home Office strategy tackling violence against women and girls, and challenging teenagers' attitudes towards violence and emotional abuse in relationships.
The decision to endorse age restrictions on lads' mags is one of 36 recommendations. The report stated that magazines such as these were being sold to children at a much younger age than is appropriate. Papadopoulos wants ministers to look at whether a system of 16 and 18 certificates, similar to DVD classification, should be brought in.
The editors of magazines such as Zoo and Nuts have argued that they should be treated as "cheeky seaside postcards" and are no more explicit than the images published in the Sun and the Daily Sport. They believe any age restrictions should apply to those papers as well.
The report also suggests that advertisements and magazine spreads should carry a warning kitemark when digitally enhanced models appear.
It will also deliver an alarming analysis that the boundaries have been pushed back so far in advertising, marketing and magazines that key elements of pornography are now regarded as mainstream.
According to Papadopoulos, "Taboos have been pushed back so far. They are taking their script directly from pornography."
The report coincides with David Cameron’s proposals made last week, which aimed to put a stop to the sexualisation of children.
by Kat Bishop
Barack Obama addressed a priority issue for his government last week in a bipartisan summit on healthcare reform. Both parties in the US have agreed that reform is needed to curb the rapidly rising cost of health insurance, however there have been disagreements on how coverage should be extended.
In his weekly address on the White House blog, Obama emphasised the need for co-operation and bipartisanship in the issue. But the meeting, according to Obama, became a ‘very partisan battle,’ and a barbed exchange with John McCain, in which the president reminded him that they were not campaigning any more, provided evidence of this.
Republican Senator Lamar Alexander called on the Democrats to start again, saying that the US is too complicated and decentralised for a comprehensive bill to work. He, and other Republicans, challenged the democrats to renounce plans to ram the bill through, however after a year of bickering on the issue, the Democrats pointedly refused to do so.
In spite of this attempt to bring together the two parties, it seems that Obama will have to try to push through the legislation with Democrats alone. Under the process of a reconciliation, a version of the bill passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve will be voted on, with a second bill which could include points sought by the house and others set out by Obama. If this vote fails, the White House will resort to a scaled down set of proposals for health reform that would fall far short of Obama’s hopes.
by Sarah Firby
UKIP’s MEP, Nigel Farage, has caused fury in European Parliament and Belgium after verbally attacking the EU president.
Farage told the EU president, Hermann Van Rompuy, that he had “the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low grade bank clerk.” Farage said that it is Van Rompuy’s “intention to be the quiet assassin of European democracy and of the European nation states” and went on to criticise Van Rompuy’s homeland of Belgium; saying it “is pretty much a non-country.”
It is understood that Farage, who stood down as the UK Independence Party leader in September 2009, is trying to get suspended. His apparent aim is to increase publicity for when he challenges Jon Bercow in the general election in a bid to become the new Speaker. After being asked by The Times if he was trying to get banned, Farage said “You make your own mind up, mate.” It has also been said that his comments were deliberate to boost ratings for Farage’s appearance on the BBC’s Question Time.
In response to criticism, Farage said that Belgium is “very sweet and rather pretty but I cannot apologise for the fact that Belgium is a completely artificial construction and a mistake.” The head of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek, said that Farage’s outburst was “completely undignified”.
Following a meeting with Buzek yesterday, Farage was asked to apologise for his comments. His response, however, was that "the only people I'm going to apologise to are bank clerks the world over - if I've offended them then I'm very sorry indeed."
by Rosie Libell
The Conservative Party’s Director of Communications and Planning, Andy Coulson, has been put under the microscope after investigations have revealed that the News of the World hired illegally-operating private detectives whilst he was editor of the paper.
Reports show that the News of the World employed four private-eye investigators whilst Coulson was either editor or deputy-editor of the paper, all of whom have since received criminal convictions. Furthermore, one investigator, who is currently on trial for a violent crime, was rehired by the paper having served a seven-year prison sentence for blackmail. The reporter was well-known to Coulson, since his first period of employment came at the time when he was deputy editor.
Coulson held the position of editor of the News of the World between 2003 and 2007, but resigned after royal reporter Clive Goodman was jailed for illegally intercepting phone messages. By resigning, Coulson prevented a thorough investigation into the so-called ‘phone hacking scandal’ by the Press Complaints Commission, despite him denying all knowledge of certain employees’ activities. He was appointed to his current position as the Conservatives’ communications director in July 2007, and party leader David Cameron has said that he is satisfied that Coulson was not aware of Clive Goodman’s activities.
However, Coulson has been put under scrutiny once again in light of a scathing report published last week by the government’s Culture, Media, and Sport Committee. The report said that it was ‘inconceivable’ that other employees at News of the World were unaware of the illegal activities that its journalists were involved in. 19 people have been identified as victims of phone hacking, though it is feared that the actual number is greater, with mobile phone companies finding more than 100 customers whose voicemail was accessed.
Despite lacking any evidence that Coulson was aware that the phone hacking was taking place, the report has been met with concern by MPs, with some calling for Coulson’s parliamentary right to be revoked. There is a great demand from opposition MPs within the House of Commons for more information and a full judicial inquiry into the affair, which could yet prove extremely damaging to the Tories’ election campaign.
by James Willows-Chamberlin
The new assisted suicide policy released last week will not open the door to euthanasia, said Director of Prosecutions Keir Starmer. In fact, some believe it lessens the chances of legalisation. So why have the changes been so well received?
In introducing the policy, Starmer emphasised that those aiding suicide can still face prosecution but the newly introduced six mitigating factors will help decide which cases should be brought to court, when weighed against those sixteen supporting prosecution on a case-by-case basis. He stressed that they will not make the prosecution of an individual less likely, saying, “The policy has not been relaxed or tightened but there has been a change of focus."
The shift of focus to which he is referring, as represented across the six mitigating factors, is from the condition of the victim to the motive of the suspect; for instance if ‘The suspect was wholly motivated by compassion’ and if the suspect had tried to dissuade the victim from taking action that would lead to their suicide. Consensus appears to be therefore, that if assistance can proven to be on compassionate grounds, prosecution is highly unlikely.
Debbie Purdy, whose success at the House of Lords last year lead to the redefining of the policy, is among many who have praised the new guidelines.
The multiple-sclerosis sufferer wanted to know whether her husband could be prosecuted if he helped take her to the Dignitas euthanasia –clinic in Switzerland. It was found that the lack of clarity in defining under what circumstances her husband could face prosecution must be rectified by the now completed policy on assisted suicide. Purdy praised the new policy but said that the fifty year old law against assisted suicide still needed updating, to one that is “Appropriate for the 21st century world”.
‘Dying in Dignity’ patron the author Sir Terry Pratchett, has said he welcomes the policy and its focus on those assisting the suicide saying “I think we're going as far as we can go without legislation", although the organisation’s chief executive said the group will of course still continue campaigning for a change in the law.
A draft copy of the mitigating factors was released in September and most notably absent from the final version is the condition of the suspect being a family member, likely to be in response to public fears those suffering could be manipulated by their relatives.
The confirmation of the policy comes just weeks after the Nottinghamshire film maker Ray Gosling announced on an edition of BBC’s Inside out that he had assisted in the suicide of a former lover who was suffering from AIDS and had asked Gosling to act should the pain become insufferable. Gosling was arrested on suspicion of murder and has since identified to police, the man whose request he granted. In view of the new policy clarification, it seems unlikely that his case will be taken to court, a move called for by the group Care Not Killing, but is by no means certain.
Keir Starmer and the crown prosecution service have succeeded in the daunting task of creating a set of guidelines which is both respectful and adheres to common sense. Placing focus on he or she who assists the suicide is entirely logical given that it is them that has the potential to be prosecuted. And by removing emphasis from the condition of the suffering, it removes the possible insulting notion that those suffering severe illnesses lose protection from the law. But they remain guidelines – an argument for both those supporting the legalisation and those against. No matter what care or precision is taken in drawing them, they still lack the clarity a law would provide in distinguishing between the compassionate action taken in accordance with the sufferer and the fearful possibility that such a circumstance could be forced upon someone.
by Alex Bishop
Lads' magazines such as Zoo and Nuts should be made top shelf titles with age restrictions on their sale, a report commissioned by the Home Office recommended last week.
The 130-page study argues that ‘lads’ mag’ culture promotes soft porn at pocket-money prices, and are part of a detrimental media landscape that is sexualising boys and girls at an increasingly early age.
The report suggests computer games, easily accessible pornography and the use of sexual slogans in advertising and branding strongly influencing the behaviour of children.
Its author, Dr Linda Papadopoulos, a clinical psychologist at London Metropolitan University, said: "It is a drip, drip effect. Look at porn stars, and look how an average girl now looks. It's seeped into everyday life: fake breasts, fuck-me shoes ... We are hypersexualising girls."
The report was commissioned last year by the then home secretary, Jacqui Smith, as part of a Home Office strategy tackling violence against women and girls, and challenging teenagers' attitudes towards violence and emotional abuse in relationships.
The decision to endorse age restrictions on lads' mags is one of 36 recommendations. The report stated that magazines such as these were being sold to children at a much younger age than is appropriate. Papadopoulos wants ministers to look at whether a system of 16 and 18 certificates, similar to DVD classification, should be brought in.
The editors of magazines such as Zoo and Nuts have argued that they should be treated as "cheeky seaside postcards" and are no more explicit than the images published in the Sun and the Daily Sport. They believe any age restrictions should apply to those papers as well.
The report also suggests that advertisements and magazine spreads should carry a warning kitemark when digitally enhanced models appear.
It will also deliver an alarming analysis that the boundaries have been pushed back so far in advertising, marketing and magazines that key elements of pornography are now regarded as mainstream.
According to Papadopoulos, "Taboos have been pushed back so far. They are taking their script directly from pornography."
The report coincides with David Cameron’s proposals made last week, which aimed to put a stop to the sexualisation of children.
by Kat Bishop
Apologies, blog updates have been rather lax last term, here are all the brilliant articles from all the fantastic shows we aired....
24th February
RAG week 2010 started on Saturday, with Newcastle students dressed in assorted fancy dress and fluorescent clothes braving the cold and damp in the name of charity once again. This year’s campaign has chosen five charities to support: Tyneside Cyrenians, whose aim is to help re-integrate all socially excluded people, Whizz-Kidz, a disabled children’s charity, Terrence Higgins Trust, a HIV and sexual health charity providing testing, counseling and support, Breakthrough Breast Cancer and SCAN, Student Community Action Newcastle, based in the union and providing a wide variety of volunteering opportunities for students.
NSR spoke to RAG officer Holly Hardaker who explained why they chose these charities.
----------RAG CLIP 1-------------------------
Holly also rounded up some of the RAG events left before the final Silent-Disc-glo at Tiger Tiger on Thursday, including tonight’s slave auction.
--------RAG CLIP 2--------------------------
And also Holly talked about why student participation in charitable events was so important as well as the heart all the volunteers have put in.
-------RAG CLIP 3--------------------------
Coinciding with RAG week this year is the national fair-trade fortnight campaign, which aims to raise awareness of fair-trade products and in particular to get people to switch from regular to fair trade. Here’s one of the union’s ethics and environment officers Tom Delamere to explain more about Fair Trade Fortnight and how the Newcastle University Union is getting involved.
-------FAIR TRADE CLIP----------------------------
With fair-trade events going on up and down the country, the Fair-Trade foundation is also encouraging people to register what they’ve swapped online to prove the UK’s public demand for widespread fair-trade products.
by Alex Bishop
11 European passports, including 6 British passports, were used last month to enter Dubai in order to assassinate Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, a Hamas official on the 19th January. The Dubai police chief feels "99% if not 100% certain" of Mossad's involvement, and called on Interpol to issue an arrest warrant for the Israeli chief, Meir Daga.
Due to the seriousness of this event, Britain, Ireland and France are demanding explanations, however Israel are refusing to cooperate. Ron Prosor, Israeli ambassador to London, told the Guardian he was "unable to add information on the matter". The Serious Organised crime agency have arrived in the United Arab Emirates to investigate the misuse of British passports, whilst MI6 is collecting further evidence on Israel’s involvement.
Mossad is the national intelligence agency of Israel, responsible for intelligence collection and covert operations including paramilitary activities. Over the past 40 years they have also been responsible for numerous assassinations in Europe and across the Middle East often posing as foreigners. In 2004 the authorities in New Zealand disclosed that Mossad was securing their country’s passports through the Israeli Embassy in Australia. During a trial in Auckland, allegations also surfaced that Mossad was using Canadian passports. Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli Prime Minister, alluded to a report in The Times on Saturday that Mossad was waging a covert war of assassinations across the Middle East, targeting Hamas and Iranian officials.
According to the Police in the Gulf state, of the 11 suspects, 6 were travelling with British passports and 3 with Irish passports. A French and German passport were also used. It was also been found that American registered credit cards were used in order to buy the plane tickets. Officials have stated that none of the passports were reported stolen as sophisticated clones containing only the passport numbers were used with different photos and signatures. Dubai’s chief of police, Lieutenant-General Dhafi Khalfan, told the Times that “We have no doubts that it was 11 people holding these passports, and we regret that they used the travel documents of friendly countries.”
One former Mossad agent confirmed to the Times that the organisation regularly used foreign passports for travel abroad on secret missions as an Israeli passport always raises a red flag.
British officials are of yet to speculate on what measures Britain might take against Israel if the government remained uncooperative. David Miliband, the foreign secretary, told the Guardian "Israel is a strategic partner and a close friend to the UK. We are determined to protect and develop these ties". Sir Richard Dalton, Britain's ambassador to Iran from 2003-2006 however worries that "all this just says how pathetic and ludicrous the claim is that Israel is Britain's strategic partner".
by Katie Sibson
A series of recent attacks on Internet search engine Google have allegedly been traced back to two Chinese schools, though the parties implicated have denied all knowledge of the strikes.
News reports have suggested that intelligence services have traced the attacks, known as Operation Aurora, to Shanghai Jaio Tong University and Lanxiang Vocational School in Shandong province.
Both schools are well renowned for their prominence in developing computer skills.
A flaw found within Internet Explorer was used to orchestrate the attacks, which aimed to reveal personal details of Chinese rebels and to steal parts of Google’s software.
Whilst Chinese authorities have failed to comment on the reports, a female member of staff from Lanxiang has spoken out; denying the reports and expressing her concern that this may worsen US-China relations, since reports seemed to suggest that pupils were being taught to hack American targets.
This string of attacks harkens back to a spate of similar strikes in 2007, attributed to a group of Chinese hackers called Titan Rain. The activities of the group were linked to raids on Western governments, including the Foreign Office, Houses of Parliament., and US Defence Department.
These recent events are the latest chapter in a long-running feud between Google and China, and may serve only to put a further strain on relations between the two parties. In response to the attacks, Google has threatened to cease the censorship of search results in China, a measure that is supported by the US government. Due to censorship measures put in place by the Chinese government, a cease of censoring would most probably see Google completely expelled from China.
by James Willows-Chamberlin
A man crashed a plane into an IRS building containing 190 staff in Austin, Texas, last Thursday in an apparent protest at ‘draconian’ US tax laws, accountants and the Inland Revenue Service. At 9:56 local time, Joseph Stack intentionally piloted his light aircraft into the Echelon office block, killing himself along with one other man, and injuring thirteen.
The house owned by Stack in Austin was reportedly set ablaze on the same morning, and eyewitness reports claim that his wife and daughter were seen escaping their burning home. Mrs Stacks has since offered her ‘sincerest sympathy’ to the victims of her husband’s attack, in a statement read out by the family’s spokesperson.
Mr Stacks also posted a rambling six-page suicide note onto the internet before going through with his attack, which criticised many aspects of his country’s government, and its tax legislation in particular.
‘Here we have a system,’ he wrote, ‘that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand.’
Stacks also condemned politicians and the Catholic Church, saying with regard to the former group that ‘there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind’, and branding the latter ‘vulgar’ and ‘corrupt’.
He concluded his manifesto with a call for a violent revolt, writing:
‘Violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer. I saw it written that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.’
by Marcus Bryan
Are children growing up too fast? Conservative leader, David Cameron, has voiced his concern for the inappropriate sexualisation of children, saying that children in our society are “missing out on their childhood”.
It seems that the boundaries between childhood and adulthood have become blurred. Supermarkets sell padded bras and lacy lingerie in children’s sizes. Girls as young as three are wearing make up, carrying a handbag and wearing high heels. In our shops and on the internet, fashion is readily available to children, making it easy for them to purchase the sexual image which is presented in the media.
In 2006, a third of young girls said that they saw Jordan as a role model; their influence is a topless model, who moves from one relationship to another, swearing overtly and wearing revealing clothes. Children are experiencing a society where sexualisation is prevalent.
Celebrity role models are surely to blame. Girl groups, such as The Pussycat Dolls, target their music towards young children whilst presenting an image which is damaging to them. David Cameron has admitted banning his six year old daughter from listening to Lily Allen. Cameron has deemed her music unsuitable for children due to its bad language, tales of clubbing and sexual relationships.
The influence of the media has a huge impact on young children. David Cameron recognises that parents cannot shield their children completely from the modern world but he told the BBC that “we can stop inappropriate things from being put in front of them from an early age.”
Magazines present a glamorised sexual image of girls. Glamour Magazine, for example, is read by young teenagers but has pages dedicated to sex and relationships, topics which are unsuitable for thirteen year olds. Magazines, unlike films, do not have age restrictions and therefore young people cannot be stopped from buying a magazine which is explicitly sexual.
When an eight year old wants to dress like a member of The Pussycat Dolls, it is clear that child sexualisation is a problem in society. Music videos usually show half naked girls dancing promiscuously; this gives children the impression that there is no other way to behave. From a young age, girls are led to believe through the media that women have one role; they are only supposed to be sexy, skinny and confident in their appearance.
However, some would argue that this new sexual confidence amongst girls is actually positive. Girls are no longer timid and underpowered through sex. The fact that women have the same sexual needs as men is recognised. Is there something admirable in this form of feminism? The fact that girls are able to dress lustfully without being considered particularly immoral or shocking is perhaps a declaration of liberation. If children see glamour model, Jordan, as a role model, they must admire the way she portrays the female body as unapologetically sexy. Is Jordan celebrating girls’ new sexual freedom or presenting a sexualised image which degrades women?
Phil Hilton, the launch editor of Nuts Magazine, supports the idea that women are liberated through sexualisation. He told The Sunday Times “This raucous, fun-loving working-class culture, this take-me-or-leave-me attitude, it’s really taken off. It’s the women who are driving this. Once glamour modelling might have been about some fat sinister guy with a cigar tricking young girls into taking their clothes off, but now women are queuing up to do it – they’re as drunk and lairy as the guys.”
Despite Hilton’s claim that women are acting on their new sexual freedom, the real danger is that it is impossible for young children to avoid this sexualised image. It may be important for young women to realise that they have a new sexual freedom but surely it is inappropriate to present this persona to children at a young age.
Cameron proposes a number of ideas to prevent the sexualisation of young children. Firstly, he promises to set up an online complaints procedure in the form of a website. Furthermore, Cameron wants to punish companies who try to use offensive marketing tactics by preventing them from bidding for government contracts for three years. Cameron declares that there will be “no more profits by damaging childhood.” He also told The Belfast Telegraph “I think children should be allowed to enjoy their childhood without being forced in to early adulthood before their time.”
In my opinion, the heart of the problem is that children are not offered an alternative image. The only role models presented to young girls in the media are glamour models and popstars, focusing on a sexualised image rather than intelligence and academic achievement. If children cannot escape this image then they cannot be expected to aspire to anything else. Cameron believes that parents have a responsibility to enforce better values onto their children but can parents really compete with a society where the media is a force to be reckoned with?
by Bethany Sissons
24th February
RAG week 2010 started on Saturday, with Newcastle students dressed in assorted fancy dress and fluorescent clothes braving the cold and damp in the name of charity once again. This year’s campaign has chosen five charities to support: Tyneside Cyrenians, whose aim is to help re-integrate all socially excluded people, Whizz-Kidz, a disabled children’s charity, Terrence Higgins Trust, a HIV and sexual health charity providing testing, counseling and support, Breakthrough Breast Cancer and SCAN, Student Community Action Newcastle, based in the union and providing a wide variety of volunteering opportunities for students.
NSR spoke to RAG officer Holly Hardaker who explained why they chose these charities.
----------RAG CLIP 1-------------------------
Holly also rounded up some of the RAG events left before the final Silent-Disc-glo at Tiger Tiger on Thursday, including tonight’s slave auction.
--------RAG CLIP 2--------------------------
And also Holly talked about why student participation in charitable events was so important as well as the heart all the volunteers have put in.
-------RAG CLIP 3--------------------------
Coinciding with RAG week this year is the national fair-trade fortnight campaign, which aims to raise awareness of fair-trade products and in particular to get people to switch from regular to fair trade. Here’s one of the union’s ethics and environment officers Tom Delamere to explain more about Fair Trade Fortnight and how the Newcastle University Union is getting involved.
-------FAIR TRADE CLIP----------------------------
With fair-trade events going on up and down the country, the Fair-Trade foundation is also encouraging people to register what they’ve swapped online to prove the UK’s public demand for widespread fair-trade products.
by Alex Bishop
11 European passports, including 6 British passports, were used last month to enter Dubai in order to assassinate Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, a Hamas official on the 19th January. The Dubai police chief feels "99% if not 100% certain" of Mossad's involvement, and called on Interpol to issue an arrest warrant for the Israeli chief, Meir Daga.
Due to the seriousness of this event, Britain, Ireland and France are demanding explanations, however Israel are refusing to cooperate. Ron Prosor, Israeli ambassador to London, told the Guardian he was "unable to add information on the matter". The Serious Organised crime agency have arrived in the United Arab Emirates to investigate the misuse of British passports, whilst MI6 is collecting further evidence on Israel’s involvement.
Mossad is the national intelligence agency of Israel, responsible for intelligence collection and covert operations including paramilitary activities. Over the past 40 years they have also been responsible for numerous assassinations in Europe and across the Middle East often posing as foreigners. In 2004 the authorities in New Zealand disclosed that Mossad was securing their country’s passports through the Israeli Embassy in Australia. During a trial in Auckland, allegations also surfaced that Mossad was using Canadian passports. Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli Prime Minister, alluded to a report in The Times on Saturday that Mossad was waging a covert war of assassinations across the Middle East, targeting Hamas and Iranian officials.
According to the Police in the Gulf state, of the 11 suspects, 6 were travelling with British passports and 3 with Irish passports. A French and German passport were also used. It was also been found that American registered credit cards were used in order to buy the plane tickets. Officials have stated that none of the passports were reported stolen as sophisticated clones containing only the passport numbers were used with different photos and signatures. Dubai’s chief of police, Lieutenant-General Dhafi Khalfan, told the Times that “We have no doubts that it was 11 people holding these passports, and we regret that they used the travel documents of friendly countries.”
One former Mossad agent confirmed to the Times that the organisation regularly used foreign passports for travel abroad on secret missions as an Israeli passport always raises a red flag.
British officials are of yet to speculate on what measures Britain might take against Israel if the government remained uncooperative. David Miliband, the foreign secretary, told the Guardian "Israel is a strategic partner and a close friend to the UK. We are determined to protect and develop these ties". Sir Richard Dalton, Britain's ambassador to Iran from 2003-2006 however worries that "all this just says how pathetic and ludicrous the claim is that Israel is Britain's strategic partner".
by Katie Sibson
A series of recent attacks on Internet search engine Google have allegedly been traced back to two Chinese schools, though the parties implicated have denied all knowledge of the strikes.
News reports have suggested that intelligence services have traced the attacks, known as Operation Aurora, to Shanghai Jaio Tong University and Lanxiang Vocational School in Shandong province.
Both schools are well renowned for their prominence in developing computer skills.
A flaw found within Internet Explorer was used to orchestrate the attacks, which aimed to reveal personal details of Chinese rebels and to steal parts of Google’s software.
Whilst Chinese authorities have failed to comment on the reports, a female member of staff from Lanxiang has spoken out; denying the reports and expressing her concern that this may worsen US-China relations, since reports seemed to suggest that pupils were being taught to hack American targets.
This string of attacks harkens back to a spate of similar strikes in 2007, attributed to a group of Chinese hackers called Titan Rain. The activities of the group were linked to raids on Western governments, including the Foreign Office, Houses of Parliament., and US Defence Department.
These recent events are the latest chapter in a long-running feud between Google and China, and may serve only to put a further strain on relations between the two parties. In response to the attacks, Google has threatened to cease the censorship of search results in China, a measure that is supported by the US government. Due to censorship measures put in place by the Chinese government, a cease of censoring would most probably see Google completely expelled from China.
by James Willows-Chamberlin
A man crashed a plane into an IRS building containing 190 staff in Austin, Texas, last Thursday in an apparent protest at ‘draconian’ US tax laws, accountants and the Inland Revenue Service. At 9:56 local time, Joseph Stack intentionally piloted his light aircraft into the Echelon office block, killing himself along with one other man, and injuring thirteen.
The house owned by Stack in Austin was reportedly set ablaze on the same morning, and eyewitness reports claim that his wife and daughter were seen escaping their burning home. Mrs Stacks has since offered her ‘sincerest sympathy’ to the victims of her husband’s attack, in a statement read out by the family’s spokesperson.
Mr Stacks also posted a rambling six-page suicide note onto the internet before going through with his attack, which criticised many aspects of his country’s government, and its tax legislation in particular.
‘Here we have a system,’ he wrote, ‘that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand.’
Stacks also condemned politicians and the Catholic Church, saying with regard to the former group that ‘there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind’, and branding the latter ‘vulgar’ and ‘corrupt’.
He concluded his manifesto with a call for a violent revolt, writing:
‘Violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer. I saw it written that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.’
by Marcus Bryan
Are children growing up too fast? Conservative leader, David Cameron, has voiced his concern for the inappropriate sexualisation of children, saying that children in our society are “missing out on their childhood”.
It seems that the boundaries between childhood and adulthood have become blurred. Supermarkets sell padded bras and lacy lingerie in children’s sizes. Girls as young as three are wearing make up, carrying a handbag and wearing high heels. In our shops and on the internet, fashion is readily available to children, making it easy for them to purchase the sexual image which is presented in the media.
In 2006, a third of young girls said that they saw Jordan as a role model; their influence is a topless model, who moves from one relationship to another, swearing overtly and wearing revealing clothes. Children are experiencing a society where sexualisation is prevalent.
Celebrity role models are surely to blame. Girl groups, such as The Pussycat Dolls, target their music towards young children whilst presenting an image which is damaging to them. David Cameron has admitted banning his six year old daughter from listening to Lily Allen. Cameron has deemed her music unsuitable for children due to its bad language, tales of clubbing and sexual relationships.
The influence of the media has a huge impact on young children. David Cameron recognises that parents cannot shield their children completely from the modern world but he told the BBC that “we can stop inappropriate things from being put in front of them from an early age.”
Magazines present a glamorised sexual image of girls. Glamour Magazine, for example, is read by young teenagers but has pages dedicated to sex and relationships, topics which are unsuitable for thirteen year olds. Magazines, unlike films, do not have age restrictions and therefore young people cannot be stopped from buying a magazine which is explicitly sexual.
When an eight year old wants to dress like a member of The Pussycat Dolls, it is clear that child sexualisation is a problem in society. Music videos usually show half naked girls dancing promiscuously; this gives children the impression that there is no other way to behave. From a young age, girls are led to believe through the media that women have one role; they are only supposed to be sexy, skinny and confident in their appearance.
However, some would argue that this new sexual confidence amongst girls is actually positive. Girls are no longer timid and underpowered through sex. The fact that women have the same sexual needs as men is recognised. Is there something admirable in this form of feminism? The fact that girls are able to dress lustfully without being considered particularly immoral or shocking is perhaps a declaration of liberation. If children see glamour model, Jordan, as a role model, they must admire the way she portrays the female body as unapologetically sexy. Is Jordan celebrating girls’ new sexual freedom or presenting a sexualised image which degrades women?
Phil Hilton, the launch editor of Nuts Magazine, supports the idea that women are liberated through sexualisation. He told The Sunday Times “This raucous, fun-loving working-class culture, this take-me-or-leave-me attitude, it’s really taken off. It’s the women who are driving this. Once glamour modelling might have been about some fat sinister guy with a cigar tricking young girls into taking their clothes off, but now women are queuing up to do it – they’re as drunk and lairy as the guys.”
Despite Hilton’s claim that women are acting on their new sexual freedom, the real danger is that it is impossible for young children to avoid this sexualised image. It may be important for young women to realise that they have a new sexual freedom but surely it is inappropriate to present this persona to children at a young age.
Cameron proposes a number of ideas to prevent the sexualisation of young children. Firstly, he promises to set up an online complaints procedure in the form of a website. Furthermore, Cameron wants to punish companies who try to use offensive marketing tactics by preventing them from bidding for government contracts for three years. Cameron declares that there will be “no more profits by damaging childhood.” He also told The Belfast Telegraph “I think children should be allowed to enjoy their childhood without being forced in to early adulthood before their time.”
In my opinion, the heart of the problem is that children are not offered an alternative image. The only role models presented to young girls in the media are glamour models and popstars, focusing on a sexualised image rather than intelligence and academic achievement. If children cannot escape this image then they cannot be expected to aspire to anything else. Cameron believes that parents have a responsibility to enforce better values onto their children but can parents really compete with a society where the media is a force to be reckoned with?
by Bethany Sissons
Friday, 19 February 2010
Thursday, 18 February 2010
Hi guys, here's the second show of the semester, we had some great articles as ever. If anyone fancies writing for the News Team get in touch at nsr.news@ncl.ac.uk, or if you'd like to comment on any of the articles below.
The 12th of April saw Gordon Brown and key political members of Northern Ireland make a deal to devolve Irish policing and justice powers from Westminster to the Irish assembly within a matter of weeks. The agreement, described as a final piece in the jigsaw of the two decade long search for peace in Northern Ireland, will also result in several reforms, most importantly the stance taken on overseeing political parades.
Notably, the deal has sought to address the issues of the major political powers of Northern Ireland, meeting key demands of the Sinn Féin and preventing the Republican Party from leaving the power sharing agreement. The deal will also see the abolition of the Parades Commission, an organisation many view as being biased towards Nationalist concerns.
Speaking on the deal reached, Brian Cowen, Gordon Brown’s Irish counterpart, highlighted how the devolvement was an ‘essential step for peace, stability and security in Northern Ireland’. Anxiety of a governmental collapse had surrounded the fortnight long negotiations but this seems to have subsided with the Democratic Unionist Party’s leader Peter Robinson, also First Minister of Northern Ireland, assuring that the frustration felt during the talks was worth it to ensure the deal made would not fall through. Gerry Adams, president of Sinn Féin, further emphasised the need to forget the past and move forward, supported by Martin McGuinness, the deputy First Minister, stressing the need to show that Northern Ireland can work together.
This was however undermined by the significant absence of Ulster Unionists from the final round table session involving Cowen and Brown. The group’s official backing is still needed before the assembly can begin to put new legislation in place. Many remain sceptical that peace can be reached with the agreement and in particular members of the Traditional Unionist Voice party criticised how the DUP had until recently opposed a negotiation of this kind, seeing the deal as simply a weak surrender.
by Vicky Lumb
Universities minister David Lammy has revealed that the universities most at risk of falling victim to extremism are to have counter-terrorism police stationed on campus.
This follows speculation that Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, the man charged with attempting to detonate a substance on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day last year, became radicalised at University College London.
Lammy did not name the universities in question, but said that the institutions where the risk is greater were working closely with the police and Special Branch.
Former Nottingham University PhD student Rizwaan Sabir has raised concerns about the role of universities in the terrorism debate. Sabir was arrested in May 2008 under the Terrorism Act for possession of the Al-Qaeda Training Manual, after being reported to the police by Nottingham University after accessing the materials. Sabir believes that anti-terrorism laws are preventing the academic study of terrorism and counter-terrorism in British universities.
Whilst seemingly protected by the ‘Promoting Good Campus Relations’ guidelines set out by the government in 2008, which concedes that staff and students may require access to terrorist publications as part of their research, there appears to be a disparity between this and the Terrorism Act of 2006, which seeks to prevent “the dissemination of terrorist materials” and block access to documents which “glorify and/or encourage acts of terrorism.”
Sabir’s concerns carry a certain resonance after it was revealed that terrorism expert, Rod Thornton, has ceased to teach on terrorism at Nottingham University. This case highlights the conflict between universities’ tradition of academic freedom, and the fear of becoming subject to investigation should they wish to contribute to the much-debated topic of terrorism through academic research.
Without a change in governmental and institutional policy, cases such as that of Rod Thornton may become commonplace.
by James Willows-Chamberlin
Two furry goodwill ambassadors are making their way from the US to China as relations between the Superpowers take a turn for the worse.
US born pandas Tai Shan and Mei Lan are heading to China to become part of the giant panda breeding programme, and serve as a reminder of one of the more friendly agreements between the two countries.
A Chinese spokesman told the BBC that the pandas were a symbol of friendship between the Chinese and American people.
However, this nicety is rare in an escalating war of words between the two countries, that seems to have been triggered in Copenhagen in December and appears set to worsen after the Whitehouse’s recent announcement that the Dalai Lama will visit President Obama.
On Thursday the 4th of February, the Whitehouse confirmed the Dalai Lama’s visit. Beijing has warned that any such visit would seriously damage relations between China and the US. Because of the Dalai Lama’s stance on Tibetan independence, China sees him as a trouble maker and his visit to the US could be interpreted as US support of his views.
The Dalai Lama has visited many US presidents before, but Beijing had hope that Obama would act differently after his enthusiasm when visiting Beijing last year and his positive attitude towards China.
The Dalai Lama’s visit comes after a delay as Obama did not want it to affect his visits to Beijing in 2009.
This latest diplomatic issue between the two countries comes during a stage of increasing tension for the nations.
Problems arose in December at the Copenhagen environmental conference. Prime Minister Gordon Brown told the BBC that the talks were “at best flawed and at worst chaotic”. Much of this chaos has been blamed on China and the US.
Some blame Obama for not turning the situation around, while others think that China’s tough position torpedoed the talks.
The environment is not the only point over which these Superpowers have locked horns. Beijing’s alleged interference with Google has also been a trigger for tension.
Beijing is accused of enforcing limits on searching through Google, blocking articles and sometimes certain sites altogether, through what is known as the “Great Firewall of China”.
The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, followed this revelation with a tough speech in which she said that any country or individual that threaten internet freedom should face condemnation and consequences.
China warned that the Obama administration’s support for Google was endangering relations.
Fallout from the Bush administration has also had its effects.
The third instalment of arms to be sold to Taiwan as part of an agreement between Taiwan and the US under George W Bush has added to the troubles.
The plans to sell defensive arms, worth over $6billion, to Taiwan have angered China. China sees Taiwan as its own and has threatened to retaliate against individual firms selling the arms.
Another element brewing slowly under the surface are accusations that the Chinese currency is being deliberately undervalued to increase the country’s trade surplus.
All in all, these troubles seem to indicate a trend for worsening relations between two of the world’s most powerful countries. It remains to be seen how these problems will affect the rest of the world, but they are likely to at some point. When they do, we should all hope that the US has a large stock of pandas to keep China happy!
by Eleanor Wilson
Freedom of speech is seen as a human right in the UK but how would you feel if an organisation tried to stop this liberty within certain areas of the media?
In a comment from The Guardian Online Channel 4’s News Presenter, Jon Snow, highlights the fact that Ofcom, the British broadcasting regulator, used its power of censoring to block reports from Sri Lanka entering the British media.
Sri Lanka has one of the worst records for human rights in the world and when a story about nine men being bound and stripped naked by soldiers dressed in Sri Lankan uniform came to Channel 4, Ofcom banned the report from being made as the video could not be authenticated and the Sri Lankan government opposed the showing of the film as it viewed them in a bad light.
After investigation the UN confirmed that the video was authentic and Sri Lanka dropped its complaints against the nature of the content however the battle had become about Ofcom inhibiting ‘investigative reporting’ and helping a country ‘hide from public scrutiny’ as Snow states.
The question is whether Ofcom have a right to stop our freedom of reporting and speech. An organisation that’s key role is a regulation clearly has no place in protecting corrupt governments and preventing the exposure of human suffering and this is a view that Jon Snow made it clear that he shares.
by Annie Meek
Hopes that Sir Thomas Legg’s report on MPs expenses would mark a final, albeit hastily drawn line under the matter, were dashed last week when it was revealed that three labour MPs and a Tory Peer face criminal prosecution. In addition, the quality of Legg’s report itself has been highly criticised and in places turned over. There is even more cause for public anger now that it has been revealed that the lawyers of those accused hope to use an ambiguity of a section of the 17th century bill of rights to save their clients on an apparent technicality.
Legg’s report, covering five years of expenses claims, ordered that £1.3 million be repaid. However more than half of the appeals made by MPs against the report, which itself cost £1.16 million, were successful. An accompanying report from another judge Sir Paul Kennedy, in fact demanded that £180,000 be returned to the MPs, giving a revised bill of £1.2 million to be repaid by the 392 current and former MPs, whose claims though within the law were deemed unjustified. In his report Kennedy deemed the tainting of those MPs without evidence as damaging and unfair. Similar responses have come from within government: LibDem Norman Baker, highly critical of the biggest claims made by his fellow MPs, calling the report ‘sloppy’.
But the news of the charging of the three labour MPs and Tory peer under the Theft act have denied Legg’s report from being climactic in the whole expenses affair, now perhaps too long winded to justify a furore. ‘Outrageous’, ‘disrespectful’ and ‘criminal’ were words constantly used in the reporting of MPs expenses last year and now there seems to be support in the literal use of the third, if only with reference to a few cases. Elliot Morley, Jim Devine and David Chaytor are the three Labour MPs facing charges with Lord Hanningfield, or Paul White, the Tory peer set to join them at Westminster magistrates on 11th March. All deny the allegations. The three MPs, whose charges relate to a combined sum of around £58,000 claimed dishonestly, had already been banned from standing at the next election and have now been suspended until the legal proceedings have been finalised. This is an act which leader of the opposition, David Cameron, has labelled a Labour ‘headlong retreat’, it being thought the Tories wanted the three to have their whip withdrawn, meaning expulsion from the party. It was this that was taken from Lord Hanningfield, the now resigned leader of Essex county council, whose six charges under the theft act relate to him knowingly claiming for overnight expenses when in fact he was driving home from London, reportedly amounting to £100,000.
There has been further outcry with the confirmation by Keir Starmer QC, director of public prosecutions, that the question of parliamentary privilege will be tested in court. The right, enshrined in the 1689 Bill of Rights is intended to prevent politicians from being sued for anything they say in parliament, though its exact wording is not so conclusive. It states that ‘proceedings in parliament’ as well as ‘freedom of speech’ should not be questioned outside of parliament, with no further clarification of the former. The major political parties appear united on the correct interpretation of what is said in the bill with home secretary Alan Johnson saying the public would be aghast if the accused were to jump on the ‘get out of jail card’. But Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats is the only leader of the major political parties that has called for the legislation to be changed immediately in order to avoid such a possible escape route.
The mass public outcry at the revelations of MPs expenses last year was not economically motivated in essence. The government has been accused of much more costly wasting of tax payers money in the last few years; be it Trident, identity cards or the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But it was the Daily Telegraph’s leak of details of MPs expenses claims last year, surrounded by constant recession-driven news of job losses and budget cuts, that caused the most wide-scaled political disenfranchisement. It supported at the worst possible time, the public’s age-old belief of a gulf between politicians and real people. So though it seems unlikely that the ambiguous parliamentary privilege will save them from a possible seven-year prison sentence, even the three MPs and life peer’s taking the issue to court would surely be disastrous; surely not even David Cameron’s heartfelt back-to-basics billboard campaign could pull off the slogan ‘law-makers above the law’.
by Alex Bishop
The 12th of April saw Gordon Brown and key political members of Northern Ireland make a deal to devolve Irish policing and justice powers from Westminster to the Irish assembly within a matter of weeks. The agreement, described as a final piece in the jigsaw of the two decade long search for peace in Northern Ireland, will also result in several reforms, most importantly the stance taken on overseeing political parades.
Notably, the deal has sought to address the issues of the major political powers of Northern Ireland, meeting key demands of the Sinn Féin and preventing the Republican Party from leaving the power sharing agreement. The deal will also see the abolition of the Parades Commission, an organisation many view as being biased towards Nationalist concerns.
Speaking on the deal reached, Brian Cowen, Gordon Brown’s Irish counterpart, highlighted how the devolvement was an ‘essential step for peace, stability and security in Northern Ireland’. Anxiety of a governmental collapse had surrounded the fortnight long negotiations but this seems to have subsided with the Democratic Unionist Party’s leader Peter Robinson, also First Minister of Northern Ireland, assuring that the frustration felt during the talks was worth it to ensure the deal made would not fall through. Gerry Adams, president of Sinn Féin, further emphasised the need to forget the past and move forward, supported by Martin McGuinness, the deputy First Minister, stressing the need to show that Northern Ireland can work together.
This was however undermined by the significant absence of Ulster Unionists from the final round table session involving Cowen and Brown. The group’s official backing is still needed before the assembly can begin to put new legislation in place. Many remain sceptical that peace can be reached with the agreement and in particular members of the Traditional Unionist Voice party criticised how the DUP had until recently opposed a negotiation of this kind, seeing the deal as simply a weak surrender.
by Vicky Lumb
Universities minister David Lammy has revealed that the universities most at risk of falling victim to extremism are to have counter-terrorism police stationed on campus.
This follows speculation that Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, the man charged with attempting to detonate a substance on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day last year, became radicalised at University College London.
Lammy did not name the universities in question, but said that the institutions where the risk is greater were working closely with the police and Special Branch.
Former Nottingham University PhD student Rizwaan Sabir has raised concerns about the role of universities in the terrorism debate. Sabir was arrested in May 2008 under the Terrorism Act for possession of the Al-Qaeda Training Manual, after being reported to the police by Nottingham University after accessing the materials. Sabir believes that anti-terrorism laws are preventing the academic study of terrorism and counter-terrorism in British universities.
Whilst seemingly protected by the ‘Promoting Good Campus Relations’ guidelines set out by the government in 2008, which concedes that staff and students may require access to terrorist publications as part of their research, there appears to be a disparity between this and the Terrorism Act of 2006, which seeks to prevent “the dissemination of terrorist materials” and block access to documents which “glorify and/or encourage acts of terrorism.”
Sabir’s concerns carry a certain resonance after it was revealed that terrorism expert, Rod Thornton, has ceased to teach on terrorism at Nottingham University. This case highlights the conflict between universities’ tradition of academic freedom, and the fear of becoming subject to investigation should they wish to contribute to the much-debated topic of terrorism through academic research.
Without a change in governmental and institutional policy, cases such as that of Rod Thornton may become commonplace.
by James Willows-Chamberlin
Two furry goodwill ambassadors are making their way from the US to China as relations between the Superpowers take a turn for the worse.
US born pandas Tai Shan and Mei Lan are heading to China to become part of the giant panda breeding programme, and serve as a reminder of one of the more friendly agreements between the two countries.
A Chinese spokesman told the BBC that the pandas were a symbol of friendship between the Chinese and American people.
However, this nicety is rare in an escalating war of words between the two countries, that seems to have been triggered in Copenhagen in December and appears set to worsen after the Whitehouse’s recent announcement that the Dalai Lama will visit President Obama.
On Thursday the 4th of February, the Whitehouse confirmed the Dalai Lama’s visit. Beijing has warned that any such visit would seriously damage relations between China and the US. Because of the Dalai Lama’s stance on Tibetan independence, China sees him as a trouble maker and his visit to the US could be interpreted as US support of his views.
The Dalai Lama has visited many US presidents before, but Beijing had hope that Obama would act differently after his enthusiasm when visiting Beijing last year and his positive attitude towards China.
The Dalai Lama’s visit comes after a delay as Obama did not want it to affect his visits to Beijing in 2009.
This latest diplomatic issue between the two countries comes during a stage of increasing tension for the nations.
Problems arose in December at the Copenhagen environmental conference. Prime Minister Gordon Brown told the BBC that the talks were “at best flawed and at worst chaotic”. Much of this chaos has been blamed on China and the US.
Some blame Obama for not turning the situation around, while others think that China’s tough position torpedoed the talks.
The environment is not the only point over which these Superpowers have locked horns. Beijing’s alleged interference with Google has also been a trigger for tension.
Beijing is accused of enforcing limits on searching through Google, blocking articles and sometimes certain sites altogether, through what is known as the “Great Firewall of China”.
The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, followed this revelation with a tough speech in which she said that any country or individual that threaten internet freedom should face condemnation and consequences.
China warned that the Obama administration’s support for Google was endangering relations.
Fallout from the Bush administration has also had its effects.
The third instalment of arms to be sold to Taiwan as part of an agreement between Taiwan and the US under George W Bush has added to the troubles.
The plans to sell defensive arms, worth over $6billion, to Taiwan have angered China. China sees Taiwan as its own and has threatened to retaliate against individual firms selling the arms.
Another element brewing slowly under the surface are accusations that the Chinese currency is being deliberately undervalued to increase the country’s trade surplus.
All in all, these troubles seem to indicate a trend for worsening relations between two of the world’s most powerful countries. It remains to be seen how these problems will affect the rest of the world, but they are likely to at some point. When they do, we should all hope that the US has a large stock of pandas to keep China happy!
by Eleanor Wilson
Freedom of speech is seen as a human right in the UK but how would you feel if an organisation tried to stop this liberty within certain areas of the media?
In a comment from The Guardian Online Channel 4’s News Presenter, Jon Snow, highlights the fact that Ofcom, the British broadcasting regulator, used its power of censoring to block reports from Sri Lanka entering the British media.
Sri Lanka has one of the worst records for human rights in the world and when a story about nine men being bound and stripped naked by soldiers dressed in Sri Lankan uniform came to Channel 4, Ofcom banned the report from being made as the video could not be authenticated and the Sri Lankan government opposed the showing of the film as it viewed them in a bad light.
After investigation the UN confirmed that the video was authentic and Sri Lanka dropped its complaints against the nature of the content however the battle had become about Ofcom inhibiting ‘investigative reporting’ and helping a country ‘hide from public scrutiny’ as Snow states.
The question is whether Ofcom have a right to stop our freedom of reporting and speech. An organisation that’s key role is a regulation clearly has no place in protecting corrupt governments and preventing the exposure of human suffering and this is a view that Jon Snow made it clear that he shares.
by Annie Meek
Hopes that Sir Thomas Legg’s report on MPs expenses would mark a final, albeit hastily drawn line under the matter, were dashed last week when it was revealed that three labour MPs and a Tory Peer face criminal prosecution. In addition, the quality of Legg’s report itself has been highly criticised and in places turned over. There is even more cause for public anger now that it has been revealed that the lawyers of those accused hope to use an ambiguity of a section of the 17th century bill of rights to save their clients on an apparent technicality.
Legg’s report, covering five years of expenses claims, ordered that £1.3 million be repaid. However more than half of the appeals made by MPs against the report, which itself cost £1.16 million, were successful. An accompanying report from another judge Sir Paul Kennedy, in fact demanded that £180,000 be returned to the MPs, giving a revised bill of £1.2 million to be repaid by the 392 current and former MPs, whose claims though within the law were deemed unjustified. In his report Kennedy deemed the tainting of those MPs without evidence as damaging and unfair. Similar responses have come from within government: LibDem Norman Baker, highly critical of the biggest claims made by his fellow MPs, calling the report ‘sloppy’.
But the news of the charging of the three labour MPs and Tory peer under the Theft act have denied Legg’s report from being climactic in the whole expenses affair, now perhaps too long winded to justify a furore. ‘Outrageous’, ‘disrespectful’ and ‘criminal’ were words constantly used in the reporting of MPs expenses last year and now there seems to be support in the literal use of the third, if only with reference to a few cases. Elliot Morley, Jim Devine and David Chaytor are the three Labour MPs facing charges with Lord Hanningfield, or Paul White, the Tory peer set to join them at Westminster magistrates on 11th March. All deny the allegations. The three MPs, whose charges relate to a combined sum of around £58,000 claimed dishonestly, had already been banned from standing at the next election and have now been suspended until the legal proceedings have been finalised. This is an act which leader of the opposition, David Cameron, has labelled a Labour ‘headlong retreat’, it being thought the Tories wanted the three to have their whip withdrawn, meaning expulsion from the party. It was this that was taken from Lord Hanningfield, the now resigned leader of Essex county council, whose six charges under the theft act relate to him knowingly claiming for overnight expenses when in fact he was driving home from London, reportedly amounting to £100,000.
There has been further outcry with the confirmation by Keir Starmer QC, director of public prosecutions, that the question of parliamentary privilege will be tested in court. The right, enshrined in the 1689 Bill of Rights is intended to prevent politicians from being sued for anything they say in parliament, though its exact wording is not so conclusive. It states that ‘proceedings in parliament’ as well as ‘freedom of speech’ should not be questioned outside of parliament, with no further clarification of the former. The major political parties appear united on the correct interpretation of what is said in the bill with home secretary Alan Johnson saying the public would be aghast if the accused were to jump on the ‘get out of jail card’. But Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats is the only leader of the major political parties that has called for the legislation to be changed immediately in order to avoid such a possible escape route.
The mass public outcry at the revelations of MPs expenses last year was not economically motivated in essence. The government has been accused of much more costly wasting of tax payers money in the last few years; be it Trident, identity cards or the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But it was the Daily Telegraph’s leak of details of MPs expenses claims last year, surrounded by constant recession-driven news of job losses and budget cuts, that caused the most wide-scaled political disenfranchisement. It supported at the worst possible time, the public’s age-old belief of a gulf between politicians and real people. So though it seems unlikely that the ambiguous parliamentary privilege will save them from a possible seven-year prison sentence, even the three MPs and life peer’s taking the issue to court would surely be disastrous; surely not even David Cameron’s heartfelt back-to-basics billboard campaign could pull off the slogan ‘law-makers above the law’.
by Alex Bishop
Tuesday, 16 February 2010
Hello all, here are the articles from the first show of this semester, which aired on the 3rd February...
The US arms manufacturer Trijicon has said it has plans to remove Christian messages stamped onto gun sights which are used by troops in Afghanistan. An article published in the Guardian last week revealed that the company promises to remove the references to New Testament passages following objections from military chiefs in New Zealand.
The markings blend into the serial number and product information on the weapon referencing passages from John 8:12, reading "Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."
The use of explicit Christian messages on guns used by Britain, the US and New Zealand troops in a Muslim country has sparked fears that some may perceive that western countries are engaging in a religious crusade in Afghanistan.
Major Kristian Dunne has released a statement admitting the uncomfortable nature of the situation and that he sees ‘how they would cause offence’. The UK Ministry of Defense claims it was previously unaware of the messages and the sights were purchased because they were the best available.
Trijicon, founded by a devoutly Christian South African has said it would provide free kits to remove the markings.
by Rachel Maltas
Details of peace talks instigated by senior members of the Taliban with representatives of the UN in Dubai this month emerged following a conference in London last week. The talks were held to discuss the transition of Afghan security from NATO military control to the responsibility of the Afghan forces, which would allow for the withdrawal of foreign troops within five years.
The revealed talks, heralded as the first time Taliban leaders have willingly approached an international organisation to help bring an end to the nine year Afghan war, signify a potential revival of the peace negotiations which broke down last year.
Although details of the talks concerning the extent of Taliban involvement and the commitment they have promised remain unconfirmed, there is a strong suggestion that divisions within the Taliban are beginning to form. Those assumed to be involved include mid-level commanders who have realised the futility of the fighting as well as younger commanders wanting to take a less extremist stance than their predecessors.
In light of the conference and these Taliban involved talks, a grand peace council is due to be convened within the month, inviting all elders of the Afghan region to participate including those with Taliban connections. Speaking on the possibility of Taliban support for a settlement, President Karzai of Afghanistan stressed the need to encourage all ‘disenchanted brothers’ to unite in the cause of peace. Moreover, the support for a non-violent resolution has been met with a positive response from forces outside the country, with Hilary Clinton confirming US support for further peace talks with Taliban members and NATO General McChrystal adamant that there has been enough conflict and loss.
Due to the many obstacles that negotiations will undoubtedly face this optimism has to be met with an element of caution. Notably, there are still many “red lines” of non-negotiable areas for the Taliban, including their highly controversial reluctance to sever ties with al-Qaida. The way forward must be to further decrease the strength of the already weakening group, offering security and benefits to those Taliban commanders willing to contribute to a peaceful settlement.
by Vicky Lumb
Last week saw debut films from two British satirists screen at the Sundance Film Festival in Utah. In ‘Four Lions’ Chris Morris, creator of ‘Brass Eye’ finds farce in wannabe suicide bombers whilst graffiti artist Banksy’s film ‘Exit Through the Gift Shop’ is said to blend reality and ‘self induced fiction’, calling itself ‘the world’s first street art disaster movie’.
With shows such as ‘The Day Today’ and ‘Brass Eye’, Chris Morris targeted tabloid sensationalism surrounding issues such as drugs, sex and paedophilia. The last of which was the subject of the ‘Brass Eye’ special ‘Paedogedden!’, in which the programme makers managed to dupe celebrities into reading ridiculous facts about paedophiles, for instance DJ Dr Neil Fox claimed they had more genes in common with crabs. It is with the same spirit that Morris has turned on today’s most sensitive issue, terrorism. The story follows a group of British Muslims from Sheffield, lead by a white convert, who intend to blow themselves up at the London Marathon. The BBC deemed the plot too controversial; with Film4 eventually agreeing to fund the film. The one available online clip seems instep with Morris’ claim that the film will do for Jihadists what ‘Dad’s Army’ did for Nazis, showing their stupidity as well as horror. The clip shows one of the young men attempting to explain how when buying bleach with which to make explosives, he disguised himself with an ‘IRA voice’, despite the terrorist implications and as a woman, despite his beard. Despite no general release date yet, the film is already attracting similar controversy to Morris’ earlier projects, namely many saying that terrorism is no laughing matter. One of the film’s actors Arsher Ali, when speaking to the Today programme, spoke of the need for films like this to act as a counterpoint to the daily news coverage terrorism receives, saying within those stories are ones which are ‘Inherently comic and inherently human’. It is this ‘humanistic’ strand that the film is said to focus on, alongside the group’s comic ineptitude, urging the viewer to sympathise with the character’s humanity as a means of understanding Islamic fundamentalists. It is the comic context and apparent subsequent lack of depth however that critics are suggesting is the stumbling block in showing how the characters became so mixed up in the warped ideologies.
‘Exit Through the Gift Shop’ was, perhaps unsurprisingly, a surprise addition to the Sundance line up but by the time of its screening had stoked up heavy anticipation due in no small part to Banksy’s own guerrilla marketing across the walls of the festival’s home, Park City. The plot follows a naive French film maker Thierry Guetta, who the still unmasked graffiti artist begins to mentor, though only letting him film him from behind. Guetta starts to create his own street art, and in a role reversal Banksy begins to record him and his morphing of desire for expression into wild and vacuous self expression. Though Banksy remains anonymous, his tepid commentary accompanying his documentation of ‘Mr Brainwash’s’ decline is said to bring us closer than ever to him. The film was well received at its premiere, at which Banksy was said not to be in attendance, but his presence was felt in a filom that claimed from the outset ‘Everything is true. Especially the bits where we all lie.’
by Alex Bishop
Last Friday former Prime Minister Tony Blair faced the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War. Blair was summoned in order to answer questions about the decisions he made in the run up to the Iraq invasion in 2003. He was asked to clarify precisely what he knew about the potential presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and what promises he had made to the US prior to Britain’s commitment.
Blair was interrogated for 6 hours, during which he insisted that he had ‘no regrets’ over toppling Saddam Hussein. However he gave no explanation as to why he sent 40,000 troops to disarm a country of non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction. He told the inquiry: "This isn't about a lie or a conspiracy or a deceit or a deception. It's a decision. And the decision I had to take was could we take the risk of this man reconstituting his weapons programmes or is that a risk that it would be irresponsible to take?" Surely however the most risk adverse decision would have been to allow the UN time to investigate the claims of the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, rather than go in guns blazing ‘just in case’.
Subsequently Clare Short, former International Development Secretary, has appeared before the Chilcot Inquiry and has made some flammatory accusations regarding the evidence Blair gave. Short has accused Blair of mis-leading Parliament in the run up to the Iraq invasion and of lying to herself. She claims that in a conversation had with Blair in 2002 he told her that he was not planning for war against Iraq, however evidence has revealed that he was not telling the truth.
She claimed that Cabinet Meetings at the time did not fulfil the role they are intended to, "It was not a decision-making body. I don't think there was ever a substantive discussion about anything in cabinet. If you ever raised an issue with Tony Blair he would cut it off. He did that in July 2002 when I said I wanted to talk about Iraq. He said he did not want it leaking into the press."
She has also claimed that Gordon Brown was becoming increasingly uneasy at this time and uncomfortable with the plans regarding Iraq. She said Brown was feeling, “unhappy and marginalised” in the run up to war, and that he worried Blair was, “obsessed with his legacy”. Clare Short stood down from Cabinet 8 weeks after the invasion.
It was confirmed this weekend that Blair will be called back to the Chilcot Inquiry to give evidence once again, both in public and private due to conflicting evidence to that which he gave.
Blair’s evidence contradicts that given by Lord Goldsmith on the issue of the legality of the invasion. Lord Goldsmith was the Attorney General at the time, and the account each has given as to the number of discussions they had on legality in the days before the invasion do not correlate.
It has also emerged that Blair told Lord Boyce, Chief of the Defence Staff, that it was his “unequivocal” view that any invasion was entirely lawful. However on the question of legality, Blair informed the Inquiry that any decision was “always a very, very difficult balanced judgement”. These two comments do not quite match up, and Blair’s recent comment suggests a far greater degree of uncertainty than he admitted at the time of the invasion.
There has been a great deal of criticism of Blair’s appearance before the inquiry, directed at both the panel asking questions and at Blair’s response to them. In an editorial on Sunday, the Guardian described Blair’s appearance as, “pure theatre”, with the questioning, “neither forensic nor consistent enough to disturb Mr Blair's composure, let alone force him into embarrassing disclosure”.
An interesting campaign has since been launched by George Monboit, encouraging members of the public to apprehend Tony Blair with a citizen’s arrest, claiming this is the only way justice will be achieved. A fund has been set up that has received several thousand pounds of donations which will be used to financially reward anyone who attempts to arrest Blair. Already one woman, Grace McCann, has attempted to apprehend Mr Blair when he left the Chilcot Inquiry before she was restrained by Police. Monboit claims that, “While Blair can brush off the Chilcot panel, this bounty fund ensures that he will never rid himself of accountability for his actions. It shows governments that they may no longer destroy ¬people's lives and expect us to forget”.
by Beatrice Pickup - Editor
The US arms manufacturer Trijicon has said it has plans to remove Christian messages stamped onto gun sights which are used by troops in Afghanistan. An article published in the Guardian last week revealed that the company promises to remove the references to New Testament passages following objections from military chiefs in New Zealand.
The markings blend into the serial number and product information on the weapon referencing passages from John 8:12, reading "Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."
The use of explicit Christian messages on guns used by Britain, the US and New Zealand troops in a Muslim country has sparked fears that some may perceive that western countries are engaging in a religious crusade in Afghanistan.
Major Kristian Dunne has released a statement admitting the uncomfortable nature of the situation and that he sees ‘how they would cause offence’. The UK Ministry of Defense claims it was previously unaware of the messages and the sights were purchased because they were the best available.
Trijicon, founded by a devoutly Christian South African has said it would provide free kits to remove the markings.
by Rachel Maltas
Details of peace talks instigated by senior members of the Taliban with representatives of the UN in Dubai this month emerged following a conference in London last week. The talks were held to discuss the transition of Afghan security from NATO military control to the responsibility of the Afghan forces, which would allow for the withdrawal of foreign troops within five years.
The revealed talks, heralded as the first time Taliban leaders have willingly approached an international organisation to help bring an end to the nine year Afghan war, signify a potential revival of the peace negotiations which broke down last year.
Although details of the talks concerning the extent of Taliban involvement and the commitment they have promised remain unconfirmed, there is a strong suggestion that divisions within the Taliban are beginning to form. Those assumed to be involved include mid-level commanders who have realised the futility of the fighting as well as younger commanders wanting to take a less extremist stance than their predecessors.
In light of the conference and these Taliban involved talks, a grand peace council is due to be convened within the month, inviting all elders of the Afghan region to participate including those with Taliban connections. Speaking on the possibility of Taliban support for a settlement, President Karzai of Afghanistan stressed the need to encourage all ‘disenchanted brothers’ to unite in the cause of peace. Moreover, the support for a non-violent resolution has been met with a positive response from forces outside the country, with Hilary Clinton confirming US support for further peace talks with Taliban members and NATO General McChrystal adamant that there has been enough conflict and loss.
Due to the many obstacles that negotiations will undoubtedly face this optimism has to be met with an element of caution. Notably, there are still many “red lines” of non-negotiable areas for the Taliban, including their highly controversial reluctance to sever ties with al-Qaida. The way forward must be to further decrease the strength of the already weakening group, offering security and benefits to those Taliban commanders willing to contribute to a peaceful settlement.
by Vicky Lumb
Last week saw debut films from two British satirists screen at the Sundance Film Festival in Utah. In ‘Four Lions’ Chris Morris, creator of ‘Brass Eye’ finds farce in wannabe suicide bombers whilst graffiti artist Banksy’s film ‘Exit Through the Gift Shop’ is said to blend reality and ‘self induced fiction’, calling itself ‘the world’s first street art disaster movie’.
With shows such as ‘The Day Today’ and ‘Brass Eye’, Chris Morris targeted tabloid sensationalism surrounding issues such as drugs, sex and paedophilia. The last of which was the subject of the ‘Brass Eye’ special ‘Paedogedden!’, in which the programme makers managed to dupe celebrities into reading ridiculous facts about paedophiles, for instance DJ Dr Neil Fox claimed they had more genes in common with crabs. It is with the same spirit that Morris has turned on today’s most sensitive issue, terrorism. The story follows a group of British Muslims from Sheffield, lead by a white convert, who intend to blow themselves up at the London Marathon. The BBC deemed the plot too controversial; with Film4 eventually agreeing to fund the film. The one available online clip seems instep with Morris’ claim that the film will do for Jihadists what ‘Dad’s Army’ did for Nazis, showing their stupidity as well as horror. The clip shows one of the young men attempting to explain how when buying bleach with which to make explosives, he disguised himself with an ‘IRA voice’, despite the terrorist implications and as a woman, despite his beard. Despite no general release date yet, the film is already attracting similar controversy to Morris’ earlier projects, namely many saying that terrorism is no laughing matter. One of the film’s actors Arsher Ali, when speaking to the Today programme, spoke of the need for films like this to act as a counterpoint to the daily news coverage terrorism receives, saying within those stories are ones which are ‘Inherently comic and inherently human’. It is this ‘humanistic’ strand that the film is said to focus on, alongside the group’s comic ineptitude, urging the viewer to sympathise with the character’s humanity as a means of understanding Islamic fundamentalists. It is the comic context and apparent subsequent lack of depth however that critics are suggesting is the stumbling block in showing how the characters became so mixed up in the warped ideologies.
‘Exit Through the Gift Shop’ was, perhaps unsurprisingly, a surprise addition to the Sundance line up but by the time of its screening had stoked up heavy anticipation due in no small part to Banksy’s own guerrilla marketing across the walls of the festival’s home, Park City. The plot follows a naive French film maker Thierry Guetta, who the still unmasked graffiti artist begins to mentor, though only letting him film him from behind. Guetta starts to create his own street art, and in a role reversal Banksy begins to record him and his morphing of desire for expression into wild and vacuous self expression. Though Banksy remains anonymous, his tepid commentary accompanying his documentation of ‘Mr Brainwash’s’ decline is said to bring us closer than ever to him. The film was well received at its premiere, at which Banksy was said not to be in attendance, but his presence was felt in a filom that claimed from the outset ‘Everything is true. Especially the bits where we all lie.’
by Alex Bishop
Last Friday former Prime Minister Tony Blair faced the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War. Blair was summoned in order to answer questions about the decisions he made in the run up to the Iraq invasion in 2003. He was asked to clarify precisely what he knew about the potential presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and what promises he had made to the US prior to Britain’s commitment.
Blair was interrogated for 6 hours, during which he insisted that he had ‘no regrets’ over toppling Saddam Hussein. However he gave no explanation as to why he sent 40,000 troops to disarm a country of non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction. He told the inquiry: "This isn't about a lie or a conspiracy or a deceit or a deception. It's a decision. And the decision I had to take was could we take the risk of this man reconstituting his weapons programmes or is that a risk that it would be irresponsible to take?" Surely however the most risk adverse decision would have been to allow the UN time to investigate the claims of the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, rather than go in guns blazing ‘just in case’.
Subsequently Clare Short, former International Development Secretary, has appeared before the Chilcot Inquiry and has made some flammatory accusations regarding the evidence Blair gave. Short has accused Blair of mis-leading Parliament in the run up to the Iraq invasion and of lying to herself. She claims that in a conversation had with Blair in 2002 he told her that he was not planning for war against Iraq, however evidence has revealed that he was not telling the truth.
She claimed that Cabinet Meetings at the time did not fulfil the role they are intended to, "It was not a decision-making body. I don't think there was ever a substantive discussion about anything in cabinet. If you ever raised an issue with Tony Blair he would cut it off. He did that in July 2002 when I said I wanted to talk about Iraq. He said he did not want it leaking into the press."
She has also claimed that Gordon Brown was becoming increasingly uneasy at this time and uncomfortable with the plans regarding Iraq. She said Brown was feeling, “unhappy and marginalised” in the run up to war, and that he worried Blair was, “obsessed with his legacy”. Clare Short stood down from Cabinet 8 weeks after the invasion.
It was confirmed this weekend that Blair will be called back to the Chilcot Inquiry to give evidence once again, both in public and private due to conflicting evidence to that which he gave.
Blair’s evidence contradicts that given by Lord Goldsmith on the issue of the legality of the invasion. Lord Goldsmith was the Attorney General at the time, and the account each has given as to the number of discussions they had on legality in the days before the invasion do not correlate.
It has also emerged that Blair told Lord Boyce, Chief of the Defence Staff, that it was his “unequivocal” view that any invasion was entirely lawful. However on the question of legality, Blair informed the Inquiry that any decision was “always a very, very difficult balanced judgement”. These two comments do not quite match up, and Blair’s recent comment suggests a far greater degree of uncertainty than he admitted at the time of the invasion.
There has been a great deal of criticism of Blair’s appearance before the inquiry, directed at both the panel asking questions and at Blair’s response to them. In an editorial on Sunday, the Guardian described Blair’s appearance as, “pure theatre”, with the questioning, “neither forensic nor consistent enough to disturb Mr Blair's composure, let alone force him into embarrassing disclosure”.
An interesting campaign has since been launched by George Monboit, encouraging members of the public to apprehend Tony Blair with a citizen’s arrest, claiming this is the only way justice will be achieved. A fund has been set up that has received several thousand pounds of donations which will be used to financially reward anyone who attempts to arrest Blair. Already one woman, Grace McCann, has attempted to apprehend Mr Blair when he left the Chilcot Inquiry before she was restrained by Police. Monboit claims that, “While Blair can brush off the Chilcot panel, this bounty fund ensures that he will never rid himself of accountability for his actions. It shows governments that they may no longer destroy ¬people's lives and expect us to forget”.
by Beatrice Pickup - Editor
Friday, 4 December 2009
Hi guys we had a really good show this week, you can read all the articles that featured below...
China has announced that the Chinese prime minister, Wen Jiabao will be attending the Copenhagen climate talks next month.
The news came a day after the US president, Barack Obama, confirmed he would be attending the early stages of the conference, which aims to set a global strategy for reducing emissions.
China unveiled firm targets of cutting emissions of carbon relative to economic growth by 40 to 45% by the year 2020 compared with 2005 levels. The state council has stated that “this is a voluntary action taken by the Chinese government based on its own national conditions and is a major contribution to the global effort in tackling climate change.” This target commits China to slowing the speed of emissions growth through the adoption of renewable energy, such as by replacing old power stations with more efficient plants.
John Hay, spokesman for the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat called news of Obama’s visit and China’s firm targets as “a huge morale booster”.
But critics have pointed out that the figure is unlikely to be high enough to satisfy European and US negotiators, as anything below 50% would represent a less ambitious target than its current efforts to improve energy efficiency.
Chinese negotiators counter that it is doing far more than wealthy nations, particularly the US and Europe, despite of its expected high economic growth rate as a developing country.
written by Erica Teo
A student caught urinating on a war memorial was spared jail by a judge who attacked organised mass drinking sessions at universities.
19 year old Phillip Laing from Sheffield Hallam University was given 250 hours of community service for outraging public decency. Laing was part of a Carnage pub crawl where he drank vast amounts of alcohol before he was caught on CCTV urinating on a poppy wreath at the city’s main memorial just before Remembrance Sunday.
The court heard that Laing had been extremely remorseful especially since both his grandfathers had fought in the Second World War and he had done work experience with the army. District judge Anthony Browne took this into account and spared Laing the jail sentence.
Browne stated that Laing had to take responsibility for his own actions but recognised that this was set against a backdrop of a binge drinking culture. Browne suggested that the organisers of the event should have been alongside Laing in the dock and that measures are needed to curb such binge drinking culture targeted at young people.
Varsity Leisure Group, which owns Carnage, denied encouraging irresponsible drinking at the events, stating that these events are accompanied by medical staff.
War veterans’ organisations at that time also recognised Laing’s immediate apology and the scale of drinking involved. This incident has sparked a public uproar leading to the creation of a facebook group calling Laing ‘the Scum of the Earth’.
written by Erica Teo
Gary McKinnon, accused of hacking into 97 US government computers, looks set to face trial in the US, after Alan Johnson announced last week he would not block the extradition on medical grounds. The Home Secretary said granting the extradition would not breach McKinnon’s human rights despite expert medical evidence brought forward by his lawyers, stating that their client’s dramatic breakdown in mental health would mean any extradition would be in breach of his right to life.
McKinnon also has Asperger’s Syndrome which coupled with the report saying he is close to suicide, raises the question: what is the fairness in such treatment of someone with a disability and worrying mental health? His lawyer, Karen Todner has likened his current state to death row, saying “We genuinely believe that Gary's life is at stake here” before adding that Johnson’s rejection has brought their battle worrying close to the end of the road.
McKinnon is accused of hacking into 97 NASA and US military computer in 2001 and 2002, reportedly including the immobilisation of sensitive systems following the 9/11 attacks. Though McKinnon has never denied his actions, he has always maintained he was hacking in order to find evidence of UFOs and ‘free-energy’ and never had malicious intent as well as doubting the US government’s estimate of $700,000 worth of damage his actions caused.
Since the US first made an extradition request in 2005, McKinnon has lost various appeals including that at the High Court in 2007. However, it was discovered in only August 2008 that he has Asperger’s Syndrome, a form of autism, sufferers of which are often prone to obsessive behaviour and can be socially naïve to the effects of their actions.
In defence of allowing the extradition of someone despite this disability and current extreme fragility, Alan Johnson refers to the assurances made by the US government in a letter shown in court, that if prosecuted McKinnon will receive ‘appropriate medical care and treatment’ from doctors, counsellors and psychologists.
But in a letter to The Herald earlier this year, former NASA criminal investigator specialising in hacking and now criminal lawyer Joseph Gutheinz, called for an end to the extradition process. Drawing on his own legal experience with a client with Asperger’s Syndrome, Gutheinz said that the American Judicial system ‘turns a blind eye towards the needs of the mentally ill’ and McKinnon requires treatment not extradition and imprisonment.
McKinnon has received widespread support during his campaign, much of which has focussed on the highly questionable extradition treaty between Britain and the United States. LibDem Home Affairs spokesman Chris Huhne called it “deeply unfair” and appalling that it is being held above the rights of a British citizen. One of Britain’s most prominent Human Rights lawyers, Geoffrey Robertson QC has also supported the block of extradition, saying it would be in violation of our 1689 Bill of Rights.
The outcome of former Morgan Crucible executive Ian Norris’ challenge to the Supreme Court this week, in a similar case of US extradition being in possible violation of human rights, provides some think the last glimmer of hope for McKinnon.
Alan Johnson has gone against expert medical advice for the second time in as many months, following the sacking of drugs expert David Nutt at the end of October. On this occasion, the treatment of a man with a proven mental disability and who is very close to suicide has been described by the defendants lawyers as ‘callous’. Should McKinnon be prosecuted, Johnson has made assurances that progress of his application to serve his sentence in the UK will be made ‘at the earliest opportunity’. But given the disregard given to the abundance of support and evidence for McKinnon, in order to comply with a treaty described by the Commons Homes Affairs Committee as having a ‘serious lack of equality’ in the extradition of UK and US citizens, what truth do these promises hold?
McKinnon’s legal team were given seven days to appeal to judicial review, after which they can only appeal to the European Court of Human rights who have already said in the past, would not block extradition.
written by Alex Bishop
Currently under way is the Chilcot inquiry into Britain’s role in the Iraq war, chaired by Sir John Chilcot.
The Inquiry’s remit is to examine ‘involvement in the Iraq war, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish as accurately and reliably as possible what happened, and to identify lessons that can be learned’. This sounds like not only a necessary investigation but also a potentially flammatory one. The inquiry may have been set up by the government, and it’s members chosen by the Prime Minister, but it’s task is to examine the government - specifically Tony Blair’s Labour government - and to criticise it where criticism is proved to be warranted.
For years, ariticles have been written, protests conducted and documents leaked that claim something was amiss in the government’s behaviour in the run up to its commitment to an Iraq invasion. How much is fact, how much is white-wash and how much is conjencture is unknown, but I think we would all acknowledge that the choices made by the government at the time and the reasons offered to the public to defend them were not as clear cut and warranted as they were presented to be. This fact is now reflected by the very existence of this inquiry, the government has had to acknowledge that a proper and thorough investigation will be demanded by the public, and it has no choice but to launch one.
The question on every cynics lips of course is to what extent the Government will be prepared to have wrong-doing, if it occurred, revealed and how much criticism it is willing to accept. The Chilcot inquiry has been provided with very thorough archives, however they have been provided by the government – just how naked will they be prepared to be?
Another question is the extent of the inquiry’s power, Chilcot confirmed in his opening speech that it is not a court of law, its sole task is to form an account of events and submit a report. If the inquiry finds evidence of wrong-doing all it can do is state it. Whether anything is done about it is an entirely different matter.
Chilcot acknowledged that one of the main issues that the inquiry would be considering would be the legality of Britain’s involvement in the invasion, but that it would not be addressed directly until the New Year. Legality is the question that most interests just about every on-looker of this investigation, and calls have been made for the inquiry to make it a priority. However experts have pointed out that this is something the inquiry will be unable to do effectively – the panel does not include a single judge or lawyer.
A senior legal figure told the Guardian that, “The panel clearly lacks the expertise to address the question of legality. The members are not experienced at cross examination – it is simply not their skill set.” They also commented that, “Some of the debates around the legality of war are quite sophisticated – it is not at all clear-cut”.
If this is the case then it would appear the panel are not equipped to investigate legality, and that therefore the inquiry would not only not be able to reach any conclusions, but ultimately that it was never intended to. The Prime Minister selected the Panel. He did not choose a member with legal training, he also chose not to select a member of military personnel. Surely such proffessions would be best equipped to understand and analyse the information they are to be presented with. Instead two historians, a diplomat and a civil servant have been invited to ask the questions the rest of the country has been since 2001 and to find us answers. One has to ask precisely how much the Government does want the panel to understand and just how thorough it hopes the inquiry to be.
A senior judge commented to the Guardian that “Looking into the legality of the war is the last thing the government wants… And actually, it’s the last thing the opposition wants either because they voted for the war. There simply is not the political pressure to explore the question of legality – they have not asked because they do not want the answer”. However the public have asked and the public does want an answer, unfortunately it does appear increasingly likely that the answer we get will be watery, diluted and non-commital.
Yet despite the many criticisms of the Chilcot inquiry’s ability to adequately perform its task, interesting, explosive and highly damning evidence has already been brought to light in the couple of weeks the inquiry has been in operation. Sir Christopher Meyer’s evidence was particularly significant, it suggested that Tony Blair had assured the US of Britain’s co-operation and commitment to regime-change and invasion as early as April 2002, claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction were nothing more than a pretext and the co-operation with the UN nothing more than an attempt to justify the invasion. The UN were not even given time to complete their investigation into the presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction, that is how flimsy the pre-text was.
Such evidence supports claims made by many over the years, including former Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan, that the invasion was illegal, in the absence of a UN resolution authorising invasion. It also confirms that Tony Blair’s government sought to deceive the British public and media, Weapons of Mass Destruction were claimed to be the prime reason that intervention was necessary, not only were there not any weapons, it didn’t even really matter that there weren’t; the government had already made its mind up.
It seems that the Chilcot inquiry could uncover some highly flammable information and that we may all learn much more about what actually happened at that time. In this sense, this inquiry is undoubtedly valuable. The concern however is just how much it can achieve and whether it will be enough. Whether it is equipped to adequately perform the enormous task it faces, whether it will have the guts to condemn where it should, and whether the government and courts of law will actually pay any attention to its findings when it does finally submit them. This may not be yet another white wash, but it does not seem to be a pursuit of accountability and culpability and sadly anyone naïve enough to look for tangible outcomes may be disappointed.
written by Beatrice Pickup
Wednesday 9th December will be our last news show of the semester, and it will be a Big Issue special. We have a fantastic interview with Paul, who runs the Big Issue in the North East and two of his vendors who work on Northumberland Street, Paul and Steve. We chat to them about the ethos behind the Big Issue, how it can help those who are homeless or poorly housed and what makes the magazine something students might want to buy. We also take a look at the Big Issue Christmas special, featuring an exclusive George Michael interview. Tune in on Wednesday or check this blog to find out more.
China has announced that the Chinese prime minister, Wen Jiabao will be attending the Copenhagen climate talks next month.
The news came a day after the US president, Barack Obama, confirmed he would be attending the early stages of the conference, which aims to set a global strategy for reducing emissions.
China unveiled firm targets of cutting emissions of carbon relative to economic growth by 40 to 45% by the year 2020 compared with 2005 levels. The state council has stated that “this is a voluntary action taken by the Chinese government based on its own national conditions and is a major contribution to the global effort in tackling climate change.” This target commits China to slowing the speed of emissions growth through the adoption of renewable energy, such as by replacing old power stations with more efficient plants.
John Hay, spokesman for the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat called news of Obama’s visit and China’s firm targets as “a huge morale booster”.
But critics have pointed out that the figure is unlikely to be high enough to satisfy European and US negotiators, as anything below 50% would represent a less ambitious target than its current efforts to improve energy efficiency.
Chinese negotiators counter that it is doing far more than wealthy nations, particularly the US and Europe, despite of its expected high economic growth rate as a developing country.
written by Erica Teo
A student caught urinating on a war memorial was spared jail by a judge who attacked organised mass drinking sessions at universities.
19 year old Phillip Laing from Sheffield Hallam University was given 250 hours of community service for outraging public decency. Laing was part of a Carnage pub crawl where he drank vast amounts of alcohol before he was caught on CCTV urinating on a poppy wreath at the city’s main memorial just before Remembrance Sunday.
The court heard that Laing had been extremely remorseful especially since both his grandfathers had fought in the Second World War and he had done work experience with the army. District judge Anthony Browne took this into account and spared Laing the jail sentence.
Browne stated that Laing had to take responsibility for his own actions but recognised that this was set against a backdrop of a binge drinking culture. Browne suggested that the organisers of the event should have been alongside Laing in the dock and that measures are needed to curb such binge drinking culture targeted at young people.
Varsity Leisure Group, which owns Carnage, denied encouraging irresponsible drinking at the events, stating that these events are accompanied by medical staff.
War veterans’ organisations at that time also recognised Laing’s immediate apology and the scale of drinking involved. This incident has sparked a public uproar leading to the creation of a facebook group calling Laing ‘the Scum of the Earth’.
written by Erica Teo
Gary McKinnon, accused of hacking into 97 US government computers, looks set to face trial in the US, after Alan Johnson announced last week he would not block the extradition on medical grounds. The Home Secretary said granting the extradition would not breach McKinnon’s human rights despite expert medical evidence brought forward by his lawyers, stating that their client’s dramatic breakdown in mental health would mean any extradition would be in breach of his right to life.
McKinnon also has Asperger’s Syndrome which coupled with the report saying he is close to suicide, raises the question: what is the fairness in such treatment of someone with a disability and worrying mental health? His lawyer, Karen Todner has likened his current state to death row, saying “We genuinely believe that Gary's life is at stake here” before adding that Johnson’s rejection has brought their battle worrying close to the end of the road.
McKinnon is accused of hacking into 97 NASA and US military computer in 2001 and 2002, reportedly including the immobilisation of sensitive systems following the 9/11 attacks. Though McKinnon has never denied his actions, he has always maintained he was hacking in order to find evidence of UFOs and ‘free-energy’ and never had malicious intent as well as doubting the US government’s estimate of $700,000 worth of damage his actions caused.
Since the US first made an extradition request in 2005, McKinnon has lost various appeals including that at the High Court in 2007. However, it was discovered in only August 2008 that he has Asperger’s Syndrome, a form of autism, sufferers of which are often prone to obsessive behaviour and can be socially naïve to the effects of their actions.
In defence of allowing the extradition of someone despite this disability and current extreme fragility, Alan Johnson refers to the assurances made by the US government in a letter shown in court, that if prosecuted McKinnon will receive ‘appropriate medical care and treatment’ from doctors, counsellors and psychologists.
But in a letter to The Herald earlier this year, former NASA criminal investigator specialising in hacking and now criminal lawyer Joseph Gutheinz, called for an end to the extradition process. Drawing on his own legal experience with a client with Asperger’s Syndrome, Gutheinz said that the American Judicial system ‘turns a blind eye towards the needs of the mentally ill’ and McKinnon requires treatment not extradition and imprisonment.
McKinnon has received widespread support during his campaign, much of which has focussed on the highly questionable extradition treaty between Britain and the United States. LibDem Home Affairs spokesman Chris Huhne called it “deeply unfair” and appalling that it is being held above the rights of a British citizen. One of Britain’s most prominent Human Rights lawyers, Geoffrey Robertson QC has also supported the block of extradition, saying it would be in violation of our 1689 Bill of Rights.
The outcome of former Morgan Crucible executive Ian Norris’ challenge to the Supreme Court this week, in a similar case of US extradition being in possible violation of human rights, provides some think the last glimmer of hope for McKinnon.
Alan Johnson has gone against expert medical advice for the second time in as many months, following the sacking of drugs expert David Nutt at the end of October. On this occasion, the treatment of a man with a proven mental disability and who is very close to suicide has been described by the defendants lawyers as ‘callous’. Should McKinnon be prosecuted, Johnson has made assurances that progress of his application to serve his sentence in the UK will be made ‘at the earliest opportunity’. But given the disregard given to the abundance of support and evidence for McKinnon, in order to comply with a treaty described by the Commons Homes Affairs Committee as having a ‘serious lack of equality’ in the extradition of UK and US citizens, what truth do these promises hold?
McKinnon’s legal team were given seven days to appeal to judicial review, after which they can only appeal to the European Court of Human rights who have already said in the past, would not block extradition.
written by Alex Bishop
Currently under way is the Chilcot inquiry into Britain’s role in the Iraq war, chaired by Sir John Chilcot.
The Inquiry’s remit is to examine ‘involvement in the Iraq war, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish as accurately and reliably as possible what happened, and to identify lessons that can be learned’. This sounds like not only a necessary investigation but also a potentially flammatory one. The inquiry may have been set up by the government, and it’s members chosen by the Prime Minister, but it’s task is to examine the government - specifically Tony Blair’s Labour government - and to criticise it where criticism is proved to be warranted.
For years, ariticles have been written, protests conducted and documents leaked that claim something was amiss in the government’s behaviour in the run up to its commitment to an Iraq invasion. How much is fact, how much is white-wash and how much is conjencture is unknown, but I think we would all acknowledge that the choices made by the government at the time and the reasons offered to the public to defend them were not as clear cut and warranted as they were presented to be. This fact is now reflected by the very existence of this inquiry, the government has had to acknowledge that a proper and thorough investigation will be demanded by the public, and it has no choice but to launch one.
The question on every cynics lips of course is to what extent the Government will be prepared to have wrong-doing, if it occurred, revealed and how much criticism it is willing to accept. The Chilcot inquiry has been provided with very thorough archives, however they have been provided by the government – just how naked will they be prepared to be?
Another question is the extent of the inquiry’s power, Chilcot confirmed in his opening speech that it is not a court of law, its sole task is to form an account of events and submit a report. If the inquiry finds evidence of wrong-doing all it can do is state it. Whether anything is done about it is an entirely different matter.
Chilcot acknowledged that one of the main issues that the inquiry would be considering would be the legality of Britain’s involvement in the invasion, but that it would not be addressed directly until the New Year. Legality is the question that most interests just about every on-looker of this investigation, and calls have been made for the inquiry to make it a priority. However experts have pointed out that this is something the inquiry will be unable to do effectively – the panel does not include a single judge or lawyer.
A senior legal figure told the Guardian that, “The panel clearly lacks the expertise to address the question of legality. The members are not experienced at cross examination – it is simply not their skill set.” They also commented that, “Some of the debates around the legality of war are quite sophisticated – it is not at all clear-cut”.
If this is the case then it would appear the panel are not equipped to investigate legality, and that therefore the inquiry would not only not be able to reach any conclusions, but ultimately that it was never intended to. The Prime Minister selected the Panel. He did not choose a member with legal training, he also chose not to select a member of military personnel. Surely such proffessions would be best equipped to understand and analyse the information they are to be presented with. Instead two historians, a diplomat and a civil servant have been invited to ask the questions the rest of the country has been since 2001 and to find us answers. One has to ask precisely how much the Government does want the panel to understand and just how thorough it hopes the inquiry to be.
A senior judge commented to the Guardian that “Looking into the legality of the war is the last thing the government wants… And actually, it’s the last thing the opposition wants either because they voted for the war. There simply is not the political pressure to explore the question of legality – they have not asked because they do not want the answer”. However the public have asked and the public does want an answer, unfortunately it does appear increasingly likely that the answer we get will be watery, diluted and non-commital.
Yet despite the many criticisms of the Chilcot inquiry’s ability to adequately perform its task, interesting, explosive and highly damning evidence has already been brought to light in the couple of weeks the inquiry has been in operation. Sir Christopher Meyer’s evidence was particularly significant, it suggested that Tony Blair had assured the US of Britain’s co-operation and commitment to regime-change and invasion as early as April 2002, claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction were nothing more than a pretext and the co-operation with the UN nothing more than an attempt to justify the invasion. The UN were not even given time to complete their investigation into the presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction, that is how flimsy the pre-text was.
Such evidence supports claims made by many over the years, including former Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan, that the invasion was illegal, in the absence of a UN resolution authorising invasion. It also confirms that Tony Blair’s government sought to deceive the British public and media, Weapons of Mass Destruction were claimed to be the prime reason that intervention was necessary, not only were there not any weapons, it didn’t even really matter that there weren’t; the government had already made its mind up.
It seems that the Chilcot inquiry could uncover some highly flammable information and that we may all learn much more about what actually happened at that time. In this sense, this inquiry is undoubtedly valuable. The concern however is just how much it can achieve and whether it will be enough. Whether it is equipped to adequately perform the enormous task it faces, whether it will have the guts to condemn where it should, and whether the government and courts of law will actually pay any attention to its findings when it does finally submit them. This may not be yet another white wash, but it does not seem to be a pursuit of accountability and culpability and sadly anyone naïve enough to look for tangible outcomes may be disappointed.
written by Beatrice Pickup
Wednesday 9th December will be our last news show of the semester, and it will be a Big Issue special. We have a fantastic interview with Paul, who runs the Big Issue in the North East and two of his vendors who work on Northumberland Street, Paul and Steve. We chat to them about the ethos behind the Big Issue, how it can help those who are homeless or poorly housed and what makes the magazine something students might want to buy. We also take a look at the Big Issue Christmas special, featuring an exclusive George Michael interview. Tune in on Wednesday or check this blog to find out more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
