title
stringlengths 28
112
| published_date
stringlengths 10
10
| authors
stringclasses 6
values | description
stringlengths 0
239
| section
stringclasses 95
values | content
stringlengths 178
42.3k
| link
stringlengths 34
77
| top_image
stringlengths 53
143
| news_id
stringlengths 13
55
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Covid-19: PM to detail new measures to MPs on Monday - BBC News
|
2020-10-10
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
But regional leaders say there has been little consultation and imposing more change could sow confusion.
|
UK
|
Liverpool is expected to be placed under severe new restrictions next week
The prime minister is to make a statement to MPs on Monday giving details of new restrictions to slow the spread of coronavirus in England.
A letter from Boris Johnson's adviser to MPs in the North West seen by the BBC says it is "very likely" some areas will face further restrictions.
But some regional leaders warn the new plan for a three-tier local lockdown system will only create more confusion.
It comes as a doctors' union calls for clearer and more stringent rules.
Under the new restrictions, pubs and restaurants could be closed in parts of northern England and the Midlands - where some of the highest numbers of cases are occurring - while a ban on overnight stays is also being considered.
It is understood that the most severe measures - imposed for areas in tier three - would be agreed with local leaders in advance.
The details of each tier, including the level of infection at which an area would qualify for it and the nature of the restrictions, are being debated this weekend.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said it was grossly irresponsible for anonymous government sources to tell newspapers on Thursday about plans for further restrictions on millions of people, without any detail, consultation or statement from the prime minister.
The letter to the MPs from Downing Street's chief strategic adviser Sir Edward Lister says the government is hoping to "finalise these details as soon as possible" amid "rising incidence in parts of the country".
It also cites the "engagement that is taking place today and during the course of the weekend with local authority leaders in your region".
Sir Edward says the set of measures being discussed "present difficult choices. We must seek to strike the right balance between driving down transmission, and safeguarding our economy and society from the worst impact".
In the face of pressure from MPs, elected mayors and council leaders, the prime minister has signalled he wants "much closer engagement" with local politicians.
As a senior government source said, they will bring "expertise on what will work in their regions".
The hope is for "top tier" restrictions in the new multi-level system to be agreed between the government and local leaders in advance.
There is an acknowledgement from inside government that this marks a change in approach. It is a shift away from what Labour described as a "Whitehall knows best" attitude.
It will allow local politicians, some of whom until now have complained of being frozen out, to have a greater input.
But it will also mean they are accountable, alongside government ministers, for the success or failure of the measures introduced.
They will have to share the responsibility, perhaps blame, if measures don't work or prove unpopular.
And amid calls for clarity, it seems the new tiered system could vary region by region, making clear national messaging more difficult.
Susan Hopkins, deputy director of Public Health England's national infection service, said the number of cases was rising all over the country, but more quickly in the North East, North West and Yorkshire and Humber than the South.
She said it was concerning that cases were rising "quite fast" in pockets of north-west England among the over-60s, the group most likely to need to be admitted to hospital.
A number of areas in the North West, the North East and the Midlands are already subject to stricter restrictions. A tiered system of measures is designed to replace the patchwork of existing rules across the country.
Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick told BBC Radio 4's Any Questions there needed to be "greater freedom for local areas to design measures for themselves".
He said there was "a merit to simplicity", adding that in local areas "local leaders will know best".
Liverpool's Labour Mayor Joe Anderson said he expected Liverpool - where there are currently 600 cases per 100,000 people - to be placed in tier three, under the highest set of restrictions.
He told the BBC's Today programme he understood this would involve the lockdown of all the city's pubs from Wednesday.
He said the government was wrong to allow Liverpool's bars and pubs to stay open this weekend, with infection rates so high.
He accepted people in the city should take individual responsibility and said he was "angry and frustrated" at those flouting the rules, but added: "I'm not convinced people trust the government's decisions."
Asked what his role would be in setting the restrictions, he said there had been conversation with Downing Street, but no consultation. It was clear the decisions had already been made, he said, but they were listening to his suggestions about how spikes in the city could best be dealt with.
Martin Gannon, Labour leader of Gateshead Council, said there had been "warm words" in a meeting with civil servants but ultimately the laws would be made by government.
He said he would oppose any further restrictions placed on the North East, saying they could be "counter-productive" and lead to resistance from the public. Current measures were starting to bring down case numbers, he insisted, and the government needed to help local authorities win people's confidence.
And Glen Sanderson, Conservative leader of Northumberland County Council, said he did not want blanket restrictions on Northumberland, which has large rural areas "virtually unaffected" by the virus as well as towns where case numbers were rising.
"I don't think the argument is there to bring in much tougher restrictions - we have to take people with us. If we can't get people to conform, we won't make any progress," he told BBC News.
Meanwhile, the British Medical Association (BMA) said the government's measures to reduce the spread of the virus had not worked, given the uncontrolled escalation, and has made its own recommendations.
It wants to see masks worn in all offices and outdoors where two-metre distancing is not possible; free medical grade masks for the over-60s and vulnerable groups; financial support for businesses to become Covid-secure; and the "rule of six" tweaked to allow only two households to meet in groups of no more than six.
Chairman Dr Chaand Nagpaul said: "The infection has risen following rapid relaxation of measures and with the Westminster government letting down its guard - as recently as August, the government was encouraging people to travel, go to work and mix in restaurants and pubs."
Speaking at the Co-operative Party virtual conference, Labour leader Sir Keir accused the government of serial incompetence, saying a test, trace and isolate system was "critical". Without that, "thousands and thousands of people are walking around today who should be in self-isolation", he warned.
On Friday the number of people in the UK to have tested positive for coronavirus rose by 13,864 - a decrease of 3,676 on Thursday's figure - with a further 87 deaths reported on the government's dashboard.
How have you been affected by coronavirus? What have restrictions meant for you? Share your experiences by emailing haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk.
Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a BBC journalist. You can also get in touch in the following ways:
If you are reading this page and can't see the form you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question or comment or you can email us at HaveYourSay@bbc.co.uk. Please include your name, age and location with any submission.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54486613
|
news_uk-54486613
|
|
Coronavirus: UK facing 'tough' Christmas, Sage scientist warns - BBC News
|
2020-10-18
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
But there is "light at the end of the tunnel" as a vaccine may be ready early next year, the expert says.
|
UK
|
Christmas is unlikely to be the "usual celebration" of "families coming together", a leading scientist has said.
Jeremy Farrar, who sits on the Sage committee that advises the government, warned it would be a "tough" Christmas.
The Wellcome Trust director also told Sky News there was "light at the end of the tunnel" as he believed a vaccine would be ready early in 2021.
PM Boris Johnson has warned things will be "bumpy to Christmas and beyond".
Earlier this week, Prof Farrar told BBC Newscast arguments between Westminster and local leaders were "very dangerous" and also that a circuit-breaker, or a short, limited lockdown, was needed now.
Speaking to Sky News' Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme, Prof Farrar said the UK faces a "very, very difficult" period.
"Christmas will be tough this year. I don't think it's going to be the usual celebration it is and all families coming together, I'm afraid," he said.
"I think we have to be honest and realistic and say that we are in for three to six months of a very, very difficult period.
"The temperatures drop, we are all indoors more often, we have the other infections that come this time of year.
"It's much better for us to be upfront and honest now, and say we are in for a really difficult time, but there is light at the end of the tunnel."
Prof Farrar said he thought a vaccine and effective treatment would be ready early next year.
"I do believe the vaccines will be available in the first quarter of next year, I do believe that monoclonal antibodies to treat patients and save lives will be available in the coming months," he said.
"It's with that context that I think we need to reduce transmission now and we need to get ourselves back to the beginning of September as a country, not in piecemeal, not in fragments across the country, but as a whole country."
Speaking further about the need for a circuit-breaker, Prof Farrar claimed there could be 50,000 cases per day in England.
The government's chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, warned in a press conference on 21 September that the UK could face 50,000 cases a day by mid-October if no action was taken.
Prof Farrar said an Office for National Statistics (ONS) survey, which he described as the "best data in the country at the moment", showed that 27,000 people were getting infected each day in England as of 10 October, but he said, given a time lag, it would actually be more than 50,000 by now.
The ONS survey tests a representative sample of the general population to provide an estimate of the true spread of the virus, as it picks up asymptomatic cases that would not necessarily be identified in the daily figures.
The ONS figures are far higher than the number of confirmed cases announced by the government each day.
On Sunday, the government figures showed 16,982 people tested positive for the virus and a further 67 people had died.
Prof Farrar said the "best time" to have introduced the short, limited lockdown would have been around 20 September, but said the "second best time is now".
He said the worst time would be at the end of November when things had got worse.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has also called for a circuit-breaker but the prime minister has said its three-tier system of regional restrictions avoids the "misery of a second national lockdown".
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54592112
|
news_uk-54592112
|
|
Covid: What the tier rules say about the split between science and politics - BBC News
|
2020-10-18
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Why does the divergence between science and politics appear to be wider than it has ever been?
|
UK
|
Manchester has resisted being put into the "very high risk" tier
Early in the pandemic, the government consistently said it was "following the science" - but what does that really mean, and is the divergence between politics and science now wider than it has ever been?
Some with heels clacking on the cobbles, others capturing the moment on their phones - it's like the aftermath of a big win in the football, or the Saturday after pay day. The videos show Concert Square in Liverpool heaving with crowds.
And this in a city on the crest of a second wave of coronavirus, where almost all the intensive care beds in the hospitals are full.
It was Tuesday night, hours away from the Liverpool City Region entering the toughest restrictions in the country. But the footage sparked anger, and on Twitter there was a fight over the damage to the city's reputation.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Crowds gather in Liverpool on eve of new Covid rules
Dozens of tweets insisted that those present must have been students, that no true Liverpudlian would set foot in Concert Square, let alone behave like that. The tweeters were adamant - these people came from outside.
The mayor and the metro mayor condemned the scenes - but that wasn't the only thing they were angry about.
They accused the government at Westminster of not providing enough financial support - workers affected by the closure of businesses such as bars and gyms will only get two-thirds of their wages.
On the first day of lockdown, one gym owner showed his defiance by remaining open and was fined for it.
Gyms have indeed provided a source of confusion. Liverpool mayor Joe Anderson questioned why gyms in the Liverpool City Region had to close when the area moved into tier three - very high alert - but those in Lancashire, which went into tier three on Saturday, were allowed to stay open.
Liverpool was the first place in England to go into the strictest measures
In Blackburn, with 438 cases per 100,000 (in the week to 13 October), you can work out, but in Wirral, with 284 cases per 100,000, you can't.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson has acknowledged inconsistencies. "There are anomalies, that's inevitably going to happen in a complex campaign against a pandemic like this."
But do these discrepancies encourage those who feel the government's decision-making sometimes veers away from the science?
"Following the science" was a phrase we heard a lot of earlier in the year. It's what, we were repeatedly told, the government at Westminster was doing.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
The reality was always more nuanced. There was a range of scientific views on a topic about which precious little was known at the outset, and there are still vast amounts to learn.
Added to that, from the perspective of ministers, this could never only be about scientific advice.
There was a constant swirl of broader considerations, what we might call the three Ls - lives, liberties and livelihoods. Ministers have been tussling with the three Ls from the start of the pandemic. But the divergence has never been wider than it is now.
Claire Hamilton is the BBC's political reporter for Merseyside @chamiltonbbc
The critical moment in recent weeks can be traced back to 21 September, when Sir Patrick Vallance, the UK's chief scientific adviser and Prof Chris Whitty, the UK's chief medical adviser, warned of the need for immediate action.
In a televised briefing, Sir Patrick warned cases could reach 50,000 a day by mid-October if they doubled every seven days, as had happened in recent weeks.
We now know that on that same day, the government's Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) met and suggested the "immediate introduction" of a "short period of lockdown," and a series of longer term measures, including:
A day later, what actually happened?
The prime minister said people should work from home if they could and a 22:00 curfew for pubs and restaurants was introduced. In other words, not a lot of change.
What happened to "following the science"?
Plenty at Westminster whispered, even before we had seen the minutes from the Sage meeting, that this was a victory for those in government, like Chancellor Rishi Sunak, who worried about the pandemic's crippling economic consequences.
Mr Sunak has been consistent - warning again, just this week, of the danger of "rushing to another lockdown". He warned, instead, of the "economic emergency", touching on another of the three Ls - livelihoods.
When you speak to people in the Treasury, you get an insight into what informs this outlook.
"We have to keep an eye on the medium term. There may not be a vaccine. Listening to the scientists recently, the mood music has changed. They're more pessimistic," says one.
This is no longer about dealing with a short-term emergency, but being resilient through a medium or long-term slog of a crisis.
And that means the Treasury is well aware of what is going out - in public spending - and what is coming in, in taxes.
"There isn't the headroom there was," an insider says - a reference to the £200bn already spent.
And there is a keen awareness of the economic consequences of shutting pubs. "Our economy is comparatively very reliant on social consumption," is how it is described.
The experts know the ministers have to take into account a variety of factors. One Sage member said: "Our job is to give clear unvarnished science advice so they can do that with their eyes open."
On Tuesday, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer advocated a short, limited lockdown - the circuit-breaker suggested by the scientific advisers.
But does Sir Keir calling for a circuit-breaker make it more or less likely to happen?
Since then, the government - to quote Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab - has been "leaning in" to its regional response for England.
Political convention says, everything else being equal, it is harder to adopt a policy advocated by your opponents than it is by independent advisers.
Then there's the last of the three Ls. Liberties.
Among the most influential Conservative backbench voices is Sir Graham Brady, who said ministers had got used to "ruling by decree" and "the British people aren't used to being treated like children".
This unease at how the pandemic has, in their view, swept away some of the checks and balances on those in power, is widely held in Parliament.
Then there's the question of geography. First there was devolution for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but now we're all aware of the big English cities that have metro mayors because they are fighting back against Westminster.
According to well-placed sources, Health Secretary Matt Hancock had argued for tougher measures in private. But the need to get local leaders on board has meant the tiered system has had to leave some wriggle room for negotiation.
Ministers were stung when Middlesbrough mayor Andy Preston said he flatly rejected the restrictions that the government announced there in early October. "It was a real problem for us - it undermined the public health message and threatened to undo what we were trying to achieve," one government source said.
Steve Rotheram, Metro Mayor of the Liverpool City Region, had been asking for a lockdown circuit-breaker for at least two weeks - but he said any measures must come with a bespoke financial support package for businesses. It appears this hasn't been forthcoming.
But the mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, has gone much further than his colleague in Liverpool. On Friday, he was described as "effectively trying to hold the government over a barrel" by Mr Raab.
Mr Burnham, a former Labour cabinet minister, who lost out to Jeremy Corbyn in the 2015 Labour leadership contest, is suddenly back on the national stage. He is demanding noisily and frequently the need for more generous support for those unable to work because of tier three restrictions.
There is nervousness within the Labour Party nationally, and elsewhere in the north of England, about this stance. Some worry it imperils people's health, others that it's become "the Andy show" - as one figure put it.
The idea of "metro mayors" voted for directly by the people of the region has long been championed by the Conservatives. David Cameron was a particular fan.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Top SAGE scientist tells us the regional restriction row is dangerous
"Some Conservatives are now realising you've got to be careful what you wish for," an early advocate of them says.
"And remember this, Boris Johnson was a mayor. There is a path to Downing Street that can pass via a town hall. Perhaps Andy Burnham has realised that too."
What we are seeing is how different parts of the UK have tilted in different directions. Loyalty to region, to nation, to party. The legacies of past perceived slights and injustices. The realities of perceived injustices now.
"We owe a big thanks to George Osborne for bequeathing us this incredible standoff," a senior Conservative says about the row.
Some Conservative ministers ponder privately that - in the end - Mr Sunak will be forced to be more generous to those unable to work under tier three restrictions. They don't think it'll be politically sustainable to pay people normally on the minimum wage, less than the minimum wage, for months on end.
The rows between local and central government leaders are "very dangerous" and "very damaging to public health", according to Prof Sir Jeremy Farrar, Sage member, and director of the Wellcome Trust.
But these are not the only rows that have been taking place. Across the scientific and medical community tempers are frayed and the pandemic is taking its toll.
There is a network of committees that feed into Sage, bringing together a wide range of experts from sociologists and public health directors to epidemiologists.
Many are not paid for their advice and instead are fitting it in around their day jobs. "We do it because we care and it's our life's work," said Prof Devi Sridhar, an expert in global public health at Edinburgh University, who has been advising the Scottish government.
Talk to these experts and it is clear they are exhausted.
"The requests just keep coming in," one said. "We're fed up, especially when we hear that test-and-trace consultants are getting paid £7,000 a day, and we have to put up with MPs going on the TV telling the world we are naïve and don't live in the real world. It's demoralising."
But it is not just between politicians and scientists that disputes have developed. Rival camps of scientists are clashing. Two online petitions have now been established: the Great Barrington declaration for those who want to see controlled spread of the virus and protection of the vulnerable, and the John Snow Memorandum for those arguing for outright suppression until a vaccine is developed.
Prof Francois Balloux, director of the UCL Genetics Institute, says the toxic atmosphere that is developing is really "unhelpful".
Brought together, it has created a climate where almost every utterance or development is examined for double-meaning.
The problem facing advisers and decision-makers is two-fold. First, the nature of the virus means it is a lose-lose situation - whatever decision is taken has negative consequences either for the spread of the virus, or for the economy, education and wider health and well-being. What's more, there is not a simple binary choice of one thing or the other.
For example, much has been made in recent weeks about the need for the NHS to also focus on non-Covid work, which has taken a terrible hit during the pandemic.
Referrals for urgent cancer check-ups and the number of people starting treatment have dropped, while the amount of routine surgery being done is still half the level it was before the pandemic.
This can have tragic consequences. This week the British Heart Foundation warned the number of younger adults dying of heart disease had increased by 15% during the pandemic.
The argument put forward by some is that the government should choose to do more non-Covid work. But, and this is a point the health secretary has been making week after week, if hospitals fill up with coronavirus patients, it makes non-Covid work harder to do.
The second key issue - and this goes to the heart of the disagreements we have seen bubble up in recent weeks among the scientific and medical community - is that there are huge gaps in the evidence and knowledge.
This is true on everything from the numbers infected already and the level of immunity exposure brings to the true impact of "long Covid", and exactly what effect any restrictions beyond a full lockdown actually have.
In normal times, the scientific and medical community is able to reach more of a consensus off the back of rigorous randomised controlled trials and painstaking peer review.
But in a fast-moving pandemic with a new virus, that has simply not been possible. Paul Hunter, a professor of medicine at the University of East Anglia, says it means there is such "uncertainty in the science" that he does not think any plan is guaranteed to work.
And then there is the human factor - the unintended consequences of actions that are impossible to take into account in the modelling. Hence the prospect of scenes like the ones we saw in Liverpool, which were not taken into account by Sage in its latest advice.
But Prof Keith Neal, an infectious disease expert at Nottingham University, says it shouldn't come as a surprise that people react in the way they do. Both young and old are suffering, he says, from not being able to meet up with people. "This degree of isolation is not allowed in prisons under human rights legislation."
People from different households will not be able to drink together inside, after London went into tier two
It is, he says, therefore natural that some people will ignore the rules. Closing pubs may sound good on paper, he says, but it could lead to an increase in house parties where people are "far more at risk".
So where has this left us?
The complexity of competing interests, uncertainty in the science and general exhaustion across society both among decision-makers and the public has, some fear, left us in the worst of both worlds.
Delay and deliberation, says Sir Jeremy Farrar is a "decision in itself".
But by reaching a decision by default there is a risk - another adviser says - of making the same mistakes we made at the start of the pandemic.
"In March we toyed with the Swedish model of limited restrictions with the hope of developing immunity and then hesitated. But we then went for a lockdown, but it was introduced bit by bit and it was too late anyway.
"The same thing has happened again - we have delayed and then gone for some half measures. I can understand why. This is bloody difficult."
The government is now hoping it will be just enough that we can get through this wave without a devastating number of deaths or hospitals being overwhelmed. But it's a big risk - it could all unravel.
|
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54546867
|
news_uk-54546867
|
|
Covid-19: Andy Burnham urges Boris Johnson to break Greater Manchester 'impasse' - BBC News
|
2020-10-18
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Andy Burnham has called on Boris Johnson and other leaders to help end a deadlock over stricter Covid curbs.
|
UK
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Andy Burnham: "This is not just Greater Manchester's fight"
Greater Manchester's mayor has called on Boris Johnson for help in "breaking the impasse" over stricter Covid-19 curbs in the region.
Andy Burnham said in a letter to the PM and other party leaders that Parliament should hold an urgent debate to end the deadlock.
Later the mayor said he had a "constructive call" with Mr Johnson's chief strategic adviser.
Earlier, minister Michael Gove said: "We hope to agree a new approach."
Mr Gove said the government wanted the best for Greater Manchester and that he hoped "we can find a way through together".
But he criticised what he described as the "incoherence" of politicians in that region and warned that if an agreement could not be reached the government would "look at" having to impose restrictions.
Leaders in Greater Manchester, including Mr Burnham, have rejected a move to England's tier three alert level without better financial support.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said he may "need to intervene" if local leaders do not accept a move to tier three curbs.
A further 16,982 people tested positive for the virus as of Sunday, the Department of Health figures showed, with a further 67 deaths occurring within 28 days of a positive test.
Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon tweeted that the figure for positive Covid cases in Scotland should be "treated with some caution" due to "a delay within the UK lab system". Cases rose by 316 in Scotland with no further deaths recorded.
The UK government said there was no capacity issue at a Lighthouse laboratory in Glasgow and that rerouting of tests to other laboratories was routine practice.
Mr Burnham has said he would be "ready to speak to the prime minister at any time" to discuss the situation. The mayor's spokesman confirmed Mr Burnham had spoken to Sir Edward Lister, a No 10 official, in a phone call on Sunday afternoon.
In the letter, Mr Burnham said the prospect of tier three - very high - restrictions on hospitality and other areas "is not just a Greater Manchester issue".
He wrote: "Establishing clear national entitlements of the kind we had during the first lockdown will create a sense of fairness which in turn would help build public support for, and compliance with, any new restrictions."
"As leaders of the main political parties in Westminster, I urge you to work together to help resolve this current dispute and establish a fair financial framework for local lockdowns that the whole country will be able to support," he added.
In the language of negotiation, it seems the government and mayor of Greater Manchester may have stepped back from the brink.
Both sides softened their tone in interviews this morning, there was talk of ending the war of words and finding a new way through.
But it's important to remember this is not just a two-way row.
The most telling intervention of the last 24 hours has not been from Andy Burnham or Michael Gove, but the senior Conservative MP Sir Graham Brady.
He represents a constituency in the region and says MPs, council leaders and mayor are "united" across party lines in resisting tier 3 restrictions.
So, while the argument plays out in public between the government and Mr Burnham, it may be won or lost in private between ministers and their own backbenchers whose support is crucial to the government's approach.
Earlier, Mr Burnham told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show there had been "exaggeration" by the prime minister of rising case numbers in Greater Manchester.
Mr Johnson said on Friday cases in the region had doubled over the previous nine days. Mr Burnham said that while cases were "up slightly" they were "certainly not doubling every nine days".
Sir Graham Brady, a senior backbench Conservative and MP for Altrincham and Sale West in Greater Manchester, described the region's Labour and Tory MPs as "pretty united" and said positive tests were "flattening".
The latest data on infection rates in the city of Manchester itself show they have fallen slightly, to around 458 cases per 100,000 of the population.
Across Greater Manchester as a whole - which includes another nine boroughs including Salford, Stockport and Bury - the infection rate is slightly up.
So it is a mixed picture, but the region as a whole is still a long way off other areas such as Derry, Nottingham and Liverpool.
But in many ways it is not the infection rate that matters. What counts are the number of people who are falling so seriously ill they end up in hospital.
We know that lots of otherwise fit and healthy students falling ill with Covid-19 is not going to have a significant impact on the local health service, but lots of older people falling ill would change the picture quickly.
Last week it was reported that, in Liverpool, around 95% of intensive care beds were occupied.
But Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham told the BBC on Sunday morning there were only 64 occupied beds in the city region.
Across Greater Manchester, leaders accept there is a serious problem. But they question whether it is serious enough to warrant the kind of economic impact - not to mention the effect on people's mental health - that moving to tier three - very high - would have.
Mr Burnham also described "side deals" with councils in regions moving into tier three - very high - as not "good enough for me".
Liverpool City Region's metro mayor Steve Rotherham announced his area will receive an additional £44m and a similar package worth £42m was given to local leaders in Lancashire.
"Let's remember, the places they're trying to close in tier three - pubs, bookies, gyms - these are places where people are on low wages. And what we're saying is you cannot take away their place of work and not give them support," Mr Burnham said.
He called on the government to re-introduce the 80% furlough scheme used previously in the pandemic to support the low paid affected by tier three closures. Currently, a less generous scheme to provide two-thirds of wages is on offer.
The Labour mayor added: "The truth is health, protecting health, is about more than controlling the virus."
A letter from Tory MPs representing areas on the lowest tier of England's Covid alert system called on Mr Burnham to accept a move to tier three - very high - rather than allow national restrictions through a so-called "circuit-breaker".
"It does not make sense to shut down the whole country when the virus is spiking in particular locations," it said.
But four Conservative MPs representing seats in Greater Manchester hit back, describing the letter as "deeply disappointing... unnecessary and ill-advised", "neither wanted nor helpful" and a "No 10 approved communication".
And Mr Burnham said: "I'm not sure a sort of 'we're alright, Jack' letter from a group of southern Conservative MPs is going to cut much ice [in Greater Manchester]."
Meanwhile, Prof Jeremy Farrar, a scientific adviser to the government, said Christmas will be "tough" this year with traditional family celebrations unlikely.
"Christmas will be tough this year. I don't think it's going to be the usual celebration it is and all families coming together, I'm afraid," he told Sky News.
"I think we have to be honest and realistic and say that we are in for three to six months of a very, very difficult period."
But the Wellcome Trust director said there is "light at the end of the tunnel", as he believes a Covid-19 vaccine and effective treatment will be ready in the first quarter of 2021.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54589480
|
news_uk-54589480
|
|
VP debate: Voters pleased with candidates' civility - BBC News
|
2020-10-08
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The BBC watched the stand-off between Harris and Pence with four US voters. What did they make of it?
|
US Election 2020
|
Vice-President Mike Pence and Democratic challenger Kamala Harris were under the microscope in Wednesday's vice-presidential debate.
President Donald Trump is currently ill with Covid 19, a virus that's claimed over 200,000 American lives, bringing renewed attention to the vice-presidential role.
Many voters were frustrated by last week's chaotic presidential debate, and were pleased with tonight's calmer exchange between Pence and Harris.
Here's what members of the voter panel thought about the vice-presidential debate.
Shloka Ananthanarayanan, 33, is a progressive voter from New York City who works for an international bank. She is backing Joe Biden but more enthusiastically supporting Kamala Harris as the second on the ticket.
What moment stood out to you?
I wouldn't necessarily say there was one moment that stood out, but what stood out was the tone and the fact that no one was yelling at each other during this debate. The last question felt particularly impactful - it ended on such a note of civility. We can agree to disagree, but at the end of the day we are all just Americans.
Who do you think 'won' the debate?
The winner is based completely on where you were coming at to begin with. Ultimately I don't think there was one person who came out as dominating the debate over the other, but they both got the chance to make their case and now it's up to the voters to decide.
Is there something that you wanted to see that didn't?
The question [on election integrity] was very interesting. [The moderator] kept pushing them and the question did not get answered. I don't think Kamala Harris had a plan for what would happen if Trump refused to leave the White House and Pence just said we're going to win, so it was a non-starter. That is a significant concern for a lot of people because there is a continuing rhetoric [from Trump] of 'we won't leave' [the White House] or 'even if we lose, it's because it's rigged'.
Jim Sullivan is a fiscal conservative who "holds his nose" to vote Trump but finds the leftward tilt of the Democrats too "radical and jolting". He considers Mike Pence more conservative than him, but a decent man who would make a good president.
What moment stood out to you?
It was a lot more civil and flowed much better than the last debate. In the very beginning, Pence's defence of the Trump administration's efforts on coronavirus stood out to me. With regard to what Vice-President Pence said to Kamala Harris later about packing the court, I feel like that was an important question and did not feel like that was answered.
Who do you think 'won' the debate?
This was such an amazing leap forward and it is to the benefit of the country, re-instilling some confidence that we aren't completely broken, can have a functioning government and can have a civil conversation hashed out in a respectful way. Both candidates did really well, but I'm going to go with Pence. He had a very good way of addressing things and the way he presents things will resonate across the country. I think it may have made some people think again if they were going in another direction.
Is there something that you wanted to see that didn't?
Pence asked about packing the court and Democrats have talked about adding DC and Puerto Rico as states, and abolishing the electoral college. I would have liked to hear what Harris' thoughts were on those things. Healthcare also is still an important issue and they did not dive into that enough. With Pence, I would have liked to hear more what the plans were for the economy going forward.
Why did this debate matter to you?
I am a Republican who is going to support the president, but there's been times in this season I've felt a little undecided. Vice-President Pence gave me a certain sense of assurance about my decision, reaffirming that it's a good choice. Given the age of the two candidates, the vice-presidential pick this time around is pretty significant. Last week was just distressing, so this was a real breath of fresh air. I don't agree with Kamala Harris on a lot of things, but they both handled themselves well and I liked the format.
Akayla Sellers is a Democratic college student at the University of Charleston studying public health and pre-med. She is enthusiastically behind the Biden/Harris ticket and excited to see Harris bring the issues of black America to the table.
What moment stood out to you?
At the very end, the eighth grader posed a great question because the image typically shown in the American media is of a polarised country. At the end of the day, whether Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, we need a presidency that exercises compassion, empathy and love. We need leaders that respect individual human life and strive for the best in humanity.
Who do you think 'won' the debate?
Pence has a strategic way of saying a lot while oddly saying nothing. Harris' direct, eloquent and stern way of answering questions provided knowledge and information, and that's what I think is a successful debate - actually talking about policies, answering the questions wholeheartedly and [tackling] her controversial past. I feel like she won as a whole because she has a more intersectional approach that's going to help everyone.
Is there something that you wanted to see that didn't?
I didn't see a lot of things that [young people] are passionate about. They could have discussed a lot more in depth about healthcare, education and the racial uproar. You see a lot of people crowding the streets, they are the younger generation and they didn't discuss that in depth.
Why did this debate matter to you?
It brought back a sense of tranquillity after the circus last week made a lot of us feel that, if the Trump administration were to have another term, it would be chaotic. So it matters because I wanted to hear, in an eloquent way, what Pence's stances were on certain issues, as well as Kamala's, so that I can have knowledge, be aware and not be fearful, so I can spread that information on to others.
Gordon Kou is a Christian engineering graduate student at the University of Utah, where Wednesday's debate is being held. He is still undecided in who to vote for and is considering voting third party, as he did in 2016.
What moment stood out to you?
The fly on Mike Pence's head was pretty memorable, but the last question [about why the country is so polarised] was probably the brightest part of the debate. It reminded me of one of the debates in 2016, where the moderator asked Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump to compliment each other.
Who do you think 'won' the debate?
Both presidential candidates chose very well in their VP picks. They did a better job of defending their candidates than the actual candidates did. Overall, the winner was America because we somewhat saved face after the debacle last week.
Is there something that you wanted to see that didn't?
I definitely wanted to hear more about what would happen if Trump doesn't accept the results of the election. I also wanted to hear more about things proposed by Democrats such as packing the Supreme Court and getting rid of the filibuster. Trump talks about mass voter fraud and Democrats talk about election hacking - I wanted to hear more about election security because that is central to who we are as Americans.
Why did this debate matter to you?
It's better when America hears what the actual policy stances are and we actually have something to base our votes on rather than sheer political partisanship. The debate actually makes it harder for me to decide who to vote for. I am a conservative person turned off by Trump and his conduct, but Vice-President Pence made a very good argument for a Trump presidency because he does speak to a lot of things conservatives care about.
Sam Cabral, Silvia Martelli and Marianna Brady contributed to this reporting.
What questions do you have for our voters?
Voters across the country will go to the polls in four weeks. What questions do you have for our voter panel? What questions can BBC journalists help answer about the US election?
In some cases, your question will be published, displaying your name, age and location as you provide it, unless you state otherwise. Your contact details will never be published. Please ensure you have read our terms & conditions and privacy policy.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54459854
|
news_election-us-2020-54459854
|
|
Led Zeppelin's Stairway To Heaven copyright battle is finally over - BBC News
|
2020-10-05
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The US Supreme Court refuses to hear an appeal, meaning the long-running copyright case is over.
|
Entertainment & Arts
|
The final possible legal challenge to Led Zeppelin's ownership of Stairway To Heaven has been defeated.
The band were sued for copyright in 2014 over claims they had stolen the song's opening riff from Taurus, by a US band called Spirit.
Led Zeppelin won the case in 2016, but it was revived on appeal in 2018.
A court of appeals upheld the original verdict earlier this year. Now, the US Supreme Court has declined to hear the case, definitively ending it.
Stairway To Heaven regularly appears on lists of the greatest rock songs ever written, and the case has been one of the music industry's most closely-watched disputes.
Millions of dollars were potentially at stake, with the song estimated to have earned $3.4m (£2.6m) in the five-year period that was at issue during the trial.
This YouTube post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser. View original content on YouTube The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. YouTube content may contain adverts. Skip youtube video by Led Zeppelin This article contains content provided by Google YouTube. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Google’s cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. YouTube content may contain adverts.
The copyright dispute was originally lodged by journalist Michael Skidmore in 2014 on behalf of the estate of Randy Wolfe, the late frontman of Spirit.
Lawyers for Wolfe's estate argued that Led Zeppelin became familiar with Spirit's song after singer Robert Plant saw them play at a club in Birmingham in 1970, a year before Stairway to Heaven was released.
In the original trial, Spirit's bassist Mark Andes testified that he met Plant at the show and played snooker with him afterwards.
Plant insisted he had no memory of the night, partially attributing his lack of memory to a bad car crash on his way home. Both he and his wife suffered head injuries in the accident, he told the court, after the windscreen of his Jaguar was left "buried" in his face.
Guitarist Jimmy Page testified he had been unaware of Spirit's song until people started posting online comparisons in the early 2010s. "I knew I had never heard that before," he said. "It was totally alien to me."
The jury rejected Page and Plant's argument that they would not have been familiar with Taurus, saying they had "access" to it.
However, they found evidence from musicologists more convincing. Experts who testified said the descending musical pattern shared by both songs had been a common musical device for centuries. One example cited was Chim Chim Cher-ee, from the 1964 Disney musical Mary Poppins.
The jury, which concluded the two songs were "not intrinsically similar", were not allowed to listen to Taurus during the trial. This and other alleged errors led to an appeal.
But in March, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld the original verdict, saying the errors did not warrant a new trial.
Follow us on Facebook, or on Twitter @BBCNewsEnts. If you have a story suggestion email entertainment.news@bbc.co.uk.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-54423922
|
news_entertainment-arts-54423922
|
|
As it happened: More areas of UK under new coronavirus restrictions - BBC News
|
2020-10-15
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The health secretary warned that "things will get worse before they get better" as he set out new measures.
|
World
|
No more money to be put on the table, Burnham says he was told
The Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham concludes his comments by revealing that government ministers suggested there is "no money left" for the kind of financial package the local leaders say is necessary before their areas are put into the highest tier of coronavirus restrictions. Burnham, who spoke to health ministers earlier today, said he had been told "there is no money to put on the table". He added: "To be honest with you, I don't believe that for one second. When I look today at some of the fees they are paying to consultants working on the failed test and trace scheme, when I look at the billions that is being thrown at a scheme that isn't working for Greater Manchester, money that has been found for other things this year. "The argument I am making is... support people right now when they need it because by supporting people now you will save jobs and businesses that will be able to restart the minute we find a vaccine, the minute the recovery is on."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-54550644
|
news_live_world-54550644
|
|
Tory Lanez and Megan Thee Stallion: Rapper charged with assault with firearm - BBC News
|
2020-10-09
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Court proceedings will start next week and the rapper faces up to 23 years in prison.
|
Newsbeat
|
Tory Lanez has been charged with shooting Megan Thee Stallion.
The rapper - real name Daystar Peterson - is accused of shooting Megan several times at her feet and wounding her.
According to the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, it happened after the pair got into an argument whilst riding in an SUV in the Hollywood Hills on 12 July.
Tory Lanez, who's 28, is also charged with carrying a loaded, unregistered firearm in a vehicle.
If convicted the Canadian artist faces up to 23 years in prison.
He's denied the charges - but only in music he's released since the incident.
Court hearings will begin on October 13 at the Foltz Criminal Justice Centre in Los Angeles.
Rapper Tory Lanez hasn't spoken out about the alleged shooting
At first Megan, whose real name is Megan Jovon Ruth Pete, claimed she was cut by glass, but she later posted on Instagram that she had been shot by Tory.
The 24-year-old also claimed she was scared police would start shooting if she said a gun was involved.
"I didn't tell the police nothing, because I didn't want us to get in no more trouble than we was about to get in."
This Instagram post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser. View original content on Instagram The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Skip instagram post by theestallion This article contains content provided by Instagram. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Meta’s Instagram cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
Since the incident, Megan accused Tory's team of spreading misinformation online.
"Stop acting like black women is aggressive when all they be doing is speaking the... facts, and you... can't handle it," she said.
She spoke about being called a "snitch" online - and also disputed claims that she hit Tory Lanez before the shooting.
Tory Lanez hasn't spoken about the incident directly but released an album Daystar last month with many of the tracks addressing the incident.
"Megan people tryna frame me," he raps on the opening track, Money Over Fallout.
"Girl, you had the nerve to write that statement on that affidavit, knowing I ain't do it but I'm coming at my truest."
In the same song, he casts doubt on whether she was shot at all, asking: "How you get shot in your foot, don't hit no bones or tendons?"
On another track he has a dig at JoJo who removed a collaboration from her album following the incident.
Listen to Newsbeat live at 12:45 and 17:45 weekdays - or listen back here.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-54469400
|
news_newsbeat-54469400
|
|
Covid-19: PM to detail new measures to MPs on Monday - BBC News
|
2020-10-09
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
But regional leaders say there has been little consultation and imposing more change could sow confusion.
|
UK
|
Liverpool is expected to be placed under severe new restrictions next week
The prime minister is to make a statement to MPs on Monday giving details of new restrictions to slow the spread of coronavirus in England.
A letter from Boris Johnson's adviser to MPs in the North West seen by the BBC says it is "very likely" some areas will face further restrictions.
But some regional leaders warn the new plan for a three-tier local lockdown system will only create more confusion.
It comes as a doctors' union calls for clearer and more stringent rules.
Under the new restrictions, pubs and restaurants could be closed in parts of northern England and the Midlands - where some of the highest numbers of cases are occurring - while a ban on overnight stays is also being considered.
It is understood that the most severe measures - imposed for areas in tier three - would be agreed with local leaders in advance.
The details of each tier, including the level of infection at which an area would qualify for it and the nature of the restrictions, are being debated this weekend.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said it was grossly irresponsible for anonymous government sources to tell newspapers on Thursday about plans for further restrictions on millions of people, without any detail, consultation or statement from the prime minister.
The letter to the MPs from Downing Street's chief strategic adviser Sir Edward Lister says the government is hoping to "finalise these details as soon as possible" amid "rising incidence in parts of the country".
It also cites the "engagement that is taking place today and during the course of the weekend with local authority leaders in your region".
Sir Edward says the set of measures being discussed "present difficult choices. We must seek to strike the right balance between driving down transmission, and safeguarding our economy and society from the worst impact".
In the face of pressure from MPs, elected mayors and council leaders, the prime minister has signalled he wants "much closer engagement" with local politicians.
As a senior government source said, they will bring "expertise on what will work in their regions".
The hope is for "top tier" restrictions in the new multi-level system to be agreed between the government and local leaders in advance.
There is an acknowledgement from inside government that this marks a change in approach. It is a shift away from what Labour described as a "Whitehall knows best" attitude.
It will allow local politicians, some of whom until now have complained of being frozen out, to have a greater input.
But it will also mean they are accountable, alongside government ministers, for the success or failure of the measures introduced.
They will have to share the responsibility, perhaps blame, if measures don't work or prove unpopular.
And amid calls for clarity, it seems the new tiered system could vary region by region, making clear national messaging more difficult.
Susan Hopkins, deputy director of Public Health England's national infection service, said the number of cases was rising all over the country, but more quickly in the North East, North West and Yorkshire and Humber than the South.
She said it was concerning that cases were rising "quite fast" in pockets of north-west England among the over-60s, the group most likely to need to be admitted to hospital.
A number of areas in the North West, the North East and the Midlands are already subject to stricter restrictions. A tiered system of measures is designed to replace the patchwork of existing rules across the country.
Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick told BBC Radio 4's Any Questions there needed to be "greater freedom for local areas to design measures for themselves".
He said there was "a merit to simplicity", adding that in local areas "local leaders will know best".
Liverpool's Labour Mayor Joe Anderson said he expected Liverpool - where there are currently 600 cases per 100,000 people - to be placed in tier three, under the highest set of restrictions.
He told the BBC's Today programme he understood this would involve the lockdown of all the city's pubs from Wednesday.
He said the government was wrong to allow Liverpool's bars and pubs to stay open this weekend, with infection rates so high.
He accepted people in the city should take individual responsibility and said he was "angry and frustrated" at those flouting the rules, but added: "I'm not convinced people trust the government's decisions."
Asked what his role would be in setting the restrictions, he said there had been conversation with Downing Street, but no consultation. It was clear the decisions had already been made, he said, but they were listening to his suggestions about how spikes in the city could best be dealt with.
Martin Gannon, Labour leader of Gateshead Council, said there had been "warm words" in a meeting with civil servants but ultimately the laws would be made by government.
He said he would oppose any further restrictions placed on the North East, saying they could be "counter-productive" and lead to resistance from the public. Current measures were starting to bring down case numbers, he insisted, and the government needed to help local authorities win people's confidence.
And Glen Sanderson, Conservative leader of Northumberland County Council, said he did not want blanket restrictions on Northumberland, which has large rural areas "virtually unaffected" by the virus as well as towns where case numbers were rising.
"I don't think the argument is there to bring in much tougher restrictions - we have to take people with us. If we can't get people to conform, we won't make any progress," he told BBC News.
Meanwhile, the British Medical Association (BMA) said the government's measures to reduce the spread of the virus had not worked, given the uncontrolled escalation, and has made its own recommendations.
It wants to see masks worn in all offices and outdoors where two-metre distancing is not possible; free medical grade masks for the over-60s and vulnerable groups; financial support for businesses to become Covid-secure; and the "rule of six" tweaked to allow only two households to meet in groups of no more than six.
Chairman Dr Chaand Nagpaul said: "The infection has risen following rapid relaxation of measures and with the Westminster government letting down its guard - as recently as August, the government was encouraging people to travel, go to work and mix in restaurants and pubs."
Speaking at the Co-operative Party virtual conference, Labour leader Sir Keir accused the government of serial incompetence, saying a test, trace and isolate system was "critical". Without that, "thousands and thousands of people are walking around today who should be in self-isolation", he warned.
On Friday the number of people in the UK to have tested positive for coronavirus rose by 13,864 - a decrease of 3,676 on Thursday's figure - with a further 87 deaths reported on the government's dashboard.
How have you been affected by coronavirus? What have restrictions meant for you? Share your experiences by emailing haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk.
Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a BBC journalist. You can also get in touch in the following ways:
If you are reading this page and can't see the form you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question or comment or you can email us at HaveYourSay@bbc.co.uk. Please include your name, age and location with any submission.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54486613
|
news_uk-54486613
|
|
US man avoids jail in Thailand over bad resort review - BBC News
|
2020-10-09
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Wesley Barnes had posted several reviews allegedly accusing the resort of "modern day slavery"
|
Asia
|
A US man in Thailand who was arrested for writing a negative hotel review will avoid legal action and jail time.
Wesley Barnes had posted several reviews allegedly accusing the Sea View Resort of "modern day slavery".
He was subsequently detained and charged under Thailand's strict anti-defamation laws.
Police said Mr Barnes and the resort had managed to reach an agreement, which included an apology to the hotel and to Thailand's tourism authority.
He was also told to send a statement to foreign media organisations that had previously written about his then possible arrest, including BBC News.
In it, Mr Barnes said that he apologised for his "repeatedly false and untrue statements... made to maliciously defame Sea View. These reviews were written out of anger and malice".
The statement said he regretted his actions, adding that "the hotel has forgiven me and agreed to withdraw the complaint".
Colonel Kitti Maleehuan, superintendent of the Koh Chang police station - the island where the resort is located - told the AFP news agency that both parties had met over a mediation session overseen by police.
Mr Barnes will also have to provide "an explanation to the US embassy", said AFP - though it did not elaborate.
The hotel had said it would withdraw its complaint against Mr Barnes if he met all these terms.
Mr Barnes had ahead of the mediation session told news agency Reuters that he wanted to "end this case once and for all".
If found guilty, he could have faced up to two years in prison.
Mr Barnes, who works in Thailand, had stayed in the Sea View resort earlier this year.
He is said to have got into an argument with staff over him wanting to bring his own bottle of alcohol while dining in the restaurant.
A hotel statement said he had "caused a commotion" and refused to pay a corkage fee which was eventually waived when the manager intervened.
Since leaving, Mr Barnes posted several negative reviews of the property, after which the hotel sued him for defamation.
The hotel said the reviews were "false" and "defamatory"
The hotel has alleged that his reviews were "fabricated, recurrent, and malicious", with one post on TripAdvisor accusing the hotel of "modern day slavery".
Mr Barnes, though, had earlier told the BBC that this particular post was never published as it violated TripAdvisor's guidelines.
He also said he had already lost his job over the incident and expressed worries that the publicity his case had received would make it harder to find new employment.
The hotel told the BBC that after the reviews had been published, it had received cancellations and inquiries about employee treatment.
Thailand's tourism sector has been hit hard by the fallout of the global coronavirus pandemic.
"Receiving multiple false and defamatory reviews over a period can be extremely damaging, especially, during these incredibly difficult times," the statement from the hotel said.
They added that they had repeatedly tried to contact Mr Barnes before they filed the suit.
"We chose to file a complaint to serve as a deterrent, as we understood he may continue to write negative reviews week after week for the foreseeable future," they said.
"Despite our multiple efforts to contact him to resolve the matter in an amicable way for well over a month, he chose to ignore us completely. He only replied to us when he had been notified of our complaint by the authorities."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-54473407
|
news_world-asia-54473407
|
|
Coronavirus: UK facing 'tough' Christmas, Sage scientist warns - BBC News
|
2020-10-19
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
But there is "light at the end of the tunnel" as a vaccine may be ready early next year, the expert says.
|
UK
|
Christmas is unlikely to be the "usual celebration" of "families coming together", a leading scientist has said.
Jeremy Farrar, who sits on the Sage committee that advises the government, warned it would be a "tough" Christmas.
The Wellcome Trust director also told Sky News there was "light at the end of the tunnel" as he believed a vaccine would be ready early in 2021.
PM Boris Johnson has warned things will be "bumpy to Christmas and beyond".
Earlier this week, Prof Farrar told BBC Newscast arguments between Westminster and local leaders were "very dangerous" and also that a circuit-breaker, or a short, limited lockdown, was needed now.
Speaking to Sky News' Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme, Prof Farrar said the UK faces a "very, very difficult" period.
"Christmas will be tough this year. I don't think it's going to be the usual celebration it is and all families coming together, I'm afraid," he said.
"I think we have to be honest and realistic and say that we are in for three to six months of a very, very difficult period.
"The temperatures drop, we are all indoors more often, we have the other infections that come this time of year.
"It's much better for us to be upfront and honest now, and say we are in for a really difficult time, but there is light at the end of the tunnel."
Prof Farrar said he thought a vaccine and effective treatment would be ready early next year.
"I do believe the vaccines will be available in the first quarter of next year, I do believe that monoclonal antibodies to treat patients and save lives will be available in the coming months," he said.
"It's with that context that I think we need to reduce transmission now and we need to get ourselves back to the beginning of September as a country, not in piecemeal, not in fragments across the country, but as a whole country."
Speaking further about the need for a circuit-breaker, Prof Farrar claimed there could be 50,000 cases per day in England.
The government's chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, warned in a press conference on 21 September that the UK could face 50,000 cases a day by mid-October if no action was taken.
Prof Farrar said an Office for National Statistics (ONS) survey, which he described as the "best data in the country at the moment", showed that 27,000 people were getting infected each day in England as of 10 October, but he said, given a time lag, it would actually be more than 50,000 by now.
The ONS survey tests a representative sample of the general population to provide an estimate of the true spread of the virus, as it picks up asymptomatic cases that would not necessarily be identified in the daily figures.
The ONS figures are far higher than the number of confirmed cases announced by the government each day.
On Sunday, the government figures showed 16,982 people tested positive for the virus and a further 67 people had died.
Prof Farrar said the "best time" to have introduced the short, limited lockdown would have been around 20 September, but said the "second best time is now".
He said the worst time would be at the end of November when things had got worse.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has also called for a circuit-breaker but the prime minister has said its three-tier system of regional restrictions avoids the "misery of a second national lockdown".
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54592112
|
news_uk-54592112
|
|
Covid: What the tier rules say about the split between science and politics - BBC News
|
2020-10-19
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Why does the divergence between science and politics appear to be wider than it has ever been?
|
UK
|
Manchester has resisted being put into the "very high risk" tier
Early in the pandemic, the government consistently said it was "following the science" - but what does that really mean, and is the divergence between politics and science now wider than it has ever been?
Some with heels clacking on the cobbles, others capturing the moment on their phones - it's like the aftermath of a big win in the football, or the Saturday after pay day. The videos show Concert Square in Liverpool heaving with crowds.
And this in a city on the crest of a second wave of coronavirus, where almost all the intensive care beds in the hospitals are full.
It was Tuesday night, hours away from the Liverpool City Region entering the toughest restrictions in the country. But the footage sparked anger, and on Twitter there was a fight over the damage to the city's reputation.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Crowds gather in Liverpool on eve of new Covid rules
Dozens of tweets insisted that those present must have been students, that no true Liverpudlian would set foot in Concert Square, let alone behave like that. The tweeters were adamant - these people came from outside.
The mayor and the metro mayor condemned the scenes - but that wasn't the only thing they were angry about.
They accused the government at Westminster of not providing enough financial support - workers affected by the closure of businesses such as bars and gyms will only get two-thirds of their wages.
On the first day of lockdown, one gym owner showed his defiance by remaining open and was fined for it.
Gyms have indeed provided a source of confusion. Liverpool mayor Joe Anderson questioned why gyms in the Liverpool City Region had to close when the area moved into tier three - very high alert - but those in Lancashire, which went into tier three on Saturday, were allowed to stay open.
Liverpool was the first place in England to go into the strictest measures
In Blackburn, with 438 cases per 100,000 (in the week to 13 October), you can work out, but in Wirral, with 284 cases per 100,000, you can't.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson has acknowledged inconsistencies. "There are anomalies, that's inevitably going to happen in a complex campaign against a pandemic like this."
But do these discrepancies encourage those who feel the government's decision-making sometimes veers away from the science?
"Following the science" was a phrase we heard a lot of earlier in the year. It's what, we were repeatedly told, the government at Westminster was doing.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
The reality was always more nuanced. There was a range of scientific views on a topic about which precious little was known at the outset, and there are still vast amounts to learn.
Added to that, from the perspective of ministers, this could never only be about scientific advice.
There was a constant swirl of broader considerations, what we might call the three Ls - lives, liberties and livelihoods. Ministers have been tussling with the three Ls from the start of the pandemic. But the divergence has never been wider than it is now.
Claire Hamilton is the BBC's political reporter for Merseyside @chamiltonbbc
The critical moment in recent weeks can be traced back to 21 September, when Sir Patrick Vallance, the UK's chief scientific adviser and Prof Chris Whitty, the UK's chief medical adviser, warned of the need for immediate action.
In a televised briefing, Sir Patrick warned cases could reach 50,000 a day by mid-October if they doubled every seven days, as had happened in recent weeks.
We now know that on that same day, the government's Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) met and suggested the "immediate introduction" of a "short period of lockdown," and a series of longer term measures, including:
A day later, what actually happened?
The prime minister said people should work from home if they could and a 22:00 curfew for pubs and restaurants was introduced. In other words, not a lot of change.
What happened to "following the science"?
Plenty at Westminster whispered, even before we had seen the minutes from the Sage meeting, that this was a victory for those in government, like Chancellor Rishi Sunak, who worried about the pandemic's crippling economic consequences.
Mr Sunak has been consistent - warning again, just this week, of the danger of "rushing to another lockdown". He warned, instead, of the "economic emergency", touching on another of the three Ls - livelihoods.
When you speak to people in the Treasury, you get an insight into what informs this outlook.
"We have to keep an eye on the medium term. There may not be a vaccine. Listening to the scientists recently, the mood music has changed. They're more pessimistic," says one.
This is no longer about dealing with a short-term emergency, but being resilient through a medium or long-term slog of a crisis.
And that means the Treasury is well aware of what is going out - in public spending - and what is coming in, in taxes.
"There isn't the headroom there was," an insider says - a reference to the £200bn already spent.
And there is a keen awareness of the economic consequences of shutting pubs. "Our economy is comparatively very reliant on social consumption," is how it is described.
The experts know the ministers have to take into account a variety of factors. One Sage member said: "Our job is to give clear unvarnished science advice so they can do that with their eyes open."
On Tuesday, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer advocated a short, limited lockdown - the circuit-breaker suggested by the scientific advisers.
But does Sir Keir calling for a circuit-breaker make it more or less likely to happen?
Since then, the government - to quote Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab - has been "leaning in" to its regional response for England.
Political convention says, everything else being equal, it is harder to adopt a policy advocated by your opponents than it is by independent advisers.
Then there's the last of the three Ls. Liberties.
Among the most influential Conservative backbench voices is Sir Graham Brady, who said ministers had got used to "ruling by decree" and "the British people aren't used to being treated like children".
This unease at how the pandemic has, in their view, swept away some of the checks and balances on those in power, is widely held in Parliament.
Then there's the question of geography. First there was devolution for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but now we're all aware of the big English cities that have metro mayors because they are fighting back against Westminster.
According to well-placed sources, Health Secretary Matt Hancock had argued for tougher measures in private. But the need to get local leaders on board has meant the tiered system has had to leave some wriggle room for negotiation.
Ministers were stung when Middlesbrough mayor Andy Preston said he flatly rejected the restrictions that the government announced there in early October. "It was a real problem for us - it undermined the public health message and threatened to undo what we were trying to achieve," one government source said.
Steve Rotheram, Metro Mayor of the Liverpool City Region, had been asking for a lockdown circuit-breaker for at least two weeks - but he said any measures must come with a bespoke financial support package for businesses. It appears this hasn't been forthcoming.
But the mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, has gone much further than his colleague in Liverpool. On Friday, he was described as "effectively trying to hold the government over a barrel" by Mr Raab.
Mr Burnham, a former Labour cabinet minister, who lost out to Jeremy Corbyn in the 2015 Labour leadership contest, is suddenly back on the national stage. He is demanding noisily and frequently the need for more generous support for those unable to work because of tier three restrictions.
There is nervousness within the Labour Party nationally, and elsewhere in the north of England, about this stance. Some worry it imperils people's health, others that it's become "the Andy show" - as one figure put it.
The idea of "metro mayors" voted for directly by the people of the region has long been championed by the Conservatives. David Cameron was a particular fan.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Top SAGE scientist tells us the regional restriction row is dangerous
"Some Conservatives are now realising you've got to be careful what you wish for," an early advocate of them says.
"And remember this, Boris Johnson was a mayor. There is a path to Downing Street that can pass via a town hall. Perhaps Andy Burnham has realised that too."
What we are seeing is how different parts of the UK have tilted in different directions. Loyalty to region, to nation, to party. The legacies of past perceived slights and injustices. The realities of perceived injustices now.
"We owe a big thanks to George Osborne for bequeathing us this incredible standoff," a senior Conservative says about the row.
Some Conservative ministers ponder privately that - in the end - Mr Sunak will be forced to be more generous to those unable to work under tier three restrictions. They don't think it'll be politically sustainable to pay people normally on the minimum wage, less than the minimum wage, for months on end.
The rows between local and central government leaders are "very dangerous" and "very damaging to public health", according to Prof Sir Jeremy Farrar, Sage member, and director of the Wellcome Trust.
But these are not the only rows that have been taking place. Across the scientific and medical community tempers are frayed and the pandemic is taking its toll.
There is a network of committees that feed into Sage, bringing together a wide range of experts from sociologists and public health directors to epidemiologists.
Many are not paid for their advice and instead are fitting it in around their day jobs. "We do it because we care and it's our life's work," said Prof Devi Sridhar, an expert in global public health at Edinburgh University, who has been advising the Scottish government.
Talk to these experts and it is clear they are exhausted.
"The requests just keep coming in," one said. "We're fed up, especially when we hear that test-and-trace consultants are getting paid £7,000 a day, and we have to put up with MPs going on the TV telling the world we are naïve and don't live in the real world. It's demoralising."
But it is not just between politicians and scientists that disputes have developed. Rival camps of scientists are clashing. Two online petitions have now been established: the Great Barrington declaration for those who want to see controlled spread of the virus and protection of the vulnerable, and the John Snow Memorandum for those arguing for outright suppression until a vaccine is developed.
Prof Francois Balloux, director of the UCL Genetics Institute, says the toxic atmosphere that is developing is really "unhelpful".
Brought together, it has created a climate where almost every utterance or development is examined for double-meaning.
The problem facing advisers and decision-makers is two-fold. First, the nature of the virus means it is a lose-lose situation - whatever decision is taken has negative consequences either for the spread of the virus, or for the economy, education and wider health and well-being. What's more, there is not a simple binary choice of one thing or the other.
For example, much has been made in recent weeks about the need for the NHS to also focus on non-Covid work, which has taken a terrible hit during the pandemic.
Referrals for urgent cancer check-ups and the number of people starting treatment have dropped, while the amount of routine surgery being done is still half the level it was before the pandemic.
This can have tragic consequences. This week the British Heart Foundation warned the number of younger adults dying of heart disease had increased by 15% during the pandemic.
The argument put forward by some is that the government should choose to do more non-Covid work. But, and this is a point the health secretary has been making week after week, if hospitals fill up with coronavirus patients, it makes non-Covid work harder to do.
The second key issue - and this goes to the heart of the disagreements we have seen bubble up in recent weeks among the scientific and medical community - is that there are huge gaps in the evidence and knowledge.
This is true on everything from the numbers infected already and the level of immunity exposure brings to the true impact of "long Covid", and exactly what effect any restrictions beyond a full lockdown actually have.
In normal times, the scientific and medical community is able to reach more of a consensus off the back of rigorous randomised controlled trials and painstaking peer review.
But in a fast-moving pandemic with a new virus, that has simply not been possible. Paul Hunter, a professor of medicine at the University of East Anglia, says it means there is such "uncertainty in the science" that he does not think any plan is guaranteed to work.
And then there is the human factor - the unintended consequences of actions that are impossible to take into account in the modelling. Hence the prospect of scenes like the ones we saw in Liverpool, which were not taken into account by Sage in its latest advice.
But Prof Keith Neal, an infectious disease expert at Nottingham University, says it shouldn't come as a surprise that people react in the way they do. Both young and old are suffering, he says, from not being able to meet up with people. "This degree of isolation is not allowed in prisons under human rights legislation."
People from different households will not be able to drink together inside, after London went into tier two
It is, he says, therefore natural that some people will ignore the rules. Closing pubs may sound good on paper, he says, but it could lead to an increase in house parties where people are "far more at risk".
So where has this left us?
The complexity of competing interests, uncertainty in the science and general exhaustion across society both among decision-makers and the public has, some fear, left us in the worst of both worlds.
Delay and deliberation, says Sir Jeremy Farrar is a "decision in itself".
But by reaching a decision by default there is a risk - another adviser says - of making the same mistakes we made at the start of the pandemic.
"In March we toyed with the Swedish model of limited restrictions with the hope of developing immunity and then hesitated. But we then went for a lockdown, but it was introduced bit by bit and it was too late anyway.
"The same thing has happened again - we have delayed and then gone for some half measures. I can understand why. This is bloody difficult."
The government is now hoping it will be just enough that we can get through this wave without a devastating number of deaths or hospitals being overwhelmed. But it's a big risk - it could all unravel.
|
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54546867
|
news_uk-54546867
|
|
Covid-19: Andy Burnham urges Boris Johnson to break Greater Manchester 'impasse' - BBC News
|
2020-10-19
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Andy Burnham has called on Boris Johnson and other leaders to help end a deadlock over stricter Covid curbs.
|
UK
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Andy Burnham: "This is not just Greater Manchester's fight"
Greater Manchester's mayor has called on Boris Johnson for help in "breaking the impasse" over stricter Covid-19 curbs in the region.
Andy Burnham said in a letter to the PM and other party leaders that Parliament should hold an urgent debate to end the deadlock.
Later the mayor said he had a "constructive call" with Mr Johnson's chief strategic adviser.
Earlier, minister Michael Gove said: "We hope to agree a new approach."
Mr Gove said the government wanted the best for Greater Manchester and that he hoped "we can find a way through together".
But he criticised what he described as the "incoherence" of politicians in that region and warned that if an agreement could not be reached the government would "look at" having to impose restrictions.
Leaders in Greater Manchester, including Mr Burnham, have rejected a move to England's tier three alert level without better financial support.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said he may "need to intervene" if local leaders do not accept a move to tier three curbs.
A further 16,982 people tested positive for the virus as of Sunday, the Department of Health figures showed, with a further 67 deaths occurring within 28 days of a positive test.
Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon tweeted that the figure for positive Covid cases in Scotland should be "treated with some caution" due to "a delay within the UK lab system". Cases rose by 316 in Scotland with no further deaths recorded.
The UK government said there was no capacity issue at a Lighthouse laboratory in Glasgow and that rerouting of tests to other laboratories was routine practice.
Mr Burnham has said he would be "ready to speak to the prime minister at any time" to discuss the situation. The mayor's spokesman confirmed Mr Burnham had spoken to Sir Edward Lister, a No 10 official, in a phone call on Sunday afternoon.
In the letter, Mr Burnham said the prospect of tier three - very high - restrictions on hospitality and other areas "is not just a Greater Manchester issue".
He wrote: "Establishing clear national entitlements of the kind we had during the first lockdown will create a sense of fairness which in turn would help build public support for, and compliance with, any new restrictions."
"As leaders of the main political parties in Westminster, I urge you to work together to help resolve this current dispute and establish a fair financial framework for local lockdowns that the whole country will be able to support," he added.
In the language of negotiation, it seems the government and mayor of Greater Manchester may have stepped back from the brink.
Both sides softened their tone in interviews this morning, there was talk of ending the war of words and finding a new way through.
But it's important to remember this is not just a two-way row.
The most telling intervention of the last 24 hours has not been from Andy Burnham or Michael Gove, but the senior Conservative MP Sir Graham Brady.
He represents a constituency in the region and says MPs, council leaders and mayor are "united" across party lines in resisting tier 3 restrictions.
So, while the argument plays out in public between the government and Mr Burnham, it may be won or lost in private between ministers and their own backbenchers whose support is crucial to the government's approach.
Earlier, Mr Burnham told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show there had been "exaggeration" by the prime minister of rising case numbers in Greater Manchester.
Mr Johnson said on Friday cases in the region had doubled over the previous nine days. Mr Burnham said that while cases were "up slightly" they were "certainly not doubling every nine days".
Sir Graham Brady, a senior backbench Conservative and MP for Altrincham and Sale West in Greater Manchester, described the region's Labour and Tory MPs as "pretty united" and said positive tests were "flattening".
The latest data on infection rates in the city of Manchester itself show they have fallen slightly, to around 458 cases per 100,000 of the population.
Across Greater Manchester as a whole - which includes another nine boroughs including Salford, Stockport and Bury - the infection rate is slightly up.
So it is a mixed picture, but the region as a whole is still a long way off other areas such as Derry, Nottingham and Liverpool.
But in many ways it is not the infection rate that matters. What counts are the number of people who are falling so seriously ill they end up in hospital.
We know that lots of otherwise fit and healthy students falling ill with Covid-19 is not going to have a significant impact on the local health service, but lots of older people falling ill would change the picture quickly.
Last week it was reported that, in Liverpool, around 95% of intensive care beds were occupied.
But Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham told the BBC on Sunday morning there were only 64 occupied beds in the city region.
Across Greater Manchester, leaders accept there is a serious problem. But they question whether it is serious enough to warrant the kind of economic impact - not to mention the effect on people's mental health - that moving to tier three - very high - would have.
Mr Burnham also described "side deals" with councils in regions moving into tier three - very high - as not "good enough for me".
Liverpool City Region's metro mayor Steve Rotherham announced his area will receive an additional £44m and a similar package worth £42m was given to local leaders in Lancashire.
"Let's remember, the places they're trying to close in tier three - pubs, bookies, gyms - these are places where people are on low wages. And what we're saying is you cannot take away their place of work and not give them support," Mr Burnham said.
He called on the government to re-introduce the 80% furlough scheme used previously in the pandemic to support the low paid affected by tier three closures. Currently, a less generous scheme to provide two-thirds of wages is on offer.
The Labour mayor added: "The truth is health, protecting health, is about more than controlling the virus."
A letter from Tory MPs representing areas on the lowest tier of England's Covid alert system called on Mr Burnham to accept a move to tier three - very high - rather than allow national restrictions through a so-called "circuit-breaker".
"It does not make sense to shut down the whole country when the virus is spiking in particular locations," it said.
But four Conservative MPs representing seats in Greater Manchester hit back, describing the letter as "deeply disappointing... unnecessary and ill-advised", "neither wanted nor helpful" and a "No 10 approved communication".
And Mr Burnham said: "I'm not sure a sort of 'we're alright, Jack' letter from a group of southern Conservative MPs is going to cut much ice [in Greater Manchester]."
Meanwhile, Prof Jeremy Farrar, a scientific adviser to the government, said Christmas will be "tough" this year with traditional family celebrations unlikely.
"Christmas will be tough this year. I don't think it's going to be the usual celebration it is and all families coming together, I'm afraid," he told Sky News.
"I think we have to be honest and realistic and say that we are in for three to six months of a very, very difficult period."
But the Wellcome Trust director said there is "light at the end of the tunnel", as he believes a Covid-19 vaccine and effective treatment will be ready in the first quarter of 2021.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54589480
|
news_uk-54589480
|
|
Man denied £1.7m payout by Betfred takes fight to High Court - BBC News
|
2020-10-16
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Andy Green is suing bookmaker Betfred after it refused to pay up, citing a software error.
|
UK
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Andy is suing a betting company after it refused to pay him his £1.7 million winnings.
A man who was refused a payout of £1.7m after his online betting company account was credited with the money has taken his case to the High Court.
Andy Green, 53, from Lincolnshire, said he hit the jackpot in January 2018 playing a blackjack game from bookmaker Betfred on his phone.
Betfred said there was a software error and the company's terms and conditions meant it could withhold the payment.
But lawyers for Mr Green say they have been given no proof of the problem.
After a long night playing the Betfred Frankie Dettori Magic Seven Blackjack in January 2018, Mr Green's online account was credited with £1,722,923.54 which he tried to withdraw - but the request was declined.
After placing some more bets with his winnings he took a screenshot to prove what had happened.
However, a Betfred director called him to say there had been a "software error" and it was rejecting the claim.
As a token of "goodwill" the company was willing to pay £30,000, but Mr Green would have to agree not to talk about it ever again.
Mr Green refused and the company increased its offer to £60,000, which he also rejected.
More than two years later he has gone to the High Court to sue Betfred and its parent company, Gibraltar-based Petfre for £2m, including the interest he would have earned from the win.
Mr Green said "the last two and a half years have felt like hell on earth".
"You wouldn't treat an animal like I've been treated by Betfred," he said.
"Hopefully the judge will accept the arguments put forward by my legal team and this nightmare will be over. My champagne remains on ice!"
Mr Green is in poor health and has suffered four heart attacks - one of them since the money was credited to his online account in 2018.
The legal argument centres on 49 pages of terms and conditions, and game rules which Mr Green ticked when signing up for Betfred.
They include a clause that all "pays and plays" would be void in the event of a "malfunction", and Betfred argues that by ticking the box, Mr Green was agreeing.
His solicitor Peter Coyle said "whilst Betfred's betting terms and conditions are incredibly complicated and span across numerous different documents, we are confident that, on their proper construction, the terms simply don't allow for Betfred to withhold payment".
Mr Coyle pointed out that if "all pays and plays" were void, then Betfred would have refunded other customers, but the company had produced no evidence that had happened. It only wanted to withhold Mr Green's enormous win, he said.
Betfred licences the software for its online games from another company Playtech, which has refused to confirm the nature of the software glitch.
By law, Playtech has to notify the Gambling Commission of Great Britain of the fault, known as a "key event". Mr Coyle says the description of what happened is only four lines long and does not describe the nature of the problem.
Despite repeated requests, Mr Green's lawyers say Betfred has been unable to prove there was a software problem at all. Neither has the company attempted to drag its supplier Playtech into the case.
If the court rules in Mr Green's favour, other gamblers denied their winnings due to technical problems could be able to make similar claims.
Mr Green's lawyers have asked for a summary judgment, which would mean the facts are not at issue and the judge could decide the case without a trial.
The judge has reserved judgement, which could mean one of three outcomes at a later date: deciding the case without a trial in Mr Green's favour, deciding in Betfred's favour, or ordering a trial.
A Betfred spokesman said "the case is currently progressing at court and it is therefore inappropriate for us to comment further".
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54564536
|
news_uk-54564536
|
|
The UK government's Scottish independence dilemma - BBC News
|
2020-11-21
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
What happens to the SNP's demand for a referendum when, as widely expected, they win May's election?
|
UK Politics
|
If you can tear yourself away from the counting of votes in the United States, (and I appreciate if you are into politics, that's not easy right now), it is well worth noting what's going on in the warm up to a big political fight on this side of the pond, arguments that we are going to be talking about a lot in the coming months.
There is a huge set of elections, straddling many parts of the UK next May, and the most contentious arguments are likely to be in the elections for the Scottish Parliament.
In that poll, you guessed it, the central question on the ballot paper is likely to be that of Scottish independence.
With a solid trend of polls backing independence in recent months, the SNP is hopeful of another convincing result in the May ballot that will give them a mandate for another referendum on whether Scotland should stay in the UK.
Their problem, even if they win convincingly in May, is that the law says it's up to the UK government to decide whether or not there should be another referendum - a vote some Scots are massively eager to have, but which others want like a hole in the head. You can read more about the laws around a referendum here.
And the SNP themselves said, at the time, that the 2014 referendum was a "once in a generation opportunity" for those who want Scotland to be independent.
The UK government's problem is that if the SNP does win convincingly in May on a promise of having another referendum, denying that would just amplify the argument that Westminster doesn't listen to what Scots want, and likely increase support for independence.
That's why the comments from Scottish Secretary Alister Jack this morning are notable. He said that "once in a generation" means there can't be an independence referendum for many, many years.
Not surprisingly, the SNP have leapt on his words, even comparing his comments to President Trump's bizarre, sometimes rambling, statements since the US election - so full of claims without evidence about fraud or irregularities in the voting that some of the American TV networks cut him off while he was still talking.
One US politician making wild allegations about fraud is obviously not the same as another in the UK hardening their opposition to another kind of poll taking place, which the government has the legal right to permit or not.
Yet the UK government does have an acute dilemma, and it knows it.
And not everyone in Westminster agrees that the answer to a hypothetical big SNP win in May can be, "no, not now, and not nearly ever".
To put it mildly, there is a range of opinion in government on how to meet the demands for a referendum in practice.
There are concerns among Tories too about Labour's weakness at Holyrood, which you can read about here.
At the very least, the UK government intends to be more present, more prominent, in Scotland, to move away from what one government source admits was an attitude of "devolve and forget" that has built up over successive UK administrations.
But making the argument for the Union more obviously, and more visibly is one thing - there is no guarantee that in the coming months Scottish voters will like what they see.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54842734
|
news_uk-politics-54842734
|
|
Rebekah Vardy backed by High Court in Coleen Rooney libel hearing - BBC News
|
2020-11-21
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
A judge rules that Rooney's social posts were directly accusing Rebekah Vardy of leaking stories.
|
Newsbeat
|
Coleen Rooney "clearly identified" Rebekah Vardy when she made allegations about social media stories being leaked to the tabloids, a judge has ruled.
The row dubbed 'Wagatha Christie' broke out in October 2019 when Rooney said fake stories had been leaked after only being seen by Vardy's Instagram account.
In July, Vardy filed for defamation, saying she had been falsely accused.
Her lawyer told the High Court he would be seeking costs of £22,913.50.
The initial argument in this case, which Vardy has won, has been over the wording of Rooney's social media post, which she put up for her 1.2m Twitter followers and 885,000 Instagram followers to see last year.
Rooney named the culprit of the leaks as "Rebekah Vardy's account" meaning her lawyers could argue it wasn't implying Rebekah herself was guilty - and could have been anyone with access to her Instagram account.
But Judge Mark Warby ruled against this, saying the post looked like it was putting the blame solely on Vardy.
There are still further factors to be considered in the legal battle though, and this ruling marks the beginning of Vardy's libel case.
Vardy decided to sue for defamation in July, with court documents written by her lawyers saying the incident had affected her mental and physical health.
When Rooney's social media posts were released, Vardy was seven months pregnant and her lawyers claim they led to her being taken to hospital three times with anxiety attacks.
The pair originally became friends through their husbands, former Manchester United and England player Wayne Rooney and Leicester striker Jamie Vardy.
Social media was set ablaze on 9 October 2019 when Coleen Rooney pressed send on her Instagram and Twitter posts, accusing Rebekah Vardy of leaking details about her life to the tabloids.
In an effort to work out which of her friends had been sharing stories, she'd published different fake stories on Instagram to different people. The ones that made headlines, were ones being leaked.
Rebekah Vardy took to social media to deny any involvement in the leaking.
But things did take a more sinister turn - Vardy's lawyers said her husband faced abuse on the pitch which meant they couldn't let their young children attend games anymore.
Both Vardy and Rooney have agreed to a stay in proceedings - until February.
This means they're going to try and resolve things privately without the need for a full trial, but if they can't it could become a full court case in the new year.
Listen to Newsbeat live at 12:45 and 17:45 weekdays - or listen back here.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-55020573
|
news_newsbeat-55020573
|
|
Covid-19: Mass-testing trial, kids' sport ban and #TeamHalo - BBC News
|
2020-11-03
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Five things you need to know about the coronavirus pandemic this Tuesday morning.
|
UK
|
Here are five things you need to know about the coronavirus pandemic this Tuesday morning. We'll have another update for you at 18:00 GMT.
Everyone living and working in Liverpool will be offered regular coronavirus testing from the end of this week. The armed forces will help carry out the pilot scheme. Liverpool has one of the highest Covid-19 death rates in England, and doctors at the city's intensive care units have told the BBC they're struggling to cope. Despite widespread optimism, the BBC's James Gallagher says there are questions about mass testing. False positives could be a problem, as could individual behaviour - can authorities do better at persuading people who do test positive to isolate?
About a third of in-patients now have Covid-19
The clock is ticking down towards the start of England's second nationwide lockdown. Retailers preparing to close their doors have told us how they're feeling, and plenty of sectors have been making last-minute arguments for an exemption. Children's grassroots sport, for one, has been told a reprieve won't be granted. Footballer Robbie Savage is among those angry at the decision, and BBC sports editor Dan Roan says pressure to at least make the return of youth sport next month a priority will continue.
Universities and colleges in England face "significant funding shortfalls and heightened uncertainty" due to the pandemic, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS). The loss of many overseas students - and the high fees they pay - are a factor, as is the threat of potentially higher dropout rates. Those things combined with high pension costs create considerable financial risk for the sector, warns the IFS. In July, ministers said universities could apply for emergency loans.
The UK's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) dealt with more than 700 incidents during the past year and more than a quarter were linked to coronavirus. Protecting the NHS and health-related research has been a priority, its annual report reveals. Some of the incidents related to countering nation-state attacks, but most were criminal in nature. The NCSC also says it thwarted 15,354 campaigns that had used coronavirus themes as a "lure" to scam people.
Using the hashtag #TeamHalo, scientists around the world hunting for a coronavirus vaccine are documenting their efforts on TikTok, Twitter and Instagram. Their aim is to take the public behind the scenes and answer as many pressing questions as possible - in part to counter the misinformation people may be receiving from elsewhere.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Get a closer look at how scientists develop a Covid-19 vaccine
Find more information, advice and guides on our coronavirus page.
Plus, we've answered your questions on some of the finer detail ahead of the start of England's second lockdown, including what the restrictions mean for Remembrance Sunday.
What questions do you have about coronavirus?
In some cases, your question will be published, displaying your name, age and location as you provide it, unless you state otherwise. Your contact details will never be published. Please ensure you have read our terms & conditions and privacy policy.
Use this form to ask your question:
If you are reading this page and can't see the form you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question or send them via email to YourQuestions@bbc.co.uk. Please include your name, age and location with any question you send in.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54786836
|
https://c.files.bbci.co.uk/assets/38ff603e-43e6-419f-a19a-20b44dadf768
|
news_uk-54786836
|
Covid: Destructive rules only current option, says Chris Whitty - BBC News
|
2020-11-03
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
England's chief medical officer defends lockdowns as a further 397 coronavirus deaths are recorded.
|
UK Politics
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Prof Chris Whitty says the three-tier system of restrictions has “slowed things down".
"Economically and socially destructive" lockdowns are the only practical option until a Covid vaccine and better drugs are available, Chris Whitty has said.
England's chief medical officer rejected calls from some scientists to pursue "herd immunity" instead.
England is due to replace tiered regional restrictions with a four-week nationwide lockdown from Thursday.
It comes as the UK recorded a further 397 coronavirus deaths and 20,018 confirmed cases on Tuesday.
Meanwhile, more details of England's lockdown rules have also been revealed, with the publication of the legislation that will bring them into force.
The regulations specify fines starting at £100 for rule breakers, potentially rising to a maximum of £6,400 for repeat offences.
Some Tory MPs have attacked the move towards another nationwide lockdown, with one saying the government was "losing the plot".
Prof Whitty was quizzed by a select committee about the Great Barrington Declaration, which calls for "focused protection" for the elderly and other groups particularly vulnerable to Covid-19, while others continue to live relatively normally.
Prof Whitty said the arguments made by those that have signed the declaration were "scientifically weak" and "dangerously flawed".
"It would make an assumption that a very large number of people would inevitably die as a result of that decision," he told the Commons Science Committee.
"To have this as an element of policy is ethically really difficult."
Herd immunity had never been achieved in the treatment of Ebola and other new infectious diseases, argued Prof Whitty, and the kind of aggressive shielding of the vulnerable urged by the Barrington scientists would not be practically possible.
Better treatments and the prospect of a vaccine were the only hope, he told the committee, and he predicted that over the next year there will be "multiple shots on goal from science".
"We have to hold the line until that point," he added.
"Unfortunately, these economically and socially destructive tools are what we have got in the absence of anything else."
Under the lockdown beginning on Thursday, pubs, restaurants, gyms and non-essential shops would be closed across England.
The new rules replace a tiered system of different local restrictions across England, which ministers say they want to return to after the England-wide lockdown is due to end on 2 December.
Meanwhile, at a separate parliamentary debate, a number of Conservative MPs criticised the nationwide lockdown, which faces a Commons vote on Wednesday.
One of them, Richard Drax, said the lockdowns were "destructive, divisive, and don't work".
"They simply delay the inevitable - the re-emergence of the virus when lockdown ends, as has been shown," he said.
"Have we overreacted? Yes, I think we have. A draconian, onerous and invasive set of rules and regulations now govern our very existence."
His fellow Conservative, Bob Seeley, said lockdowns were a "dubious tool," claiming scientists were becoming "increasingly sceptical" of them as an option.
He suggested the government was "losing the plot" in the face of the spread of the virus, and there was a need for "some semblance of balance" in its response.
However with Labour supporting the new measures, they are highly likely to be approved even if there is a rebellion from Conservative backbenchers.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54802129
|
news_uk-politics-54802129
|
|
The UK government's Scottish independence dilemma - BBC News
|
2020-11-17
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
What happens to the SNP's demand for a referendum when, as widely expected, they win May's election?
|
UK Politics
|
If you can tear yourself away from the counting of votes in the United States, (and I appreciate if you are into politics, that's not easy right now), it is well worth noting what's going on in the warm up to a big political fight on this side of the pond, arguments that we are going to be talking about a lot in the coming months.
There is a huge set of elections, straddling many parts of the UK next May, and the most contentious arguments are likely to be in the elections for the Scottish Parliament.
In that poll, you guessed it, the central question on the ballot paper is likely to be that of Scottish independence.
With a solid trend of polls backing independence in recent months, the SNP is hopeful of another convincing result in the May ballot that will give them a mandate for another referendum on whether Scotland should stay in the UK.
Their problem, even if they win convincingly in May, is that the law says it's up to the UK government to decide whether or not there should be another referendum - a vote some Scots are massively eager to have, but which others want like a hole in the head. You can read more about the laws around a referendum here.
And the SNP themselves said, at the time, that the 2014 referendum was a "once in a generation opportunity" for those who want Scotland to be independent.
The UK government's problem is that if the SNP does win convincingly in May on a promise of having another referendum, denying that would just amplify the argument that Westminster doesn't listen to what Scots want, and likely increase support for independence.
That's why the comments from Scottish Secretary Alister Jack this morning are notable. He said that "once in a generation" means there can't be an independence referendum for many, many years.
Not surprisingly, the SNP have leapt on his words, even comparing his comments to President Trump's bizarre, sometimes rambling, statements since the US election - so full of claims without evidence about fraud or irregularities in the voting that some of the American TV networks cut him off while he was still talking.
One US politician making wild allegations about fraud is obviously not the same as another in the UK hardening their opposition to another kind of poll taking place, which the government has the legal right to permit or not.
Yet the UK government does have an acute dilemma, and it knows it.
And not everyone in Westminster agrees that the answer to a hypothetical big SNP win in May can be, "no, not now, and not nearly ever".
To put it mildly, there is a range of opinion in government on how to meet the demands for a referendum in practice.
There are concerns among Tories too about Labour's weakness at Holyrood, which you can read about here.
At the very least, the UK government intends to be more present, more prominent, in Scotland, to move away from what one government source admits was an attitude of "devolve and forget" that has built up over successive UK administrations.
But making the argument for the Union more obviously, and more visibly is one thing - there is no guarantee that in the coming months Scottish voters will like what they see.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54842734
|
news_uk-politics-54842734
|
|
Scottish independence: Johnson rejects Sturgeon's indyref2 demand - BBC News
|
2020-11-17
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Boris Johnson confirms he will not agree to Nicola Sturgeon's request for a second independence referendum.
|
Scotland politics
|
Boris Johnson has rejected the request from Nicola Sturgeon
The UK government has formally rejected a call from Scotland's first minister for a second independence referendum.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson said a referendum would "continue the political stagnation Scotland has seen for the past decade".
And he said First Minister Nicola Sturgeon had previously pledged that the 2014 referendum would be a "once in a generation" vote.
Ms Sturgeon tweeted that the Tories were attempting to "deny democracy".
She said Mr Johnson's formal refusal of her request for a referendum to be held later this year was "predictable but also unsustainable and self defeating", and insisted that "Scotland will have the right to choose".
The first minister also said the Scottish government would set out its response and "next steps" before the end of the month, and that the devolved Scottish Parliament would again be asked to "back Scotland's right to choose our own future".
Scottish voters backed remaining in the UK by 55% to 45% in the referendum in 2014.
Ms Sturgeon says she wants to hold another vote on independence, and made a formal request last month for the UK government to transfer powers - known as a Section 30 order - to the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh that would ensure any referendum is legal.
The request came after Ms Sturgeon's SNP, which forms the Scottish government, won 48 of the 59 seats in Scotland in the UK general election.
In his written response to Ms Sturgeon, the prime minister said he had "carefully considered and noted" her arguments.
But he said: "You and your predecessor (Alex Salmond) made a personal promise that the 2014 independence referendum was a "once in a generation" vote.
"The people of Scotland voted decisively on that promise to keep our United Kingdom together, a result which both the Scottish and UK governments committed to respect in the Edinburgh Agreement."
A large pro-independence march was held in Glasgow at the weekend
Mr Johnson said the UK government would "continue to uphold the democratic decision of the Scottish people and the promise you made to them".
And he said he did not want to see Scotland's schools, hospitals and employment "again left behind because of a campaign to separate the UK".
The prime minister added: "For that reason, I cannot agree to any request for a transfer of power that would lead to further independence referendums".
The formal rejection comes days after the UK government's Scottish secretary, Alister Jack, said another victory in next year's Scottish Parliament election would still not give the SNP a mandate to hold a referendum.
Ms Sturgeon has previously warned that a "flat no" from Mr Johnson to her request would "not be the end of the matter".
But she has made clear that she will not hold an unofficial referendum similar to the disputed one in Catalonia in 2017, arguing that it would not actually deliver independence as the result would not be recognised by the EU or wider international community.
The first minister said: "The Tories are terrified of Scotland having the right to choose our own future. They know that given the choice the overwhelming likelihood is that people will choose the positive option of independence.
"The Tories - and their allies in the leaderships of Labour and the Lib Dems - lack any positive case for the union, so all they can do is try to block democracy.
"It shows utter contempt for the votes, views and interests of the people of Scotland and it is a strategy that is doomed to failure."
The prospect of an independence referendum on Nicola Sturgeon's preferred timetable - the second half of 2020 - now looks very remote.
The first minister is confident that Mr Johnson's refusal will help make the case for independence in the longer term, but for now her options are limited.
In the first instance, she is planning another vote at Holyrood to underline the backing of MSPs for a new referendum. With the SNP and Greens holding a majority between them, this is sure to pass - but this has happened before, to little avail.
She has not ruled out going to court, but this would hardly accelerate matters - constitutional lawyers have warned that "there are no legal short cuts" around the political battlefield.
So the next clear opportunity to break the deadlock may be the 2021 Holyrood elections. Ms Sturgeon clearly has one eye on that poll already, talking about the Tories being on a "road back to political oblivion".
Between now and then, another year of constitutional stalemate beckons.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51106796
|
news_uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51106796
|
|
Joe Biden: 'Middle Class Joe' vows to 'finish the job' - BBC News
|
2020-11-07
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
President Biden has said that democracy and 'freedom' are at stake in the upcoming 2024 election.
|
US & Canada
|
US President Joe Biden has officially announced his bid for re-election, asking Americans to help him "finish the job" he started more than two years ago.
Mr Biden, 80, faced a turbulent first two years in office marked by the Covid-19 pandemic, economic woes and geopolitical challenges including the US pull-out from Afghanistan and Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
On the campaign trail, Mr Biden - who served as Vice-President under Barack Obama - is likely to focus on his efforts to prop up the US economy after the pandemic, as well as his successes pushing through legislation focused on infrastructure, climate change and prescription drugs.
But a key argument for a second term will be what he has described as a turn towards authoritarianism from Donald Trump and his supporters in the "Make America Great Again" movement.
"The question we are facing is whether in the years ahead we have more freedom or less freedom, more rights or fewer," he said in a video launching his new campaign. "I know what I want the answer to be. This is not a time to be complacent. That's why I'm running for re-election."
The President, however, is also likely to face questions about his age and ability to serve, as well as about his handling of inflation, immigration and other issues that worry Americans.
The upcoming campaign is likely the last in a career in politics that has spanned more than four decades, and may again see him square off against Donald Trump.
So who is Joe Biden and how did he get to the White House?
Mr Biden ran for the Democratic 2008 nomination before dropping out and joining the Obama ticket.
His eight years in the Obama White House - where he frequently appeared at the president's side - has allowed Mr Biden to lay claim to much of Mr Obama's legacy, including passage of the Affordable Care Act, as well as the stimulus package and reforms enacted in response to the financial crisis.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. A look back at Joe Biden's life and political career
As a long-time Washington insider, Mr Biden had solid foreign affairs credentials, and helped balance Mr Obama's comparative lack of executive experience.
The so-called "Middle Class Joe" was also brought on board to help woo the blue-collar white voters who had proved a difficult group for Mr Obama to win over.
He made headlines in 2012 by saying he was "absolutely comfortable" with same-sex marriage, comments that were seen to undercut the president, who had yet to give full-throated support for the policy. Mr Obama ultimately did so, just days after Mr Biden.
Mr Biden's two terms supporting the first black president followed a long political career.
The six-term senator from Delaware was first elected in 1972. He ran for president in 1988 but withdrew after he admitted to plagiarising a speech by the then leader of the British Labour Party, Neil Kinnock.
His lengthy tenure in the nation's capital has given critics ample material for attacks.
Early in his career, he sided with southern segregationists in opposing court-ordered school bussing to racially integrate public schools.
And, as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1991, he oversaw Clarence Thomas's Supreme Court confirmation hearings and has been sharply criticised for his handling of Anita Hill's allegations that she was sexually harassed by the nominee.
In 1974, Biden was the youngest US senator
Mr Biden was also a fierce advocate of a 1994 anti-crime bill that many on the left now say encouraged lengthy sentences and mass incarceration.
The record made Mr Obama's moderate vice-president a sometimes uncomfortable fit for the modern Democratic Party.
Mr Biden's life has been dogged by personal tragedy.
In 1972, shortly after he won his first Senate race, he lost his first wife, Neilia, and baby daughter, Naomi, in a car accident. He famously took the oath of office for his first Senate term from the hospital room of his toddler sons Beau and Hunter, who both survived the accident.
In 2015, Beau died of brain cancer at the age of 46. The younger Biden was seen as a rising star of US politics and had intended to run for Delaware state governor in 2016.
Mr Biden garnered considerable goodwill following Beau's death, which served to highlight one of Mr Biden's central strengths: a reputation as a kind and relatable family man.
This perceived warmth is not without its pitfalls. After entering the 2020 race, he faced accusations of unwelcome physical contact during interactions with female voters - complete with uncomfortable accompanying footage.
But the avuncular politician responded by saying he was an empathetic person, though he accepted standards had changed. The episode, however, stoked a perception for some that he was out of touch.
Mr Biden's return to the White House came at a difficult time in US politics, with the country still reeling from the Covid-19 pandemic.
Just two weeks before his inauguration, the country had also seen supporters of former President Donald Trump storm Congress in a bid to thwart the certification of his election victory after Mr Trump falsely claimed that the election had been rigged.
Mr Biden's new campaign is likely to focus heavily on the fight against the ideology on display during the 6 January riot. The video announcing his re-election bid opens with images of a mob of Trump supporters storming the Capitol.
"Every generation of Americans has faced a moment when they've had to defend democracy," he said. "This is ours. Let's finish the job."
As he campaigns, Mr Biden is likely to point to a number of accomplishments during his tenure, including job creation, efforts to prop up the economy in the wake of the pandemic and the passing of a bipartisan infrastructure law billed as a "once-in-a-generation" investment by the White House.
But he will face tough questions on his handling of immigration and the US-Mexico border, as well as on the chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Mr Biden has also acknowledged that many Americans have raised "legitimate" questions about his age and ability to serve as President.
"And the only thing I can say is, watch me," he said earlier this year.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51682000
|
news_world-us-canada-51682000
|
|
Father jailed for killing two-month-old Ava Ray - BBC News
|
2020-11-25
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Joseph Ray, 33, was convicted after a seven-year investigation to determine how his baby daughter died.
|
Edinburgh, Fife & East Scotland
|
Joseph Ray admitted shaking baby Ava at their flat in East Lothian
A father who killed his baby daughter in what was described as "a momentary loss of control" has been jailed for seven years.
Joseph Ray admitted violently shaking two-month-old Ava at their flat in Prestonpans, East Lothian, in 2012.
The 33-year-old was convicted after a seven-year investigation saw police consult medical experts to determine the exact cause of Ava's death.
He was charged with murder but admitted the lesser charge of culpable homicide.
Following the child's death, investigators ruled out the possibility that Ava had died from natural causes and concluded she had suffered a head injury as the result of an assault.
Ava's mother Lauren Scott told the BBC: "I think it's shocking that he only got seven years after all that time."
Ms Scott's father, Richard Scott, added: "The family feels disappointed in it because for eight years we've suffered mentally and physically through this lad telling lies.
"He could have admitted it long before this. He's gone about laughing and enjoying himself while my daughter Lauren was suffering.
"It's made me, my wife and Lauren ill. I feel like I've done eight years in prison myself."
Ray's defence lawyer Shelagh McCall QC told the High Court in Glasgow that Ray had been woken by Ava crying.
He later told social workers of "feeling overwhelmed and angry" and he shook Ava twice, Ms McCall said.
Ava Ray died after she was taken to Edinburgh's Royal Hospital for Sick Children
She continued: "He still struggles to understand that what he did could have such a catastrophic consequence.
"He can't ever make amends for the damage done in a momentary loss of control by an exhausted and inexperienced parent."
Ms McCall added the case had taken time to come to court because of "contrasting medical views" - at one point it was thought Ava may have had a problem with blood clotting which could have explained her injuries, she said.
Prosecutor Ashley Edwards QC said Ray and Ms Scott - his partner at the time - had arguments mainly over who would do night time feeds.
On the day of the child's death, Ms Scott had gone to work at 18:30, the court was told.
About 22:50, Ray told a neighbour his daughter was "cold to the touch" and paramedics found her "white in colour, limp and unresponsive".
She was taken to Edinburgh's Royal Hospital for Sick Children where she died the next morning.
Tests revealed her brain had been starved of oxygen and her death was initially treated as "unascertained".
After "various experts" were consulted between 2014 and 2018, it was concluded Ava had died due to a "head injury", Ms Edwards said.
The judge Lady Stacey said the case had been "a terrible tragedy" involving the death of a "much loved child."
She told Ray: "As you know, Ava was entitled to look to you for love, affection and support. You failed in that and your failure had terrible consequences.
"Ava's life was snuffed out just as it was starting by one of the people she was entitled to rely on.
"You have to live with that knowledge for the rest of your days."
Ray had no previous convictions at the time of the death but has since been found guilty of two domestic assaults on Ms Scott.
The judge said she would have sentenced Ray to eight and a half years had he not pleaded guilty.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55072138
|
news_uk-scotland-55072138
|
|
Reaction as Sunak sets out Spending Review - BBC News
|
2020-11-25
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The chancellor says the government is providing £280bn this year to get the country through the coronavirus crisis.
|
UK Politics
|
On rare occasions, nervous chancellors leave No 11 gripping their documents, to deliver news to the country that resets the dial.
The pandemic has already cost jobs and hardships, but there can now be no doubt that the economic aftermath will last for many years.
The predictions of job losses, record levels of borrowing and debt - all huge headlines in themselves.
In the last few months, with almost no dissent, the government has scrambled to expand the state to help cope with coronavirus.
Other countries have done the same. There is little controversy about the decisions that have been taken so far.
But what lurks on the country’s balance sheet is the biggest economic baggage for generations.
There is almost zero political pressure to solve the problem any time soon.
But eventually the pressure will force a reckoning in the Tory party.
It’s a Conservative chancellor - whose instinct is to pare back the state - who has presided over a generational emergency expansion.
How Rishi Sunak and Boris Johnson propose to solve that paradox will create the contours of political arguments at least until the next election.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-55062425
|
news_live_uk-politics-55062425
|
|
The cold reality of Covid cost will be laid bare at Sunak's Spending Review - BBC News
|
2020-11-25
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The chancellor will detail the UK's economic problems but don't hold your breath for solutions.
|
UK Politics
|
"It's going to look horrible." The simple truth about the Spending Review according to a senior MP.
The chancellor will bang the drum for his plans to keep people in jobs, or help find new ones. Rishi Sunak will take out the metaphorical megaphone to explain how he'll allocate billions of taxpayers' cash to spend on infrastructure in the coming months.
But the headlines of the Spending Review, when governments put their money where their mouths are, won't be in any rhetorical flourishes at the despatch box, nor likely in any surprise announcements kept back as goodies for the public.
What may shock, is the cold reality of the cost of the coronavirus, which will be laid bare in the tables and charts published at the same time, presenting to the country in the shape of statistics from the Office for Budget Responsibility how much damage the pandemic has really done to how we make a living.
Without poring over the spreadsheets, the "horrible" will mean a massive gap between what the government takes in tax and what is has been spending, a deficit more than ten times what it was last year.
There will be an estimate of the number of people who may end up unemployed, perhaps nearing three million before too long.
It's likely to mean a freeze on pay for much of the public sector; a cut, even if temporary to the amount of cash the UK spends on foreign aid; tight spending limits for government departments on their day-to-day spending and eye-watering levels of debt and borrowing.
One former Treasury minister, who is not prone to hyperbole (unusually for a politician you might wonder) described it as a "multigenerational debt which will have implications for the rest of our lives in terms of what the British state can afford".
We will on Wednesday, they suggest, "learn a great deal about the problem", what months of emergency spending has done to the economy. But before we go on, don't hold your breath to learn much about any solutions.
Rishi Sunak will set out the state of the country's finances in a statement to Parliament
The chancellor and prime minister have decided politically that while budgets will be tight (and let's see the black and white to assess this for real) there can't be a return to the kind of squeeze of the Cameron and Osborne era.
No one in government would pretend in private there is any way to avoid tax rises at some point. But Mr Sunak is not going to announce any of that on Wednesday - any big ways of raising money to fill the hole won't come until the Budget next year at the earliest, and perhaps not until after that.
But Wednesday's review will sketch out the very, very serious challenge for the country's finances that is on the way.
Most importantly of course that will be reflected in the number of people who might lose their jobs with all the distress that entails, all the business that could be lost, and the impact on people's pay packets. But it also sets the backdrop for the decisions that our politicians have to make, and will be confronted with for many, many years to come.
It's notable that while there have been some skirmishes around the edges in the last nine months, there has been very little tension over the government and the Bank of England's central actions to write enormous cheques, and keep the signatures coming as the pandemic has progressed.
And it's far from over. But as time goes on the exit from the emergency leaves the government with extremely difficult political decisions.
Pubs have been forced to close due to coronavirus restrictions
There is no appetite to break any of the prime minister's expensive manifesto promises.
New Tory MPs, particularly in new Tory seats are chomping at the bit for evidence to show to their constituents they made the right decision.
One former minister said, "our voters want something tangible they can see at the end of their street," and they want it fast.
But the chancellor also, according to his allies, says "we have to be the party of looking after people's money - he says, if we lose that, why don't you just vote Labour?"
The argument works the other way too, to an extent. If the Tories are racking up levels of public spending that are previously unimaginable, the traditional gap in economic vision doesn't leave Labour with that much space.
How and when will either of the main parties try to confront what has really gone on as the cost of trying to deal with the pandemic has gone up and up and up?
Some ministers worry even many MPs haven't yet understood the real consequences for how we make a living - the damage the decisions made to protect the country during the emergency of the pandemic have had on the economy.
But Wednesday will be the first time, eight months in, when we will be confronted with the size of the likely bill. The argument about who and how to pay will dominate for many years to come.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55066618
|
news_uk-politics-55066618
|
|
Port Talbot steelworks: 'Resist speculation' over future - BBC News
|
2020-11-14
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Welsh Secretary Simon Hart says Tata wants "to make steel in Wales".
|
Wales
|
There has been a call to "resist dealing in speculation" over the future of steel production at Tata's plant in Wales.
Welsh Secretary Simon Hart said the firm "want to make steel in Wales, and that's a good place to be starting this debate from".
It followed an announcement that Tata is looking to sell part of its European arm.
About 4,000 people work at its Port Talbot steel making plant.
Tata announced on Friday that Swedish firm SSAB had initiated talks over the acquisition of its Netherlands-based operations.
The move would separate the UK and Dutch parts of Tata's business, which merged back in 1999, then as British Steel and Koninklijke Hoogovens.
Wales' Economy Minister Ken Skates said the news was "extremely worrying" for Tata's 8,000 workers across the UK.
Stephen Kinnock, MP for Port Talbot's Aberavon constituency, said it was "time for a partnership" between Tata Steel and the government.
He told BBC Radio Wales that Tata's decision "puts the spotlight very firmly on the UK government that has to now step up and provide support to the British steel industry".
He added: "It is about the UK government now stepping up to the plate and saying 'okay, this is a British business, we need it for decarbonisation, for climate change objectives, we need it to build sovereign capacity after Brexit'."
Tom Hoyles, of the GMB Wales union, said public ownership and UK government support "should be on the table" if necessary.
"Those are two options we think they should look at," he said.
"Port Talbot and steel go together like fish and chips.
"It's not just the jobs that are there that will be affected but supply lines... the smaller businesses and families who live in the town as well who will be worried."
Tata wants to make steel in Wales, says the UK government's Welsh Secretary Simon Hart
The UK government has also said it "will continue to work with Tata Steel and other stakeholders" as the company shapes its business strategy for the future.
The Welsh Secretary said the UK government and Tata had agreed to "work together" to protect the industry.
Mr Hart said it was a positive sign that Tata had made a commitment to a "sustainable steel manufacturing presence" in Wales.
Asked whether the UK government would step in and protect jobs at Tata, he said it needed to see what Tata planned for Port Talbot.
He added: "We stepped in and saved Celsa Steel in Cardiff at the beginning of lockdown.
"We have a good track record in Wales of where the arguments add up, of stepping in and helping. We saved 800 jobs in Cardiff."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-54922368
|
news_uk-wales-54922368
|
|
Rock mining with microbes may aid space explorers - BBC News
|
2020-11-10
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
UK scientists show how astronauts on the Moon or Mars could one day mine for metals using bacteria.
|
Science & Environment
|
The bio-reactor was developed with Italian engineering firm Kayser Italia
UK scientists have shown how astronauts on the Moon or Mars could one day mine for important metals using bacteria.
In a first-of-its-kind experiment on the International Space Station (ISS), microbes digested rock to release rare-Earth elements (REEs).
REEs are incorporated into electronics and alloys, in particular.
The researchers tell the journal Nature Communications that bio-mining could help make future space exploration become more sustainable.
At the moment, everything required to survive on another world has to be carried from Earth - from the air an astronaut would breathe to any materials they might need for repairs.
Transporting all that mass is energy-intensive and expensive, which is why there is now increasing focus on trying to find ways to use resources already in place.
"Wherever you are in space, whether you're building a settlement on asteroids, the Moon or Mars - you're going to need elements to build your civilisation," said Prof Charles Cockell from the UK Centre for Astrobiology at the University of Edinburgh.
"What our BioRock experiment has shown is that bio-mining is just one way in which we might go about extracting useful elements from rocks to support a long-term human presence beyond the Earth."
The argument for using resources already in place is a compelling one
Prof Cockell's team has developed small bio-reactors. These are essentially small boxes containing basalt rock and a community of microbes known to leach metals from minerals.
The reactors were sent to the ISS and placed in a centrifuge where they were spun at different speeds to simulate gravity on the Earth and on Mars. A third box was allowed to experience the full, free-floating "zero-G" environment of the orbiting lab.
The team wanted to find out if micro-organisms that ordinarily pull REEs out of rock here on the ground will also do the same in space.
This wasn't obvious. Reduced gravity can stress microbes, making them behave in different ways. And for two species of bacteria in the BioRock experiment, their readiness to remove the metals was much reduced.
But for an organism called Sphingomonas desiccabilis - it was unaffected, and happily pulled multiple REEs from the basalt, including neodymium, cerium and lanthanum.
"This is the first time in space that anyone has deliberately removed an economically interesting element from an extraterrestrial analogue material like basalt," said Prof Cockell. "It's really the first mining experiment in space, if you like. We didn't actually create economically useful amounts of rare-Earth elements, but we demonstrated the principle," he told BBC News.
About 20% of the world's copper and gold is currently extracted with the aid of microbial processes.
The Italian astronaut Luca Parmitano runs the BioRock experiment on the ISS
There's been much talk in recent years about mining planets and asteroids for raw materials that could then be brought back to Earth.
Prof Cockell can't see the economic case for this just yet; it would still be cheaper to prospect for - and extract - ores here on Earth, he says. But the argument for utilisation of in-situ resources on other worlds is a compelling one, he believes.
US space agency (Nasa) astronauts will attempt to use buried ice for drinking water when they return to the Moon later this decade. And as soon as next year, the American rover Perseverance will run an experiment that seeks to make oxygen from Mars' carbon dioxide atmosphere - a potential game-changer for any human settlement on the Red Planet.
Also, just this week, the European Space Agency (Esa) gave a contract to the UK company Metalysis to develop its process for pulling oxygen from Moon dust while at the same time yielding aluminium, iron and other metal powders.
"The oxygen that we can liberate could be used as a propellant or to sustain life, or a presence on the Moon. And the metal can be used to build different kinds of structures," Ian Mellor, managing director at Metalysis, told the BBC.
As for the Edinburgh work - ways are being sought to improve efficiency.
BioRock on the ISS will soon be followed by BioAsteroid - a repeat of the reactor experiment but with crushed-up asteroid material rather than the blocks of Icelandic volcanic rock used in the first study.
Prof Cockell said he also expected scientists at some point to look at how mining bacteria could be engineered to raise their productivity of useful products.
BioRock received funding from Esa and the UK Space Agency.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54895144
|
news_science-environment-54895144
|
|
Indyref2: Scottish battle lines drawn again in run-up to May's election - BBC News
|
2020-11-10
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Unionists are nervous about sustaining opposition to another referendum should SNP win May's election.
|
UK Politics
|
The government has suggested it will reject calls for another referendum but unionists worry how sustainable this is
Supporters of the Union are nervous.
A number of recent polls on Scottish independence suggest there is now a majority in support of leaving the UK. The SNP have started calling independence the "settled will of the Scottish people".
The issue is set to dominate the run-up to the Holyrood election in May. Polls also suggest the SNP are on for a comfortable win - which will make calls for another vote on independence even louder.
In this situation, the SNP will have gone into the election arguing it should have the power to hold another referendum - and will have won.
So what is Westminster going to do? The immediate answer is a simple one. It will say no.
Last week the Scottish Secretary Alister Jack told the BBC there shouldn't be another referendum for a generation - adding that could be as long as 40 years.
Although some Tories have discussed the prospect of a snap referendum - both publicly and privately - senior figures in government intend on rejecting calls for indyref2 next year, whatever the outcome of the Holyrood vote.
And as things stand, they hold a trump card.
Although some in the SNP are itching for a Plan B (which we'll revisit in the coming weeks) - Nicola Sturgeon wants an agreed, legal process with Westminster so that if Scotland votes for it, independence is seen as legitimate.
But the debate doesn't end there. As ever with politics - the full story is more complicated.
In the corridors of power in London, some believe unionists are losing the argument. They accept polls are likely to get worse for them - with support for independence increasing in the coming months.
They accept many "soft unionists" are unhappy with Brexit and the way the UK government has pursued it.
Opinion polls suggest growing support for independence but an SNP majority in May's election is far from guaranteed
Some acknowledge privately that Nicola Sturgeon's handling of the coronavirus crisis has made her more popular - and impressed Scots who may have not been convinced about independence before.
Sir John Major - who has long warned Brexit would make independence more likely - has argued that saying no to another referendum after an SNP victory may well help their case.
He suggested two referendums; one on independence and one on the terms. His intervention shows some in Conservative circles are thinking about what to do next.
The fear that saying no is unsustainable is shared by some in government.
They worry that if the SNP wins comfortably in May, refusing to engage on an independence vote will look anti-democratic - alienating Scots who voted against independence in 2014 but are now on the fence.
Some hope that by stopping the SNP winning a majority - which is a big ask under the electoral system anyway - they can argue the mandate isn't there.
But that argument will be a lot harder to make if the SNP do dominate in May - and independence supporters already argue even if they don't get over the line and win 50% of seats, Holyrood could still vote in favour of another referendum with the support of the Scottish Greens.
The government's strategy is focussed on telling Scottish voters more about its role in Scottish life.
It wants to persuade people of the "broad shoulders of the union" - pointing to the huge financial support the Treasury has provided during the Covid crisis and arguing that wouldn't be possible as an independent country (an argument rubbished by the SNP, who believe the Treasury has made decisions based on England rather than the needs of parts of the union).
The government is keen to stress the practical economic benefits that Scotland derives from the union
Senior figures in government believe that the economic picture in May is likely to be grim. Unemployment could be rising, the health picture may still be uncertain.
They think people will want certainty and will argue staying in the UK can provide it. Constitutional matters, they argue, will be far from top of people's minds.
Even though people in government acknowledge support for independence is increasing, they believe it's "soft".
Internal polling suggests people have other priorities and even among those who believe another referendum should happen there is a view that it's not the immediate priority.
The last time the Scottish government called for the power to hold another referendum, after the Brexit vote, Theresa May's argument was a nuanced no - "now is not the time".
That answer - or some form of it - is likely to be the same next year if the SNP do win power again.
But more than last time, there is nervousness about how that answer will go down - and how long it can be sustained.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54879211
|
news_uk-politics-54879211
|
|
Covid: MPs vote to back four-week England lockdown - BBC News
|
2020-11-04
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Boris Johnson sees off a rebellion by 34 Tory MPs over restrictions which came into force at midnight.
|
UK Politics
|
MPs backed a four-week lockdown in England to combat coronavirus on Wednesday, before it kicked in.
Boris Johnson saw off a rebellion by 34 Tory MPs opposed to the move, with the support of Labour.
The government won the vote by 516 to 39, a majority of 477.
The prime minister told MPs a second lockdown was needed to "contain the surge" in Covid cases - but rebels warned it would wreck businesses and lives.
The Tory rebels included former leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith and Sir Graham Brady, chairman of the influential 1922 committee of backbenchers.
It comes as the government said a further 492 people had died within 28 days of testing positive for Covid-19. This brings the UK total to 47,742.
The number of deaths reported on Wednesday is the highest daily figure since 19 May, when 500 deaths were reported.
The lockdown in England includes the closure of pubs, gyms and non-essential shops.
It will replace the three tiers of regional restrictions across England for four weeks, until 2 December, when ministers hope to return to a regional approach.
During a three-hour debate, Conservative rebels - and several Labour MPs from the north-west of England - said England's tiered system, brought in two weeks ago, had not been given a chance.
Mr Johnson's predecessor as prime minister, Theresa May, said: "The evidence is, from Liverpool, that cases are falling."
Mrs May was among 19 Conservatives to abstain, including six MPs from Scottish seats, who did not want to take part in the vote as it applied to England only.
She criticised Labour's call for a short, "circuit breaker" lockdown as impractical - but accused Mr Johnson of choosing data to fit his coronavirus policies.
The lockdown decision was "to some extent based on the prediction of 4,000 deaths a day," said the former PM, but that figure had already been proved "wrong".
"For many people it looks as if the figures are chosen to support the policy, rather than the policy being based on the figures.
"We need these proper analyses. We need to know the details behind these models."
Conservative MP Philip Davies, who voted against the government, said: "Nobody voting for this motion tonight is offering to sacrifice their own job in order to pursue this lockdown policy - of course not. They are just expecting millions of others in our country to sacrifice their jobs to pursue this policy.
"I never thought I would see the day a so-called Conservative minister would stand up and urge Parliament to further sacrifice our most basic of freedoms, collapse the economy and destroy jobs - all to pursue a failed strategy."
The government was never going to lose this vote but, at times, it felt as if ministers were losing the argument.
The majority of MPs are reluctantly resigned to lockdown, but critics on both sides of the House have dominated the debate.
The seniority of the sceptics highlighted the disquiet - especially amongst Boris Johnson's backbenchers.
Theresa May expressed concerns, but Sir Iain Duncan Smith went for full-throated opposition - describing a "circuit breaker" lockdown as a "business breaker".
And some Labour MPs broke ranks with their own leader's instruction to back the measures.
MPs will get a subsequent vote on whatever measures will replace lockdown before 2 December.
Conservative MP Nusrat Ghani said she would support the government for now, but was putting ministers "on 28 days' notice".
Many more apparently loyal MPs have their own red lines - so today's rebellion will represent only the tip of an iceberg of unease.
Four DUP MPs and former Tory independent Julian Lewis also voted against the government, as did two Tory MPs who acted as tellers. No Labour MPs voted against the government, but nine of them abstained.
The Scottish National Party did not take part in the vote. In Scotland, a new five-tier restrictions system came into force on Monday. Wales is in a "firebreak" lockdown until 9 November, and Northern Ireland is also under tighter restrictions.
Mr Johnson said a second lockdown was "not something any of us wanted to do," but he added: "I am not prepared to take the risk with the lives of British people."
"While it pains me to call for such restrictions on lives, liberty and business I have no doubt that these restrictions represent the best and safest path for our country," he told MPs.
Health Secretary Matt Hancock said that in ordinary times the measures taking effect on Thursday would be "unimaginable, but these are not ordinary times".
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Boris Johnson: 'These measures will expire on 2 December'
Explaining his party's decision to back the government, Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer said: "Nobody votes for the regulations today with anything other than a heavy heart, on both sides."
He urged the prime minister to use the four-week lockdown to come up with "something better" than the three tier system, as it was "not working".
Earlier at Prime Minister's Questions, Sir Keir accused Mr Johnson of "ignoring" the advice of government scientists who called for a brief "circuit breaker" lockdown in September.
"Does the prime minister understand the human cost of his delay in acting?" he asked Mr Johnson.
The PM said it was "always right to pursue a local and a regional approach," adding that it was "showing signs of working".
Mr Johnson insisted the lockdown will expire automatically on 2 December and he hopes "very much" to "get this country going again" in the run up to Christmas.
"But that depends on us all doing our bit now to make sure that we get the R [rate] down."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54813615
|
news_uk-politics-54813615
|
|
Covid: Destructive rules only current option, says Chris Whitty - BBC News
|
2020-11-04
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
England's chief medical officer defends lockdowns as a further 397 coronavirus deaths are recorded.
|
UK Politics
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Prof Chris Whitty says the three-tier system of restrictions has “slowed things down".
"Economically and socially destructive" lockdowns are the only practical option until a Covid vaccine and better drugs are available, Chris Whitty has said.
England's chief medical officer rejected calls from some scientists to pursue "herd immunity" instead.
England is due to replace tiered regional restrictions with a four-week nationwide lockdown from Thursday.
It comes as the UK recorded a further 397 coronavirus deaths and 20,018 confirmed cases on Tuesday.
Meanwhile, more details of England's lockdown rules have also been revealed, with the publication of the legislation that will bring them into force.
The regulations specify fines starting at £100 for rule breakers, potentially rising to a maximum of £6,400 for repeat offences.
Some Tory MPs have attacked the move towards another nationwide lockdown, with one saying the government was "losing the plot".
Prof Whitty was quizzed by a select committee about the Great Barrington Declaration, which calls for "focused protection" for the elderly and other groups particularly vulnerable to Covid-19, while others continue to live relatively normally.
Prof Whitty said the arguments made by those that have signed the declaration were "scientifically weak" and "dangerously flawed".
"It would make an assumption that a very large number of people would inevitably die as a result of that decision," he told the Commons Science Committee.
"To have this as an element of policy is ethically really difficult."
Herd immunity had never been achieved in the treatment of Ebola and other new infectious diseases, argued Prof Whitty, and the kind of aggressive shielding of the vulnerable urged by the Barrington scientists would not be practically possible.
Better treatments and the prospect of a vaccine were the only hope, he told the committee, and he predicted that over the next year there will be "multiple shots on goal from science".
"We have to hold the line until that point," he added.
"Unfortunately, these economically and socially destructive tools are what we have got in the absence of anything else."
Under the lockdown beginning on Thursday, pubs, restaurants, gyms and non-essential shops would be closed across England.
The new rules replace a tiered system of different local restrictions across England, which ministers say they want to return to after the England-wide lockdown is due to end on 2 December.
Meanwhile, at a separate parliamentary debate, a number of Conservative MPs criticised the nationwide lockdown, which faces a Commons vote on Wednesday.
One of them, Richard Drax, said the lockdowns were "destructive, divisive, and don't work".
"They simply delay the inevitable - the re-emergence of the virus when lockdown ends, as has been shown," he said.
"Have we overreacted? Yes, I think we have. A draconian, onerous and invasive set of rules and regulations now govern our very existence."
His fellow Conservative, Bob Seeley, said lockdowns were a "dubious tool," claiming scientists were becoming "increasingly sceptical" of them as an option.
He suggested the government was "losing the plot" in the face of the spread of the virus, and there was a need for "some semblance of balance" in its response.
However with Labour supporting the new measures, they are highly likely to be approved even if there is a rebellion from Conservative backbenchers.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54802129
|
news_uk-politics-54802129
|
|
US election results: Tables turned as Trump voters start to worry - BBC News
|
2020-11-04
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Republicans in our group chat were jubilant overnight - but the mood changed as more results came in.
|
US Election 2020
|
On election night, we put 13 Trump and 12 Biden voters in a group chat to watch the results come in.
Biden voters went to sleep feeling fearful and resigned.
Trump supporters went to sleep feeling victorious. They flooded the group text with pictures from crowded watch parties and exchanged Instagram handles late into the night.
But then the US woke up to the news that Biden was leading in several key battleground states and the energy in the group changed.
And then a Biden supporter jumped in.
Republicans' lack of trust in the electoral process - echoing the claims the president had made without providing evidence - led some Democrats to leave the group chat out of frustration.
The fear that votes had suspiciously appeared for Biden overnight was further fuelled by President Trump's tweet that "they are finding Biden votes all over the place - in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. So bad for our country!"
An argument broke out in the chat, and we decided to call individual voters instead.
There were strong views here too - so it's worth checking out our live page for updates on legal challenges and disinformation spreading online. And we also have this fact check about voter fraud.
How did you feel waking up today?
I am filled with a sense of anticipation waiting for results that may take days. I'm also annoyed that in this day and age it takes so long for votes to be counted. Writing on pieces of paper is truly an antiquated system.
Are you worried the votes won't be counted?
I think that not having results yet means they are counting the votes. I decided last minute to vote for Biden, a vote that will matter in Michigan, clearly. I'm glad I voted. The margin is so thin, every vote counts. I hope it goes in Biden's direction. Fingers crossed!
Will you accept the results?
I have always accepted the results, and that won't change. I will be disappointed, but life goes on. I will keep being involved and voting.
How did you feel waking up today?
I felt that the Democrats are trying to do what they told us they were going to do, which is not to concede to Trump under any circumstances.
Are you worried the votes won't be counted?
Absolutely. I think there's massive interference going on in Pennsylvania and Michigan, and it's just a matter of whether we will even be able to prove that that was happening or whether people will even care.
Will you accept the result?
Do I think that Biden will win legitimately? No way. But I have to accept whatever happens and that's fine. Even if Biden is president, we are currently in the middle of a culture war. It's not a political war. It's about values and philosophy. So it doesn't matter very much if it's Biden or Trump.
How did you feel waking up today?
I was nervous but political strategists have literally been telling us for weeks that it could be days before this race is called. The way I see it, this race is more of a marathon.
Are you worried the votes won't be counted?
I'm worried a number of votes from heavily minority counties could be purged. Between Trump's continuous assaults on the Postal Service, unfounded claims of voter fraud, and the fact that early mail-in ballots are more likely to be returned when mailed by a black person in North Carolina, I'm extremely concerned.
Will you accept the result?
I'll accept the result though I feel there is a wealth of voter suppression tactics being used by the Trump administration. I have to admit, Trump has a lot of supporters in this country despite his lies and spreading of misinformation, which isn't surprising given how he emboldens white supremacists.
How did you feel waking up today?
I felt really tired and I was surprised. I went into it thinking this was going to be a massive Biden win and it turned out Trump did rather well.
Are you worried the votes won't be counted?
I have a bit of scepticism about the absentee ballot process, just because I don't have a lot of faith in the Postal Service. I'm trying to refrain from falling into that trap of believing everything without any substantial evidence to back up the idea of shenanigans.
Will you accept the result?
Of course. That's not even a question in my mind. It may be an unhappy result that I do not want to hear or see, but I will totally accept it and get behind it. Presidents come and go, but the nation remains.
How did you feel waking up today?
I felt worried waking up today despite the fact that Biden is winning. It's so sad and scary to me that so many people want four more years of division and hate and cast a vote for Trump.
Are you worried the votes won't be counted?
I'm not worried that the votes won't be counted. I think that's just a matter of being patient. If my candidate loses I'll give myself some time to process my feelings and then get back to organising for Democrats as soon as possible.
Will you accept the result?
I will accept the results but am not confident that Trump supporters will accept the result if he loses.
How did you feel waking up today?
I was honestly fine until I saw what was happening in a few states.
Are you worried the votes won't be counted?
Yes. Mail-in ballots weren't necessarily to be trusted.
Will you accept the result?
If both sides have concluded their investigations, I will. You win some, you lose some, but it doesn't give an excuse for anyone to act out, become violent and show poor character. I think people should take this in a civil manner.
Your Questions Answered: What questions do you have about the US election?
How does vote counting work? When will we get the final results? The US election can be confusing, especially this year. The BBC is here to help make sense of it. Please send us your questions about election day and beyond.
In some cases, your question will be published, displaying your name, age and location as you provide it, unless you state otherwise. Your contact details will never be published. Please ensure you have read our terms & conditions and privacy policy.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54817981
|
news_election-us-2020-54817981
|
|
Trump fires election security official who contradicted him - BBC News
|
2020-11-18
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Chris Krebs reportedly angered Donald Trump by running a website debunking election misinformation.
|
US & Canada
|
Donald Trump says he has fired a top election official who contradicted the US president's claims of voter fraud.
President Trump said he "terminated" Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (Cisa) chief Chris Krebs for his "highly inaccurate" remarks on vote integrity.
Mr Trump has refused to concede the US election, and has made unsubstantiated claims of "massive" voter fraud.
Election officials said the vote was the "most secure" in US history.
Mr Krebs is the latest official to be dismissed by the US president following his defeat, with Defense Secretary Mark Esper also shown the door amid reports Mr Trump doubted the Pentagon chief's loyalty.
There is speculation in Washington DC that before Mr Trump leaves office in January, CIA director Gina Haspel and FBI director Christopher Wray could also be for the chopping block.
Like many others fired by Mr Trump, Mr Krebs reportedly only learned he was out of a job when he saw the president's tweet on Tuesday.
But following his dismissal, the former Microsoft executive appeared to have no regrets.
This Twitter post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser. View original content on Twitter The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Skip twitter post by Chris Krebs This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Twitter’s cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
He had run the agency from its inception two years ago in the aftermath of alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
To guard against potential cyber-threats, Cisa works with state and local election officials and the private companies that supply voting systems, while monitoring ballot tabulation and the power grid.
He had reportedly incurred the White House's displeasure over a Cisa website called Rumor Control, which debunked election misinformation, much of it amplified by the president himself.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. How to move on after the US election
Hours before he was fired, he posted a tweet that appeared to take aim at Mr Trump's allegation that voting machines in various states had switched ballots to Mr Biden.
Mr Krebs tweeted: "On allegations that election systems were manipulated, 59 election security experts all agree, 'in every case of which we are aware, these claims either have been unsubstantiated or are technically incoherent.' #Protect2020".
This post, and others by Mr Krebs dating back to the end of July this year, appear to have been deleted from his Twitter account.
He was among senior officials from the Department of Homeland Security who last week declared the 3 November US general election the "most secure in American history", while rejecting "unfounded claims".
Though that statement did not name Mr Trump, on the same day it was published Mr Krebs retweeted a Twitter post by an election law expert saying: "Please don't retweet wild and baseless claims about voting machines, even if they're made by the president."
Mr Krebs' dismissal brought outrage from Democrats. A spokesman for President-elect Joe Biden said "Chris Krebs should be commended for his service in protecting our elections, not fired for telling the truth".
Mr Krebs' firing was the latest - and not necessarily the last - chapter in the long battle between President Trump and his own national security community. At issue from the start has been the legitimacy of both election campaigns he has fought in.
His presidency began with him lashing out at his own spies for their assessment that Russia interfered in 2016 to support his candidacy. That began a long tussle in which the president almost appeared to see a zero-sum battle; one in which he sought to undermine the credibility of his own spies to avoid any question being raised about his victory.
The tension has ebbed and flowed, with some officials sacked and others walking a fine line to try to protect themselves and their own institutions.
But the 2020 election result has led it to explode again.
In 2016, Mr Trump was angry at claims there had been election interference. This time his anger is at the refusal of those like Chris Krebs to back up his claims that there was.
Mr Krebs is gone and with an uncertain, uneasy transition ahead, he may not be the last.
Mr Trump's campaign and its allies have filed a barrage of lawsuits in battleground states contesting the results, although election officials say no evidence of widespread irregularities has been found.
Time is running out. All outstanding election disputes nationwide must be resolved by 8 December. The official results are set to be confirmed when the US Electoral College meets on 14 December.
On Tuesday, Republican members of a bipartisan election board in Michigan refused to certify Mr Biden's projected win in that state, only to back down after an outcry.
The two Republicans on the four-member board had objected to minor voting irregularities in Wayne County, home to Detroit.
But they relented after Democrats accused them of trying to disenfranchise voters in the majority-black city.
As a compromise, the board passed a resolution requesting that Michigan's Democratic secretary of state conduct an audit of the jurisdictions involved.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Barack Obama tells the BBC about the "crazy conspiracies" and "truth decay" in US politics
Meanwhile, election officials conducting a by-hand recount in Georgia - where a fraction of a percent separates the two rivals - found more uncounted ballots for the second time this week.
Almost 2,800 previously untallied ballots were discovered on Tuesday in Fayette County, a day after 2,600 uncounted votes turned up in Floyd County. Gabriel Sterling, Georgia's voting system manager, blamed human error.
The discoveries are expected to shave Mr Biden's lead in the state to under 13,000, not enough to flip Georgia into Mr Trump's column.
There was another setback for Mr Trump on Tuesday in Pennsylvania, where the state supreme court rejected his campaign's argument that its observers had been denied sufficient rights to watch ballot counts in Philadelphia.
Also on Tuesday, the Trump campaign, along with Nevada's Republican party, filed another lawsuit challenging that state's election results.
Mr Biden is the projected victor in Nevada, but the latest legal action asked a judge to declare Mr Trump the winner, or annul the race altogether.
Judges have rejected other Trump campaign lawsuits disputing the tally in Clark County, home to Las Vegas, after ruling there was no evidence to support claims of systemic fraud.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54982360
|
news_world-us-canada-54982360
|
|
US election 2020: How Biden voters think nation can heal - BBC News
|
2020-11-08
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Joe Biden has vowed to bring unity to the US. Here's how his supporters think he will do it.
|
US Election 2020
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Minutes after Joe Biden had been declared the next president of the United States, people in Washington, DC began to flood the streets.
Streams of people - banging pans, honking horns, clutching signs - moved to the city's Black Lives Matter Plaza, swarming the barricaded border of the White House to celebrate.
For hours after the announcement, masked Biden supporters remained to cheer, dance and sing.
"Everyone is just joyous," said DC resident Andrew Jackson, dressed in a shirt covered with photos of Kamala Harris, now the vice-president-elect. "Look at the atmosphere, it's crazy."
The collective jubilation makes sense here: 93% of voters in Washington this year cast their ballot for the Democratic ticket.
Just beneath the excitement was palpable relief. Every person I spoke to mentioned the anxiety and stress of the past week, and now the exhale knowing that Mr Biden will be president.
"All the anxiety is gone," Mr Jackson said. "The last four years it felt like we were just stuck under a dark cloud, but that cloud's been lifted."
As much as this relief is a response to the Democrats' win, it seemed to be just as much a reaction to the last four years of President Donald Trump - who still has two months left in office.
For every sign or t-shirt celebrating Mr Biden or Ms Harris, there was one directed at Mr Trump - mocking the current president and applauding his looming departure. And just as often as a voter would reference Mr Biden, they would mention Mr Trump, and what they described as his divisive, damaging agenda.
"Everybody's excited to see the back of Trump," said Margaret O'Gorman, 54. "We are in a complete U-turn from where we were."
Repairing that division has been an animating theme of Mr Biden's candidacy. He has vowed to be a president for all Americans, to restore the "soul of America" and fix the national discord he blames on Mr Trump.
It might be a tough sell for some 70 million Americans who cast their ballot for Mr Trump this year - roughly eight million more than sent him to the White House in 2016. But for those gathered outside the White House on Saturday, it is a welcome message.
For some in Washington DC the elation was unconfined
Brandishing a "Former Republicans for Biden" sign, Ken Wright said he is confident that the next president will reach across the aisle, and embrace Republican voters. "Biden is about compromise, Trump was not. I'm very optimistic that Biden's going to do what he's always done."
"I think this atmosphere proves that the country can ease now back into some regularity," said Vincent Moten, holding the hand of his partner, Derrick Petit. "Now that we're here, the idea is what can we do to come together. Let's agree on some baseline stuff - I'm a human, so I should have the rights that you have and then start from there.
For Anisley Valdas, 32, the key to moving forward is to understand where Trump voters are coming from, "why people feel angry, why people feel disenfranchised".
Anisley Valdas said she thinks Joe Biden will be a president for all Americans
"I think trying to understand people's pain and their suffering is a way to start to get us on the right track," she said.
Born in Cuba, America's political divides cut through her family. In this year's election, Ms Valdas voted for Mr Biden - splitting from her sister, cousins and the majority of Cuban immigrants in her hometown of Miami.
Ms Valdas said she was "angry and disappointed" that her own family had voted for a candidate who, she said, "demonstrated such hatred and bigotry", for people of colour. She hasn't spoken to her sister since learning the results, she said, after an argument this week about the election.
When she does, she said, she will tell her that "Biden is the president for everyone. You just don't know it yet."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54860214
|
news_election-us-2020-54860214
|
|
Covid tiers: Boris Johnson says measures will bring clarity - BBC News
|
2020-11-27
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The PM hits back at criticism from Tory MPs that post-lockdown restrictions are not properly targeted.
|
UK Politics
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Boris Johnson has defended his decision to place 55 million people in England into the two highest tiers of Covid restrictions, arguing the country needs "simplicity and clarity".
The PM said measures due to come in when lockdown ends on Wednesday were more "relaxed" but would "drive" Covid down until a vaccine is available.
But a group of Tory MPs is threatening to rebel in a Commons vote on Tuesday.
If Labour backs them, this could threaten the government's majority.
There is concern that the government is adopting a "one-size-fits all" approach, which does not reflect local levels of infection.
From Wednesday, more than 32 million people are due to be living under tier two restrictions, banning indoor meetings between households.
A further 23 million people would be placed under the highest - tier three - restrictions, which further limit contact between people outdoors.
Just over 1% of England's population would enter the lowest - tier one - restrictions, under which the "rule of six" applies both indoors and outdoors.
Conservative MP and former cabinet minister Damian Green, who represents Ashford, in Kent, which is set to go into tier three, told the BBC he would vote against the government unless it provided "new and convincing evidence".
"Instead of having these wide county-based areas, where people are put in tiers, then we should do it on a borough basis," he said.
"In an area like mine, the incidence is less than it is in Liverpool, which has just been released down into tier two. So, as it stands, the current policy, the current allocation of tiers on these wide bases, are just not evidence-based."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. How you and your family can celebrate Christmas and minimise the spread of coronavirus
Speaking on a visit to Public Health England laboratories, at Porton Down, Wiltshire, Mr Johnson said he understood the "frustration" of those in higher-tier areas, whose own town or village did not have high levels of the disease.
But he added that the government "cannot divide the country up into loads and loads of very complicated sub-divisions" and had to ensure "some simplicity and clarity".
"Unless you beat the problem in the high-incidence area, the low-incidence area, I'm afraid, starts to catch up," Mr Johnson said.
He said "tough tiering" was still more "relaxed by a long way than the current lockdown measures" and it would "drive the disease down... until a vaccine comes on stream, which we hope will be over the next weeks and months".
Asked about mass Covid testing, Mr Johnson said: "The supply [of kits] I don't think is going to be the problem. The issue is going to be getting everybody mobilised to understand the potential advantage of [it]."
Aware of the disquiet on its own backbenches, the government has promised to publish impact assessments of the new restrictions; a key demand from concerned MPs.
There's also a suggestion that areas could move into lower tiers when numbers are reviewed at regular intervals.
But that's unlikely to see off the brewing Tory rebellion.
Some Conservatives have already publicly declared that they won't vote for the new tier system when it's put before the Commons next week.
If enough rebel the government might have to look to the opposition to get this through Parliament.
Sir Keir Starmer is still deciding whether his party will back the plan, although it is likely to have enough support overall.
However, it's not a good look for the government to have to rely on Labour in the face of unrest on its own benches.
The Covid Recovery Group of Conservative MPs, set up to scrutinise the government's response to the pandemic, is threatening a revolt in next Tuesday's vote.
The group's chair, Mark Harper, said evidence provided by the government to justify the tier system was not "compelling". He called for more information on the measures' effects on different sectors of the economy.
He added that on "too many occasions, ministers have made arguments and they've not stacked up".
Deputy chairman Steve Baker called the measures "truly appalling" and said the modelling used by government scientists had been "wrong time and time again".
The group claims to have 70 members, but it is not certain how many of them would be expected to rebel against the government.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. The BBC's Laura Foster explains the new three tier system for England.
Forty-three Conservatives would have to defy the prime minister to defeat the plan, if all opposition MPs also voted against.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer is expected to decide early next week whether to support Mr Johnson, after consulting government coronavirus experts.
Shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth said Labour was "not against" tougher restrictions or tiers, but would seek "reassurances" on support for the poor and vulnerable.
Under the government's plan, Kent and large parts of the Midlands, north-east and north-west England would go into tier three.
Only Cornwall, the Isles of Scilly and the Isle of Wight would be in tier one.
Mr Johnson said the government's planned "review point" - on 16 December - gave the "prospect of areas being able to move down the tier scale".
But Professor John Edmunds, a member of the government's Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), said he could not imagine "huge changes" to restrictions by then.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that experts were unlikely to "have accumulated much data" in time.
The government has promised to publish an impact assessment before MPs vote on the new rules.
How has coronavirus affected you? What does the tier system mean for you? Email haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk.
Or use this form to get in touch:
If you are reading this page and can't see the form you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your comment or send it via email to HaveYourSay@bbc.co.uk. Please include your name, age and location with any comment you send in.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55097182
|
news_uk-politics-55097182
|
|
Covid: UK first country in Europe to pass 50,000 deaths - BBC News
|
2020-11-11
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
It is the first European nation to pass the landmark, with 595 deaths recorded in the past 24 hours.
|
UK
|
The UK has become the first country in Europe to pass 50,000 coronavirus deaths, according to the latest government figures.
A total of 50,365 people have died within 28 days of a positive Covid test, up 595 in the past 24 hours.
The UK is the fifth country to pass 50,000 deaths, coming after the US, Brazil, India and Mexico.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson said the figures showed, despite hopes for a vaccine, "we are not out of the woods".
He said: "Every death is a tragedy," but added: "I do think we have got now to a different phase in the way that we treat it."
A further 22,950 cases of coronavirus were recorded on Wednesday, government figures show.
There have been some 1.2 million confirmed cases in the UK since the epidemic began, and more than 185,000 people have been admitted to hospital with the virus.
The UK's Covid death toll has reached a grim and tragic milestone - and illustrates what a devastating impact the pandemic has had on the country.
But one figure alone cannot tell the full story. The burden has not been felt equally.
The single biggest factor has been age - with more than nine in 10 deaths in the over 65s.
Poorer areas and ethnic minorities have also been disproportionately affected.
Deaths from other causes have also risen as people have gone without treatment.
The UK has on most measures seen one of the highest death rates in the world.
Blame, understandably, has been laid at the government's door. It has been criticised in particular for being too slow to lockdown and for its record on testing and tracing.
But the UK is not alone in struggling. Similar debates have been had in Italy, Spain and France.
And the sad reality is this figure will keep climbing in the months to come.
But there is now at last some real hope that, with a vaccine looking likely, the toll will be much, much less next year.
The government's death figures only include people who died within 28 days of testing positive for coronavirus - but two other ways of measuring deaths give higher overall figures.
The first includes all deaths where coronavirus was mentioned on the death certificate, even if the person had not been tested for the virus. The most recent figures suggest there had been more than 60,000 deaths by 23 October, by this measure.
The second is a measure of "excess deaths" - the number of deaths over and above the usual number at this time of year.
Deaths normally do rise at this time of the year, but the latest data from the Office for National Statistics and its counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland show the second wave of the virus has pushed the death rate above the average seen over the past five years.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said the latest death figures were a "grim milestone" and criticised the government for being "slow" in its response to the pandemic during the first wave.
He said the government owed it to the families of those who have lost their lives to the virus "to get on top" of its response to the second wave.
The British Medical Association (BMA) said lessons had to be learned.
Dr Chaand Nagpaul, BMA council chair, said: "This is a point that should never have been reached."
He added: "Today's figure is a terrible indictment of poor preparation, poor organisation by the government, insufficient infection control measures, coupled with late and often confusing messaging for the public."
The government had to "ensure that nothing on this scale ever happens again", he added, with a public inquiry to "go over every step with a fine-tooth comb".
It comes as officials said no decision has yet been made on how people under the age of 50 should be offered a Covid vaccine.
The current priority list of people who would get a vaccine in "phase one" starts with those living and working in care homes, then - in stages - everyone over 60 years old.
But the list is subject to change, with close attention being paid to how the vaccines work in older age groups, who often have a weak response to immunisation.
Attention has turned to how a vaccine will be rolled out after Pfizer and BioNTech revealed their vaccine protects more than 90% of people from developing Covid symptoms.
The prime minister urged everybody to get a coronavirus vaccine once one becomes available, adding that the arguments of anti-vaccination activists were "total nonsense".
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Boris Johnson: “Anti-vax is total nonsense is total nonsense, you should definitely get a vaccine."
Mr Johnson would be happy to receive a coronavirus vaccine, Number 10 has said.
On a visit to a Tesco distribution centre in south-east London on Wednesday, Mr Johnson said the prospect of a vaccine and the ramping up of testing were "two big boxing gloves" to "pummel" the virus with, but said: "Neither of them is capable of delivering a knock-out blow on its own.
"That's why this country needs to continue to work hard to keep discipline and to observe the measures we've put in."
Please enable JavaScript or upgrade your browser to see this interactive
Restrictions have been tightened across the UK in recent weeks. In England, a new four-week lockdown started last Thursday - replacing the three-tier system until 2 December.
Mr Johnson said England must "get through this current period of tough autumn measures" to "hopefully" curb the spread of the virus enough to allow Christmas to be "as normal as possible for as many people as possible".
Meanwhile, pubs reopened and travel restrictions were lifted in Wales on Monday, as it ended a two-week "firebreak" lockdown.
Additional restrictions in Northern Ireland are due to end on Friday after a proposal from the Northern Ireland Assembly's health minister to extend restrictions was blocked.
In Scotland, there is now a five-tier system of virus alert levels with different measures in place in different parts of the country. The tiers are numbered from zero to four, with level four requiring the introduction of lockdown restrictions for that area.
If you would like to send us a tribute to a friend or family member who died after contracting coronavirus, please use the form below.
Please remember to include a photo of your loved one and their name. Upload your pictures here. Don't forget to include your contact details, so we can get in touch with you.
We would like to respond to everyone individually and include every tribute in our coverage, but unfortunately that may not be possible. Please be assured your message will be read and treated with the utmost respect.
Please note the contact details you provide will never be published. Please ensure you have read our terms & conditions and privacy policy.
If you are reading this page and can't see the form you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your tribute.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54905018
|
news_uk-54905018
|
|
Covid in Scotland: Cancelling Higher exams cannot be ruled out - BBC News
|
2020-11-11
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
National 5 exams in Scotland have already been cancelled for 2021 but Highers are currently scheduled to go ahead.
|
Scotland
|
The Scottish government has not ruled out cancelling Higher exams in Scotland next year and will make a final decision in mid-February.
Last month Education Secretary John Swinney confirmed there would be no National 5 exams in 2021.
But he told the BBC's Good Morning Scotland the "latest point" he could make such a call for Highers would be the first break after Christmas
On Tuesday GCSE and A-levels in Wales were cancelled for 2021.
Asked whether Scotland might follow suit, Mr Swinney, said: "The latest point at which we can take that decision will be the February break, around about the middle of February.
"Obviously we will be looking very carefully at what is the degree of disruption to young people and what is the state of the pandemic at that stage.
"It is quite a long way off but we have to make sure that we have the effective contingency plans in place."
The Scottish Conservative's accused Mr Swinney of leaving pupils and teachers "in the dark".
Mr Swinney, who appeared before a committee of MSPs at Holyrood earlier, said that ministers would be closely monitoring the situation going into the new year.
On whether there was an argument for giving clarity now, Mr Swinney acknowledged there are a broad range of opinions on the subject and said he has looked carefully at it.
He added: "I concluded that there was a very clear desire among stakeholders for the Highers and Advance Highers to take their course because they are of course, the passport to the next stage of education, work and life for young people.
"That was also very strongly the view that I heard from young people into the bargain.
"It is a difficult question and it is one that we reflect on very carefully because we want to make sure young people are able to have certification for their achievements."
Conservative MSP Jamie Greene said the education secretary had already thrown in the towel on National 5 exams and "he's now kicking a decision on Higher exams into the long grass".
He urged the government to "pull out all the stops to ensure Higher exams go ahead as planned".
Mr Greene went on: "Instead, they're leaving pupils and teachers in the dark again, with barely any time to plan and prepare for vital exams. The pandemic has been damaging to Scotland's schools but not nearly as damaging as the SNP's lack of leadership."
After summer 2020 exams were cancelled because of the pandemic, Prof Mark Priestley was commissioned to conduct a review of what had happened.
His report, which was issued at the beginning of October, said Nat 5s should be cancelled and that Higher and Advanced Higher exams in 2021 "will go ahead".
As things stand, the expectation is that Scottish Higher and Advanced Higher exams will take place in the spring.
National 5 exams have already been cancelled.
Unions had argued for the cancellation of all Scottish exams in 2021 but the government decided Highers and Advanced Higher exams should still go ahead if possible.
The exam diet will take place a few weeks later than normal.
This is to allow some slack for disruption.
There have already been examples of individual schools being closed temporarily and there are concerns about interruption to teaching if staff are self-isolating or students are off for a prolonged period.
There will also be changes to the formats of individual exams which could help if individuals have missed part of the course
Of course, things may still change depending on the severity of the crisis through the winter and the spring.
Meanwhile, Mr Swinney has insisted that school attendance was holding up in the face of the coronavairus pandemic.
He was responding to a story in The Herald that in Lanarkshire about 1,000 pupils from both primary and secondary school had been off in the last month.
The education secretary told Good Morning Scotland: "I think it is important that we look at the sources of the infection. What I think is very clear from the information about the circumstance,s in which people have identified education as part of their contact tracing work, that is a very small proportion of positive cases that relate back to education.
"Now when you look into the particular outbreaks that take place that affect school pupils or staff we tend to find that those are cases where it has been an external community transmission that has happened. There is very little evidence of in-school transmission."
• None Scottish National 5 exams to be cancelled in 2021
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54900365
|
news_uk-scotland-54900365
|
|
Vaccine rumours debunked: Microchips, 'altered DNA' and more - BBC News
|
2020-11-15
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
We've looked at four false Covid vaccine claims that won’t go away.
|
Reality Check
|
We've looked into some of the most widely shared false vaccine claims - everything from alleged plots to put microchips into people to the supposed re-engineering of our genetic code.
The fear that a vaccine will somehow change your DNA is one we've seen aired regularly on social media.
The BBC asked three independent scientists about this. They said that the coronavirus vaccine would not alter human DNA.
Some of the newly created vaccines, including the one now approved in the UK developed by Pfizer/BioNTech, use a fragment of the virus's genetic material - or messenger RNA.
"Injecting RNA into a person doesn't do anything to the DNA of a human cell," says Prof Jeffrey Almond of Oxford University.
It works by giving the body instructions to produce a protein which is present on the surface of the coronavirus.
The immune system then learns to recognise and produce antibodies against the protein.
Claims that Bill Gates plans to use a vaccine to "manipulate" or "alter" human DNA have been widely shared
This isn't the first time we've looked into claims that a coronavirus vaccine will supposedly alter DNA. We investigated a popular video spreading the theory back in May.
Posts have noted that messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine technology "has never been tested or approved before".
It is true that no mRNA vaccine has been approved before now, but multiple studies of mRNA vaccines in humans have taken place over the last few years. And, since the pandemic started, the vaccine has been tested on tens of thousands of people around the world and has gone through a rigorous safety approval process.
Like all new vaccines, it has to undergo rigorous safety checks before it can be recommended for widespread use.
In Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials, vaccines are tested in small numbers of volunteers to check they are safe and to determine the right dose.
In Phase 3 trials they are tested in thousands of people to see how effective they are. The group who received the vaccine and a control group who have received a placebo are closely monitored for any adverse reactions - side-effects. Safety monitoring continues after a vaccine has been approved for use.
Next, a conspiracy theory that has spanned the globe.
It claims that the coronavirus pandemic is a cover for a plan to implant trackable microchips and that the Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates is behind it.
There is no vaccine "microchip" and there is no evidence to support claims that Bill Gates is planning for this in the future.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation told the BBC the claim was "false".
One TikTok user created a video about being "microchipped" and called a vaccine the "mark of the beast"
Rumours took hold in March when Mr Gates said in an interview that eventually "we will have some digital certificates" which would be used to show who'd recovered, been tested and ultimately who received a vaccine. He made no mention of microchips.
This led to one widely shared article headlined: "Bill Gates will use microchip implants to fight coronavirus."
The article makes reference to a study, funded by The Gates Foundation, into a technology that could store someone's vaccine records in a special ink administered at the same time as an injection.
However, the technology is not a microchip and is more like an invisible tattoo. It has not been rolled out yet, would not allow people to be tracked and personal information would not be entered into a database, says Ana Jaklenec, a scientist involved in the study.
The billionaire founder of Microsoft has been the subject of many false rumours during the pandemic.
He's been targeted because of his philanthropic work in public health and vaccine development.
Despite the lack of evidence, in May a YouGov poll of 1,640 people suggested 28% of Americans believed Mr Gates wanted to use vaccines to implant microchips in people - with the figure rising to 44% among Republicans.
We've seen claims that vaccines contain the lung tissue of an aborted fetus. This is false.
"There are no fetal cells used in any vaccine production process," says Dr Michael Head, of the University of Southampton.
One particular video that was posted on one of the biggest anti-vaccine Facebook pages refers to a study which the narrator claims is evidence of what goes into the vaccine developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University. But the narrator's interpretation is wrong - the study in question explored how the vaccine reacted when introduced to human cells in a lab.
Confusion may have arisen because there is a step in the process of developing a vaccine that uses cells grown in a lab, which are the descendants of embryonic cells that would otherwise have been destroyed. The technique was developed in the 1960s, and no fetuses were aborted for the purposes of this research.
Many vaccines are made in this way, explains Dr David Matthews, from Bristol University, adding that any traces of the cells are comprehensively removed from the vaccine "to exceptionally high standards".
The developers of the vaccine at Oxford University say they worked with cloned cells, but these cells "are not themselves the cells of aborted babies".
The cells work like a factory to manufacture a greatly weakened form of the virus that has been adapted to function as a vaccine.
But even though the weakened virus is created using these cloned cells, this cellular material is removed when the virus is purified and not used in the vaccine.
We've seen arguments against a Covid-19 vaccine shared across social media asking why we need one at all if the chances of dying from the virus are so slim.
A meme shared by people who oppose vaccination put the recovery rate from the disease at 99.97% and suggested getting Covid-19 is a safer option than taking a vaccine.
A meme using images of rapper Drake has been used to promote false vaccine claims
To begin with, the figure referred to in the meme as the "recovery rate" - implying these are people who caught the virus and survived - is not correct.
About 99.0% of people who catch Covid survive it, says Jason Oke, senior statistician at the University of Oxford.
So around 100 in 10,000 will die - far higher than three in 10,000, as suggested in the meme.
However, Mr Oke adds that "in all cases the risks very much depend on age and do not take into account short and long-term morbidity from Covid-19".
It's not just about survival. For every person who dies, there are others who live through it but undergo intensive medical care, and those who suffer long-lasting health effects.
This can contribute to a health service overburdened with Covid patients, competing with a hospital's limited resources to treat patients with other illnesses and injuries.
Concentrating on the overall death rate, or breaking down the taking of a vaccine to an individual act, misses the point of vaccinations, says Prof Liam Smeeth of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It should be seen as an effort by society to protect others, he says.
"In the UK, the worst part of the pandemic, the reason for lockdown, is because the health service would be overwhelmed. Vulnerable groups like the old and sick in care homes have a much higher chance of getting severely ill if they catch the virus".
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/54893437
|
news_54893437
|
|
US election 2020: How Biden voters think nation can heal - BBC News
|
2020-11-09
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Joe Biden has vowed to bring unity to the US. Here's how his supporters think he will do it.
|
US Election 2020
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Minutes after Joe Biden had been declared the next president of the United States, people in Washington, DC began to flood the streets.
Streams of people - banging pans, honking horns, clutching signs - moved to the city's Black Lives Matter Plaza, swarming the barricaded border of the White House to celebrate.
For hours after the announcement, masked Biden supporters remained to cheer, dance and sing.
"Everyone is just joyous," said DC resident Andrew Jackson, dressed in a shirt covered with photos of Kamala Harris, now the vice-president-elect. "Look at the atmosphere, it's crazy."
The collective jubilation makes sense here: 93% of voters in Washington this year cast their ballot for the Democratic ticket.
Just beneath the excitement was palpable relief. Every person I spoke to mentioned the anxiety and stress of the past week, and now the exhale knowing that Mr Biden will be president.
"All the anxiety is gone," Mr Jackson said. "The last four years it felt like we were just stuck under a dark cloud, but that cloud's been lifted."
As much as this relief is a response to the Democrats' win, it seemed to be just as much a reaction to the last four years of President Donald Trump - who still has two months left in office.
For every sign or t-shirt celebrating Mr Biden or Ms Harris, there was one directed at Mr Trump - mocking the current president and applauding his looming departure. And just as often as a voter would reference Mr Biden, they would mention Mr Trump, and what they described as his divisive, damaging agenda.
"Everybody's excited to see the back of Trump," said Margaret O'Gorman, 54. "We are in a complete U-turn from where we were."
Repairing that division has been an animating theme of Mr Biden's candidacy. He has vowed to be a president for all Americans, to restore the "soul of America" and fix the national discord he blames on Mr Trump.
It might be a tough sell for some 70 million Americans who cast their ballot for Mr Trump this year - roughly eight million more than sent him to the White House in 2016. But for those gathered outside the White House on Saturday, it is a welcome message.
For some in Washington DC the elation was unconfined
Brandishing a "Former Republicans for Biden" sign, Ken Wright said he is confident that the next president will reach across the aisle, and embrace Republican voters. "Biden is about compromise, Trump was not. I'm very optimistic that Biden's going to do what he's always done."
"I think this atmosphere proves that the country can ease now back into some regularity," said Vincent Moten, holding the hand of his partner, Derrick Petit. "Now that we're here, the idea is what can we do to come together. Let's agree on some baseline stuff - I'm a human, so I should have the rights that you have and then start from there.
For Anisley Valdas, 32, the key to moving forward is to understand where Trump voters are coming from, "why people feel angry, why people feel disenfranchised".
Anisley Valdas said she thinks Joe Biden will be a president for all Americans
"I think trying to understand people's pain and their suffering is a way to start to get us on the right track," she said.
Born in Cuba, America's political divides cut through her family. In this year's election, Ms Valdas voted for Mr Biden - splitting from her sister, cousins and the majority of Cuban immigrants in her hometown of Miami.
Ms Valdas said she was "angry and disappointed" that her own family had voted for a candidate who, she said, "demonstrated such hatred and bigotry", for people of colour. She hasn't spoken to her sister since learning the results, she said, after an argument this week about the election.
When she does, she said, she will tell her that "Biden is the president for everyone. You just don't know it yet."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54860214
|
news_election-us-2020-54860214
|
|
Trump's legal battles: How six cases may play out - BBC News
|
2020-11-24
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Defeated in the election, Trump will soon become a private citizen again. A legal storm awaits him.
|
US & Canada
|
As president of the United States, Donald Trump enjoyed unique protection from legal action, be it criminal or civil.
Now, after losing the 2020 presidential election, Mr Trump will soon become a private citizen again.
That means he will lose his presidential privileges, putting him in the crosshairs of litigators and prosecutors.
"Once he is out of office, the atmosphere will change," Daniel R Alonso, a former US federal and New York state prosecutor, told the BBC. "He will no longer have the reality or the threat of presidential power to thwart investigations."
A wide-ranging criminal investigation in New York is the most serious legal concern for Mr Trump and his real-estate company, the Trump Organization.
On top of that, there is an array of lawsuits ranging from allegations of fraud by a family member to sexual harassment by an advice columnist.
A legal storm is brewing. Here, we consider how the six biggest legal battles may develop.
What we know: Playboy model Karen McDougal, adult film actress Stormy Daniels and claims of a conspiracy of silence.
This was the gist of the so-called hush-money scandal. Both women said they had had sexual relationships with Mr Trump and had received payments to keep them quiet, ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
When they spoke out in 2018, they threw political dynamite under Mr Trump's presidency, lighting the fuse of two criminal investigations.
Stormy Daniels, real name Stephanie Clifford, says she had sex with Mr Trump in 2006
The first focused on violations of federal, or national, laws and the role of Michael Cohen, Mr Trump's former personal lawyer and "fixer".
Under investigation, Cohen admitted to arranging payments to the two women. The payments were prosecuted as campaign-finance violations and Cohen was sentenced to three years in jail in 2018.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Five things Cohen said about Trump
Cohen alleged that Mr Trump had "directed" him to make the payments, yet no charges were brought against the president. Why?
Firstly, to charge Mr Trump, prosecutors would have needed to prove that he had indeed directed Cohen to make those payments. Secondly, even if prosecutors did have sufficient evidence, it is against US government policy to indict a sitting president on federal criminal charges, legal experts say.
Case closed, right? Well, not exactly. This is where it gets technical.
Karen McDougal apologised to Melania Trump for the affair she says she had with her husband
Put simply, a second criminal investigation into the payments is still under way in New York.
We know that Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance is examining whether the Trump Organization falsified business records related to the payoffs.
What we don't know is whether Mr Vance has any evidence to file criminal charges. That matters.
What might happen next: Falsifying business records is a misdemeanour under New York law. A misdemeanour is a minor crime that can be punishable by a jail term of up to a year.
Now, here's the tricky part for Mr Vance.
There is a two-year time limit for filing criminal charges for a misdemeanour in New York.
"So, because those payments happened over two years ago, it looks like [prosecutors] are out of luck," Mr Alonso said.
That said, there are other possibilities.
Cyrus Vance has been leading a criminal investigation into the Trump Organization since 2018
In New York, falsifying business records can be charged as a felony if it is done to conceal other crimes, such as tax fraud.
Felonies are more serious crimes that can be prosecuted over a longer period and are punishable by tougher jail sentences.
Still, the route to prosecution is uncertain. It is not clear if Mr Trump can be prosecuted under New York law for campaign-finance violations - the federal crime Cohen was jailed for.
This is where the other strands of Mr Vance's investigation come in.
What we know: It's a "political hit job", a Trump Organization lawyer said of Mr Vance's inquiry in August 2019.
Mr Vance had just issued a request for documents, known as a subpoena. He demanded to see years of financial records, including the Holy Grail - Mr Trump's tax returns, eight years of them.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Since then, Mr Trump has tried to block the subpoena, arguing in courts that it amounts to political harassment. In October, a federal appeals court disagreed, putting his tax returns within touching distance of prosecutors.
Indeed, Mr Vance has stressed the significance of Mr Trump's tax returns in court papers.
When requesting the returns in August, Mr Vance referred to "public reports of possibly extensive and protracted criminal conduct at the Trump Organization", including allegations of possible insurance and bank fraud. Another court filing in September mentioned tax fraud as a hypothetical crime that could be established, should evidence be found to support it.
In New York, some types of tax fraud can be charged as felonies, which can carry lengthy prison sentences. At the moment, though, the "public reports" of possible crimes cited by Mr Vance's office are merely grounds for investigation, nothing else.
What might happen next: Mr Trump is expected to appeal against the demand to hand over his tax returns in the Supreme Court. There, the matter may be settled.
For Mr Trump, the stakes are high.
"The most significant criminal investigations are those exploring his tax and bank filings," Jonathan Turley, a professor of law at George Washington University, told the BBC. "But whether there's a criminal case has yet to become evident."
If Mr Vance does obtain Mr Trump's tax returns, a criminal case may or may not become evident. Either way, Mr Vance needs those tax returns to move his investigation forward.
What we know: New York Attorney General Letitia James has been another thorn in Mr Trump's side.
Since March 2019, Ms James has been leading a civil investigation into whether the Trump Organization committed real-estate fraud.
Again, the roots of this investigation lead back to Cohen who, in February 2019, told Congress that Mr Trump had inflated the value of his property assets to secure loans and understated them to reduce his taxes.
Michael Cohen, fixer for Mr Trump, was called to testified before the House Oversight Committee in February 2019
Cohen's testimony gave Ms James grounds to seek information about Mr Trump's property empire. Like Mr Vance, Ms James has had to fight for that information in the courts.
Eric Trump, the executive vice-president of the Trump Organization and the president's son, has accused her of waging a "political vendetta". Despite this, he complied with a request to sit for testimony with her office in October.
What might happen next: Ms James needs more testimony and information to take the investigation forward.
In office, Mr Trump argued that he was too busy to deal with lawsuits. Now, he cannot use that excuse.
Ms James can treat Mr Trump with less deference, pressing him to sit for questioning under oath, just like his son.
Letitia James has taken testimony from Mr Trump's son, Eric
"Most courts would be very indulgent with a president-defendant on things like scheduling, for instance. Not so with a private citizen," Mr Alonso said.
Civil investigations like this can result in financial penalties, if evidence of wrongdoing is found. If it is, another criminal inquiry cannot be ruled out.
What we know: Emolument is an archaic word that is seldom used today, except in legal contexts. The definition is contested, but it is generally understood to mean gain, profit or advantage from employment or holding public office.
So what does this have to do with Mr Trump?
He has been accused of breaking rules against "emoluments" during his presidency. These rules, known as the emoluments clauses, were written into the country's bedrock legal text, the US Constitution.
Mr Trump's hotel in Washington was often the site of protests during his presidency
One clause requires all federal officials, including the president, to seek the consent of Congress before accepting any benefits from foreign states.
Three separate civil lawsuits alleged that Mr Trump had not sought that consent. One cited the hosting of foreign officials at the Trump International Hotel in Washington DC as a possible violation.
Mr Trump has derided "this phony emoluments clause", suggesting other sitting presidents have made money.
What might happen next: Regardless, the emoluments lawsuits will probably be dismissed or dropped, legal experts say. One brought by congressional Democrats has already been rejected by the Supreme Court.
"Emoluments are not likely to be the basis of any criminal action," said Mr Turley, an expert on constitutional law.
"The emoluments cases relate to Trump holding office, so once he leaves office, the controversy becomes largely academic."
What we know: Mr Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women whose allegations span decades. Mr Trump has denied all the allegations, dismissing them as "fake news", political smears and conspiracies.
Many of the accusers came forward ahead of Mr Trump's election win in 2016. Mr Trump vowed to sue them all but, as yet, has not done so.
Instead, some of the accusers have sued Mr Trump. Two of those women have filed defamation lawsuits against Mr Trump for calling them liars.
E Jean Carroll has accused Mr Trump of raping her in the 1990s
E Jean Carroll, a long-time columnist for Elle magazine, is one of them. She has accused Mr Trump of raping her in a dressing room at a luxury Manhattan department store in the 1990s. Mr Trump denies it and is contesting the defamation claim.
In her lawsuit, Ms Carroll argues Mr Trump defamed her by saying he could not have raped her because "she's not my type". Her lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and a retraction of Mr Trump's statements.
Ms Carroll v Mr Trump seemed straightforward enough until September, when the US Department of Justice weighed in.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Jessica Leeds, one of Mr Trump's accusers, has demanded action
The department took the unusual step of trying to replace Mr Trump with the United States as a defendant in the case.
In the end, a federal judge ruled against the department's intervention, arguing "the allegations have no relationship to the official business of the United States".
What might happen next: The case can now proceed, allowing Ms Carroll's lawyers to gather evidence.
For example, they could press on by attempting to verify if Mr Trump's DNA is on a dress Ms Carroll says she was wearing at the time of the alleged assault. For that, they would need a DNA sample from Mr Trump.
A similar but separate defamation lawsuit filed by Summer Zervos, a former contestant on Mr Trump's television show The Apprentice, may go the same way.
Summer Zervos (left) was one of several women to accuse Mr Trump of sexual misconduct ahead of the 2016 election
Ms Zervos alleged that Mr Trump had sexually assaulted her during a meeting to discuss job opportunities at a Beverly Hills hotel in 2007.
Mr Trump dismissed the allegation as "phony", accusing Ms Zervos of fabricating it for fame. Ms Zervos then sued him for defamation in 2017, seeking damages of at least $3,000.
Mr Trump tried to get the case dismissed during his presidency. His lawyers suggested that, as president, he should be immune to lawsuits in state courts.
"That argument completely evaporates on 20 January," Barbara L McQuade, professor of law at the University of Michigan, told the BBC. "Once that happens, we move to the discovery phase of the case and there could be some movement there."
What we know: "Fraud was not just the family business - it was a way of life," reads the first line of Mary Trump's lawsuit against her uncle Donald.
As an opening salvo, it could hardly be more contemptuous.
It mirrors the animosity of Ms Trump's newly released memoir, in which she chastises her uncle as a "narcissist" who threatens the life of every American.
In her book, Mary Trump calls her uncle the "the world's most dangerous man"
The family beef is as personal as it gets and Ms Trump's lawsuit, filed in September, reflects that acrimony.
In it, she accuses Mr Trump and two of his siblings of cheating her out of an inheritance while pressuring her to give up interests in the family business.
Ms Trump inherited valuable interests in the family business when Fred Trump Jr - her father and the president's older brother - died in 1981 at the age of 42. Ms Trump was 16 at the time.
Mr Trump and his siblings "committed to watch over" Ms Trump's interests, the lawsuit says.
"They lied," the lawsuit says. "Rather than protect Mary's interests, they designed and carried out a complex scheme to siphon funds away from her interests, conceal their grift [fraud], and deceive her about the true value of what she had inherited."
The lawsuit seeks at least $500,000 in damages.
What might happen next: The White House said Ms Trump's book was full of "falsehoods", but Mr Trump is yet to reply to the lawsuit.
If requests for documents and testimony come, Mr Trump cannot cite his presidential duties as a reason to deny them.
No American citizen, not even the president, is categorically above the law.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54716550
|
news_world-us-canada-54716550
|
|
Was the scientific advice for lockdown flawed? - BBC News
|
2020-11-24
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
A BBC documentary highlights weaknesses in the expert analysis of the likely impact of coronavirus.
|
Health
|
As coronavirus began spreading around the world at the start of 2020, in the UK there were weaknesses in the expert analysis of its likely impact, according to a BBC documentary.
"There is going to be a lot of criticism of the scientists - because it's easy to have hindsight.
"It's easy to say if only we'd done this a week earlier we'd have saved 5,000, 10,000, 15,000, 20,000 lives. But if you look at where we were in February, would you really have made these decisions any differently? I don't think you would have."
Those are the words of Prof Calum Semple of the University of Liverpool, one of the key scientists advising the government on Covid-19.
Ever since the novel coronavirus arrived in the UK, ministers have repeatedly said they were "following the science".
But the UK has ended up with one of the worst death rates in the world - coronavirus has killed more than 50,000 people so far.
So how good was the scientific evidence provided in the run-up to lockdown?
On 23 January 2020, a woman unknowingly infected with coronavirus flew to the UK from Wuhan and passed through the airport undetected. Eight days later she, and a family member, became the first confirmed UK cases.
But what wasn't understood was how many others then followed in their footsteps through February and March - not just from China, but from across Europe.
"What we hadn't realised was that the virus had already moved into Italy, France and Spain, and was in the ski resorts," says Prof Semple, who is on Sage, the government's scientific advisory group.
"It turns out that we had probably 1,500 cases that came in during that period, and that's why Britain was hit so hard. We were given a really bad dose at a very early stage in a large number."
Italy was the first European country to be badly hit by Covid-19
Prof Graham Medley, who chairs the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling (SPI-M), which feeds in to Sage, agrees.
"If I could have known one thing, it would have been the number of imports coming in from mainland Europe.
"I should have thought that if northern Italy has got an epidemic then it's quite likely that other places in Europe have probably got an epidemic as well, and I didn't think that."
Prof Gabriel Scally, a public health expert and former health adviser to Labour, said: "There was a steady flow of people coming in from various countries as the virus spread.
"We left our borders open, we left our door open to the virus, and that contributed substantially to the very rapid growth in the virus that we subsequently saw."
Information about those early cases was fed into a database called the First Few Hundred (FF100), which was closely studied by modellers for clues about how the virus might spread .
Data on Ebola may have been better than that from the current pandemic
But there was a problem. "Unfortunately the First Few Hundred data was not as good as we expected," says another SPI-M member, Dr Thibaut Jombart, from Imperial College London.
"There were clearly quite a few mistakes: basic information, basic epidemiological information, was missing.
"At the time I was coming back from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), where I spent six months as part of the response to an Ebola outbreak - a very, very messy situation in a warzone, you expect messy data there. It felt like the data situation was less good in the UK than it was in the DRC."
But Prof Medley, who is based at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, defends the FF100 data. "Modellers always want more and better data. Yes, you could always want it more complete, you could always want it more accurate, but nonetheless the data that we had fulfilled our purpose.
"We were in quite a good position to understand what might happen in the United Kingdom."
Data was not just key to understanding where coronavirus was coming from, but who was worst affected.
By mid-February, evidence from China showed older people were particularly at risk.
In the UK, modellers warned government that the virus could kill tens of thousands, and advised "cocooning" would reduce deaths.
There was a lack of understanding about care homes
But Dr Ian Hall, of SPI-M, admits models did not reflect how care homes actually work, or identify the serious risk posed by agency staff working in different homes.
"The failure of those models, I guess, was that we didn't know how connected the social care settings were with the community," he says.
"As modellers we didn't know - I'm sure there are lots of academics and policy-makers out there, that could have told us this, if we'd asked them."
Coronavirus would go on to kill more than 20,000 people in care homes.
The modellers were also trying to predict when the UK would see the peak of cases.
In early March, SPI-M was still estimating it was 12 to 14 weeks away. "We were planning for a pandemic that was fairly slowly growing, on the basis that we had kind of a ramping up of social distancing, over a period of time," says Dr Hall.
But one member of the committee, Prof Steven Riley, from Imperial College, believed the government's strategy was seriously flawed and would leave intensive care units overwhelmed for a long period of time.
On 10 March, when official figures suggested there had been a total of 913 cases - but experts now estimate there were 75,000 - he submitted a paper calling for an immediate lockdown.
He says: "Based only on my knowledge of the epidemiological situation, I did think, at that point, there was an argument for stringent social distancing, for lockdown, as soon as possible.
"The point that I thought needed to be addressed as a matter of urgency, was that initially we should lock down in order to have time to formulate a more precise strategy."
SPI-M's Prof Mark Jit was asked to investigate what the true numbers might be.
"I think everyone knew that they were not picking up all the cases. The big question was by how much were they underestimating the number.
"We decided to look at the number of cases in intensive care units. We knew for each of these cases there will probably be many hundreds of thousands of people who have Covid but didn't have it that seriously."
His calculations predicted that by mid-March there would soon be close to 100,000 new cases each day. "That was extremely worrying because 100,000 new cases would mean that about a week later we would get 20,000 new hospital patients a day.
"There was the sense that, OK. we really need to get this information to Sage to make decisions about what we're going to do in the UK."
At the same time, other modellers realised that the NHS data they were relying on for their modelling was out of date.
"The data coming in from the UK which we thought was up to the minute was in fact in some cases up to a week old, and so really we weren't looking at a snapshot of how the epidemic was developing now, but how it was in the past," says Dr Nick Davies, who is also on SPI-M.
"That was the first time when I started to feel like things really were not under control."
On 17 March, people across the UK were spending their first day living with unprecedented restrictions on daily life.
In a TV address the previous evening, Prime Minister Boris Johnson had told the nation: "Now is the time for everyone to stop non-essential contact with others and to stop all unnecessary travel. We need people to start working from home where they possibly can. And you should avoid pubs, clubs, theatres and other such social venues. Without drastic action, cases could double every five or six days."
But at the University of Manchester, SPI-M's Dr Lorenzo Pellis was looking at data from Italy, and realising that the virus was spreading in Britain at almost twice the speed that had previously been thought.
"I got really concerned," said Dr Pellis. "I was coming out with really short times between that day and potentially breaching hospital capacity."
It meant the NHS was just days away from being swamped by coronavirus patients.
The analysis was fed back to Sage. "And that led to the cascade to full lockdown," said his SPI-M collegue Dr Hall.
So do the scientists believe they should have acted earlier?
"I obviously feel that it's incredibly tragic what has happened in the UK and of course I wish that interventions had been brought in earlier", says Dr Davies.
"Our own modelling suggests that had lockdown been imposed a week earlier, we may have avoided about half or slightly more than half the number of deaths."
"I think we got ourselves into a mess by relying on modelling and allowing modelling to drive the whole response," says Prof Scally. "I think the failure of the science, so to speak, will be seen as one of the most important features in what has been a very, very poor response to this global health tragedy."
A Department of Health and Social Care spokeswoman said: "This is a new virus and an unprecedented global pandemic and our priority from the outset has been to save lives. We have been guided by the advice of experts from Sage and its sub-committees and our response helped to ensure the NHS was not overwhelmed."
'Lockdown 1.0 - Following The Science?' is on BBC2 at 21:00 GMT on Thursday 19 November and on the BBC iPlayer afterwards.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54976192
|
news_health-54976192
|
|
Labour should apologise for Brexit policy, say key Corbyn allies - BBC News
|
2020-11-12
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Hard-hitting report from former shadow cabinet members says Labour has become too middle-class.
|
UK Politics
|
Two key members of Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet have called for the party to issue a '"full throated apology" for its stance on Brexit.
Ex-party chairman Ian Lavery and former elections chief Jon Trickett say backing a second referendum at last year's election destroyed trust.
In a new report, the pair call for the current leadership to apologise to both Remain and Leave voters.
Sir Keir Starmer was a leading advocate of another referendum.
The party's then Brexit spokesman was elected to replace Mr Corbyn as leader in April.
In their report, to be published later, Mr Lavery and Mr Trickett - who were both fired from the front bench by Sir Keir - say Leave and Remain voters were equally let down by the party's Brexit policy at the 2019 election.
"Leave voters were too often sneered at and Remain voters were led up the garden path with a position - of overturning the referendum result - that was never seriously achievable.
"To put this aside, Leavers and Remainers need an apology."
The pair's report, entitled No Holding Back, was co-written with former MP Laura Smith, who lost Crewe and Nantwich to the Conservatives at the 2019 election. It is result of zoom conversations with Labour activists, trade unionists, voters and former voters.
And the report indeed does not hold back on what the authors think went wrong at the general election.
Mr Lavery and Mr Trickett maintain they warned their shadow cabinet colleagues of the electoral consequences of backing a second referendum.
They say: "Our argument, back in the summer of 2019, that seeking to overturn the referendum would lead to electoral disaster in the North and the Midlands was drowned out by other elements in the top ranks of the Party… we opposed the moves which were made to turn the party into a Remain-facing political unit."
But their criticisms go beyond Brexit.
Ian Lavery on the campaign trail last year
The party machine was in 2019 under the control of Jeremy Corbyn's allies - and Ian Lavery in particular played a prominent role in touring seats Labour needed to win or couldn't afford to lose.
But the report acknowledges serious mistakes.
It argues that "we did not develop a narrative that threaded our policies together and told a story about what Labour would do in power.
"… the 2019 general election was a hard lesson in how not to do policy - it was confused, contradictory in some places and was not believable to most voters."
The report analyses why Labour has recovered in the polls since Sir Keir Starmer became leader,
It suggests he is picking up more support amongst former Liberal Democrats and middle-class voters in the South.
In Leave-voting areas, the report argues that there has been "a glacial pace of change among voters who are still overwhelmingly in the Tory camp. At present Sir Keir Starmer's leadership is yet to cut through."
Supporters of the current Labour leader maintain that Jeremy Corbyn was mentioned on the doorsteps during last year's election as a reason for not voting Labour more often than Brexit.
And Sir Keir Starmer's personal ratings have not only been much higher than his predecessor's but have also run ahead of the prime minister's in some polls.
The report acknowledges that the Corbyn leadership and his perceived lack of patriotism was an issue at the last election.
It says that it had been a failing of the then leadership not to "re-interpret what patriotism really means in a progressive sense".
But it also claims that "media smears" meant that he was viewed less favourably by the public in 2019 than at the 2017 election.
The report suggests Labour's problems go much deeper than the issues of Brexit and leadership - that for too long in predominantly working class areas, voters felt they were being taken for granted - and that Labour was seen as the establishment party.
From conversations with activists and trade unionists, the report's authors say: "People repeatedly claimed that Labour had become too southern and too middle class."
They have some recommendations, too - including, when candidates are selected, introducing quotas for those from working-class backgrounds.
Close to general elections, supporters of the party leadership - under Tony Blair and Jeremy Corbyn - have been selected with little say from local members.
"The old days of parachuting political professionals into working-class communities that they have no connection to must now end in totality," says the report.
And while Mr Lavery and Mr Trickett left the shadow cabinet at Sir Keir Starmer's request, they have what they call some "comradely advice" for him: "be bold and transformational".
Criticism of the Starmer leadership had been fairly muted until the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn.
But the report from Jon Trickett, Ian Lavery and Laura Smith could signal a renewed willingness to speak out.
Closely-fought elections to Labour's ruling national executive conclude on Thursday, and will determine whether the Left's influence will continue to wane, or whether grassroots members want to limit Sir Keir's growing control of the party machine.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54896340
|
news_uk-politics-54896340
|
|
Birds' genetic secrets revealed in global DNA study - BBC News
|
2020-11-12
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Scientists have sequenced the "code of life" of species from almost every branch of the bird family tree.
|
Science & Environment
|
Scientists have sequenced and recorded the genomes - the genetic make-up or "code of life" - of species from almost every branch of the bird family tree.
The 363 species' genomes, including 267 sequenced for the first time, are catalogued in the journal Nature.
It is a list that now features more than 92% of the world's avian families.
This has revealed the code for things "Darwin was intrigued by and wrote about", Dr Michael Braun from the Smithsonian Institution told BBC News.
From wildly different coloured feathers, body sizes ranging from the giant ostrich to the diminutive wren and raptor flight speeds of up to 300km/h [186.4mph], "it's all coded for in the genome", he said.
The information will help scientists understand the evolution of strange and elaborate courtship displays such as the Victoria's riflebird's
And this milestone, he added, was "just the beginning".
The project aims eventually to include a genome from every living species of bird. The Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC, which is a a key contributor through its vast collection of specimens, said this would "advance research on the evolution of birds and aid in the conservation of threatened bird species".
The list of sequences so far now includes rare species such as the Henderson crake, which lives on only one small Pacific island.
But Dr Braun said it was the humble chicken that was the "model species" for studying some extreme examples of avian evolution - including how giant, flightless birds like the ostrich evolved.
Biologists have learned about the evolution of bird limbs by studying chickens
"We've intensively studied limb development in the chicken," he said.
"And we can apply that to this group of birds called the ratites - birds like the ostrich and emu.
"With the evolution of flightlessness, there were a lot to changes in the limb anatomy - wings get short, flight feathers become useless, their legs get longer and they lose toes, because they're running instead of perching.
"With these resources, you have the detail - the code - of how that happened."
The acute vision and speed of flight is encoded into the genome of raptors such as the osprey
"It permits a refined look at the avian tree of life - stretching back into deep time - that may close the door on longstanding arguments between evolutionary biologists about 'who is whose' common ancestor," he said.
And new data on more than 60 globally threatened species would be a "crucial toolkit for conservation geneticists".
"This is information that may prove crucial in reducing extinction risk in the long term for species with tiny population sizes today," Dr Lees added.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54904806
|
news_science-environment-54904806
|
|
Covid: UK first country in Europe to pass 50,000 deaths - BBC News
|
2020-11-12
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
It is the first European nation to pass the landmark, with 595 deaths recorded in the past 24 hours.
|
UK
|
The UK has become the first country in Europe to pass 50,000 coronavirus deaths, according to the latest government figures.
A total of 50,365 people have died within 28 days of a positive Covid test, up 595 in the past 24 hours.
The UK is the fifth country to pass 50,000 deaths, coming after the US, Brazil, India and Mexico.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson said the figures showed, despite hopes for a vaccine, "we are not out of the woods".
He said: "Every death is a tragedy," but added: "I do think we have got now to a different phase in the way that we treat it."
A further 22,950 cases of coronavirus were recorded on Wednesday, government figures show.
There have been some 1.2 million confirmed cases in the UK since the epidemic began, and more than 185,000 people have been admitted to hospital with the virus.
The UK's Covid death toll has reached a grim and tragic milestone - and illustrates what a devastating impact the pandemic has had on the country.
But one figure alone cannot tell the full story. The burden has not been felt equally.
The single biggest factor has been age - with more than nine in 10 deaths in the over 65s.
Poorer areas and ethnic minorities have also been disproportionately affected.
Deaths from other causes have also risen as people have gone without treatment.
The UK has on most measures seen one of the highest death rates in the world.
Blame, understandably, has been laid at the government's door. It has been criticised in particular for being too slow to lockdown and for its record on testing and tracing.
But the UK is not alone in struggling. Similar debates have been had in Italy, Spain and France.
And the sad reality is this figure will keep climbing in the months to come.
But there is now at last some real hope that, with a vaccine looking likely, the toll will be much, much less next year.
The government's death figures only include people who died within 28 days of testing positive for coronavirus - but two other ways of measuring deaths give higher overall figures.
The first includes all deaths where coronavirus was mentioned on the death certificate, even if the person had not been tested for the virus. The most recent figures suggest there had been more than 60,000 deaths by 23 October, by this measure.
The second is a measure of "excess deaths" - the number of deaths over and above the usual number at this time of year.
Deaths normally do rise at this time of the year, but the latest data from the Office for National Statistics and its counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland show the second wave of the virus has pushed the death rate above the average seen over the past five years.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said the latest death figures were a "grim milestone" and criticised the government for being "slow" in its response to the pandemic during the first wave.
He said the government owed it to the families of those who have lost their lives to the virus "to get on top" of its response to the second wave.
The British Medical Association (BMA) said lessons had to be learned.
Dr Chaand Nagpaul, BMA council chair, said: "This is a point that should never have been reached."
He added: "Today's figure is a terrible indictment of poor preparation, poor organisation by the government, insufficient infection control measures, coupled with late and often confusing messaging for the public."
The government had to "ensure that nothing on this scale ever happens again", he added, with a public inquiry to "go over every step with a fine-tooth comb".
It comes as officials said no decision has yet been made on how people under the age of 50 should be offered a Covid vaccine.
The current priority list of people who would get a vaccine in "phase one" starts with those living and working in care homes, then - in stages - everyone over 60 years old.
But the list is subject to change, with close attention being paid to how the vaccines work in older age groups, who often have a weak response to immunisation.
Attention has turned to how a vaccine will be rolled out after Pfizer and BioNTech revealed their vaccine protects more than 90% of people from developing Covid symptoms.
The prime minister urged everybody to get a coronavirus vaccine once one becomes available, adding that the arguments of anti-vaccination activists were "total nonsense".
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Boris Johnson: “Anti-vax is total nonsense is total nonsense, you should definitely get a vaccine."
Mr Johnson would be happy to receive a coronavirus vaccine, Number 10 has said.
On a visit to a Tesco distribution centre in south-east London on Wednesday, Mr Johnson said the prospect of a vaccine and the ramping up of testing were "two big boxing gloves" to "pummel" the virus with, but said: "Neither of them is capable of delivering a knock-out blow on its own.
"That's why this country needs to continue to work hard to keep discipline and to observe the measures we've put in."
Please enable JavaScript or upgrade your browser to see this interactive
Restrictions have been tightened across the UK in recent weeks. In England, a new four-week lockdown started last Thursday - replacing the three-tier system until 2 December.
Mr Johnson said England must "get through this current period of tough autumn measures" to "hopefully" curb the spread of the virus enough to allow Christmas to be "as normal as possible for as many people as possible".
Meanwhile, pubs reopened and travel restrictions were lifted in Wales on Monday, as it ended a two-week "firebreak" lockdown.
Additional restrictions in Northern Ireland are due to end on Friday after a proposal from the Northern Ireland Assembly's health minister to extend restrictions was blocked.
In Scotland, there is now a five-tier system of virus alert levels with different measures in place in different parts of the country. The tiers are numbered from zero to four, with level four requiring the introduction of lockdown restrictions for that area.
If you would like to send us a tribute to a friend or family member who died after contracting coronavirus, please use the form below.
Please remember to include a photo of your loved one and their name. Upload your pictures here. Don't forget to include your contact details, so we can get in touch with you.
We would like to respond to everyone individually and include every tribute in our coverage, but unfortunately that may not be possible. Please be assured your message will be read and treated with the utmost respect.
Please note the contact details you provide will never be published. Please ensure you have read our terms & conditions and privacy policy.
If you are reading this page and can't see the form you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your tribute.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54905018
|
news_uk-54905018
|
|
Rebekah Vardy backed by High Court in Coleen Rooney libel hearing - BBC News
|
2020-11-20
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
A judge rules that Rooney's social posts were directly accusing Rebekah Vardy of leaking stories.
|
Newsbeat
|
Coleen Rooney "clearly identified" Rebekah Vardy when she made allegations about social media stories being leaked to the tabloids, a judge has ruled.
The row dubbed 'Wagatha Christie' broke out in October 2019 when Rooney said fake stories had been leaked after only being seen by Vardy's Instagram account.
In July, Vardy filed for defamation, saying she had been falsely accused.
Her lawyer told the High Court he would be seeking costs of £22,913.50.
The initial argument in this case, which Vardy has won, has been over the wording of Rooney's social media post, which she put up for her 1.2m Twitter followers and 885,000 Instagram followers to see last year.
Rooney named the culprit of the leaks as "Rebekah Vardy's account" meaning her lawyers could argue it wasn't implying Rebekah herself was guilty - and could have been anyone with access to her Instagram account.
But Judge Mark Warby ruled against this, saying the post looked like it was putting the blame solely on Vardy.
There are still further factors to be considered in the legal battle though, and this ruling marks the beginning of Vardy's libel case.
Vardy decided to sue for defamation in July, with court documents written by her lawyers saying the incident had affected her mental and physical health.
When Rooney's social media posts were released, Vardy was seven months pregnant and her lawyers claim they led to her being taken to hospital three times with anxiety attacks.
The pair originally became friends through their husbands, former Manchester United and England player Wayne Rooney and Leicester striker Jamie Vardy.
Social media was set ablaze on 9 October 2019 when Coleen Rooney pressed send on her Instagram and Twitter posts, accusing Rebekah Vardy of leaking details about her life to the tabloids.
In an effort to work out which of her friends had been sharing stories, she'd published different fake stories on Instagram to different people. The ones that made headlines, were ones being leaked.
Rebekah Vardy took to social media to deny any involvement in the leaking.
But things did take a more sinister turn - Vardy's lawyers said her husband faced abuse on the pitch which meant they couldn't let their young children attend games anymore.
Both Vardy and Rooney have agreed to a stay in proceedings - until February.
This means they're going to try and resolve things privately without the need for a full trial, but if they can't it could become a full court case in the new year.
Listen to Newsbeat live at 12:45 and 17:45 weekdays - or listen back here.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-55020573
|
news_newsbeat-55020573
|
|
Sir Keir Starmer promises to shift power from Westminster - BBC News
|
2020-12-21
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
In a key policy speech, the Labour leader set out plans for the "boldest devolution project in a generation".
|
Scotland politics
|
Sir Keir Starmer said he was "under no illusion about the scale of the task Labour faces" in Scotland
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has committed his party to delivering the "boldest devolution project in a generation" in a policy speech.
He is to set up a constitutional commission to offer a "positive alternative to the Scottish people".
Sir Keir said leaders had a "shared duty" to "rebuild together" across the UK in the wake of the Covid-19 crisis.
But First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has argued that independence is "essential" to rebuilding Scotland post-pandemic.
The SNP have dismissed the plans as "constitutional tinkering" while the Scottish Conservatives said Labour were offering nothing new to challenge the SNP's dominance of Scottish politics.
Sir Keir used his speech on Monday - delivered online due to physical distancing - to confirm the setting up of a UK-wide constitutional commission, advised by former prime minister Gordon Brown, to deliver a "fresh and tangible offer" to the Scottish people.
He said the pandemic had put "rocket boosters" under the case for decentralisation of power, saying his party must "grasp the nettle and offer real devolution of power and resources" if it is to have any hope of preserving the future of the union.
He said: "It is Labour's duty to offer a positive alternative to the Scottish people. To show that you don't have to choose between a broken status quo and the uncertainty and divisiveness of separatism.
"The United Kingdom is much more than that, more than any individual. It has been before - and can be again - a great force for social justice, for security and for solidarity."
The independence campaign has regained momentum in the polls following defeat in 2014
With polls suggesting support for independence is on the rise, Sir Keir argued that the shared "history, values and identity" of the people of the UK mean there should be no place for internal borders.
He said Labour's offering must be "every bit as bold and radical" as the devolution delivered in the 1990s, saying the constitutional commission would target "real and lasting political and economic devolution" to local communities in all parts of the UK.
Sir Keir said this was about more than shifting powers from one parliament to another or transferring "a few jobs out of London", adding: "There's a yearning across the United Kingdom for politics and power to be much closer to people."
The project is to start with a listening exercise, with the party looking to "hear from as many people as possible across the UK".
The UK leader said he was "under no illusion about the scale of the task Labour faces" ahead of May's Scottish Parliament election, with Scottish Labour having been in opposition at Holyrood since 2007.
The party has also struggled in other elections north of the border, being reduced to a single Westminster seat in 2019 and finishing fifth in that year's European Parliament elections.
The MP said Labour would argue "passionately" against a new independence referendum saying it was "entirely the wrong priority" to hold a new vote in the teeth of a recession and "when there is such uncertainty about how Brexit and coronavirus will affect us"
He attacked the SNP's record in power, saying: "It's no wonder that Nicola Sturgeon wants to make May's election a referendum on another referendum, because on education, health and social justice the SNP have no story to tell."
The next Holyrood election is due in May 2021, with Labour currently the parliament's third party
The SNP's deputy Westminster leader Kirsten Oswald dismissed Labour's plans, saying the system was "broken" and "not working for Scotland".
"No amount of constitutional tinkering of the kind proposed by Labour will protect Scotland from Brexit or the Tory power grab being imposed upon us against our will," she said.
She said that even Labour supporters doubted their ability to oust the Conservatives from Westminster for another decade at least.
The MP added: "It's clear that only with the full powers of independence will we be able to properly protect our interests and secure our place in Europe - and that decision lies solely with the people of Scotland, not an out-of-touch Westminster system."
The Scottish Conservatives insisted they were the only party capable of taking on the SNP and championing the union.
Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross said: "This isn't leadership from Labour on the union, this is the same old tired argument that they've made before and they're offering nothing to challenge the SNP.
"Scottish Labour won't work with unionist parties to stop the nationalists, and they won't stand up to Nicola Sturgeon's demand for another independence referendum as early as next year.
"Only the Scottish Conservatives have the strength to take on the SNP right across Scotland and the determination to stop their push for indyref2 again."
The Scottish Liberal Democrats, however, said they are willing to work with Labour on a "third way" forward.
Leader Willie Rennie said: "Liberal Democrats support a new federalist settlement that means we can find a better way to agree a common future across the United Kingdom."
Devolution is pretty straightforward when national and devolved leaders agree. When they don't, it becomes a lot harder.
Nowhere has that been more obvious than in Scotland - and his speech was Sir Keir's first major foray into the independence debate.
For years, many believe Labour in Scotland has been in a constitutional no man's land; stuck between the pro-independence SNP and the strongly unionist Conservatives.
Labour has flirted with different positions - and has taken a hammering at the polls as a result.
Today's speech was intended to give more clarity on exactly where Sir Keir stands ahead of May's Holyrood election. He has adopted a similar position to the UK government on calls for another independence vote; not now, but not quite ruling it out forever.
Labour is open to more powers for Holyrood, presents itself as the party which introduced devolution in the first place, and will oppose what it sees as attacks on devolution from the current UK government.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55384938
|
news_uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55384938
|
|
Timeline: Lockerbie bombing - BBC News
|
2020-12-17
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Key moments in the story of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1998.
|
Scotland
|
A Libyan man accused of making the bomb which destroyed Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie has been taken into United States custody.
The explosion on board the Boeing 747 on 21 December 1988 left 270 people dead, making it the deadliest terrorist incident to have taken place on British soil.
Another Libyan, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, is the only man ever convicted in connection with the atrocity.
He was found guilty of the murders in 2001, but always protested his innocence. He died in 2012 after being allowed to return home when it emerged that he had terminal cancer.
Here is a timeline of the key developments in the case.
Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah were accused of carrying out the bombing
21 December 1988: Pan Am Flight 103 from London to New York explodes 31,000 feet over Lockerbie, 38 minutes after take-off from London.
The 259 people on board the Boeing 747 are killed, along with 11 people on the ground.
13 November 1991: US and British investigators indict Libyans Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah on 270 counts of murder, conspiracy to murder and violating Britain's 1982 Aviation Security Act.
The men were accused of being Libyan intelligence agents.
15 April 1992: The UN Security Council imposes sanctions on air travel and arms sales over Libya's refusal to hand the suspects over for trial in a Scottish court.
August 1998: Britain and the United States propose trying the suspects in the Netherlands under Scottish law.
5 April 1999: The suspects are taken into Dutch custody after flying from Tripoli to an airbase near the Hague and are formally charged with the bombing. UN sanctions against Libya are suspended as agreed.
The Scottish court at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands
3 May 2000: The trial of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, 48, and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, 44, opens at Camp Zeist, a specially convened Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands. Both of the accused deny murder.
31 January 2001: Megrahi is found guilty of murder after the historic trial under Scottish law in the Netherlands.
The judges recommend a minimum of 20 years "in view of the horrendous nature of this crime".
Megrahi's co-accused, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, is found not guilty and told he is free to return home.
14 March 2002: Megrahi loses his appeal against the conviction.
15 March 2002: Megrahi spends his first night at a prison in Glasgow after being flown by helicopter to HMP Barlinnie.
14 August 2003: Lawyers acting for families of the Lockerbie bombing victims say they have reached agreement with Libya on the payment of compensation.
The deal to set up a $2.7bn (£1.7bn) fund was struck with Libyan officials after negotiations in London.
24 November 2003: Megrahi is told he must serve at least 27 years in jail.
His sentence was increased after a change in the law meant he had to again come before the Scottish courts so that the punishment period could be set.
28 June 2007: The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which has been investigating the case since 2003, recommends Megrahi is granted a second appeal against his conviction.
21 October 2008: Megrahi's lawyer reveals the 56-year-old former Libyan intelligence agent has been diagnosed with "advanced stage" prostate cancer.
31 October 2008: The father of one of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing reiterates his call for Megrahi to be released.
Jim Swire, whose daughter was killed, criticised the slow appeal process faced by the man convicted of the attack and said the question of whether Megrahi should be released was one of "common humanity".
14 November 2008: A court rules that Megrahi will remain in jail while he appeals against his conviction.
25 July 2009: Megrahi asks to be released from jail on compassionate grounds due to his illness.
18 August 2009: Judges accept an application by the Lockerbie bomber to drop his second appeal against conviction.
The permission of the High Court in Edinburgh was required before the proceedings could be formally abandoned.
Megrahi was met on his return to Libya by Muammar Gaddafi's son Seif al-Islam
20 August 2009: The Scottish government releases Megrahi on compassionate grounds. He returns home to Libya aboard a jet belonging to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
24 August 2009: The Scottish Parliament is recalled to discuss the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill faces questioning from MSPs over his decision but says he stands by his decision and will "live with the consequences".
29 August 2011: Megrahi falls into a coma at his Tripoli home with CNN reporting he appeared to be "at death's door".
20 October 2011: Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi is overthrown by an uprising in Libya, and is killed by rebels.
20 May 2012: Abdelbaset al-Megrahi dies at his home in Tripoli, aged 60.
Eleven people were killed on the ground in Lockerbie
20 December 2014: Scotland's top prosecutor, Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland, reaffirms his belief that Megrahi is guilty of the Lockerbie bombing and says no Crown Office investigator or prosecutor ever raised concerns about the evidence used to convict him.
He also pledges to continue tracking down Megrahi's accomplices.
3 July 2015: Scottish judges rule that relatives of the Lockerbie bombing victims should not be allowed to pursue an appeal on Megrahi's behalf. Courts had previously ruled that only next of kin could proceed with a posthumous application.
4 July 2017: The family of Lockerbie bomber Megrahi lodges a new bid to appeal against his conviction, five years after his death.
11 March 2020: The Scottish Criminal Case Review Commissionrules that there can be a fresh appeal and refers the case to the High Court of Justiciary.
The commission says it considered six grounds of review and concluded that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred by reason of "unreasonable verdict" and "non-disclosure".
The family of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi attenpted to appeal against his conviction
22 December 2020: On the 32nd anniversary of the atrocity, the US announces it has filed charges against a Libyan suspected of making the bomb.
Attorney General William Barr says Abu Agila Mohammad Masud was accused of terrorism-related crimes.
15 January 2021: Scottish judges reject the appeal from the family of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi as the Court of Criminal Appeal upholds the verdict of the original trial.
The court rejected the argument that the original trial had come to a verdict that no reasonable court could have reached.
11 December 2022: It emerges that Abu Agila Mohammad Masud, the Libyan man accused of making the bomb which destroyed Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, is in United States custody.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34541363
|
news_uk-scotland-34541363
|
|
As it happened: Brexit talks fail to break deadlock - BBC News
|
2020-12-07
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The UK prime minister and the European Commission president are to meet in Brussels to discuss the sticking points.
|
UK Politics
|
We've had the same big three sticking points between the two sides for months now.
Many trade negotiators were wondering what the point was of sending negotiators back into the room when they are so well rehearsed in each other's arguments.
What is needed to break the deadlock right now is the political will from both sides - and that need to come from the bosses.
It will be European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen who will sit with Boris Johnson - because EU countries have tasked the Commission with negotiating on their behalf.
But she does not have a free hand here - because the Commission is the conduit for the interests of the member states.
When it's come to Brexit, they have kept a sense of unity you do not see normally. But now that we're getting to five to midnight, that unity is beginning to fray at the edges.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-55211021
|
news_live_uk-politics-55211021
|
|
Covid-19 tests for secondary school pupils in parts of London, Kent and Essex - BBC News
|
2020-12-10
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
All 11 to 18-year-olds in the worst-hit areas told to get tested, whether they have symptoms or not.
|
UK
|
Mass testing will be rolled out to secondary school children in the worst-affected areas of London, Kent and Essex, the health secretary has said.
Matt Hancock said "by far" the fastest rise in coronavirus infection rates in these areas was in 11 to 18-year-olds.
This age group in these areas should be tested regardless of symptoms, he said.
"We need to do everything to stop the spread in school-age children now," Mr Hancock said, adding that more details will be set out on Friday.
It comes after Londoners were urged to "stick by the rules" this week amid fears the capital - in tier two - may be put under tier--three restrictions following a rise in Covid-19 cases.
Meanwhile, all secondary schools and further education colleges in Wales will move classes online from Monday, Welsh education minister Kirsty Williams has announced.
Speaking at a Downing Street press briefing, Mr Hancock said the government was "particularly concerned" about coronavirus cases in parts of London, Kent and Essex, which were rising and were often "already high".
He said the government must not wait until the next review of the tiered restrictions on 16 December but must "take targeted action immediately".
Mr Hancock said "in particular" there was a "very specific rise" among the secondary school age group and specifically in north-east London, while the rate among adults in London was "broadly flat".
He said: "We know from experience that a sharp rise in case in younger people can lead to a rise among more vulnerable age groups later."
East London and the parts of Kent and Essex that border it have become one of the major Covid hotspots in England.
Rates have been rising in recent weeks with some areas seeing well over 300 cases per 100,000 people in the past week. To put that in perspective, it's close to double the rate seen in Manchester which is currently in tier three.
The data shows cases are being driven by young people but the concern is that that will then lead to high rates among older age groups who are susceptible to serious illness.
The government's hope is by flooding the areas with testing they will be able to break the chains of transmission.
But that will be too late in terms of the difficult call that has to be made by Wednesday when the government decides whether areas move up or down in the system of tiers.
Ministers have wanted to treat London as a whole, but with some of the southern boroughs seeing below average rates there is a growing argument the capital should be split when it comes to restrictions.
The mass testing plan will apply in the seven worst-affected boroughs of London, plus parts of Essex that border London and parts of Kent.
Mr Hancock said it was "right" to keep schools open "for education and for public health".
"We are therefore surging mobile testing units and will be working with schools and local authorities to encourage these children and their families to get tested over the coming days," he said.
Mr Hancock said both PCR (a standard coronavirus test) and lateral flow testing - which takes about half an hour to show a result - would be used.
London and Essex are currently in tier two - the second highest level - meaning there is no household mixing allowed anywhere indoors and the rule of six applies outdoors.
Kent is in tier three, the highest level, in which you can only meet other households in outdoor public spaces such as parks, where the rule of six applies.
Four London boroughs were among the 20 places with the highest case rates in England in the week ending 6 December, according to Public Health England. They are Havering (400.7 cases per 100,000 people), Barking and Dagenham (333.5), Waltham Forest (327.1) and Redbridge (310.3).
Prof Paul Hunter, from the University of East Anglia's school of medicine, told the BBC it "does sadly look like" the capital would be moved into tier three.
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said on Thursday that London was facing "a tipping point" - but that placing it under tier three restrictions would be "catastrophic".
However, Mr Hancock said he "didn't want to pre-empt" any decision that might be made about moving London and parts of the South East into tier three.
He said it was "not inevitable" that the capital would have to face tighter rules.
Mr Hancock also told the briefing it was important not to "blow" the progress made so far in controlling coronavirus and urged everyone to "stay on our guard now and through Christmas".
He said tens of thousands of people had been vaccinated with the Pfzier/BioNTech jab in 73 UK hospital hubs.
GP-led sites will begin vaccinations next week, Mr Hancock said, with jabs administered in some care homes by Christmas.
Asked whether people would be able to spend New Year's Eve with their close family members, he said there would be no special set of rules for the occasion.
England's chief medical officer Prof Chris Whitty said a third wave was "not inevitable" but warned people must be "very, very sensible" over Christmas.
"The way we prevent it [a third wave] is everybody, all of us, coming together and deciding we want to try and stick to the guidance that's there," he said.
Last week, Scotland's education secretary said there would be no extension to the nation's school Christmas holidays, despite talks about potentially shutting all schools on 18 December and reopening them again on 11 January.
Meanwhile, Northern Ireland's education minister has repeatedly said there were no plans to close schools early for the Christmas break.
The latest coronavirus daily figures show 20,964 new coronavirus infections have been recorded across the UK, and another 516 people have died within 28 days of a positive test, bringing the total to 63,082.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55265098
|
news_uk-55265098
|
|
Louise Smith death: Shane Mays guilty of murdering teenager in woods - BBC News
|
2020-12-08
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Shane Mays repeatedly punched Louise Smith in the face before defiling and burning her body.
|
Hampshire & Isle of Wight
|
Louise Smith had moved in with her aunt who is married to Shane Mays
A man has been found guilty of the "sexually-motivated" murder of a teenager whose body he set on fire.
Louise Smith, 16, was found dead at Havant Thicket, Hampshire, on 21 May - 13 days after she went missing.
Shane Mays, 30, who is married to Louise's aunt, said he punched her in an argument but claimed she was alive when he left her in the woods.
Mays, who admitted manslaughter, was convicted of murder by a jury at Winchester Crown Court.
He showed no emotion as the verdict was read out, while cries of "yes" could be heard from the public gallery.
Shane Mays will be sentenced on Wednesday morning
Louise came to live with the couple in late April after an argument with her mother.
Mays "flirted" with the "anxious and vulnerable" teenager, including tickling her feet in a video found on her phone, jurors heard.
James Newton-Price QC, prosecuting, said Mays lured the teenager to a clearing on 8 May, attempted to sexually assault her and then killed her to "silence" her.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Louise's body, which the court heard was "dreadfully treated" and burned, was found almost two weeks later after extensive searches by specialist teams.
She had suffered "repeated, heavy blows" to the head but the cause of death could not be determined due to the fire, the jury was told.
Giving evidence during his trial, Mays, of Ringwood House, Leigh Park, claimed the teenager lured him to the clearing so that they could talk alone but ended up in a violent argument about her drug use.
Mays said he "lost control" as he punched her repeatedly as she lay on the ground. He claimed she was still alive and "moaning" as he walked away.
But the prosecution said it was actually Mays who had persuaded Louise to walk with him to the woodland by offering her cannabis, with the aim of sexually assaulting her.
He was later seen on CCTV calmly buying pizzas after murdering Louise.
Louise's parents, Bradley Smith and Rebbecca Cooper, described the "unbelievable pain" of her loss
Mays, who was assessed by a psychologist as having an extremely low IQ of 63, said he forgot what he had done until he was in prison on remand in June.
In a statement following the verdict, Rebbecca Cooper, Louise's mother, said: "No words can describe the loss we feel on a daily basis. She was our sunshine and is truly missed by all that knew her.
"...the pain inside is unbelievable, just knowing we will never see her again."
Louise's father, Bradley Smith, said in a statement: "We all find it impossible to accept that we will never hear her voice or see her cheeky smile again.
"Our chance to see her grow up has been ripped away from us. As a father, I moved away to try and build a life for both of us. I'll never get a chance to share that with her. The loss of Louise has destroyed our family."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. The last known footage of Louise Smith was shown in court
Reacting to the verdict, Det Insp Adam Edwards said: "It's brilliant to get justice for Louise's family and friends. They lost her in the most tragic of circumstances.
"The defilement of her body was shocking. It's something all officers at the scene will have to live with for the rest of their lives."
The teenager, who had a social worker, was descried as vulnerable during the trial.
Jurors were shown a message she sent to her aunt - May's wife - in which she wrote: "I have had an amazing life, I hate the fact I am so childish, it's only because I have not been able to be a child."
Following her death, Louise's family described her as a "smiley, generous... typical 16-year-old girl" who was training to be a veterinary nurse.
They added: "Louise... enjoyed spending time with her friends. She loved animals and being outdoors.
"She will be remembered as a smiley, generous person who loved her family and was loved by all."
Hampshire Safeguarding Children Partnership said it was undertaking a review of Louise's case.
Mays will be sentenced on Wednesday morning.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-55223235
|
news_uk-england-hampshire-55223235
|
|
Vaccine rumours debunked: Microchips, 'altered DNA' and more - BBC News
|
2020-12-08
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
We've looked at four false Covid vaccine claims that won’t go away.
|
Reality Check
|
We've looked into some of the most widely shared false vaccine claims - everything from alleged plots to put microchips into people to the supposed re-engineering of our genetic code.
The fear that a vaccine will somehow change your DNA is one we've seen aired regularly on social media.
The BBC asked three independent scientists about this. They said that the coronavirus vaccine would not alter human DNA.
Some of the newly created vaccines, including the one now approved in the UK developed by Pfizer/BioNTech, use a fragment of the virus's genetic material - or messenger RNA.
"Injecting RNA into a person doesn't do anything to the DNA of a human cell," says Prof Jeffrey Almond of Oxford University.
It works by giving the body instructions to produce a protein which is present on the surface of the coronavirus.
The immune system then learns to recognise and produce antibodies against the protein.
Claims that Bill Gates plans to use a vaccine to "manipulate" or "alter" human DNA have been widely shared
This isn't the first time we've looked into claims that a coronavirus vaccine will supposedly alter DNA. We investigated a popular video spreading the theory back in May.
Posts have noted that messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine technology "has never been tested or approved before".
It is true that no mRNA vaccine has been approved before now, but multiple studies of mRNA vaccines in humans have taken place over the last few years. And, since the pandemic started, the vaccine has been tested on tens of thousands of people around the world and has gone through a rigorous safety approval process.
Like all new vaccines, it has to undergo rigorous safety checks before it can be recommended for widespread use.
In Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials, vaccines are tested in small numbers of volunteers to check they are safe and to determine the right dose.
In Phase 3 trials they are tested in thousands of people to see how effective they are. The group who received the vaccine and a control group who have received a placebo are closely monitored for any adverse reactions - side-effects. Safety monitoring continues after a vaccine has been approved for use.
Next, a conspiracy theory that has spanned the globe.
It claims that the coronavirus pandemic is a cover for a plan to implant trackable microchips and that the Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates is behind it.
There is no vaccine "microchip" and there is no evidence to support claims that Bill Gates is planning for this in the future.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation told the BBC the claim was "false".
One TikTok user created a video about being "microchipped" and called a vaccine the "mark of the beast"
Rumours took hold in March when Mr Gates said in an interview that eventually "we will have some digital certificates" which would be used to show who'd recovered, been tested and ultimately who received a vaccine. He made no mention of microchips.
This led to one widely shared article headlined: "Bill Gates will use microchip implants to fight coronavirus."
The article makes reference to a study, funded by The Gates Foundation, into a technology that could store someone's vaccine records in a special ink administered at the same time as an injection.
However, the technology is not a microchip and is more like an invisible tattoo. It has not been rolled out yet, would not allow people to be tracked and personal information would not be entered into a database, says Ana Jaklenec, a scientist involved in the study.
The billionaire founder of Microsoft has been the subject of many false rumours during the pandemic.
He's been targeted because of his philanthropic work in public health and vaccine development.
Despite the lack of evidence, in May a YouGov poll of 1,640 people suggested 28% of Americans believed Mr Gates wanted to use vaccines to implant microchips in people - with the figure rising to 44% among Republicans.
We've seen claims that vaccines contain the lung tissue of an aborted fetus. This is false.
"There are no fetal cells used in any vaccine production process," says Dr Michael Head, of the University of Southampton.
One particular video that was posted on one of the biggest anti-vaccine Facebook pages refers to a study which the narrator claims is evidence of what goes into the vaccine developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University. But the narrator's interpretation is wrong - the study in question explored how the vaccine reacted when introduced to human cells in a lab.
Confusion may have arisen because there is a step in the process of developing a vaccine that uses cells grown in a lab, which are the descendants of embryonic cells that would otherwise have been destroyed. The technique was developed in the 1960s, and no fetuses were aborted for the purposes of this research.
Many vaccines are made in this way, explains Dr David Matthews, from Bristol University, adding that any traces of the cells are comprehensively removed from the vaccine "to exceptionally high standards".
The developers of the vaccine at Oxford University say they worked with cloned cells, but these cells "are not themselves the cells of aborted babies".
The cells work like a factory to manufacture a greatly weakened form of the virus that has been adapted to function as a vaccine.
But even though the weakened virus is created using these cloned cells, this cellular material is removed when the virus is purified and not used in the vaccine.
We've seen arguments against a Covid-19 vaccine shared across social media asking why we need one at all if the chances of dying from the virus are so slim.
A meme shared by people who oppose vaccination put the recovery rate from the disease at 99.97% and suggested getting Covid-19 is a safer option than taking a vaccine.
A meme using images of rapper Drake has been used to promote false vaccine claims
To begin with, the figure referred to in the meme as the "recovery rate" - implying these are people who caught the virus and survived - is not correct.
About 99.0% of people who catch Covid survive it, says Jason Oke, senior statistician at the University of Oxford.
So around 100 in 10,000 will die - far higher than three in 10,000, as suggested in the meme.
However, Mr Oke adds that "in all cases the risks very much depend on age and do not take into account short and long-term morbidity from Covid-19".
It's not just about survival. For every person who dies, there are others who live through it but undergo intensive medical care, and those who suffer long-lasting health effects.
This can contribute to a health service overburdened with Covid patients, competing with a hospital's limited resources to treat patients with other illnesses and injuries.
Concentrating on the overall death rate, or breaking down the taking of a vaccine to an individual act, misses the point of vaccinations, says Prof Liam Smeeth of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It should be seen as an effort by society to protect others, he says.
"In the UK, the worst part of the pandemic, the reason for lockdown, is because the health service would be overwhelmed. Vulnerable groups like the old and sick in care homes have a much higher chance of getting severely ill if they catch the virus".
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/54893437
|
news_54893437
|
|
Covid-19 tests for secondary school pupils in parts of London, Kent and Essex - BBC News
|
2020-12-11
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
All 11 to 18-year-olds in the worst-hit areas told to get tested, whether they have symptoms or not.
|
UK
|
Mass testing will be rolled out to secondary school children in the worst-affected areas of London, Kent and Essex, the health secretary has said.
Matt Hancock said "by far" the fastest rise in coronavirus infection rates in these areas was in 11 to 18-year-olds.
This age group in these areas should be tested regardless of symptoms, he said.
"We need to do everything to stop the spread in school-age children now," Mr Hancock said, adding that more details will be set out on Friday.
It comes after Londoners were urged to "stick by the rules" this week amid fears the capital - in tier two - may be put under tier--three restrictions following a rise in Covid-19 cases.
Meanwhile, all secondary schools and further education colleges in Wales will move classes online from Monday, Welsh education minister Kirsty Williams has announced.
Speaking at a Downing Street press briefing, Mr Hancock said the government was "particularly concerned" about coronavirus cases in parts of London, Kent and Essex, which were rising and were often "already high".
He said the government must not wait until the next review of the tiered restrictions on 16 December but must "take targeted action immediately".
Mr Hancock said "in particular" there was a "very specific rise" among the secondary school age group and specifically in north-east London, while the rate among adults in London was "broadly flat".
He said: "We know from experience that a sharp rise in case in younger people can lead to a rise among more vulnerable age groups later."
East London and the parts of Kent and Essex that border it have become one of the major Covid hotspots in England.
Rates have been rising in recent weeks with some areas seeing well over 300 cases per 100,000 people in the past week. To put that in perspective, it's close to double the rate seen in Manchester which is currently in tier three.
The data shows cases are being driven by young people but the concern is that that will then lead to high rates among older age groups who are susceptible to serious illness.
The government's hope is by flooding the areas with testing they will be able to break the chains of transmission.
But that will be too late in terms of the difficult call that has to be made by Wednesday when the government decides whether areas move up or down in the system of tiers.
Ministers have wanted to treat London as a whole, but with some of the southern boroughs seeing below average rates there is a growing argument the capital should be split when it comes to restrictions.
The mass testing plan will apply in the seven worst-affected boroughs of London, plus parts of Essex that border London and parts of Kent.
Mr Hancock said it was "right" to keep schools open "for education and for public health".
"We are therefore surging mobile testing units and will be working with schools and local authorities to encourage these children and their families to get tested over the coming days," he said.
Mr Hancock said both PCR (a standard coronavirus test) and lateral flow testing - which takes about half an hour to show a result - would be used.
London and Essex are currently in tier two - the second highest level - meaning there is no household mixing allowed anywhere indoors and the rule of six applies outdoors.
Kent is in tier three, the highest level, in which you can only meet other households in outdoor public spaces such as parks, where the rule of six applies.
Four London boroughs were among the 20 places with the highest case rates in England in the week ending 6 December, according to Public Health England. They are Havering (400.7 cases per 100,000 people), Barking and Dagenham (333.5), Waltham Forest (327.1) and Redbridge (310.3).
Prof Paul Hunter, from the University of East Anglia's school of medicine, told the BBC it "does sadly look like" the capital would be moved into tier three.
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said on Thursday that London was facing "a tipping point" - but that placing it under tier three restrictions would be "catastrophic".
However, Mr Hancock said he "didn't want to pre-empt" any decision that might be made about moving London and parts of the South East into tier three.
He said it was "not inevitable" that the capital would have to face tighter rules.
Mr Hancock also told the briefing it was important not to "blow" the progress made so far in controlling coronavirus and urged everyone to "stay on our guard now and through Christmas".
He said tens of thousands of people had been vaccinated with the Pfzier/BioNTech jab in 73 UK hospital hubs.
GP-led sites will begin vaccinations next week, Mr Hancock said, with jabs administered in some care homes by Christmas.
Asked whether people would be able to spend New Year's Eve with their close family members, he said there would be no special set of rules for the occasion.
England's chief medical officer Prof Chris Whitty said a third wave was "not inevitable" but warned people must be "very, very sensible" over Christmas.
"The way we prevent it [a third wave] is everybody, all of us, coming together and deciding we want to try and stick to the guidance that's there," he said.
Last week, Scotland's education secretary said there would be no extension to the nation's school Christmas holidays, despite talks about potentially shutting all schools on 18 December and reopening them again on 11 January.
Meanwhile, Northern Ireland's education minister has repeatedly said there were no plans to close schools early for the Christmas break.
The latest coronavirus daily figures show 20,964 new coronavirus infections have been recorded across the UK, and another 516 people have died within 28 days of a positive test, bringing the total to 63,082.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55265098
|
news_uk-55265098
|
|
Tavistock puberty blocker study published after nine years - BBC News
|
2020-12-11
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The study by the Tavistock gender clinic shows all but one child was also later given cross-sex hormones.
|
UK
|
The Gender Identity Service is based at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
All but one child treated for gender dysphoria with puberty-blocking drugs at a leading NHS clinic also received cross-sex hormones, a study has shown.
The Tavistock and Portman Trust has argued the treatments are not linked.
The High Court ruled last week that under-16s are unlikely to be able to give informed consent to be treated with puberty-blocking drugs.
The trust said the study's findings were not accepted by a peer-reviewed journal until the day of the judgement.
These findings are from a study run by the Tavistock's Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) - England's only NHS specialist gender clinic for children - and research partners at University College London Hospitals.
The study began in 2011 and enrolled 44 children aged between 12 and 15 over the following three years. At the time, only those aged 16 and over were eligible for puberty blockers in the UK.
When BBC Newsnight covered the study and its preliminary findings last year it highlighted how previous research suggested all young people who took blockers went on to take cross-sex hormones - the next stage towards transitioning to the opposite gender.
The Tavistock's newly published findings appear to confirm this, with 43 out of 44 participants - or 98% - choosing to start treatment with cross-sex hormones.
Earlier this month, the High Court ruled that children under-16 were unlikely to be able to give informed consent to treatment with puberty blockers.
The relationship between blockers and subsequent treatment with cross-sex hormones was a core feature of the case.
Lawyers representing the claimants said there was "a very high likelihood" children who start taking hormone blockers will later begin taking cross-sex hormones, leading potentially to infertility and impaired sexual function.
The Tavistock argued puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones were entirely separate stages of treatment and one does not automatically lead to the other.
The judges rejected that argument, saying "in our view this does not reflect the reality".
"The evidence shows that the vast majority of children who take [puberty blockers] move on to take cross-sex hormones," and that these are part of "one clinical pathway".
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
The study findings potentially lend further support to that assertion.
The Tavistock disputes this, saying that as those in this study had persistent and consistent gender dysphoria throughout their childhood, it is not surprising they would seek to continue treatment after 16.
It argues that the fact not all chose to do so shows this course of treatment is not an inevitability.
Furthermore, the data was requested by the High Court during the hearing, but the Tavistock did not provide it.
The data, the trust argued, would be published in a peer-reviewed journal, but comments were being reviewed by the study's principal investigator, Prof Russell Viner - the president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.
However, the Tavistock published the data the day after the High Court handed down its judgement, and not in a peer-reviewed journal.
The Tavistock told the BBC that the paper was not accepted for publication until the day of the judgement and it was put into preprint that day.
The published study showed that treatment with the blocker brought about no change in psychological function.
This differs from Dutch findings "which reported improved psychological function," upon which many gender clinics have based their treatment.
Preliminary findings which showed that after a year on blockers, there was a significant increase in those answering the statement: "I deliberately try to hurt or kill myself", were not replicated across the duration of the study.
The study had no control group - with children who did not take puberty blockers - to enable the researchers to compare results with.
So, it is hard to infer cause and effect or draw conclusions as to the potential harms or benefits of this treatment.
The Gender Identity Service is based at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
The study also measured the impact of puberty blocking drugs on children's height and bone density.
The researchers found that suppressing puberty "reduced growth that was dependent on puberty hormones".
Height growth continued, "but more slowly than for their peers".
The Tavistock Trust said "the paper has now been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal and will be published soon".
All new referrals for puberty blockers are currently paused because of the High Court's ruling, and an NHS review into gender identity services for children and young people is currently under way.
If you are affected by any of the issues raised in this article, you can find support and advice via BBC Action Line.
You can watch Newsnight on BBC Two weekdays at 22:30 or on iPlayer, subscribe to the programme on YouTube and follow it on Twitter.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55282113
|
news_uk-55282113
|
|
Austria court overturns primary school headscarf ban - BBC News
|
2020-12-11
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The constitutional court rules that the law, brought in last year, breached rights on religious freedom.
|
Europe
|
The court ruled that the law was aimed at Muslim schoolgirls and was unconstitutional
Austria's constitutional court has struck down a law prohibiting primary school children from wearing specific religious head coverings.
It said the law was aimed at the Islamic headscarf and breached rights on religious freedom.
The law was passed during the previous coalition government in which the conservative People's Party was allied with the far-right Freedom Party.
The court said the law could lead to the marginalisation of Muslim girls.
It also rejected the government's argument that the prohibition could protect girls from social pressures from classmates, saying it penalised the wrong people.
It said, if necessary, the state needed to draw up legislation to better prevent bullying on the grounds of gender or religion.
The legislation, which came into force last year, did not specify that headscarves were banned but instead proscribed the wearing of "religious clothing that is associated with a covering of the head" for children up to the age of 10. The government had itself said that head coverings worn by Sikh boys or the Jewish skullcap would not be affected.
The court decided that the ban was in fact aimed at Muslim headscarves.
"The selective ban... applies exclusively to Muslim schoolgirls and thereby separates them in a discriminatory manner from other pupils," court President Christoph Grabenwarter said.
Education Minister Heinz Fassman said he took note of the judgment but added: "I regret that girls will not have the opportunity to make their way through the education system free from compulsion."
Austria's Islamic Faith Community, which represents the country's Muslims and brought the legal challenge, welcomed the ruling.
The wearing of Islamic headscarves has been a controversial topic in Austria
"Ensuring equal opportunities and self-determination for girls and women in our society is not achieved through bans," it said in a statement.
When the legislation was first proposed in 2018, Chancellor Sebastian Kurz said the goal was to "confront any development of parallel societies in Austria".
Vice-Chancellor Heinz Christian Strache, of the Freedom Party, said the government wanted to protect young girls from political Islam.
The ban came into force in May 2019, just days after Mr Strache was forced to resign after being secretly filmed offering public contracts to a woman posing as a Russian oligarch's niece.
The People's Party is now in coalition with the Green Party, but the government had still intended to extend the headscarf ban up to the age of 14.
The coalition's current programme stipulates that children should grow up "with as little coercion as possible". The only example it gives is the wearing of headscarves.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55277840
|
news_world-europe-55277840
|
|
'Unconscious bias training' to be scrapped by ministers - BBC News
|
2020-12-15
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The government scraps anti-bias training for civil servants and wants it to end across public sector.
|
Family & Education
|
"Unconscious bias training" is being scrapped for civil servants in England, with ministers saying it does not work.
The training, intended to tackle patterns of discrimination and prejudice, is used in many workplaces.
The government says there is no evidence it changes attitudes - and is urging other public sector employers to end this type of training.
But race equality campaigner Halima Begum said the government "mustn't backtrack on anti-racism training".
Lucille Thirlby, assistant general secretary of the FDA civil servants' union, called on ministers to say "what are you going to replace it with".
"How will they ensure people are not discriminated against? It's easier to attack something than do something positive about it," she said.
Unconscious bias training is an attempt to challenge prejudiced ways of thinking that could unfairly influence decisions - such as who might get a job or a promotion.
It can be prejudiced behaviour, based on assumptions about others, that people are not aware of themselves.
But the government says there is no proof that such training changes behaviour - and that it can "backfire" and create a negative response.
A written ministerial statement from Cabinet Office minister Julia Lopez will announce "unconscious bias training does not achieve its intended aims. It will therefore be phased out in the civil service".
"We encourage other public sector employers to do likewise," she says, urging the end to training which has been widely used to address bias in race, gender and sexuality.
But it has also been caught up in "culture war" arguments and accusations over "political correctness".
The government says it is "determined to eliminate discrimination in the workplace", but unconscious bias training is the wrong approach.
The Government Equalities Office says there has been "no evidence" that the training improved workplace equality.
Among the researchers cited is psychologist Patrick Forscher, who examined more than 400 studies on unconscious bias.
He said that few studies measured changes over time, and among "the most robust of those that did", the findings suggested "changes in implicit bias don't last".
Dr Forscher said such training had too often been used by employers as a "catch all", which failed to really tackle the specific barriers for different groups.
Halima Begum, chief executive of the Runnymede Trust race equality think tank, said unconscious bias training is not always effective - and recognised the dangers of a corporate "diversity industry" wanting to have "off the shelf" training.
But she warned the government would have to replace it with something better and further reaching - which addressed bias and "ingrained views" at a more "fundamental level".
Ms Begum said there needed to be structural changes about fair pay, progression and work practices, rather than courses which "make your boss feel better, but is not going to change the system".
The value of such training was defended by Jane Farrell, chief executive of the EW Group, a diversity and inclusion consultancy.
"There is a misconception that unconscious bias training is guilt inducing and tells people off for who or what they are, which is simply not true," she said.
"Great unconscious bias training provides a positive and supportive environment to think through how to ensure we recruit the best staff rather than inadvertently clone ourselves," said Ms Farrell.
Psychologist and author Stuart Ritchie said even though many staff might be required to take such unconscious bias training there was "nowhere near robust evidence" that it was able to change minds or behaviour.
Dr Ritchie said firms might use this training to "placate worries", but there was a lack of evidence that it would really reduce prejudice.
Jonny Gifford, who has worked with firms on diversity and inclusion, said unconscious bias had to be recognised as a "massive problem".
But Mr Gifford, adviser to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, warned the shortcomings of unconscious bias training should not be used to stop trying to "make the workplace more inclusive and to reduce barriers to inequality".
"To dismiss this as political correctness or being 'woke' is a very shaky place to be," said Mr Gifford.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-55309923
|
news_education-55309923
|
|
Scotland's drug deaths rise to new record - BBC News
|
2020-12-15
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The much-delayed figures show 1,264 people in Scotland died of drug misuse last year.
|
Scotland
|
More than 1,200 people in Scotland died of drug misuse last year, new figures show.
The much-delayed figures show a record number of deaths for the sixth year in a row and the highest total since records began in 1996.
The figure of 1,264 is a 6% increase on 2018 and more than double the number of deaths in 2014.
It is the worst rate recorded in Europe and about three and a half times the rate for England and Wales.
The National Records of Scotland statistics are six months late after a huge backlog in processing toxicology results and delays due to Covid-19.
They show that two-thirds of those who died were aged 35 to 54.
The report said the median average age of drug-related deaths had gone up from 28 to 42 over the past two decades.
However, there was also an increase in deaths among 15 to 24 year olds - from 64 in 2018 to 76 in 2019.
Three-quarters of the deaths occurred in five health board areas.
Greater Glasgow and Clyde had 404 deaths, Lanarkshire 163, Lothian 155, Tayside 118 and Ayrshire and Arran 108.
Here we are again. For the sixth year running, Scotland has seen a record total of drug deaths. We are once again the worst in Europe.
It shouldn't come as a surprise. While the UK and Scottish governments organised competing summits to showcase their vision of how to tackle the problem, frontline workers warned that the death rate was accelerating.
This year, the mountain of toxicology reports into drug deaths needed £300,000 of extra funding to be cleared and, still, the figures were five months late.
Much of the focus of this issue has been on the Misuse of Drugs Act, which is reserved to Westminster.
The Scottish government argues that it needs more control over the law to trial initiatives such as safer injecting facilities; the UK government argues the opposite, and that instead there needs to be more investment in rehab beds.
Those in the sector say these arguments only serve to simplify an issue that is so intractable, so huge.
Already identified as issues to tackle are punitive regimes that saw users kicked off methadone prescriptions for missing appointments. Those hoping for methadone were, in some cases, waiting up to five weeks for a prescription.
While the death toll climbed, funding to frontline services was cut by the Scottish government. In 2016, treatment was only reaching 40% of those who needed it.
The drug-taking trends are also shifting under our feet - as older heroin users die, a younger generation have taken to injecting cocaine, supercharging an HIV epidemic in Scotland's largest city.
Meanwhile, so-called street Valium - or etizolam - has a grip on the drug-using population.
Scotland's Drug Death Task Force is trying to turn the tide. They have encouraged same-day prescribing and the expansion medical assisted treatment, along with programmes to distributed the life-saving drug Naloxone.
Even with these efforts though, this problem will take years to stabilise.
Scotland's "polydrug" habit - mixing dangerous street drugs with alcohol and prescription pills - caused many of the deaths.
The report said 94% of all drug-related deaths were of people who took more than one substance.
Heroin and morphine were implicated in more deaths than in any previous year - more than half of the total.
"Street" benzodiazepines (such as etizolam) were named in almost two-thirds of deaths, more than in any previous year.
There was also a big rise in cocaine being reported as taken by people who died (365) as well as gabapentin and pregabalin, which are used to treat nerve pain.
In September, a report from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction said Scotland had the highest recorded drug death rate in Europe, far ahead of Sweden in second place.
It highlighted the problem of benzos, saying: "In Scotland, criminal groups are known to be involved in the large-scale illicit manufacture and distribution of fake benzodiazepine medicines."
The fake Valium - that sells for as little as 50p - is many times stronger than prescription drugs.
The new breed of benzodiazepines are often taken alongside other drugs such as heroin.
Scottish Public Health Minister Joe FitzPatrick said the Scottish government was doing "everything in its powers to tackle rising drug deaths".
Mr FitzPatrick said the Drug Deaths Taskforce, which was established after a public health emergency was declared last year, was continuing its "urgent work" and there was a new sub-group looking at the issue of benzodiazepines.
He said: "These deaths stem from a longstanding and complex set of challenges, and there is no shortcut that will suddenly solve this."
Scottish Conservative health spokesman Donald Cameron said the statistics were "dreadful and heart-breaking in equal measure".
"It is appalling that drug deaths have doubled in a decade, and there's no doubt that this government's cuts to drug rehab and addiction programmes have a large part to play in this awful trend," he said.
"The Scottish Conservatives have backed calls from rehab organisations - including Favor Scotland, Jericho House and Phoenix Futures - for a £20m Scottish Recovery Fund.
"We need to start helping people to get off drugs and get well, we can't simply try to manage addictions and leave it there."
Scottish Labour's Monica Lennon called on Public Health Minister Joe FitzPatrick to resign over the record levels of drug deaths.
She said: "Time and time again, the Scottish government was warned by dozens of organisations to properly fund treatment and recovery services, but instead we got real terms cuts.
"Calls for bold and urgent action have not been acted on.
"The public needs to have confidence in the public health minister to lead us out of this human rights tragedy - these shocking statistics and his woeful response give us none."
Scottish Liberal Democrat health spokesman Alex Cole-Hamilton MSP said lives were being lost on an "unprecedented and unparalleled scale".
He said: "Too often services simply aren't there, either through a lack of resources or a lack of political will."
Mr Cole-Hamilton called for more funding for drug services and sending people to treatment instead of prison.
Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie accused both the Scottish and UK governments of "a shameful failure of leadership".
He said criminalisation of drugs had caused more harm than it has prevented.
"Addiction is better tackled by trained medical professionals than the strong arm of the law," he said.
However, decriminalisation has been ruled out by the UK government, which controls drugs law.
David Liddell, the chief executive of the Scottish Drugs Forum, said the number of preventable deaths was "a national tragedy and disgrace".
"We need people to be in high quality treatment that protects them from overdose and death," he said.
He said the Drug Taskforce's plans for treatment standards, which would mean people gained quick access to drug services and have a choice of medication that best suits them, were a step forward.
He also called for drug consumption rooms, heroin-assisted treatment and assertive outreach.
Mr Liddell said there needed to be an end to "the alienation, marginalisation and stigmatisation of people with a drug problem".
"As part of this approach, we should decriminalise the possession of all drugs and extend the current recorded police warning for cannabis possession to apply to all other drugs," he said.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55184961
|
news_uk-scotland-55184961
|
|
Mark Drakeford not ruling out tax rises in next Senedd term - BBC News
|
2020-12-15
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Mark Drakeford has not ruled out tax rises in the next Senedd term if Welsh Labour retains power.
|
Wales politics
|
The Welsh Government has some taxation powers, including over income tax
The first minister has not ruled out tax rises during the next Senedd term if Welsh Labour is in power.
Mark Drakeford said he would focus on jobs rather than increasing taxes in the early period after the 2021 Senedd election.
But he told ITV Wales that beyond that period "everybody is entitled to make their decisions based on the facts at the time".
The Welsh Government gained powers to vary income tax rates in April 2019.
Ministers have stuck to Welsh Labour's 2016 manifesto commitment not to change the tax rates during the five year term.
Counsel General Jeremy Miles told Welsh Labour's spring conference in April 2019 that the party should campaign "unashamedly" to use its income tax varying powers in the next assembly elections.
Taxes are expected to be a more prominent issue in next May's election than in the past
Speaking on ITV Wales' Sharp End programme, Welsh Labour Leader and First Minister Mark Drakeford set out his stall: "I don't think increasing taxes in a recession is good economic policy and my anticipation would be that the Labour party will not be proposing that here in Wales.
"In a buoyant economy there are a different set of arguments but at a time when there isn't money in people's pockets, taking money out of those pockets does not make good economic sense.
"We will go in to the [2021 Senedd] election at a very difficult time for the economy and the focus of the Labour manifesto will be on jobs here in Wales.
"Securing jobs that people already have and bringing new jobs for people who would have lost them during the recession. That will be our focus."
"Tax rises, I do not think will be part of our prescription in that period. Beyond that, I think everybody is entitled to make their decisions based on the facts at the time," he added.
In a recent blog on the Gwydir website, Welsh Conservative finance spokesman Nick Ramsay said: "With the challenges of Covid far from over, and the economic damage yet unknown, it is far too early to make detailed tax and spend commitments for a Welsh Conservative Government."
"Our long term aim will be to reduce income tax when it is prudent to do so," he added.
Plaid Cymru told BBC Wales in July it was considering which taxes to raise to pay for some of the policies in their 2021 election manifesto.
The party is proposing the introduction of free childcare and a weekly £35 support payment for children, as well as a national health and care service.
Party leader Adam Price said: "It's important that we're open and honest with the people of Wales."
Brexit Party leader Mark Reckless said: "Since Wales never had the promised referendum on these [tax raising] powers, I look forward to Mark Drakeford sending them back to Westminster."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-54161630
|
news_uk-wales-politics-54161630
|
|
Coronavirus: Vaccinate more people with one dose, urges Tony Blair - BBC News
|
2020-12-23
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The ex-PM says the UK could exit Covid restrictions earlier if stocks were not held back for a second jab.
|
UK Politics
|
Ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair is urging the government to give as many people as possible an initial dose of a Covid vaccine - rather than preserving stocks so there is enough for second jabs.
The Pfizer-Biontech and Oxford University-Astrazeneca vaccines require two doses to be fully effective.
Mr Blair said his idea would speed up the vaccine programme so the country could come out of lockdown sooner.
In the Independent, he argued the roll-out must be "radically accelerated".
The UK has pre-ordered 40 million doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and 100 million of the Oxford University Astrazeneca vaccines.
More than 500,000 people in the UK have now been given their first dose of the vaccine.
The two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine are administered around 21 days apart.
In a statement, Pfizer said this was needed "to provide the maximum protection", adding: "Health professionals are advised to continue to follow the official guidance on administration of the vaccine."
Mr Blair told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that although "you really need the two doses… the first dose gives you substantial immunity".
He argued there was a "strong case for not holding back the second doses of the vaccine" and instead using those batches to give a greater number of people the first dose.
His proposal was backed up by Professor David Salisbury, the man in charge of immunisation at the Department of Health until 2013.
He told Today the numbers were "straightforward".
"You give one dose you get 91% [protection] you give two doses and you get 95% - you are only gaining 4% for giving the second dose," he said.
"With current circumstances, I would strongly urge you to use as many first doses as you possibly can for risk groups and only after you have done all of that come back with second doses."
However, he acknowledged this would be harder to do with the Oxford University vaccine, where the efficacy of two doses is 60%.
Pfizer has not tested their vaccine as a single dose so where have the numbers come from?
The large clinical trial using two jabs showed 52% protection in the time between the first and second jabs.
But it takes time for the immune system to fully respond, so that figure will include the time when there is no protection from the vaccine.
And this is true of the second jab; it's not an instantaneous response.
Data in the New England Journal of Medicine says there is 90.5% protection in the six days after the second jab.
Prof Salisbury's argument is this is all down to the first jab, as the second has not kicked in yet.
Professor Wendy Barclay, from the department of infectious disease at Imperial College London, said Mr Blair's idea was interesting but agreed it was "too risky" to try without further evidence.
And Professor Neil Ferguson, also from Imperial, added that the UK regulator had authorised the vaccine on the basis that people would receive two doses.
Administering one dose only would require "an entirely different regulatory submission", he told a Commons committee.
A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: "Over the coming weeks and months, the rate of vaccinations will increase as more doses become available and the programme continues to expand."
Margaret Keenan became the first person in the UK to receive the Pfizer/BioNtech Covid-19 vaccine at University Hospital, Coventry
Mr Blair's suggestion is part of a seven-point plan he has drawn up, which also includes a plea to the government to start preparing "health passports".
The former Labour prime minister, who was in power between 1997 and 2007, predicted that in six months, countries would only allow travellers to visit if they could give proof of their disease status.
He also said it was important to "have the best data systems in the world available to us".
"Collecting this data in one place, with one patient record, is going to be absolutely vital - testing, vaccinations, every single thing to do with the development of this disease," he added.
"You need to record every single piece of data you can lay your hands on because we will be adjusting our vaccination programme as we go - we may even have to adjust the vaccine itself."
Mr Blair also said that while it was important to prioritise the vulnerable and health care staff, this should not delay vaccinating those who were more likely to spread the disease, such as students.
Tony Blair's theory about making vaccines go further is grabbing the headlines but the former prime minister's thoughts on health passports could prove even more controversial.
He's confident that within six months no country in the world will allow travellers in without proof of their disease status - and wants the UK government to get ahead of the curve, building a vast database of patient records, tests and vaccinations.
It would seem inevitable that any health passport would end up being used not just for foreign travel but at home, with restaurants, shops and even employers demanding to know about an individual's virus status.
The national ID card that Tony Blair's government proposed in the teeth of fierce opposition would finally become a reality.
But civil liberties and data rights campaigners have already raised concerns about issues such as the data collected by the NHS Covid-19 contact tracing app, and about the role in building a virus dashboard the government has given to the controversial American firm Palantir.
They can be expected to mount a vigorous fight against any attempt to create a national "Covid passport" - and many MPs across the political spectrum will share their unease.
But not everyone will reject the idea out of hand. Some whose freedoms to leave their house or to welcome family at Christmas have been curtailed may think that giving away some of their data is a price worth paying for a return to normality.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55410349
|
news_uk-politics-55410349
|
|
Coronavirus: Government publishes data behind stricter tiers - BBC News
|
2020-12-01
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Some Conservative backbenchers have threaten to vote against the plan for England on Tuesday.
|
UK Politics
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Boris Johnson says the “plan through to Easter” would see areas “come down in the tiers they are in”.
No 10 has published data behind its decisions over England's new tier system as it tries to win MPs' support.
Downing Street's report said it sought to "balance the many complex impacts" of restrictions and keep them in place "for as short a time as possible".
It said allowing the virus to spread exponentially "would lead to impacts... considered intolerable for society".
But senior Tory MP Mark Harper said the "wheels are coming off the government's arguments".
MPs will vote on the plans on Tuesday.
The government announced its tougher three tiers to tackle the virus last week, with Boris Johnson telling reporters on Monday: "We can't afford to take our foot off the throat of the beast... to let it out of control again."
But a number of Tory backbenchers have threatened to vote against the motion when it comes to the Commons, including the Covid Recovery Group (CRG) of MPs - chaired by Mr Harper.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said his party would abstain on the vote, saying he had "serious misgivings" about the measures.
But he said it was "in the national interest" to let the restrictions pass through the Commons without Labour's opposition to ensure some measures were in place.
A No 10 spokesman accused Sir Keir of "playing politics in the middle of a global pandemic, instead of working with the government to find a way through this difficult time for the British people".
England's current lockdown will end in the early hours of Wednesday 2 December and will see the country placed into one of three tiers: medium (one), high (two) and very high (three).
However, the majority of the country, over 55 million, will be under the strictest two sets of measures.
The announcement led to criticism from some Tory MPs, who were concerned about the impact in their constituencies.
Mr Johnson wrote to his party twice over the weekend to appeal for their backing and to grant some of the CRG's demands.
They included the publication of the data on the health, social and economic impact of the tiers, and the promise MPs could vote again on the measures in January - with the possibility the tier system could end on 3 February.
But the government report - published on Monday - said it was "not possible to forecast the precise economic impact of a specific change to a specific restriction with confidence".
The document is largely made up of information already available.
It said the challenge of balancing health and societal impacts was not straightforward, but the government would continue to pursue the best overall outcomes.
The chair of the Treasury select committee, Tory MP Mel Stride, condemned the report as "a rehashed document [that] offers very little further in economic terms".
He told the BBC he would support the government to ensure there were some restrictions in place, but added: "It's frustrating that there is little here that sets out how the different tiers might impact on the specific sectors and regions across the country.
"Those looking for additional economic analysis of the new tiered system will struggle to find it in this document."
The CRG chair, Mr Harper, said the report "seems to be collapsing under the glare of scrutiny".
He repeated accusations that the government's modelling on deaths and hospital capacity had been wrong, adding: "We have asked repeatedly for the information that vindicates these hospital projections and they have not been forthcoming."
While Labour will abstain, the Liberal Democrats have said they will not back the plan - although it is not clear whether they will vote against or abstain.
The SNP will abstain in the vote, as it only covers restrictions in England.
With many of the opposition MPs abstaining, it would take a huge Tory rebellion for the measures to fall, which is unlikely.
At first glance there doesn't appear to be much, if any, new information in this document.
The government's analysis draws on studies and data already in the public domain to try to assess the impact of the tiered system of restrictions.
So will it convince Conservative MPs sceptical about the need for tighter restrictions that they are, in fact, necessary?
Some Tory backbenchers may be satisfied the government has at least attempted to provide further evidence that tougher measures are needed. They've made their point.
Others will flick through the 48 pages and discard it, knowing all along that without some elusive magic formula the government could provide, they would never have been convinced.
The government is likely to win Tuesday's vote, but as the pandemic wears on, it is having to go to greater and greater lengths to keep its own MPs on side.
Speaking shortly before the data was published, Mr Johnson said he "understood people's frustration" with the stricter tiers.
He said: "The tiering system is tough, but it is designed to be tough to keep [the virus] under control."
"What we can't do is forsake and abandon all the gains we have made now just when we are starting to see real progress in the science."
In the report, the government pointed to data from the Office for National Statistics, showing a rapid increase in people testing positive for the virus between September and November - from 59,800 a week to 633,000 a week.
It said the new "strengthened" tier system was "designed to keep R [the infection rate] below one so that prevalence continues to fall, the significant impacts of the virus are reduced, and so that, ultimately, fewer restrictions are required."
It added that a "stable and fully functioning health system is one of the pillars that underpins our society and our economy", with the government's view being "the severe loss of life and other health impacts of allowing the NHS to be overwhelmed would be intolerable for our society".
The document also pointed to the economic forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility - which were published alongside Chancellor Rishi Sunak's spending review last week - predicting the value of the economy will fall by 11.3% by the end of the financial year.
But, while the report conceded there would be "major impacts" on the economy from the restrictions, it added: "Any attempt to estimate the specific economic impacts of precise changes to individual restrictions for a defined period of time would be subject to such wide uncertainty as to not be meaningful for precise policy making".
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Laura Foster explains the new three tier system for England
Labour leader Sir Keir defended his party's decision to abstain on the vote for measures, saying it was "better that these regulations can be amended and put in place than if there are no regulations".
He said the "serious misgivings" he had included over the performance of the test and trace system and "real concerns" over the level of economic support for those in the highest tiers.
But, Sir Keir added: "Although the number of cases is coming down as a result of lockdown, the virus is still a significant risk and in principal we accept there is going to have to be continued restrictions."
However, one Labour MP, Richard Burgon, has already said he will vote against the tier system, arguing that it will fail to lower the infection rate and make another lockdown more likely.
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey described the system as "chaotic" and said his party would not back the measures until the prime minister addressed their concerns - such as working with local authorities and supporting pubs.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55134766
|
news_uk-politics-55134766
|
|
Facebook News will pay UK outlets for content in 2021 - BBC News
|
2020-12-01
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Starting in January, Facebook will pay UK publishers for some - but not all - of their content.
|
Technology
|
Facebook will begin paying UK news publishers for some articles with the launch of Facebook News in January.
The feature adds a dedicated news tab to the Facebook app, and has already launched in the United States.
Facebook said it will "pay publishers for content that is not already on the platform" and prioritise original reporting.
It comes after years of tension between Facebook and news publishers, who have often accused it of "stealing" content.
But hundreds of UK news outlets are already signed up to deals for the new feature, Facebook said.
They include publishers such as Hearst (Cosmopolitan, Elle, Esquire); the Guardian Media group; regional newspaper giant JPI Media; and the Midland News Association.
Facebook said it expects more publishers to join after the launch.
The news tab is only available on the mobile app - not in a web browser.
But Facebook said its launch in the US has shown it that 95% of the traffic to Facebook News publishers through that tab, are new readers who "have not interacted with those news outlets in the past".
That may sound promising for news outlets trying to increase their audience on Facebook, as news accounts for only about 4% of a user's main "news feed".
The deals struck between Facebook and publishers are not public, so it is not known how lucrative they could be for struggling news outlets.
But previous efforts to bring publishers into the fold have not always been a success.
Over the years, Facebook has encouraged news publishers to produce video for its platform and has changed the algorithms that govern its main user feed at the expense of news.
It has also tried to drive publishers to use its instant articles feature, which limits advertising and other features of the publisher's website.
Facebook has always insisted it doesn't want to make editorial decisions. It outsources fact-checking to organisations like Full Fact, and will outsource curation of this news service to an organisation called Upday, tasked with surfacing "reliable" and "relevant" news, whatever an on-the-day editor decides that means.
This initiative crosses a commercial rubicon. The company has always directed traffic back to publishers, but this is the first time that Facebook will pay news publishers for their work.
For more than a decade, the likes of Rupert Murdoch's News UK - as well as many local publishers - have argued that big tech companies carry their content without paying for it, and so act as leeches.
This move will begin to weaken that argument. Some of the publishers paid by Facebook will be struggling local titles, dependent for their future on the flattering interest of a Californian tech giant.
Yet, as recently as 2018, Mark Zuckerberg said he wouldn't pay publishers for content.
This new move is a loud gesture to British regulators, saying Facebook will invest in public goods such as journalism, provided the regulatory environment is favourable.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-55137096
|
news_technology-55137096
|
|
Covid: Poor public health made pandemic worse - Sally Davies - BBC News
|
2020-12-01
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The former chief medical officer says high rates of obesity, deprivation and overcrowding have cost lives.
|
Health
|
The UK's high level of obesity has fuelled a much-increased death rate from Covid-19, says the former chief medical officer for England.
Prof Dame Sally Davies said high obesity rates - and high levels of deprivation and overcrowded housing - had cost lives.
The poor state of public health meant it was not surprising that the UK had struggled during the pandemic.
She said: "The fact that we are one of the fattest nations in the developed world has undoubtedly led to more deaths than we should have had.
"Our poor public health - whether it is deprivation, overweight, or other chronic illnesses, alongside crowding in urban areas - have led to a much increased death rate over what we could have had if we had a healthier basic population."
The UK became the first country in Europe to pass 50,000 coronavirus deaths earlier this month.
Dame Sally said stricter recent restrictions had reduced social encounters and so brought down coronavirus infections.
But she added that she expected a third wave of the virus, possibly in the New Year, and that it was going to be a difficult winter.
Dame Sally left her role as the government's chief medical adviser to become head of Cambridge University's Trinity College a few months before Covid-19 struck.
She has co-authored a book arguing for more effective measures to promote healthier living. Among the measures she supports are taxes on foods high in salt or sugar.
She said: "It is incontrovertible that if you are overweight - particularly if you are obese - you increase your risk of death.
"All of the diseases associated with overweight, whether it is hypertension, diabetes or others, increase the risk of getting very ill.
"Clearly it is terribly important that we sort out obesity and overweight to improve the health of the nation."
She said that while average life expectancy in the UK had increased, the average number of years of healthy life had not, and among the most deprived sections of the population it had come down.
The UK government unveiled a plan to tackle rates of obesity in July, which included a ban on "buy one get one free" deals on unhealthy food in England, restrictions on where foods high in fat and sugar can be promoted in-store, and new rules for displaying calories on menus.
There will also be a national campaign to help people lose weight and eat more healthily, a consultation on whether to stop fast food adverts online altogether, and a review of traffic light labelling on food and drinks sold in shops.
Dame Sally Davies has made very few comments about the Covid-19 pandemic.
She has been understandably keen not to tread on the toes of her successor Chris Whitty.
She knows that any future review of the government's handling of the coronavirus crisis will partly cover her time as chief medical adviser.
But she has always been passionate about the need to improve health and wellbeing and implement tough anti-obesity policies.
So her broader arguments about the vulnerability of the UK population to Covid because of long-standing structural health inequalities is consistent with her stated views when in Whitehall.
It is a sobering thought that more people died in the UK with coronavirus than in many other leading industrialised nations because of poor underlying health.
Dame Sally has the issue out there for others to consider as they look for lessons to be learned. With her put stature and experience, the message cannot be ignored.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55134496
|
news_health-55134496
|
|
Louise Smith death: Shane Mays jailed for murdering niece in woods - BBC News
|
2020-12-09
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Shane Mays repeatedly punched Louise Smith in the face and defiled and burned her body.
|
Hampshire & Isle of Wight
|
Louise Smith had moved in with her aunt who is married to Shane Mays
A man has been jailed for life for murdering his teenage niece in woodland and violating and burning her body.
Louise Smith, 16, was found dead at Havant Thicket, Hampshire, on 21 May - 13 days after she went missing.
Her uncle Shane Mays, 30, was previously found guilty of murder by a jury at Winchester Crown Court.
Imposing a minimum term of 25 years, the judge, Mrs Justice May, said he had committed "the most gross abuse of trust".
Shane Mays was jailed for a minimum of 25 years
Louise went to live with her aunt and Mays, who was her uncle through marriage, in late April after an argument with her mother.
Mays "flirted" with the "anxious and vulnerable" teenager, including by tickling her feet in a video found on her phone, his trial was told.
The defendant, who had admitted manslaughter, told the jury the teenager lured him to woods to "bond" with him.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Giving evidence, Mays said he became enraged when she hit him with a stick during an argument over drugs.
He told the court he did not know how many times he punched her as she lay on the ground, only stopping when he heard her moaning.
The defendant, of Ringwood House, Leigh Park, said someone else must have later interfered with and burned her body.
Louise's father Bradley Smith said he was "tortured by nightmares" while her mother Rebbecca Cooper described Mays as a "monster"
Louise suffered "repeated, heavy blows" to the head but the cause of death could not be determined due to the fire, the jury was told.
Mays, who was assessed by a psychologist as having an extremely low IQ of 63, said he forgot what he had done until he was in prison on remand in June.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. The last known footage of Louise Smith was shown in court
In a victim personal statement read out in court, Louise's mother Rebbecca Cooper said her "strong-willed, happy, smiley" daughter had "the whole world to look forward to".
Addressing Mays, she said: "You killed her in such a traumatic way and what you did afterwards is beyond words. You are a monster...
"You damaged her so bad that I didn't have a chance to say goodbye, hold her hand or even kiss her. I will never forgive you for this."
A statement from the teenager's father, Bradley Smith, said he was "tortured by nightmares" and felt he might "never recover".
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Rejecting a whole life term for Mays, the judge said she could not be sure that the murder was "sexually motivated".
"Shane Mays was in a position of trust in relation to Louise; theirs was like a father-daughter relationship," she said.
"That being, he committed the most gross abuse of trust."
She added: "Louise had all her life before her. Her death was bleak, dreadfully so... She was grotesquely and cruelly injured and her body defiled."
Det Insp Adam Edwards, of Hampshire Constabulary, said: "Mays has shown no remorse throughout this case, and has lied to police in a bid to deflect any blame for Louise's murder away from himself.
"I am pleased that the jury were able to see through these lies."
Hampshire Safeguarding Children Partnership said it was reviewing how authorities had cared for Louise, who had an allocated social worker.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-55245077
|
news_uk-england-hampshire-55245077
|
|
Coronavirus: Vaccinate more people with one dose, urges Tony Blair - BBC News
|
2020-12-24
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The ex-PM says the UK could exit Covid restrictions earlier if stocks were not held back for a second jab.
|
UK Politics
|
Ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair is urging the government to give as many people as possible an initial dose of a Covid vaccine - rather than preserving stocks so there is enough for second jabs.
The Pfizer-Biontech and Oxford University-Astrazeneca vaccines require two doses to be fully effective.
Mr Blair said his idea would speed up the vaccine programme so the country could come out of lockdown sooner.
In the Independent, he argued the roll-out must be "radically accelerated".
The UK has pre-ordered 40 million doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and 100 million of the Oxford University Astrazeneca vaccines.
More than 500,000 people in the UK have now been given their first dose of the vaccine.
The two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine are administered around 21 days apart.
In a statement, Pfizer said this was needed "to provide the maximum protection", adding: "Health professionals are advised to continue to follow the official guidance on administration of the vaccine."
Mr Blair told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that although "you really need the two doses… the first dose gives you substantial immunity".
He argued there was a "strong case for not holding back the second doses of the vaccine" and instead using those batches to give a greater number of people the first dose.
His proposal was backed up by Professor David Salisbury, the man in charge of immunisation at the Department of Health until 2013.
He told Today the numbers were "straightforward".
"You give one dose you get 91% [protection] you give two doses and you get 95% - you are only gaining 4% for giving the second dose," he said.
"With current circumstances, I would strongly urge you to use as many first doses as you possibly can for risk groups and only after you have done all of that come back with second doses."
However, he acknowledged this would be harder to do with the Oxford University vaccine, where the efficacy of two doses is 60%.
Pfizer has not tested their vaccine as a single dose so where have the numbers come from?
The large clinical trial using two jabs showed 52% protection in the time between the first and second jabs.
But it takes time for the immune system to fully respond, so that figure will include the time when there is no protection from the vaccine.
And this is true of the second jab; it's not an instantaneous response.
Data in the New England Journal of Medicine says there is 90.5% protection in the six days after the second jab.
Prof Salisbury's argument is this is all down to the first jab, as the second has not kicked in yet.
Professor Wendy Barclay, from the department of infectious disease at Imperial College London, said Mr Blair's idea was interesting but agreed it was "too risky" to try without further evidence.
And Professor Neil Ferguson, also from Imperial, added that the UK regulator had authorised the vaccine on the basis that people would receive two doses.
Administering one dose only would require "an entirely different regulatory submission", he told a Commons committee.
A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: "Over the coming weeks and months, the rate of vaccinations will increase as more doses become available and the programme continues to expand."
Margaret Keenan became the first person in the UK to receive the Pfizer/BioNtech Covid-19 vaccine at University Hospital, Coventry
Mr Blair's suggestion is part of a seven-point plan he has drawn up, which also includes a plea to the government to start preparing "health passports".
The former Labour prime minister, who was in power between 1997 and 2007, predicted that in six months, countries would only allow travellers to visit if they could give proof of their disease status.
He also said it was important to "have the best data systems in the world available to us".
"Collecting this data in one place, with one patient record, is going to be absolutely vital - testing, vaccinations, every single thing to do with the development of this disease," he added.
"You need to record every single piece of data you can lay your hands on because we will be adjusting our vaccination programme as we go - we may even have to adjust the vaccine itself."
Mr Blair also said that while it was important to prioritise the vulnerable and health care staff, this should not delay vaccinating those who were more likely to spread the disease, such as students.
Tony Blair's theory about making vaccines go further is grabbing the headlines but the former prime minister's thoughts on health passports could prove even more controversial.
He's confident that within six months no country in the world will allow travellers in without proof of their disease status - and wants the UK government to get ahead of the curve, building a vast database of patient records, tests and vaccinations.
It would seem inevitable that any health passport would end up being used not just for foreign travel but at home, with restaurants, shops and even employers demanding to know about an individual's virus status.
The national ID card that Tony Blair's government proposed in the teeth of fierce opposition would finally become a reality.
But civil liberties and data rights campaigners have already raised concerns about issues such as the data collected by the NHS Covid-19 contact tracing app, and about the role in building a virus dashboard the government has given to the controversial American firm Palantir.
They can be expected to mount a vigorous fight against any attempt to create a national "Covid passport" - and many MPs across the political spectrum will share their unease.
But not everyone will reject the idea out of hand. Some whose freedoms to leave their house or to welcome family at Christmas have been curtailed may think that giving away some of their data is a price worth paying for a return to normality.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55410349
|
news_uk-politics-55410349
|
|
Kent lorry chaos: Truckers warned of Christmas in their cabs - BBC News
|
2020-12-24
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Transport Secretary Grant Shapps says it could take days to clear the backlog of lorries in Kent.
|
Kent
|
About 4,000 lorries have been parked at Manston Airport overnight
It could take days to clear the backlog of lorries waiting to cross to France, Transport Secretary Grant Shapps says.
Drivers have been warned they may have to spend Christmas in their cabs.
About 4,000 lorries are parked at Manston Airport in Kent, with another 2,300 being held on the M20 after the French closed their border with the UK.
Crossings will continue over Christmas but all drivers are required to test negative for Covid-19 before being allowed into France.
Tests are being administered by members of the military and French firefighters.
Polish defence minister Mariusz Blaszczak said in a tweet that a team of territorial soldiers was being sent to the UK to support the testing effort.
Of the 2,367 drivers tested by 12:00 GMT, three have tested positive, Mr Shapps said.
"Spending days in a lorry on your own puts you in an extremely low risk category," he added.
Croatian driver Ante Kostelac told the BBC: "All hopes for Christmas with the family are over.
"I'm still waiting for testing at the airport, when asked when it will be, I got the answer 'who knows'."
"I'll obviously be at this airport for Christmas."
Operation Stack has been put in place on the M20 allowing lorries queuing for the Port of Dover and Eurotunnel terminal to be held on the motorway.
The Port of Dover said fewer than 100 freight vehicles had passed through overnight due to the restrictions on testing.
"However, now testing has fully mobilised at the port we anticipate that figure rising significantly throughout the day," a spokesman said.
This Twitter post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser. View original content on Twitter The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Skip twitter post by Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Twitter’s cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
Mr Shapps said: "It will take several days to clear the backlog."
"The one thing that people can do is not turn up in Kent; it won't get you through faster, indeed it will make things more difficult on the ground.
"The testing is happening and the negative tests are coming through now, and with police's help clearing the entrance to Dover, the traffic is able to move, and with Eurotunnel's help, things are just starting to move.
"It's never going to be a quick operation."
The head of the Road Haulage Association said he sympathised with the small number of lorry drivers who clashed with police in Dover on Wednesday.
Richard Burnett said: "I really feel for these drivers that have ended up being pawns in a larger game.
"Are they going to be held here until Boxing Day or beyond?"
Testing is under way at the Port of Dover with traffic slowly moving through this morning.
Many of the drivers have spent two, three or even four nights in their cabs with no toilet or washing facilities.
It's not just hauliers either. There are hundreds of vans full of workers from across Europe and families with small children trying to get home in time for Christmas.
Some drivers queuing through the town centre told me they've only moved 100m since the port reopened. I saw a few arguments breaking out at junctions where drivers were perceived to be pushing in.
The main routes through Dover are still largely blocked although there are definitely more police around today redirecting traffic away from the gridlock. Local volunteers are also out in force delivering much-needed food and drink to the waiting travellers.
As part of Operation Stack, the coast-bound carriageway of the M20 is closed between junction eight and the A20 at Hawkinge.
The London-bound carriageway is also shut between junction nine for Ashford and junction eight for Leeds Castle, with traffic being diverted on to the A20.
All EU freight traffic heading to the Port of Dover and Eurotunnel Terminals is being redirected to Manston Airfield, Highways England said.
Freight traffic on the M25 is being told to use the M2 and A2.
Follow BBC South East on Facebook, on Twitter, and on Instagram. Send your story ideas to southeasttoday@bbc.co.uk.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-55434966
|
news_uk-england-kent-55434966
|
|
Tavistock puberty blocker study published after nine years - BBC News
|
2020-12-12
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The study by the Tavistock gender clinic shows all but one child was also later given cross-sex hormones.
|
UK
|
The Gender Identity Service is based at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
All but one child treated for gender dysphoria with puberty-blocking drugs at a leading NHS clinic also received cross-sex hormones, a study has shown.
The Tavistock and Portman Trust has argued the treatments are not linked.
The High Court ruled last week that under-16s are unlikely to be able to give informed consent to be treated with puberty-blocking drugs.
The trust said the study's findings were not accepted by a peer-reviewed journal until the day of the judgement.
These findings are from a study run by the Tavistock's Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) - England's only NHS specialist gender clinic for children - and research partners at University College London Hospitals.
The study began in 2011 and enrolled 44 children aged between 12 and 15 over the following three years. At the time, only those aged 16 and over were eligible for puberty blockers in the UK.
When BBC Newsnight covered the study and its preliminary findings last year it highlighted how previous research suggested all young people who took blockers went on to take cross-sex hormones - the next stage towards transitioning to the opposite gender.
The Tavistock's newly published findings appear to confirm this, with 43 out of 44 participants - or 98% - choosing to start treatment with cross-sex hormones.
Earlier this month, the High Court ruled that children under-16 were unlikely to be able to give informed consent to treatment with puberty blockers.
The relationship between blockers and subsequent treatment with cross-sex hormones was a core feature of the case.
Lawyers representing the claimants said there was "a very high likelihood" children who start taking hormone blockers will later begin taking cross-sex hormones, leading potentially to infertility and impaired sexual function.
The Tavistock argued puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones were entirely separate stages of treatment and one does not automatically lead to the other.
The judges rejected that argument, saying "in our view this does not reflect the reality".
"The evidence shows that the vast majority of children who take [puberty blockers] move on to take cross-sex hormones," and that these are part of "one clinical pathway".
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
The study findings potentially lend further support to that assertion.
The Tavistock disputes this, saying that as those in this study had persistent and consistent gender dysphoria throughout their childhood, it is not surprising they would seek to continue treatment after 16.
It argues that the fact not all chose to do so shows this course of treatment is not an inevitability.
Furthermore, the data was requested by the High Court during the hearing, but the Tavistock did not provide it.
The data, the trust argued, would be published in a peer-reviewed journal, but comments were being reviewed by the study's principal investigator, Prof Russell Viner - the president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.
However, the Tavistock published the data the day after the High Court handed down its judgement, and not in a peer-reviewed journal.
The Tavistock told the BBC that the paper was not accepted for publication until the day of the judgement and it was put into preprint that day.
The published study showed that treatment with the blocker brought about no change in psychological function.
This differs from Dutch findings "which reported improved psychological function," upon which many gender clinics have based their treatment.
Preliminary findings which showed that after a year on blockers, there was a significant increase in those answering the statement: "I deliberately try to hurt or kill myself", were not replicated across the duration of the study.
The study had no control group - with children who did not take puberty blockers - to enable the researchers to compare results with.
So, it is hard to infer cause and effect or draw conclusions as to the potential harms or benefits of this treatment.
The Gender Identity Service is based at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
The study also measured the impact of puberty blocking drugs on children's height and bone density.
The researchers found that suppressing puberty "reduced growth that was dependent on puberty hormones".
Height growth continued, "but more slowly than for their peers".
The Tavistock Trust said "the paper has now been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal and will be published soon".
All new referrals for puberty blockers are currently paused because of the High Court's ruling, and an NHS review into gender identity services for children and young people is currently under way.
If you are affected by any of the issues raised in this article, you can find support and advice via BBC Action Line.
You can watch Newsnight on BBC Two weekdays at 22:30 or on iPlayer, subscribe to the programme on YouTube and follow it on Twitter.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55282113
|
news_uk-55282113
|
|
Austria court overturns primary school headscarf ban - BBC News
|
2020-12-12
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The constitutional court rules that the law, brought in last year, breached rights on religious freedom.
|
Europe
|
The court ruled that the law was aimed at Muslim schoolgirls and was unconstitutional
Austria's constitutional court has struck down a law prohibiting primary school children from wearing specific religious head coverings.
It said the law was aimed at the Islamic headscarf and breached rights on religious freedom.
The law was passed during the previous coalition government in which the conservative People's Party was allied with the far-right Freedom Party.
The court said the law could lead to the marginalisation of Muslim girls.
It also rejected the government's argument that the prohibition could protect girls from social pressures from classmates, saying it penalised the wrong people.
It said, if necessary, the state needed to draw up legislation to better prevent bullying on the grounds of gender or religion.
The legislation, which came into force last year, did not specify that headscarves were banned but instead proscribed the wearing of "religious clothing that is associated with a covering of the head" for children up to the age of 10. The government had itself said that head coverings worn by Sikh boys or the Jewish skullcap would not be affected.
The court decided that the ban was in fact aimed at Muslim headscarves.
"The selective ban... applies exclusively to Muslim schoolgirls and thereby separates them in a discriminatory manner from other pupils," court President Christoph Grabenwarter said.
Education Minister Heinz Fassman said he took note of the judgment but added: "I regret that girls will not have the opportunity to make their way through the education system free from compulsion."
Austria's Islamic Faith Community, which represents the country's Muslims and brought the legal challenge, welcomed the ruling.
The wearing of Islamic headscarves has been a controversial topic in Austria
"Ensuring equal opportunities and self-determination for girls and women in our society is not achieved through bans," it said in a statement.
When the legislation was first proposed in 2018, Chancellor Sebastian Kurz said the goal was to "confront any development of parallel societies in Austria".
Vice-Chancellor Heinz Christian Strache, of the Freedom Party, said the government wanted to protect young girls from political Islam.
The ban came into force in May 2019, just days after Mr Strache was forced to resign after being secretly filmed offering public contracts to a woman posing as a Russian oligarch's niece.
The People's Party is now in coalition with the Green Party, but the government had still intended to extend the headscarf ban up to the age of 14.
The coalition's current programme stipulates that children should grow up "with as little coercion as possible". The only example it gives is the wearing of headscarves.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55277840
|
news_world-europe-55277840
|
|
PC Andrew Harper: Appeals against killers' sentences rejected - BBC News
|
2020-12-16
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Judges reject an application by the attorney general to increase his killers' "lenient" sentences.
|
Berkshire
|
PC Andrew Harper got married four weeks before he was killed
The killers of PC Andrew Harper will not have their sentences increased after judges rejected the attorney general's case that they were "unduly lenient".
Suella Braverman QC had argued Henry Long, Albert Bowers and Jessie Cole should be handed longer jail terms.
She said the sentences of the three men had caused "widespread public concern".
PC Harper died after he was dragged for more than a mile behind a car driven by Long, 19, in Berkshire in August 2019.
The Thames Valley Police officer became tangled in a strap attached to the back of the car as he tried to apprehend the teenagers, who were suspected of stealing a quad bike.
Following a trial at the Old Bailey, Long, Bowers and Cole were all cleared of murder but convicted of manslaughter.
Long was jailed for 16 years, while getaway car passengers Bowers and Cole, both 18, were sentenced to 13 years each.
Dame Victoria Sharp said at the hearing earlier that their applications to reduce their sentences had also been refused.
Jessie Cole (l) and Albert Bowers (r) were convicted along with Henry Long (centre) in July
Cole and Bowers launched separate appeals against their convictions for manslaughter, which were also rejected.
Following the judgement, a spokesman for the attorney general said she believed the sentences should be increased, but "respects the decision of the Court of Appeal".
PC Harper, 28, from Wallingford, Oxfordshire, had been married to his wife Lissie for four weeks when he died.
Mrs Harper, 29, said in a statement she was "disappointed" and the sentences "do not reflect the severity and barbarity of the crimes they committed".
"I continue to feel let down by our justice system and the inadequate laws that we have in place," she said.
Mrs Harper has been campaigning for a change to the law to increase the sentences of those who kill emergency services workers.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Lissie Harper gives a statement after the decision
In their judgement, Dame Victoria Sharp, Lord Justice Holroyde and Mr Justice William Davis said PC Harper's family had the "profound sympathy of the nation".
They said "no one" doubted the "seriousness of the offending in this case", the "importance of the fact that the victim was a police officer engaged in performing his duty" and the "gravity of the harm caused".
But they added that trial judge Mr Justice Edis "had to sentence three young offenders for manslaughter, not for murder" and that "mere disagreement with his decisions as to the nature and length of the appropriate sentences provides neither a ground for finding the sentencing to have been unduly lenient nor a ground for finding a sentence to have been wrong in principle or manifestly excessive".
The judges said the attorney general's argument, that the sentences of Bowers and Cole were unduly lenient because the judge did not "depart" from the sentencing guidelines, was "to say the least, an unusual submission".
Follow BBC South on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. Send your story ideas to south.newsonline@bbc.co.uk.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-55331692
|
news_uk-england-berkshire-55331692
|
|
Sir Keir Starmer promises to shift power from Westminster - BBC News
|
2020-12-20
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
In a key policy speech, the Labour leader set out plans for the "boldest devolution project in a generation".
|
Scotland politics
|
Sir Keir Starmer said he was "under no illusion about the scale of the task Labour faces" in Scotland
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has committed his party to delivering the "boldest devolution project in a generation" in a policy speech.
He is to set up a constitutional commission to offer a "positive alternative to the Scottish people".
Sir Keir said leaders had a "shared duty" to "rebuild together" across the UK in the wake of the Covid-19 crisis.
But First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has argued that independence is "essential" to rebuilding Scotland post-pandemic.
The SNP have dismissed the plans as "constitutional tinkering" while the Scottish Conservatives said Labour were offering nothing new to challenge the SNP's dominance of Scottish politics.
Sir Keir used his speech on Monday - delivered online due to physical distancing - to confirm the setting up of a UK-wide constitutional commission, advised by former prime minister Gordon Brown, to deliver a "fresh and tangible offer" to the Scottish people.
He said the pandemic had put "rocket boosters" under the case for decentralisation of power, saying his party must "grasp the nettle and offer real devolution of power and resources" if it is to have any hope of preserving the future of the union.
He said: "It is Labour's duty to offer a positive alternative to the Scottish people. To show that you don't have to choose between a broken status quo and the uncertainty and divisiveness of separatism.
"The United Kingdom is much more than that, more than any individual. It has been before - and can be again - a great force for social justice, for security and for solidarity."
The independence campaign has regained momentum in the polls following defeat in 2014
With polls suggesting support for independence is on the rise, Sir Keir argued that the shared "history, values and identity" of the people of the UK mean there should be no place for internal borders.
He said Labour's offering must be "every bit as bold and radical" as the devolution delivered in the 1990s, saying the constitutional commission would target "real and lasting political and economic devolution" to local communities in all parts of the UK.
Sir Keir said this was about more than shifting powers from one parliament to another or transferring "a few jobs out of London", adding: "There's a yearning across the United Kingdom for politics and power to be much closer to people."
The project is to start with a listening exercise, with the party looking to "hear from as many people as possible across the UK".
The UK leader said he was "under no illusion about the scale of the task Labour faces" ahead of May's Scottish Parliament election, with Scottish Labour having been in opposition at Holyrood since 2007.
The party has also struggled in other elections north of the border, being reduced to a single Westminster seat in 2019 and finishing fifth in that year's European Parliament elections.
The MP said Labour would argue "passionately" against a new independence referendum saying it was "entirely the wrong priority" to hold a new vote in the teeth of a recession and "when there is such uncertainty about how Brexit and coronavirus will affect us"
He attacked the SNP's record in power, saying: "It's no wonder that Nicola Sturgeon wants to make May's election a referendum on another referendum, because on education, health and social justice the SNP have no story to tell."
The next Holyrood election is due in May 2021, with Labour currently the parliament's third party
The SNP's deputy Westminster leader Kirsten Oswald dismissed Labour's plans, saying the system was "broken" and "not working for Scotland".
"No amount of constitutional tinkering of the kind proposed by Labour will protect Scotland from Brexit or the Tory power grab being imposed upon us against our will," she said.
She said that even Labour supporters doubted their ability to oust the Conservatives from Westminster for another decade at least.
The MP added: "It's clear that only with the full powers of independence will we be able to properly protect our interests and secure our place in Europe - and that decision lies solely with the people of Scotland, not an out-of-touch Westminster system."
The Scottish Conservatives insisted they were the only party capable of taking on the SNP and championing the union.
Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross said: "This isn't leadership from Labour on the union, this is the same old tired argument that they've made before and they're offering nothing to challenge the SNP.
"Scottish Labour won't work with unionist parties to stop the nationalists, and they won't stand up to Nicola Sturgeon's demand for another independence referendum as early as next year.
"Only the Scottish Conservatives have the strength to take on the SNP right across Scotland and the determination to stop their push for indyref2 again."
The Scottish Liberal Democrats, however, said they are willing to work with Labour on a "third way" forward.
Leader Willie Rennie said: "Liberal Democrats support a new federalist settlement that means we can find a better way to agree a common future across the United Kingdom."
Devolution is pretty straightforward when national and devolved leaders agree. When they don't, it becomes a lot harder.
Nowhere has that been more obvious than in Scotland - and his speech was Sir Keir's first major foray into the independence debate.
For years, many believe Labour in Scotland has been in a constitutional no man's land; stuck between the pro-independence SNP and the strongly unionist Conservatives.
Labour has flirted with different positions - and has taken a hammering at the polls as a result.
Today's speech was intended to give more clarity on exactly where Sir Keir stands ahead of May's Holyrood election. He has adopted a similar position to the UK government on calls for another independence vote; not now, but not quite ruling it out forever.
Labour is open to more powers for Holyrood, presents itself as the party which introduced devolution in the first place, and will oppose what it sees as attacks on devolution from the current UK government.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55384938
|
news_uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55384938
|
|
Vaccine rumours debunked: Microchips, 'altered DNA' and more - BBC News
|
2020-12-02
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
We've looked at four false Covid vaccine claims that won’t go away.
|
Reality Check
|
We've looked into some of the most widely shared false vaccine claims - everything from alleged plots to put microchips into people to the supposed re-engineering of our genetic code.
The fear that a vaccine will somehow change your DNA is one we've seen aired regularly on social media.
The BBC asked three independent scientists about this. They said that the coronavirus vaccine would not alter human DNA.
Some of the newly created vaccines, including the one now approved in the UK developed by Pfizer/BioNTech, use a fragment of the virus's genetic material - or messenger RNA.
"Injecting RNA into a person doesn't do anything to the DNA of a human cell," says Prof Jeffrey Almond of Oxford University.
It works by giving the body instructions to produce a protein which is present on the surface of the coronavirus.
The immune system then learns to recognise and produce antibodies against the protein.
Claims that Bill Gates plans to use a vaccine to "manipulate" or "alter" human DNA have been widely shared
This isn't the first time we've looked into claims that a coronavirus vaccine will supposedly alter DNA. We investigated a popular video spreading the theory back in May.
Posts have noted that messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine technology "has never been tested or approved before".
It is true that no mRNA vaccine has been approved before now, but multiple studies of mRNA vaccines in humans have taken place over the last few years. And, since the pandemic started, the vaccine has been tested on tens of thousands of people around the world and has gone through a rigorous safety approval process.
Like all new vaccines, it has to undergo rigorous safety checks before it can be recommended for widespread use.
In Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials, vaccines are tested in small numbers of volunteers to check they are safe and to determine the right dose.
In Phase 3 trials they are tested in thousands of people to see how effective they are. The group who received the vaccine and a control group who have received a placebo are closely monitored for any adverse reactions - side-effects. Safety monitoring continues after a vaccine has been approved for use.
Next, a conspiracy theory that has spanned the globe.
It claims that the coronavirus pandemic is a cover for a plan to implant trackable microchips and that the Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates is behind it.
There is no vaccine "microchip" and there is no evidence to support claims that Bill Gates is planning for this in the future.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation told the BBC the claim was "false".
One TikTok user created a video about being "microchipped" and called a vaccine the "mark of the beast"
Rumours took hold in March when Mr Gates said in an interview that eventually "we will have some digital certificates" which would be used to show who'd recovered, been tested and ultimately who received a vaccine. He made no mention of microchips.
This led to one widely shared article headlined: "Bill Gates will use microchip implants to fight coronavirus."
The article makes reference to a study, funded by The Gates Foundation, into a technology that could store someone's vaccine records in a special ink administered at the same time as an injection.
However, the technology is not a microchip and is more like an invisible tattoo. It has not been rolled out yet, would not allow people to be tracked and personal information would not be entered into a database, says Ana Jaklenec, a scientist involved in the study.
The billionaire founder of Microsoft has been the subject of many false rumours during the pandemic.
He's been targeted because of his philanthropic work in public health and vaccine development.
Despite the lack of evidence, in May a YouGov poll of 1,640 people suggested 28% of Americans believed Mr Gates wanted to use vaccines to implant microchips in people - with the figure rising to 44% among Republicans.
We've seen claims that vaccines contain the lung tissue of an aborted fetus. This is false.
"There are no fetal cells used in any vaccine production process," says Dr Michael Head, of the University of Southampton.
One particular video that was posted on one of the biggest anti-vaccine Facebook pages refers to a study which the narrator claims is evidence of what goes into the vaccine developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University. But the narrator's interpretation is wrong - the study in question explored how the vaccine reacted when introduced to human cells in a lab.
Confusion may have arisen because there is a step in the process of developing a vaccine that uses cells grown in a lab, which are the descendants of embryonic cells that would otherwise have been destroyed. The technique was developed in the 1960s, and no fetuses were aborted for the purposes of this research.
Many vaccines are made in this way, explains Dr David Matthews, from Bristol University, adding that any traces of the cells are comprehensively removed from the vaccine "to exceptionally high standards".
The developers of the vaccine at Oxford University say they worked with cloned cells, but these cells "are not themselves the cells of aborted babies".
The cells work like a factory to manufacture a greatly weakened form of the virus that has been adapted to function as a vaccine.
But even though the weakened virus is created using these cloned cells, this cellular material is removed when the virus is purified and not used in the vaccine.
We've seen arguments against a Covid-19 vaccine shared across social media asking why we need one at all if the chances of dying from the virus are so slim.
A meme shared by people who oppose vaccination put the recovery rate from the disease at 99.97% and suggested getting Covid-19 is a safer option than taking a vaccine.
A meme using images of rapper Drake has been used to promote false vaccine claims
To begin with, the figure referred to in the meme as the "recovery rate" - implying these are people who caught the virus and survived - is not correct.
About 99.0% of people who catch Covid survive it, says Jason Oke, senior statistician at the University of Oxford.
So around 100 in 10,000 will die - far higher than three in 10,000, as suggested in the meme.
However, Mr Oke adds that "in all cases the risks very much depend on age and do not take into account short and long-term morbidity from Covid-19".
It's not just about survival. For every person who dies, there are others who live through it but undergo intensive medical care, and those who suffer long-lasting health effects.
This can contribute to a health service overburdened with Covid patients, competing with a hospital's limited resources to treat patients with other illnesses and injuries.
Concentrating on the overall death rate, or breaking down the taking of a vaccine to an individual act, misses the point of vaccinations, says Prof Liam Smeeth of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It should be seen as an effort by society to protect others, he says.
"In the UK, the worst part of the pandemic, the reason for lockdown, is because the health service would be overwhelmed. Vulnerable groups like the old and sick in care homes have a much higher chance of getting severely ill if they catch the virus".
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/54893437
|
news_54893437
|
|
Customs staff: Vaccinate us to keep trade flowing - BBC News
|
2021-01-13
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
One operator told the BBC his staff were working up to 16 hours a day to help traders.
|
Business
|
Customs operators have pleaded with the government to prioritise vaccinations for staff they insist are key front-line workers in the effort to keep vital supplies flowing into the UK.
One operator told the BBC his staff were working flat out - often up to 16 hours a day - to help traders comply with the new post-Brexit customs requirements.
"A Covid outbreak would be disastrous. Customs clearance staff should be identified as key workers and fast-tracked for vaccination."
Another said he had written to Transport Secretary Grant Shapps and his local MP for Ashford, Damian Green saying any coronavirus-related staff shortages could force them to close.
"We have 14 staff. Two have already had to self-isolate, if we lose any more we would have to consider closing".
Rod McKenzie of the Road Haulage Association supports the argument to accelerate vaccinations of port and customs staff.
"Customs agents are absolutely swamped, they are understaffed by tens of thousands and although volumes have been light thanks to pre-Christmas and pre-Brexit stockpiling, we are approaching a critical point:"
Steve Cock of logistics firm KGH said that volume would begin to build this week and described Friday as "a moment of truth" as volumes would be close to normal, imposing the first serious test of the system's capacity.
The government told the BBC that vaccination priorities were based on clinical vulnerability determined by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.
Although the government said it would be looking at key workers beyond the current priorities - like teachers - that would not come till after phase 1 of the current programme ends. That is not expected till late March at the earliest.
Although the ports themselves have been running reasonably smoothly, that is because many traders aren't getting as far as the ports as their documentation is not complete.
The Dover-Calais crossing last week saw only 40% of its usual traffic for this time of year. Many foreign hauliers have been avoiding the UK for fear of getting stuck on the wrong side of the channel or raising their prices by as much as six times to compensate for the additional risks of congestion.
Cracks in the system have already started to show with large European delivery firm DPD cancelling road deliveries from the UK to the EU while Ocado, M&S, and Fortnum and Mason have cited problems delivering to customers in the EU and Northern Ireland.
Fish and seafood exports have been particularly hard hit.
Many small traders who usually club together to share the cost of space on large lorries headed to their primary markets in the EU have hit serious roadblocks.
Products of animal origin now need Export Health Certificates signed off by veterinary professionals.
The burden of getting multiple certificates for single lorries has brought exports to the EU to a virtual standstill for some traders.
The focus in the UK is understandably primarily on food supplies into the UK and although there are some limited shortages being reported in fruit and vegetable supplies, shelves in the UK are showing very few gaps.
The problems are more acute in Northern Ireland, which for the purposes of trade is still part of the EU customs area. For that reason, what is happening to food exports from GB to Northern Ireland is perhaps a useful proxy for what is happening to UK food exports to the EU.
The last thing the UK-EU trade machinery can afford right now is for critical staff - caught in the crossfire of pandemic and Brexit - to be laid low.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55638571
|
news_business-55638571
|
|
Trump auction for Arctic oil rights sees little interest - BBC News
|
2021-01-07
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
An Alaska state agency emerged as the main bidder at the sale, which was opposed by environmentalists.
|
Business
|
The controversy over drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has been ongoing since 1977
The Trump administration has held the first sale for rights to drill for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - but it drew no interest from major companies.
An Alaskan state agency emerged as the primary bidder at the auction, which has been heavily criticised by environmental groups.
The sale raised less than $15m (£11m) - far less than the government had hoped.
The tepid interest comes amid big changes in the energy industry.
Major companies, including oil giant Exxon, Shell and BP, have said they are focusing their spending on renewable energy, amid a huge slump in oil prices, in part triggered by the coronavirus pandemic.
Adam Kolton, executive director of the Alaska Wilderness League, said the sale was an "epic failure" for the Trump administration and the Alaska Republicans, who had backed the move as a way to create jobs and reduce American dependence on foreign oil.
"After years of promising a revenue and jobs bonanza they ended up throwing a party for themselves, with the state being one of the only bidders," he said in a statement.
"We have long known that the American people don't want drilling in the Arctic Refuge, the [Alaska native] Gwich'in people don't want it, and now we know the oil industry doesn't want it either."
The refuge is home to more than 200 species of bird including the Northern shrike
Mr Kolton said his organisation would continue to fight in court to reverse the sale of the land, which is home to caribou, polar bears and millions of migratory birds.
The wildlife refuge is estimated to hold some 11 billion barrels of oil.
Opening the wilderness for drilling and development has been a long-term priority for Alaska Republicans, but development was expected to be costly since the area has minimal roads and infrastructure.
After decades of controversy, the sale was finally authorised by the US Congress in 2017 as part of a major package of tax cuts. The auction comes just weeks before Donald Trump is due to leave office on 20 January.
President-elect Joe Biden had vowed to protect the refuge and environmental groups have also challenged the sale, which they say threatens land that provides a vital home to wildlife.
A federal court rejected arguments by environmental groups seeking to block the auction on Tuesday.
Polar bears are particularly at risk of dying in oil spills
At Wednesday's auction, the Bureau of Land Management said it had received bids for 12 of the 22 tracts of land offered, covering more than 600,000 acres.
The Alaska Industrial Development and Industrial Authority, a state agency, was the sole bidder on at least eight of the 12 tracts.
Some bids submitted were "incomplete", the bureau said.
The state agency has said it plans to work with private companies on development of the refuge, which encompasses more than 19,000 million acres overall.
On social media platform Twitter, Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy called the sale "historic for Alaska and tremendous for America".
"Opening [Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge] for responsible resource development could put more oil in our pipeline, put Alaskans to work, bring billions of dollars of investment to our state, support American energy independence, and provide critical revenues to our state and local communities," he wrote.
"Alaskans have waited two generations for this moment; I stand with them in support of this day."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55564483
|
news_business-55564483
|
|
Gordon Brown: Trust has broken down in way UK is run - BBC News
|
2021-01-25
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The UK's nations and regions are being treated as if they were "invisible", the former PM warns.
|
UK Politics
|
The public's trust in the way the UK is run is breaking down, former Labour prime minister Gordon Brown has warned.
He said Covid-19 had exposed "tensions" between Whitehall and the nations and regions, who were often treated by the centre as if they were "invisible".
Mr Brown is urging Boris Johnson to set up a commission to review how the country is governed and powers shared.
But the PM said his focus was on the pandemic, stressing the benefits of the union could be "seen everywhere".
Mr Brown's intervention comes amid a looming clash between Mr Johnson and Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who has demanded the UK agree to another Scottish independence referendum if the SNP wins a majority in May's Holyrood elections.
The Court of Session is hearing arguments about whether Holyrood can legislate to hold one even if the UK government continues to object.
Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Mr Brown - who advocates a federal system with more power for nations and regions - says the pandemic has "brought to the surface tensions and grievances that have been simmering for years" between Downing Street and the various parts of the UK.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. The Conservatives election win was not 'a signal that the country is at ease' warns Brown
He points to "bitter disputes" over issues such as lockdown restrictions and furlough and said unless underlying tensions were resolved, the UK risked becoming a "failed state".
In an interview with BBC Radio 4's Today, he said at a time "when all should be pulling together and intensifying co-operation across the UK" there was division and claims by the leaders of Scotland and Wales and the English regions that they were not being properly consulted.
Last year there were rows between the government and local authorities over coronavirus tiers, with the Labour mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, objecting to plans to put the region into the strictest level of restrictions.
Mr Brown told Today that while he was "confident" that Scotland would still be part of the UK in ten years time, the way the UK was governed had to change.
"I think the public are fed up. I think in many ways, they feel they are being treated as second class citizens, particularly in the outlying areas, that they are invisible and forgotten."
"Something has broken down in trust and has to be repaired."
Mr Brown is advising the Labour Party on its devolution strategy - but has also held talks with government ministers including Michael Gove in recent weeks.
Government sources say they are focused on taking tangible steps to demonstrate the value of the UK.
The idea of a fundamental review of the UK's power structures has been suggested as one possible way to counter support for Scottish independence ahead of May's Holyrood election.
But a series of polls now suggest support for independence is higher than support for the union - and First Minister Nicola Sturgeon will demand another referendum if, as seems likely, her party - the SNP - wins in May.
He is calling on Boris Johnson to immediately set up a commission on democracy to review how the UK is governed, something the Conservatives promised in their manifesto before the last general election.
In his Telegraph article, he suggests it would find that the UK needs a Forum of the Nations and Regions, citizens' assemblies, and a greater focus on the benefits of cooperation in areas such as the NHS and the armed forces.
The current Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer also supports devolving more powers from Westminster but opposes another Scottish independence referendum.
The SNP said last week that there would be a "legal referendum" after the pandemic if May's Holyrood election returned a pro-independence majority.
Asked if he would stand in the way of this, Mr Johnson said what the British public wanted was for its political leaders to focus on beating coronavirus, adding that the advantages of the UK's four nations working together "spoke for themselves".
"I think people can see everywhere in the UK the visible benefits of our wonderful union," he said.
"A vaccine programme that is being rolled out by a National Health Service, a vaccine that was developed in labs in Oxford and is being administered by the British Army."
But the SNP said the Scottish people, not Westminster-based politicians, should decide the country's future.
"No amount of constitutional tinkering from Labour would protect Scotland from Brexit or the Tory power grab - only independence can do that," said Kirsten Oswald, the party's deputy Westminster leader.
"The Scottish people will see right through this attempt to deny their democratic right."
A poll commissioned by the Sunday Times in Northern Ireland found 51% of people wanted a referendum on Irish unity in the next five years.
DUP leader and Northern Irish First Minister Arlene Foster said such a vote would be "absolutely reckless".
Numbers supporting Wales breaking away from the UK also appear to be rising. The pro-independence campaign group Yes Cymru has said membership swelled from 2,000 at the start of 2020 to more than 17,000.
Plaid Cymru has also promised to hold an independence referendum if it wins the next Senedd election.
Responding to Mr Brown's intervention, the party's Westminster leader Liz Saville Roberts said: "It's been clear for many years that the UK doesn't work for Wales - I'm glad that the Labour Party are starting to see that."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55791179
|
news_uk-politics-55791179
|
|
Americans react to historic second Trump impeachment - BBC News
|
2021-01-14
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Our voter panel is divided over the charge of incitement with Trump supporters warning it will deepen divisions.
|
US & Canada
|
President Donald Trump has just become the only US president to be impeached twice by the House of Representatives. He was impeached on Wednesday for "incitement of insurrection" following last week's riot at the US Capitol. However, a recent poll suggests that a majority of Republicans still support President Trump and don't hold him responsible for the violence.
We've been hearing from lawmakers - but what do Americans think? We asked members of our BBC voter panel to weigh in.
Belinda is an attorney and devoted Trump supporter of Native American and African American ancestry. She says this second impeachment vote is wrong and misconstrues the facts of what happened last week in favour of political expediency.
This is unprecedented. There is no justification, no legal or constitutional basis for this impeachment. He did not even receive due process. It's a rush to judgment for ulterior motives and a dark stain on our country. I'm afraid our Constitution is on its deathbed. I hope the American people will stand up against this outrage. It's indicative of what would happen in a communist country where we have no free speech rights.
Those who broke in should be charged appropriately for whatever laws they violated. But why would anybody who's rational think that our president meant for people to go break into the Capitol? His rallies have always been peaceful and most of the people on Wednesday were middle-aged and elderly, with children and grandchildren.
Individuals who violated the law should definitely be prosecuted but I don't see how you can blame someone for a speech and someone else's criminal activity. It can't be selective enforcement of the law.
Melissa is a Filipino American small business owner with two children who had told us the country could not afford four more years of Donald Trump. She says the behaviour he displayed last Wednesday was undoubtedly an impeachable offense.
Everything he has done is unconstitutional and, as a president, the number one thing he should be doing is upholding the Constitution.
[Republican Congresswoman] Liz Cheney said that, if not for the president, last week would not have happened and she's right. If not for him continually fighting the election results, if not for him repeatedly sending the false message the election was stolen, if not for him holding that rally near the Capitol, if not for him talking about an 'uprising', last week would very likely not have happened.
Even three months ago, before all the lawsuits and everything else he was saying, I was not shocked by his behaviour. It's all completely predictable because it's just within his character. So the argument by politicians that impeachment could divide us more, I don't see that as the goal of impeachment.
It can't help but I don't think it will have any impact on deterring violence. There needs to be some kind of statement that the president is not allowed to attack another branch of government. It's a chance for the Republican Party to rid itself of Trump's stranglehold on them.
Gabriel is a regional coordinator for the New York Young Republicans and is an outspoken 'Latino for Trump'. He condemns the violence of last Wednesday but says the reaction has been unfair and worries about where the party will go from here.
I do not think that Donald Trump should be impeached. I was in DC at the rally on 6 January - I did not go near the Capitol and went back to my hotel room - but I saw the president speak with my own eyes and he did not call for anyone to storm the building or cause harm.
This is just a way to ensure he will not run in the next four years. It is political and it will create a bigger divide between left and right. I fear that people will become reactionary and elected officials will use impeachment in the future not as a last resort to uphold our republic but as a tool to remove whoever they don't agree with.
All violence should be condemned fairly and justly. It was a very sad outcome, but I do not believe it was the most horrible day in our country's history and it was not a coup. It's important to dictate that violence is not the answer. The day was supposed to be different. January 6 did something to the Republican Party. The actions of the few will discourage many of the new voters that Trump brought in and made his base.
Williams is a first-generation Mexican American college student in Atlanta who has been extremely concerned about what he has seen in his country over the past four years. He says the events of the past week justify today's vote in the House.
I believe he should have been impeached. Not only is he a threat to our national security, but he doesn't condemn white supremacy and other threats. That affects us internally within the United States as well as abroad.
It's more of a symbolic impeachment at this point because he'll be out soon, but it's necessary nonetheless. Impeachment failed once, but now he has set the precedent that a president can be impeached more than once.
In processing the past week, all I could do at first was to ignore it and joke about the situation. It's deeply saddening to me.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55656995
|
news_world-us-canada-55656995
|
|
'Status quo isn't working' for Scotland, says Starmer - BBC News
|
2021-01-10
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The Labour leader rejects a second independence referendum but calls for other changes to devolution.
|
Scotland politics
|
Sir Keir Starmer has said the "status quo isn't working" for Scotland but has again rejected calls for a second independence referendum.
The Labour leader, who backs devolving more powers from Westminster, claimed another vote would be "divisive".
However, he said he did not agree with Boris Johnson's assessment that there should not be another referendum for at least 40 years.
The SNP said a vote would allow Scots to choose how to rebuild after Covid.
Last year Sir Keir said he would set up a constitutional commission to offer a "positive alternative to the Scottish people".
He told BBC One's Andrew Marr Show: "I don't think there should be another referendum, I don't think a further divisive referendum is the way forward.
"But I do accept that the status quo isn't working. I don't accept the argument that the status quo isn't working, the next thing you do is go to a referendum.
"I think there are other things you can do, other arguments that can be made in support of the United Kingdom."
Asked about Boris Johnson's 40-year position, Sir Keir replied: "I heard the prime minister say that and I don't agree with him on that."
Speaking on BBC Politics Scotland, Deputy First minister John Swinney rejected suggestions that the recovery from the Covid crisis should be a greater priority than another independence vote.
He said: "An independence referendum is an essential priority of the people of Scotland because it gives us the opportunity to choose how we rebuild as a country from Covid.
"It would give us the opportunity to decide on our constitutional future and to determine the nature of our economy and how we deal with and support our citizens."
Earlier this month Prime Minister Boris Johnson told the BBC he thought the 41-year interval between the UK's referendums on joining the EU and leaving it was a "good sort of gap".
Mr Johnson said in his experience, such votes "don't have a notably unifying force in the national mood, they should be only once in a generation".
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55608339
|
news_uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55608339
|
|
Covid-19: Drop 'absurd' 5% council tax increase - Starmer - BBC News
|
2021-01-10
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The Labour leader urges ministers to give councils more money instead to protect family budgets.
|
UK Politics
|
"Absurd" council tax rises should be scrapped to ease the pressure on family budgets, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has said.
Local authorities in England will be able to raise council tax by 5% from April, with 3% used to top up adult social care budgets.
Sir Keir said this meant those living in a band D property could see bills rise by an average of £90.
He added that the prime minister should provide extra funding to councils.
But the government says the rise in council tax bills, plus extra money from central government, will ensure a real-terms increase in support for local services.
Sir Keir wrote in the Sunday Telegraph: "It is absurd that during the deepest recession in 300 years, at the very time millions are worried about the future of their jobs and how they will make ends meet, Boris Johnson and [Chancellor] Rishi Sunak are forcing local government to hike up council tax.
"The prime minister said he would do 'whatever is necessary' to support local authorities in providing vital services - he needs to make good on that promise."
Sir Keir urged Mr Johnson to "give families the security they need" by dropping the tax increase.
He said families had been treated as an "afterthought" by the government during the pandemic, adding that Labour would become the "party of the family" under his leadership.
A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesperson said: "Council tax plays an important role in helping fund the frontline services needed to respond to the pandemic.
"Our approach strikes a balance between allowing local authorities to address service pressures and ensuring local residents have the final say on excessive increases."
A £500m fund to support people struggling with finances meant councils could "cut bills further for some of the most vulnerable households", they added, while a £7.2bn support package would help meet "the major Covid-19 service pressures in their local area".
The chancellor's Spending Review in November set out the cost to the UK economy so far of dealing with the coronavirus pandemic.
Mr Sunak warned the "economic emergency" caused by the pandemic had only begun, with lasting damage to growth and jobs.
Interviewed on BBC One's Andrew Marr Show, Sir Keir said there was no scope for a "major renegotiation" of the UK's post-Brexit trade deal with the EU, but added that there were "bits already that need to be improved on".
And, asked about the possibility of another Scottish referendum on independence from the UK, he said that a "further, divisive" vote was not "the way forward".
"But I do accept that the status quo isn't working", Sir Keir added. "I don't accept the argument that the status quo isn't working, the next thing you do is go to a referendum."
The prime minister has said such a vote - last held in 2014 - should be a "once-in-a-generation" event.
But Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has said a referendum should take place.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55607160
|
news_uk-politics-55607160
|
|
Covid deaths: Why is the UK's death toll so bad? - BBC News
|
2021-01-26
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
As the number of people who died reaches six figures, the factors that led to this terrible total.
|
Health
|
More than 100,000 people in the UK have died from a virus, that, this time last year, felt like a far-off foreign threat. How did we come to be one of the countries with the worst death tolls?
There is no quick answer to that question, and there is sure to be a long and detailed public inquiry once the pandemic is over. But there are plenty of clues that, when pieced together, help build a picture of why the UK has reached this devastating number.
Some will point a finger at the government - its decision to lock-down later than much of western Europe, the stuttering start to its test-and-trace network and the lack of protection afforded to care home residents.
Others will spotlight deeper rooted problems with British society - its poor state of public health, with high levels of obesity, for example.
Others, still, will note that some of the UK's great strengths - its position as a vibrant hub for international air travel, its ethnically diverse and densely-packed urban populations - exposed its vulnerability to a virus that spreads effortlessly between people.
In some people's eyes, the UK's island status might have helped it. New Zealand, Australia and Taiwan managed to stop the virus getting a foothold and deaths have been kept to a minimum - Australia has seen fewer deaths throughout the pandemic than the UK is recording every day on average.
All introduced strict border restrictions immediately and lockdowns to contain the virus before it had spread. The UK did not. It was not until June that quarantine rules were introduced for all arrivals and even then travel corridors were soon set up, relaxing the rules for travellers from certain countries. Only this month were these scrapped.
Prof Devi Sridhar, an expert in public health from Edinburgh University, is one of those who has been critical of the approach the UK has taken from the start.
She says the UK, like much of Europe, was "complacent" about the threat of infectious disease - choosing to treat the new coronavirus "like flu" and allowing it to spread, while talking about the desire to achieve herd immunity.
This all changed in late March, when a full lockdown eventually came. But there was a crucial delay of a week which is estimated to have cost more than 20,000 lives, according to government modeller Prof Neil Ferguson, because of how quickly infection rates were doubling at that point.
This, of course, is said with the benefit of hindsight. Government modellers themselves acknowledge the data was "really quite poor" making it difficult to make a decision that would have significant repercussions. It is a point acknowledged by Prof Chris Whitty, the UK's chief medical adviser. Speaking in the summer he said there had been "very limited information" in early March.
By then, the virus was ripping through care homes. Around 30% of deaths in the first wave happened in care homes; 40% if you include care home residents who died in hospital.
Those at the heart of government acknowledge mistakes were made. UK chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance said recently: "The lesson is go earlier than you think you want to, go harder than you think you want to, and go a bit broader than you think you want to in terms of applying the restrictions."
By May, restrictions were beginning to be eased. But was this too soon?
The government seized on the relative lull to focus on building what the prime minister promised would be a "world-beating" test-and-trace system. The idea was that new outbreaks could be nipped in the bud, with comprehensive tracking by a centralised team of tracers.
The mere fact this had to be done some months after the virus had struck, illustrates another factor behind the high number of deaths - the UK was simply not prepared for a pandemic of this nature in the way some Asian nations had been. Countries such as South Korea and Taiwan had established test-and-trace systems in place that were ready to be activated.
The UK had a chance to bed in its system in the summer but it was riven with teething problems, with tracers struggling to reach many contacts and the testing capacity slowing down as demand rose.
Low levels of infection over the summer had created a false sense of security.
Desperate to boost the economy, the government launched the Eat Out to Help Out scheme, offering people discounted meals out during August. To what extent it contributed to the rise in the autumn is much argued about but certainly some doctors blame it in part for an increase in patients seen.
The truth is the virus never went away. Testing in the summer showed even at the lowest levels there were still around 500 cases a day being diagnosed - and random testing in the population subsequently showed the true level may have been twice that.
In late August around 1,000 people a day were testing positive. By mid-September that had trebled and from there it rose five-fold to 15,000 by mid October. The numbers testing positive have never returned below 10,000 a day on average since.
Another decision that has been heavily criticised was the refusal of ministers to introduce a short two-week lockdown, or "circuit breaker", in September - despite their advisers on Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) recommending such a step. The argument was it would have set the spread of the virus back by at least a month, giving test and trace time to regroup.
Wales, however, did introduce its own "fire-breaker" - a 17-day lockdown in October. It got infection rates down, but as soon as it was lifted they rebounded. This is, of course, why lockdowns have been criticised.
Edinburgh University infectious diseases expert Prof Mark Woolhouse, one of the modellers who feeds data into Sage, is on the record in the autumn questioning the logic of them for this very reason. It remains up for debate how effective a circuit-breaker would actually have been.
This after all is the time of year when respiratory illnesses start to increase. Schools had returned as had university students, creating new environments for the novel coronavirus to spread.
When a lockdown was eventually introduced in England in November it was to last four weeks, with Sage members lamenting the delay. "The absence of a decision is a decision in itself," says Wellcome Trust director Sir Jeremy Farrar.
But even before that lockdown was lifted cases had started going up in the south-east of England. Within weeks it became clear what was happening. The virus had mutated and a new faster-spreading variant was on the rise.
By mid-December the clamour for lockdown was growing again, but the plan for a Christmas relaxation of restrictions had already been announced. In every nation of the UK, ministers waited.
At the start of 2021, with hospital admissions rising rapidly, the UK's four chief medical officers intervened, issuing a joint statement warning the NHS was at "material risk" of being overwhelmed. Within hours the UK was back in lockdown.
What has struck some is just how similar the mistakes have been in terms of locking down late.
"It will take years to unpick why Covid has gone so badly in the UK," says University College London infectious diseases expert Dr Neil Stone. "But the failure to learn from wave one stands out."
But it must also be recognised that there are factors outside the control of the government - certainly in terms of its pandemic response - that have contributed to the high number of deaths.
One of the reasons the virus was able to take a hold and spread so quickly was because of geography and the fact the UK - and London in particular - is a global hub. Genetic analysis has shown the virus was brought into the UK on at least 1,300 separate occasions, mainly from France, Spain and Italy, by the end of March.
It was here before we knew it. That's not something Australia or New Zealand had to deal with on such a scale.
Density of population is also a factor. The UK is among the 10 most densely populated big nations - those with populations of more than 20 million. What is more, our cities are more inter-connected than they are in many places.
It meant the virus was able to seed everywhere quite quickly. Contrast this with Italy which saw the vast majority of cases in the north of the country in the first wave.
The ageing population also needs to be taken into account. Once you do this, and adjust for the size of the population - known as age-standardised mortality - deaths have risen, but not by as much as some of the headline figures suggest.
The health of the nation has also been a factor. The UK has one of the highest rates of obesity in the world. And obesity increases the risk of hospitalisation and death, according to Public Health England. One study found the risk of death was almost double for those who are severely obese.
Conditions such as diabetes, kidney disease and respiratory problems also increase the risk - a fifth of Covid deaths have listed diabetes on the death certificate.
Again the UK has relatively high rates of these illnesses.
But many have argued that these high levels of ill-health have been compounded by the levels of inequality in the UK.
Levels of ill health and life expectancy have always been worst in the poorest areas, but the pandemic certainly seems to have exacerbated this.
Office for National Statistics data shows mortality rates have been twice as high in deprived areas as they have been in wealthy areas. The Health Foundation is carrying out its own inquiry into the issue, arguing the Covid death toll needs to be seen through the "lens" of inequality to fully understand it.
It is something that has also been raised by Prof Michael Marmot, one of the country's leading experts on health inequalities. "The UK's dismal record is telling us something important about our society."
If you, or someone you know, have been affected by bereavement, here is a list of organisations that may be able to help.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55757790
|
news_health-55757790
|
|
HS2 protesters dig tunnel to thwart Euston eviction - BBC News
|
2021-01-26
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The tunnel is a danger to public safety, an HS2 spokeswoman told the BBC.
|
London
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. One protester said: "This is the only way I can effect change"
People campaigning against the HS2 rail project have dug a tunnel near Euston station, in a bid to prevent their eviction from a protest camp.
In September, members of HS2 Rebellion set up a Tree Protection Camp in Euston Square Gardens in central London to protest against the £106bn scheme.
They claim the tunnel is 100ft (30m) long and has taken two months to dig.
Activists say the tunnel - codenamed "Kelvin" - is their "best defence" against being evicted.
One protester, identified only as Blue, told the BBC: "It is all very dangerous and life-threatening but it is all worth it. This is the only way I can effect change, I would sacrifice everything for the climate ecological emergency to not be happening."
The 18-year-old added: "We want to be as safe as possible. It is not about us martyring ourselves, it is about delaying and stopping HS2."
Demonstrators have previously built tree houses and scaled cranes near the HS2 Euston site
A spokeswoman for HS2 said tunnel protests were "costly to the taxpayer".
She added: "These are a danger to the safety of the protesters, HS2 staff, High Court enforcement officers and the general public, as well as putting unnecessary strain on the emergency services during the pandemic.
"Safety is our first priority when taking possession of land and removing illegal encampments."
British Transport Police said it was aware of the tunnel but it was a matter for the Met Police, which said no complaint yet had been made.
HS2 is set to link London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. It is hoped the 20-year project will reduce rail passenger overcrowding and help to rebalance the UK's economy.
The campaign group alleges HS2 is the "most expensive, wasteful and destructive project in UK history" and that it is "set to destroy or irreparably damage 108 ancient woodlands and 693 wildlife sites".
However, HS2 bosses have said seven million trees will be planted during phase one of the project and that much ancient woodland will "remain intact".
Seasoned activist Daniel Cooper - better known as Swampy - has been at Euston supporting the campaigners
Transport Secretary Grant Shapps told MPs in September that the first phase of the high-speed rail link between London and Birmingham would not open until 2028 at the earliest.
The second phase, to Manchester and Leeds, was due to open in 2032-33 but that has been pushed back to 2035-40.
Network Rail, which owns the land, has been approached for a comment about the tunnel.
HS2 protester Dr Larch Maxey said the tunnel was "warm and quiet"
Tunnelling as a form of environmental protest has a long history in the UK.
In the 1990s it was one of the ways that pushed environmental concerns into the headlines and changed perceptions.
In one of the environmental protesters' tunnelling guides, written by "Disco Dave", it says:
"In the world of NVDA (non-violent direct action) there are few defence tactics that can compare with the protest tunnel. Dangerous, laborious and time consuming, tunnelling is the ultimate and desperate tactic of desperate people in desperate times."
The first protest tunnel goes back to the M11 and 1993 but they only really developed during the Newbury Bypass protests in 1996.
Protest tunnels against the A30 in Devon and Manchester Airport's second runway then followed.
Not only did they make household names of environmental campaigners like "Swampy" but they arguably changed transport policy - road-building reduced massively.
We have seen tunnels more recently in 2017 in Coldharbour in Surrey in a protest against fracking so it's not a massive surprise we are seeing tunnels again.
Tunnelling in particular as a direct action slows down developers and it is expensive to dig out protesters safely.
Disco Dave wrote: "That ultimately is the purpose of tunnels and tree houses. To act as a deterrent warning the authorities that should they decide to evict, then it will hurt them where for them it hurts most - in the pocket."
What will be interesting is if these tunnels have the same impact on HS2 as they did on the road-building programme of the late 1990s.
Will it reframe HS2 so it will be seen in the same way as fracking or road building? Or can the argument still be made that it is a low-carbon form of travel even though it does cause some destruction of habitat?
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-55796445
|
news_uk-england-london-55796445
|
|
UK government backs birth control for grey squirrels - BBC News
|
2021-01-26
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The government gives its support to a project to use oral contraceptives to control grey squirrels.
|
Science & Environment
|
The greys were introduced to Britain from North America in the 19th Century
The UK government has given its support to a project to use oral contraceptives to control grey squirrel populations.
Environment minister Lord Goldsmith says the damage they and other invasive species do to the UK's woodlands costs the UK economy £1.8 billion a year.
The bizarre-sounding plan is to lure grey squirrels into feeding boxes only they can access with little pots containing hazelnut spread.
These would be spiked with an oral contraceptive.
Lord Goldsmith says the damage from squirrels also threatens the effectiveness of government efforts to tackle climate change by planting tens of thousands of acres of new woodlands.
On Tuesday, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) told BBC News: "We hope advances in science can safely help our nature to thrive, including through the humane control of invasive species."
A partnership of conservation and forestry organisations called the UK Squirrel Accord (UKSA) is behind the proposal.
It says grey squirrels, which were first introduced from North America in the late 19th century, cause huge damage to woodlands by stripping bark from trees aged between 10-50 years, the younger trees in a forest.
They particularly target broad-leafed varieties including oak, which are particularly ecologically important because they support so many other species.
It is estimated the UK is home to some three million of these invasive rodents.
Red squirrels are now confined mainly to Scotland and Ireland
They have displaced the native red squirrel across most of the UK.
Lord Goldsmith says the government supports the plan as well as a longer-term effort to breed infertility into female grey squirrels to reduce their numbers.
Invasive non-native species such as grey squirrels threaten our native biodiversity, he argues.
When regulating grey squirrels with oral contraceptive was first proposed in 2017, the government's Animal and Plant Health Agency said it thought it could reduce their numbers by as much as 90%.
The project also has royal approval.
Prince Charles was instrumental in founding the UK Squirrel Accord with the objective of "managing the negative impacts of invasive grey squirrels in the UK".
He has written of the importance of protecting Britain's remaining red squirrels.
"These charming and intelligent creatures never fail to delight", he wrote last week in his capacity as patron of the Red Squirrel Survival Trust, describing red squirrels as the "symbol and benchmark" of healthy woods.
Jason Gilchrist, an ecologist from Edinburgh Napier University, has written in defence of the grey squirrel but he says he supports the oral contraceptive plan.
He acknowledges there is a need to manage grey squirrel populations.
"It is better than the alternative: a shotgun", he told BBC News.
It is the same argument the UKSA makes: dosing the animals with contraceptives provides a humane alternative to culling them.
Last week, the Royal Forestry Society, a member of the Squirrel Accord, called for just such a cull.
Simon Lloyd, its chief executive, says efforts to tackle global warming and improve biodiversity will be undermined unless grey squirrel numbers can be reduced.
New trees will not survive to "deliver the carbon capture or biodiversity objectives if grey squirrels cannot be controlled", he told the Daily Telegraph.
The UKSA has been experimenting with ways to deliver oral contraceptives to squirrels for more than three years now.
Last year, it tested special feeding stations designed so only grey squirrels can gain access in woodland in East Yorkshire.
Instead of contraceptives, the hazelnut paste bait was dosed with a dye that, when ingested, causes squirrel hair to fluoresce under UV light.
The researchers found that more than 90% of the grey squirrel population being studied visited the traps.
They concluded that it was possible to deliver repeat doses of a contraceptive to the majority of grey squirrels in a wood.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-55817385
|
news_science-environment-55817385
|
|
BT faces £600m lawsuit over 'overcharging' - BBC News
|
2021-01-18
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
A group of pensioners seek compensation for what they say was the excessive pricing of landlines.
|
Business
|
BT is facing a class action lawsuit over claims it failed to compensate elderly customers who were overcharged for landlines for years.
In 2017, Ofcom said people who only had a landline telephone were "getting poor value for money in a market that is not serving them well enough".
As a result, BT reduced the price of its landlines by £7 a month.
But campaigners are unhappy that "loyal customers" have still not been compensated for previous overcharging.
"Ofcom made it very clear that BT had spent years overcharging landline customers, but did not order it to repay the money it made from this," said Justin Le Patourel, founder of consumer group Collective Action on Landlines (CALL) and a telecoms consultant who worked for Ofcom for 13 years.
"We think millions of BT's most loyal landline customers could be entitled to compensation of up to £500 each, and the filing of this claim starts that process."
BT said it "strongly disagrees" with the claim that it had engaged in anti-competitive behaviour and intends to defend itself "vigorously" in court.
A spokesman for BT said: "We take our responsibilities to older and more vulnerable customers very seriously and will defend ourselves against any claim that suggests otherwise.
"For many years we've offered discounted landline and broadband packages in what is a competitive market with competing options available, and we take pride in our work with elderly and vulnerable groups, as well as our work on the Customer Fairness agenda."
Law firm Mishcon de Reya has filed a claim with the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) worth £600m. The claim could result in payments of up to £500 each for 2.3 million BT customers, should it be successful.
The case represents customers who purchased a BT landline contract, but did not also take BT broadband or pay TV packages.
Since 2009, the wholesale costs of providing landlines to consumers have been falling by at least 25%.
But in October 2017, Ofcom found that all major landline providers in the UK had increased the line rental charges by 28-41%.
Ofcom strongly criticised market leader BT for raising prices, saying that customers were being given "poor value" for money.
It added that many of the affected customers had "been with BT for decades" and were more likely to be old, on low incomes and vulnerable.
BT announced that it would slash its landline prices by £84 a year.
BT's argument is that Ofcom's final statement did not explicitly accuse it of engaging in anti-competitive behaviour.
But independent telecoms analyst Ian Grant says that the telecoms giant "has a history of abusing its position".
"Earlier in 2017, Ofcom fined BT £42m because it was late providing high-speed Ethernet lines, and forced BT to make good the losses of firms like Vodafone and TalkTalk," he told the BBC.
"Ofcom, which has a statutory duty to stop consumer abuses, could have done the same for these customers. Instead, it allowed BT to get away with a 37% price cut, at a time when the difference between its costs and what it charged customers had risen between 50-74%."
Mr Grant added: "It is especially poor that BT was overcharging customers who were mostly over 65, more than three-quarters of whom had never used a different provider, and for whom the telephone was their only communications link."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55699033
|
news_business-55699033
|
|
Capitol riots: Panel of Americans ‘shocked’ and ‘disgusted’ - BBC News
|
2021-01-08
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
We asked people around the US how they responded to the chaotic scenes from the US Capitol.
|
US & Canada
|
The storming of the US Capitol building in Washington DC stunned viewers around the world.
But how did Americans feel seeing the seat of their government being ransacked?
We asked members of our BBC voter panel for their views.
Simon grew up in Uganda during its civil war and became a US citizen last year. A master's student and stay-at-home father, he warns that, while things may settle down, "democracy is not guaranteed".
I'm disgusted but not surprised. I anticipated this would happen and it was a matter of when, not if.
I didn't anticipate that it would happen in the capital. This is the president whose people - since the racial justice movement in the summer - said they were for "law and order". So the "law and order" people broke into the Capitol and changed the American flag with the Trump flag. History shows that has not happened in over 200 years, so it tells you how dangerous this man is.
In Uganda, in November, when the opposition was arrested, people took to the streets and got shot. Here, in the summer, the Capitol building was protected and they were breaking up peaceful protests.
It's clear that [Trump supporters] have been organising, we've seen this was going to happen, yet we subconsciously did not think that white people are a threat. That is the construct of this country and how law enforcement viewed it.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. 'Treason, traitors and thugs' - the words lawmakers used to describe Capitol riot
Taylor is a staunch Trump supporter and recently travelled to Washington DC for a post-election pro-Trump rally. A photographer by trade, she was upset by the rioting but believes unsubstantiated claims that left-wing radicals were behind the violence.
It was just heart-breaking to watch what was going on and the behaviour of protesters is just not like the Trump people I've been around. If it did come from any conservatives, then I condemn it. There's no excuse for violence.
It doesn't change my support for Trump. The people that love Trump, that's not going to change no matter if he gets a second term or not. It just means we're going to hold out for 2024 and hope either he runs again or his kids do.
Our country is going to go downhill over the next four years if Biden does take office. I'm actually moving today out of the city into the suburbs of a Republican county because I am afraid of how Democratic counties will end up under a Biden presidency.
We're going to catapult towards socialism and communism. I'm worried for the country's future, but regardless of who takes office, we have a lot of healing to do. I hope we can all find our common humanity and embrace each other when this is all over, which is hopefully soon.
James is a lifelong Republican who worked on Capitol Hill for the party for nearly two decades, but cast his first ever vote for a Democrat in the 2020 election. He was stunned by 6 January's events and expects it to become a bad footnote in the country's history.
I find it absolutely shocking. I didn't think it would come to this.
I had actually thought about going down to the protests with a sign that said "Republicans Against Trump". My brother said, if I had done that, there would have been five deaths, not four, and he may have been right. I'm astounded by the stupidity of these people who show up without masks and who are being filmed. Quite a few of them are going to prison. It's a serious situation when you break past a police barricade and go into a building that's supposed to be secure.
I have a lot of friends who say things couldn't get worse, but I have to remind them, as a student of history, that it has been worse. The Civil War was much worse. There was a lot of violence in the South during the Reconstruction period. This is something the country will get over. I was heartened by President-elect Biden's speech yesterday. Finally we've got someone who's sounding presidential. We haven't had it for the last four years.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
A'Kayla is a college student who supports the Black Lives Matter movement. She says law enforcement "coddled" the rioters at the Capitol and thus made an argument for police reform because they were far more aggressive at protests she attended.
It's so irritating I can't put into words how frustrating it is. They stormed the Capitol and the police were gentle and lackadaisical with them. I expected the police to use force, but they were so kind and gentle. During the summer, when the Black Lives Matter protests were going on, so many people were injured, locked up and lost their lives.
From my own experience, marching peacefully on the front lines in Charleston, we had tear gas thrown at us and had to pour milk in our eyes. It was excruciating. And for what? We're marching for a cause, because we had the murder of somebody by the police. What are they upset about? They're upset because we are living in a democracy and they didn't get their way.
During one of the debates, when Trump said "stand back and stand by", is this what he was talking about? This is the calm before the storm. I think it's going to get way more ugly, but Kamala [Harris] and Joe [Biden] are a symbol of change and hope.
Whether [Trump supporters] like it or not, America is moving towards a more progressive country and there's going to be a lot of changes.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Joe Biden: Black Lives Matter protesters would have been treated "differently"
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55582166
|
news_world-us-canada-55582166
|
|
Covid deaths: Why is the UK's death toll so bad? - BBC News
|
2021-01-27
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
As the number of people who died reaches six figures, the factors that led to this terrible total.
|
Health
|
More than 100,000 people in the UK have died from a virus, that, this time last year, felt like a far-off foreign threat. How did we come to be one of the countries with the worst death tolls?
There is no quick answer to that question, and there is sure to be a long and detailed public inquiry once the pandemic is over. But there are plenty of clues that, when pieced together, help build a picture of why the UK has reached this devastating number.
Some will point a finger at the government - its decision to lock-down later than much of western Europe, the stuttering start to its test-and-trace network and the lack of protection afforded to care home residents.
Others will spotlight deeper rooted problems with British society - its poor state of public health, with high levels of obesity, for example.
Others, still, will note that some of the UK's great strengths - its position as a vibrant hub for international air travel, its ethnically diverse and densely-packed urban populations - exposed its vulnerability to a virus that spreads effortlessly between people.
In some people's eyes, the UK's island status might have helped it. New Zealand, Australia and Taiwan managed to stop the virus getting a foothold and deaths have been kept to a minimum - Australia has seen fewer deaths throughout the pandemic than the UK is recording every day on average.
All introduced strict border restrictions immediately and lockdowns to contain the virus before it had spread. The UK did not. It was not until June that quarantine rules were introduced for all arrivals and even then travel corridors were soon set up, relaxing the rules for travellers from certain countries. Only this month were these scrapped.
Prof Devi Sridhar, an expert in public health from Edinburgh University, is one of those who has been critical of the approach the UK has taken from the start.
She says the UK, like much of Europe, was "complacent" about the threat of infectious disease - choosing to treat the new coronavirus "like flu" and allowing it to spread, while talking about the desire to achieve herd immunity.
This all changed in late March, when a full lockdown eventually came. But there was a crucial delay of a week which is estimated to have cost more than 20,000 lives, according to government modeller Prof Neil Ferguson, because of how quickly infection rates were doubling at that point.
This, of course, is said with the benefit of hindsight. Government modellers themselves acknowledge the data was "really quite poor" making it difficult to make a decision that would have significant repercussions. It is a point acknowledged by Prof Chris Whitty, the UK's chief medical adviser. Speaking in the summer he said there had been "very limited information" in early March.
By then, the virus was ripping through care homes. Around 30% of deaths in the first wave happened in care homes; 40% if you include care home residents who died in hospital.
Those at the heart of government acknowledge mistakes were made. UK chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance said recently: "The lesson is go earlier than you think you want to, go harder than you think you want to, and go a bit broader than you think you want to in terms of applying the restrictions."
By May, restrictions were beginning to be eased. But was this too soon?
The government seized on the relative lull to focus on building what the prime minister promised would be a "world-beating" test-and-trace system. The idea was that new outbreaks could be nipped in the bud, with comprehensive tracking by a centralised team of tracers.
The mere fact this had to be done some months after the virus had struck, illustrates another factor behind the high number of deaths - the UK was simply not prepared for a pandemic of this nature in the way some Asian nations had been. Countries such as South Korea and Taiwan had established test-and-trace systems in place that were ready to be activated.
The UK had a chance to bed in its system in the summer but it was riven with teething problems, with tracers struggling to reach many contacts and the testing capacity slowing down as demand rose.
Low levels of infection over the summer had created a false sense of security.
Desperate to boost the economy, the government launched the Eat Out to Help Out scheme, offering people discounted meals out during August. To what extent it contributed to the rise in the autumn is much argued about but certainly some doctors blame it in part for an increase in patients seen.
The truth is the virus never went away. Testing in the summer showed even at the lowest levels there were still around 500 cases a day being diagnosed - and random testing in the population subsequently showed the true level may have been twice that.
In late August around 1,000 people a day were testing positive. By mid-September that had trebled and from there it rose five-fold to 15,000 by mid October. The numbers testing positive have never returned below 10,000 a day on average since.
Another decision that has been heavily criticised was the refusal of ministers to introduce a short two-week lockdown, or "circuit breaker", in September - despite their advisers on Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) recommending such a step. The argument was it would have set the spread of the virus back by at least a month, giving test and trace time to regroup.
Wales, however, did introduce its own "fire-breaker" - a 17-day lockdown in October. It got infection rates down, but as soon as it was lifted they rebounded. This is, of course, why lockdowns have been criticised.
Edinburgh University infectious diseases expert Prof Mark Woolhouse, one of the modellers who feeds data into Sage, is on the record in the autumn questioning the logic of them for this very reason. It remains up for debate how effective a circuit-breaker would actually have been.
This after all is the time of year when respiratory illnesses start to increase. Schools had returned as had university students, creating new environments for the novel coronavirus to spread.
When a lockdown was eventually introduced in England in November it was to last four weeks, with Sage members lamenting the delay. "The absence of a decision is a decision in itself," says Wellcome Trust director Sir Jeremy Farrar.
But even before that lockdown was lifted cases had started going up in the south-east of England. Within weeks it became clear what was happening. The virus had mutated and a new faster-spreading variant was on the rise.
By mid-December the clamour for lockdown was growing again, but the plan for a Christmas relaxation of restrictions had already been announced. In every nation of the UK, ministers waited.
At the start of 2021, with hospital admissions rising rapidly, the UK's four chief medical officers intervened, issuing a joint statement warning the NHS was at "material risk" of being overwhelmed. Within hours the UK was back in lockdown.
What has struck some is just how similar the mistakes have been in terms of locking down late.
"It will take years to unpick why Covid has gone so badly in the UK," says University College London infectious diseases expert Dr Neil Stone. "But the failure to learn from wave one stands out."
But it must also be recognised that there are factors outside the control of the government - certainly in terms of its pandemic response - that have contributed to the high number of deaths.
One of the reasons the virus was able to take a hold and spread so quickly was because of geography and the fact the UK - and London in particular - is a global hub. Genetic analysis has shown the virus was brought into the UK on at least 1,300 separate occasions, mainly from France, Spain and Italy, by the end of March.
It was here before we knew it. That's not something Australia or New Zealand had to deal with on such a scale.
Density of population is also a factor. The UK is among the 10 most densely populated big nations - those with populations of more than 20 million. What is more, our cities are more inter-connected than they are in many places.
It meant the virus was able to seed everywhere quite quickly. Contrast this with Italy which saw the vast majority of cases in the north of the country in the first wave.
The ageing population also needs to be taken into account. Once you do this, and adjust for the size of the population - known as age-standardised mortality - deaths have risen, but not by as much as some of the headline figures suggest.
The health of the nation has also been a factor. The UK has one of the highest rates of obesity in the world. And obesity increases the risk of hospitalisation and death, according to Public Health England. One study found the risk of death was almost double for those who are severely obese.
Conditions such as diabetes, kidney disease and respiratory problems also increase the risk - a fifth of Covid deaths have listed diabetes on the death certificate.
Again the UK has relatively high rates of these illnesses.
But many have argued that these high levels of ill-health have been compounded by the levels of inequality in the UK.
Levels of ill health and life expectancy have always been worst in the poorest areas, but the pandemic certainly seems to have exacerbated this.
Office for National Statistics data shows mortality rates have been twice as high in deprived areas as they have been in wealthy areas. The Health Foundation is carrying out its own inquiry into the issue, arguing the Covid death toll needs to be seen through the "lens" of inequality to fully understand it.
It is something that has also been raised by Prof Michael Marmot, one of the country's leading experts on health inequalities. "The UK's dismal record is telling us something important about our society."
If you, or someone you know, have been affected by bereavement, here is a list of organisations that may be able to help.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55757790
|
news_health-55757790
|
|
HS2 protesters dig tunnel to thwart Euston eviction - BBC News
|
2021-01-27
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The tunnel is a danger to public safety, an HS2 spokeswoman told the BBC.
|
London
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. One protester said: "This is the only way I can effect change"
People campaigning against the HS2 rail project have dug a tunnel near Euston station, in a bid to prevent their eviction from a protest camp.
In September, members of HS2 Rebellion set up a Tree Protection Camp in Euston Square Gardens in central London to protest against the £106bn scheme.
They claim the tunnel is 100ft (30m) long and has taken two months to dig.
Activists say the tunnel - codenamed "Kelvin" - is their "best defence" against being evicted.
One protester, identified only as Blue, told the BBC: "It is all very dangerous and life-threatening but it is all worth it. This is the only way I can effect change, I would sacrifice everything for the climate ecological emergency to not be happening."
The 18-year-old added: "We want to be as safe as possible. It is not about us martyring ourselves, it is about delaying and stopping HS2."
Demonstrators have previously built tree houses and scaled cranes near the HS2 Euston site
A spokeswoman for HS2 said tunnel protests were "costly to the taxpayer".
She added: "These are a danger to the safety of the protesters, HS2 staff, High Court enforcement officers and the general public, as well as putting unnecessary strain on the emergency services during the pandemic.
"Safety is our first priority when taking possession of land and removing illegal encampments."
British Transport Police said it was aware of the tunnel but it was a matter for the Met Police, which said no complaint yet had been made.
HS2 is set to link London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. It is hoped the 20-year project will reduce rail passenger overcrowding and help to rebalance the UK's economy.
The campaign group alleges HS2 is the "most expensive, wasteful and destructive project in UK history" and that it is "set to destroy or irreparably damage 108 ancient woodlands and 693 wildlife sites".
However, HS2 bosses have said seven million trees will be planted during phase one of the project and that much ancient woodland will "remain intact".
Seasoned activist Daniel Cooper - better known as Swampy - has been at Euston supporting the campaigners
Transport Secretary Grant Shapps told MPs in September that the first phase of the high-speed rail link between London and Birmingham would not open until 2028 at the earliest.
The second phase, to Manchester and Leeds, was due to open in 2032-33 but that has been pushed back to 2035-40.
Network Rail, which owns the land, has been approached for a comment about the tunnel.
HS2 protester Dr Larch Maxey said the tunnel was "warm and quiet"
Tunnelling as a form of environmental protest has a long history in the UK.
In the 1990s it was one of the ways that pushed environmental concerns into the headlines and changed perceptions.
In one of the environmental protesters' tunnelling guides, written by "Disco Dave", it says:
"In the world of NVDA (non-violent direct action) there are few defence tactics that can compare with the protest tunnel. Dangerous, laborious and time consuming, tunnelling is the ultimate and desperate tactic of desperate people in desperate times."
The first protest tunnel goes back to the M11 and 1993 but they only really developed during the Newbury Bypass protests in 1996.
Protest tunnels against the A30 in Devon and Manchester Airport's second runway then followed.
Not only did they make household names of environmental campaigners like "Swampy" but they arguably changed transport policy - road-building reduced massively.
We have seen tunnels more recently in 2017 in Coldharbour in Surrey in a protest against fracking so it's not a massive surprise we are seeing tunnels again.
Tunnelling in particular as a direct action slows down developers and it is expensive to dig out protesters safely.
Disco Dave wrote: "That ultimately is the purpose of tunnels and tree houses. To act as a deterrent warning the authorities that should they decide to evict, then it will hurt them where for them it hurts most - in the pocket."
What will be interesting is if these tunnels have the same impact on HS2 as they did on the road-building programme of the late 1990s.
Will it reframe HS2 so it will be seen in the same way as fracking or road building? Or can the argument still be made that it is a low-carbon form of travel even though it does cause some destruction of habitat?
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-55796445
|
news_uk-england-london-55796445
|
|
UK government backs birth control for grey squirrels - BBC News
|
2021-01-27
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The government gives its support to a project to use oral contraceptives to control grey squirrels.
|
Science & Environment
|
The greys were introduced to Britain from North America in the 19th Century
The UK government has given its support to a project to use oral contraceptives to control grey squirrel populations.
Environment minister Lord Goldsmith says the damage they and other invasive species do to the UK's woodlands costs the UK economy £1.8 billion a year.
The bizarre-sounding plan is to lure grey squirrels into feeding boxes only they can access with little pots containing hazelnut spread.
These would be spiked with an oral contraceptive.
Lord Goldsmith says the damage from squirrels also threatens the effectiveness of government efforts to tackle climate change by planting tens of thousands of acres of new woodlands.
On Tuesday, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) told BBC News: "We hope advances in science can safely help our nature to thrive, including through the humane control of invasive species."
A partnership of conservation and forestry organisations called the UK Squirrel Accord (UKSA) is behind the proposal.
It says grey squirrels, which were first introduced from North America in the late 19th century, cause huge damage to woodlands by stripping bark from trees aged between 10-50 years, the younger trees in a forest.
They particularly target broad-leafed varieties including oak, which are particularly ecologically important because they support so many other species.
It is estimated the UK is home to some three million of these invasive rodents.
Red squirrels are now confined mainly to Scotland and Ireland
They have displaced the native red squirrel across most of the UK.
Lord Goldsmith says the government supports the plan as well as a longer-term effort to breed infertility into female grey squirrels to reduce their numbers.
Invasive non-native species such as grey squirrels threaten our native biodiversity, he argues.
When regulating grey squirrels with oral contraceptive was first proposed in 2017, the government's Animal and Plant Health Agency said it thought it could reduce their numbers by as much as 90%.
The project also has royal approval.
Prince Charles was instrumental in founding the UK Squirrel Accord with the objective of "managing the negative impacts of invasive grey squirrels in the UK".
He has written of the importance of protecting Britain's remaining red squirrels.
"These charming and intelligent creatures never fail to delight", he wrote last week in his capacity as patron of the Red Squirrel Survival Trust, describing red squirrels as the "symbol and benchmark" of healthy woods.
Jason Gilchrist, an ecologist from Edinburgh Napier University, has written in defence of the grey squirrel but he says he supports the oral contraceptive plan.
He acknowledges there is a need to manage grey squirrel populations.
"It is better than the alternative: a shotgun", he told BBC News.
It is the same argument the UKSA makes: dosing the animals with contraceptives provides a humane alternative to culling them.
Last week, the Royal Forestry Society, a member of the Squirrel Accord, called for just such a cull.
Simon Lloyd, its chief executive, says efforts to tackle global warming and improve biodiversity will be undermined unless grey squirrel numbers can be reduced.
New trees will not survive to "deliver the carbon capture or biodiversity objectives if grey squirrels cannot be controlled", he told the Daily Telegraph.
The UKSA has been experimenting with ways to deliver oral contraceptives to squirrels for more than three years now.
Last year, it tested special feeding stations designed so only grey squirrels can gain access in woodland in East Yorkshire.
Instead of contraceptives, the hazelnut paste bait was dosed with a dye that, when ingested, causes squirrel hair to fluoresce under UV light.
The researchers found that more than 90% of the grey squirrel population being studied visited the traps.
They concluded that it was possible to deliver repeat doses of a contraceptive to the majority of grey squirrels in a wood.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-55817385
|
news_science-environment-55817385
|
|
Covid-19: NI health and social care workers to get £500 payment - BBC News
|
2021-01-27
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Robin Swann says all health workers are valued and have worked tirelessly during the pandemic.
|
Northern Ireland
|
Robin Swann says all health workers are valued and have worked tirelessly during the pandemic
Health workers in Northern Ireland are to get a "special recognition" payment for their work during the pandemic.
It is intended that all staff will receive a payment of £500, said Health Minister Robin Swann.
However, it will be subject to approval from the Department of Finance.
There had been calls from some political parties and health unions for staff to be recognised for their efforts.
Scotland has already announced a similar one-off payment and Mr Swann said it would reflect the "principle of parity".
"There are no words to properly convey what health workers have done for us, we will never be able to repay that debt," added the minister.
The development comes as Northern Ireland's Department of Health has recorded 16 more coronavirus-related deaths, taking its toll so far to 1,779.
A further 527 people have tested positive for the virus in the past 24 hours.
There are 775 people in Northern Ireland's hospitals who are being treated for the virus - 68 of them are in intensive care and the number of people requiring ventilators has risen to 56.
In the Republic of Ireland, 54 more Covid-19 related deaths were recorded on Wednesday. It brings the Republic of Ireland's death toll to 3,120.
The Irish Department of Health also confirmed 1,335 more Covid-19 cases.
Speaking at the weekly health news conference on Wednesday, Mr Swann said the pandemic had caused "destruction" and left "heartbreak in its wake".
"Staying at home is making a difference. The R-number has been moving in the right direction," he said.
"We have to sustain and build on that progress."
The reproductive rate of the virus - known as the R rate, measures the infection rate of Covid-19 and had risen to about 1.8 after Christmas relaxations.
It has been falling since lockdown restrictions were introduced on 26 December, and Chief Medical Officer Dr Michael McBride said NI's R-number for hospital admissions has now fallen back below one.
But he warned that the pressure on the system was still significant and would continue for several more weeks.
He added that there would need to be a "sustained" drop in the figures before relaxations of the lockdown could be considered by the executive.
It has also been confirmed that the number of people in Northern Ireland who have received their first Covid-19 now stands at 168,140.
More than 50,000 people aged over 80 have been vaccinated.
On the payment to health workers, Mr Swann said it would "not be without its challenges" but that he valued all staff in the health service.
"For some people, especially some of our lower paid workers, it may in fact have an adverse impact on their social security payments or supports that recipients may be claiming," he added.
"I have written to the ministers of finance and communities asking them to urgently consider the issue and to engage with the tax and benefit authorities in Great Britain to request that these payments are excluded from consideration in this regard."
There will also be a one-off payment of £2,000 for all non-salaried students on clinical placements in the health service.
Mr Swann added that he intends to provide a one-off payment for carers as well, describing them as "among the greatest unsung heroes" of the pandemic.
But he said: "There is still more work to be done in this regard and it will be significantly more complex to administer than the staff payment."
Kevin McAdam, who is from Unite the union, said the "recognition payments" will be allocated with assurances that this will not affect pay negotiations with healthcare workers.
Mr McAdam welcomed that health care workers and non-salaried students on placements will be "receiving something more tangible than applause".
"The student payment is a recognition payment, it does not solve the problems around whether student placements should be paid, I think that is an argument for another day."
Meanwhile, a senior Department of Finance official has warned there is "a higher than usual risk" of some £430m unspent by the NI Executive being returned to the Treasury.
Ministers must submit further funding bids, or risk it being handed back at the end of the financial year.
A department official, Jeff McGuinness, said the Treasury was being pressed to show flexibility in carrying unspent money over but added that it was "imperative" Stormont pressed ahead, rather then rely on agreement from Treasury.
He said the other devolved administrations were also asking the Treasury for similar levels of carry-forward of unspent fiscal allocations.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-55828873
|
news_uk-northern-ireland-55828873
|
|
Lisa Montgomery: Looking for answers in the life of a killer - BBC News
|
2021-01-11
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Lisa Montgomery's lawyers argued she was a mentally ill victim of abuse who deserved mercy, but her victim's community said otherwise.
|
US & Canada
|
Lisa Montgomery - the only female inmate on federal death row in the US - has been executed for murder in the state of Indiana. Her lawyers had argued she was a mentally ill victim of abuse who deserved mercy. Her victim's community said otherwise.
This story was first published on 11 January - before Lisa Montgomery's execution on 13 January.
For Diane Mattingly, there is one moment from her childhood for which she feels both enormous gratitude and guilt.
She credits this moment for her "fairly normal" life - a house on eight peaceful acres, a loving relationship with her children, nearly two decades at a job working for the state of Kentucky.
At the same time, she blames it for the fate of her younger half-sister, Lisa Montgomery.
Montgomery was sentenced for the murder of a 23-year-old woman who was eight months pregnant. In December 2004, Montgomery, who was 36 at the time, strangled Bobbie Jo Stinnett before cutting the baby out of her womb and kidnapping it. Stinnett bled to death.
Mattingly and Montgomery lived together until Mattingly was eight and her half-sister was four. It was a terrifying household, she says, where physical, psychological and sexual abuse at the hands of Judy Shaughnessy, Montgomery's mother, and her boyfriends was routine.
The girls' biological father left the home, and after a while, Mattingly was whisked away to foster care. Montgomery was left behind with her mother.
Lisa Montgomery and her half-sister Diane Mattingly as children
It would be 34 years before the half-sisters would see each other again. And that would be from across a courtroom, where lawyers for the US government were trying to persuade a jury to sentence Montgomery to death.
"One sister got taken out and got put into a loving home and was nurtured and had time to heal," says Mattingly. "The other sister stayed in that situation, and it got worse and worse and worse. And then at the end, she was broken."
In late December, Montgomery's legal team submitted a petition to President Donald Trump that makes the case that after a lifetime of abuse - which they characterise as torture - she is too mentally ill to be executed and deserves mercy.
However, in the tiny town of Skidmore, Missouri, where the crime was committed, there is little sympathy for that argument. Many there believe the final moments of Bobbie Jo Stinnett were so horrific, the death sentence is warranted.
Lisa Montgomery and Bobbie Jo Stinnett got to know each other online through a shared love of dogs. They had corresponded for weeks on an online forum for rat terrier breeders and enthusiasts called "Ratter Chatter". Montgomery told Stinnett that she was also expecting, and the pair shared pregnancy stories.
In December 2004, Montgomery drove 281.5 km (175 miles) from her home in Kansas to Skidmore, where she had an appointment to look at some puppies owned by Stinnett.
But it wasn't Montgomery that Stinnett was expecting, it was a woman who went by the name of Darlene Fischer. But Fischer was a name that Montgomery had been using when she separately began messaging Stinnett from a different email address inquiring about buying one of her puppies.
When Stinnett answered the door, Montgomery overpowered the pregnant woman, strangled her with a piece of rope, and cut the baby out of her womb.
Investigators quickly realised that "Darlene Fischer" did not exist, and tracked Montgomery down the next day using her emails and computer IP address. They found her cradling a new-born girl she claimed to have given birth to the previous day. Her story quickly fell apart and she confessed to the killing.
Since 2008, Montgomery has been held in a federal prison in Texas for female inmates with special medical and psychological needs, where she has been receiving psychiatric care. Since receiving her execution date, she's been placed on suicide watch in an isolated cell.
Montgomery is scheduled to be put to death by a lethal injection of pentobarbital at Terre Haute prison in Indiana. It is the only federal prison with an active death chamber.
Montgomery's lawyers argue that because of a combination of years of horrific abuse, and a raft of psychological issues, she should never have been given the death penalty. They believe that at the time of the crime, Montgomery was psychotic and out of touch with reality. They have been joined by a chorus of supportive voices from the legal field, including 41 former and current prosecutors, as well as human rights entities like the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
However, calls for Trump to be merciful are hardly unanimous. According to Gallup, while support for the death penalty in the US is at its lowest level in more than 50 years, 55% of Americans still believe it is an appropriate punishment for murder. And nowhere is that support more palpably felt in this case than in Skidmore.
"Bobbie deserves to be here today. Bobbie's family deserves her," says Meagan Morrow, a high school classmate of Stinnett's. "And Lisa deserves to pay."
If you or someone you know needs support for issues about emotional distress, these organisations may be able to help.
Lisa Montgomery's current legal team has conducted some 450 interviews with family members, friends, case workers, doctors and social workers. Stitched together, they form a tapestry of family dysfunction, abuse, neglect, professional negligence, substance abuse and untreated mental illness.
"The whole story is tragic," says Kelley Henry, one of Montgomery's federal defence lawyers. "But one of the things that the president can do is say - to women who have been trafficked, and who have been sexually abused - 'Your abuse matters'."
For Montgomery, her lawyers argue, it began before she was born. According to an interview with her father, Montgomery's mother Judy Shaughnessy drank heavily throughout her pregnancy, and their daughter was born with foetal alcohol syndrome. Multiple medical experts have given statements agreeing with that diagnosis.
When Mattingly and Montgomery were young, Shaughnessy beat them and doled out cruel forms of punishment, like taping Montgomery's mouth shut, or pushing Mattingly out into the snow, naked. After their biological father left the home, Mattingly says they were left alone with Shaughnessy's boyfriends, at least one of whom started raping Mattingly.
"Judy was manipulative and - I hate to use this word, but - evil. She enjoyed torturing the people around her," says Mattingly. "She got joy out of it."
After Mattingly was removed from the home by social services, Montgomery fell prey to her mother's new husband, who according to statements from his other children, was a violent alcoholic who began sexually abusing Montgomery when she was a pre-teen. The family moved from place to place dozens of times, but it was in a trailer in Sperry, Oklahoma, where her lawyers say the abuse turned into something more akin to torture.
According to interviews with her half-siblings and others who spent time with the family, Montgomery's stepfather built a shed onto the trailer where he, and eventually his friends, raped and beat her. Her mother also began trafficking her, allowing handymen like electricians and plumbers to sexually abuse Montgomery in exchange for work on the house.
As a teenager, Montgomery confided in a cousin, telling him the men would tie her up, beat her and even urinate on her afterwards.
But the cousin, a sheriff's deputy, confessed to Montgomery's current legal team that he did nothing. In fact, he drove her back home and dropped her off in the hands of her abusers.
Lawyer Kelley Henry says one of the things that disturbs her most is that adults in positions of authority were told about what was going on but did nothing.
When Shaughnessy eventually split from her second husband, she and Montgomery testified in divorce proceedings about the sexual assaults. The judge in the case scolded Shaughnessy for not reporting the abuse - but did not report the abuse himself.
"There were so many opportunities where people could have intervened and prevented this," says Henry.
Montgomery's cousin told her legal team that he lived with "regret for not speaking up about what happened to Lisa".
When she was 18, Montgomery married her stepbrother. The couple had four children in five years, but the relationship was not the escape from violence that Montgomery might have hoped it would be. At one point, one of Montgomery's brothers found a home movie that showed Montgomery's husband raping and beating her.
"It was violent and like a scene out of a horror movie," he said in a statement. "I felt sick watching the video. I didn't know what to do or how to talk to my sister about it."
Friends and family began noticing Montgomery's tendency to slip into "a world of her own". Her children were disturbed by it. Henry says this was an early sign of her mental illnesses, which include bipolar disorder, complex post-traumatic stress disorder, dissociative disorder and traumatic brain injury.
Montgomery eventually divorced her first husband and married Kevin Montgomery. Around this time, she repeatedly claimed to be pregnant again, although she had undergone sterilisation after her fourth baby was born.
One theory her lawyers put forward regarding the chain of events that led to the murder, is that Montgomery feared her ex-husband would expose her lies about being pregnant and use it against her as he sought custody of their children.
"There was so much pressure on her at that point," says Henry. She describes Montgomery's ex-husband as cruel and harassing. "She was completely detached from reality."
Her lawyers say that as she lost touch with reality, she fantasised about being pregnant.
Henry says Montgomery's original legal defence after she was arrested and charged with murder was woefully inadequate, and presented few of the details about her abuse, trauma and mental illness.
Her lawyers at the time also presented an alternative theory of the crime, which was that Montgomery's brother had actually committed the murder, even though he had an alibi. That was ultimately dropped in favour of an insanity defence, but Henry believes the damage to Montgomery's credibility was already done.
After five hours of deliberation, the jury found Montgomery guilty. They recommended a sentence of death.
Diane Mattingly has been speaking publicly for the first time in the hope it can make a difference.
"I would say, 'President Trump, I want you to look at the life that Lisa had led, I want to look at all the people that have failed her, I want you to look at the rape, the torture, the mental abuse, the physical abuse that this woman had endured,'" she says. "I'm asking him to have compassion on her as a person that has been failed over and over and over again. And to not fail her."
The tiny farming town of Skidmore sits in the far northwest corner of Missouri. A generation ago, it was the kind of place where you could "get your hair cut, see a show, buy rabbit feed and eat dinner" - but those days are long gone. Today there is a single restaurant and few of the streets are paved.
The population hovers around just 250, and everyone knew Bobbie Jo Stinnett and her family. Friends recall her as a good student with a love of horses and dogs. She liked going down to the Nodaway River to swim, and playing Nintendo games at slumber parties. She was quiet and kind, they say.
At the time of her murder, she was newly married and pregnant with her first child.
Although the alumni have scattered somewhat, in recent years, the Nodaway-Holt R-VII High School graduating class of 2000 - which had only 22 members - has a tradition to mark the anniversary of the death of their classmate Bobbie Jo Stinnett.
They hold a collection and try to do something nice for Stinnett's mother. "Last year, we got flowers, and gave her a $100-plus gift card and then paid her water bill," says Jena Baumli.
The murder 16 years ago is never far from the minds of the town's residents.
For one thing, the wider world won't let them forget. It has been the subject of two books, multiple true crime television shows, documentaries and countless podcast episodes. And though there's been much recent debate over the fairness of Montgomery's sentence in courthouses and in the opinion pages of newspapers like the New York Times, a similar debate does not exist here.
"I think that in a lot of the opinion pieces that are being posted, in a lot of things that people are sharing, Bobbie Jo and her daughter, and her mother and her husband and other friends and family, are kind of being forgotten," says Tiffany Kirkland, another member of the class of 2000.
"She always wanted to be a mom," says Baumli. "She was really the first one to have a decent marriage, you know, and I guess looking at Bobbie Jo was like, what your dreams were when you were younger."
Because of Stinnett's easy-going reputation, Morrow remembers instantly dismissing the initial reports of her murder.
"I was like, 'Oh, she was not.' You know, like, that doesn't happen to Bobbie," Morrow says.
But what happened at the modest clapboard house where Stinnett lived with her husband still haunts some of those involved in the investigation.
Nodaway County Sheriff Randy Strong says that the scene that he and his four colleagues found that day was so bloody, they are still traumatised by it. It makes him even angrier that it was Stinnett's mother who discovered her that way.
"The people that are defending [Montgomery], I wish I could take them back in time, and put them in that room," he says. "And then go, 'Look at this body'. And then go, 'Stand there and listen to the 911 call of [Stinnett's mother]. This is the stuff of nightmares."
Many of the residents of Skidmore cite the details of the crime, and the amount of planning that went into it, as evidence that Montgomery was a calculating killer.
She had catfished Stinnett online under a fake name. She had bought supplies, including a home birth kit, and searched online for how to perform a caesarean section. Sheriff Strong insists that the crime was meticulously planned and that the woman he arrested continued to lie until backed into a corner.
Dr Katherine Porterfield, a clinical psychologist who evaluated Montgomery and spent about 18 hours with her, says that psychosis does not always look the way people expect it to.
"Being psychotic, it does not mean you are not intelligent, nor that you cannot act in a planful way," she says. "We've seen crime for years and years in our country in which people enact terrible violence coming out of a psychotic set of beliefs or thought process. Lisa Montgomery is no different. She enacted this in the grip of a very broken mind."
The baby was returned to her father, after being recovered from Montgomery.
Bobbie Jo's mother and husband have have not spoken publicly in many years. But Strong says this is the first year he's heard directly from Stinnett's husband. He thanked the sheriff for recovering his daughter and allowing him to be the parent that his wife couldn't be.
"I cried," says Strong. "The whole community over there's traumatised by this."
School friend Baumli says she's read the descriptions of Montgomery's abuse, but it mostly just makes her angry. She says it's not as if all the other people of Skidmore lead idyllic lives free from abuse, poverty and other destructive tragedies. She gives herself as an example - when Stinnett was murdered, Baumli was in rehab for a drug addiction. She missed the funeral because of it.
"Let's say I didn't stay clean very long," she says.
"I'm sick of hearing about Lisa Montgomery and what she went through. And it's never about what my friend went through," she adds. "I get these images in my head of [Bobbie Jo's mother] finding her daughter that way."
Three federal inmates - Orlando Hall, Alfred Bourgeois and Brandon Bernard - have been put to death since the 3 November presidential election. Several high-profile figures had appealed for clemency in Brandon's case but Mr Trump did not heed those calls.
President-elect Joe Biden has already pledged to end death penalty proceedings, although he hasn't said when.
Until July 2020, there had been no federal executions for 17 years. At state level, the number of sentences and executions continues a historic decline. Only 18 death sentences were handed down in 2020 and the number of executions carried out hit a 30-year low. More recently, the states that have been carrying out executions, such as Texas and Tennessee, have halted and delayed executions because of the pandemic.
However, the executions ordered by President Trump are continuing. If they all go ahead, the federal government will have executed more people than any administration in nearly 100 years.
Protest against federal executions of death row inmates - outside the US Justice Department, Washington DC, December 2020
Two other inmates are scheduled to die at Terre Haute prison before Mr Trump's presidency ends. Recently, there has been a virus outbreak on death row at the institution, and previous executions have been linked to outbreaks among the execution team and prison staff.
"They made this a priority at the risk of the health and lives of corrections officials, of the prisoners on death row, and the communities that all of those Bureau of Prisons officials who flew in from across the country were returning to," says Ngozi Ndulue, senior director of research and special projects at the Death Penalty Information Center.
"This was a very coordinated and determined plan to ensure that as many people could be executed on federal death row as possible before the end of this administration term."
Montgomery's lawyers want her sentence commuted to a life sentence, which would allow her to remain under psychiatric care in prison for the rest of her days.
Mattingly says looking back to the moment life changed for her as an eight-year-old, she feels guilty that when the social workers came for her, she didn't tell them what was going on in that house.
"If I had, would they have taken Lisa out of the home also?" she says. "There's so many people that failed her throughout her whole life. And I am just asking for somebody - once - not to fail her."
|
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55587260
|
news_world-us-canada-55587260
|
|
Covid: Gap between Pfizer vaccine doses should be halved, say doctors - BBC News
|
2021-01-23
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Delaying second Pfizer doses to give more people their first is "difficult to justify", says BMA.
|
UK
|
Senior doctors are calling on England's chief medical officer to cut the gap between the first and second doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine.
Prof Chris Whitty said extending the maximum wait from three to 12 weeks was a "public health decision" to get the first jab to more people across the UK.
But the British Medical Association said that was "difficult to justify" and should be changed to six weeks.
It comes as early evidence suggests the UK virus variant may be more deadly.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson told a Downing Street briefing on Friday: "In addition to spreading more quickly, it also now appears that there is some evidence that the new variant - the variant that was first identified in London and the south east - may be associated with a higher degree of mortality."
Previous work suggests the new variant spreads between 30% and 70% faster than others, and there are hints it is about 30% more deadly.
For example, the government's chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance said if 1,000 men in their 60s were infected with the old variant, roughly 10 of them would be expected to die - but this rises to about 13 with the new variant.
Another 1,348 deaths within 28 days of a positive coronavirus test were reported in the UK on Saturday, in addition to 33,552 new infections, according to the government's coronavirus dashboard.
The government's Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) says unpublished data suggests the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is still effective with doses 12 weeks apart - but Pfizer has said it has tested its vaccine's efficacy only when the two doses were given up to 21 days apart.
The World Health Organization has recommended a gap of four weeks between doses - to be extended only in exceptional circumstances to six weeks.
Government minister Robert Jenrick said the current strategy ensured "millions more people can get the first jab" and the "high level of protection" which it offered.
He said the BMA's concerns would be taken into account but that the government was following the "very clear advice" of the medicines regulator and the UK's four chief medical officers who, he said, "could not have been clearer that this is the right thing to do for this country".
A spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Social Care added: "Our number one priority is to give protection against coronavirus to as many vulnerable people as possible, as quickly as possible."
In the letter to Prof Whitty, seen by the BBC, the British Medical Association (BMA) said it agreed that the vaccine should be rolled out "as quickly as possible" - but called for an urgent review and for the gap to be reduced.
The doctors' union said the UK's strategy "has become increasingly isolated internationally" and "is proving evermore difficult to justify".
"The absence of any international support for the UK's approach is a cause of deep concern and risks undermining public and the profession's trust in the vaccination programme," the letter said.
Dr Chaand Nagpaul, chair of the BMA, said there were "growing concerns" that the vaccine could become less effective with doses 12 weeks apart.
"Obviously the protection will not vanish after six weeks, but what we do not know is what level of protection will be offered [after that point]," he told BBC Breakfast.
"We should not be extrapolating data when we don't have it."
He said while he understands the rationale behind the decision, "no other nation has adopted the UK's approach".
"We think the flexibility that the WHO offers of extending to 42 days is being stretched far too much to go from six weeks right through to 12 weeks," he added.
There has been understandable enthusiasm over a promising start to the hugely ambitious UK vaccination rollout.
But there has been some tension over the decision to lengthen the time between doses for the Pfizer vaccine to 12 weeks.
Prof Whitty and other health leaders and experts say this will allow many more people to get vaccinated quickly and the first dose gives most of the protection.
But critics argue this goes against Pfizer's recommendation of a three-week gap and there is no data to back up the long delay.
The intervention of the BMA is significant as it shows senior doctors now have widespread concerns, including worries about reliability of supplies if people have to wait longer for a second jab.
This is a private letter to Chris Whitty seen by the BBC and not a grandstanding press release. The BMA wants to have talks with the chief medical adviser about moving to six weeks.
Prof Whitty will no doubt restate his case, but it will be interesting to see whether the BMA argument gains traction in the wider medical world.
The BMA also suggested second doses might not be guaranteed after a 12-week delay "given the unpredictability of supplies".
However, Public Health England's medical director said people would get their second dose.
Dr Yvonne Doyle told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that she backed the current strategy, saying it was "about bearing down on transmission" to reduce deaths and reduce the chance of more dangerous variants of the virus emerging.
"The more people that are protected against this virus, the less opportunity it has to get the upper hand," she said.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Other issues highlighted in the letter include:
The UK's chief medical officers have said the "great majority" of initial protection comes from the first jab, while the second dose is likely to help that protection last longer.
In total, the UK has ordered 100 million doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine and 40 million of the Pfizer vaccine.
Both vaccines are expected to work against the variant of Covid-19 that emerged in the UK.
What has been your experience of receiving the vaccine? Are you waiting for your second dose? Email: haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk.
Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a BBC journalist. You can also get in touch in the following ways:
If you are reading this page and can't see the form you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question or comment or you can email us at HaveYourSay@bbc.co.uk. Please include your name, age and location with any submission.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55777084
|
news_uk-55777084
|
|
Covid: 12-week vaccine gap defended by UK medical chiefs - BBC News
|
2021-01-01
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The UK will now leave a 12-week gap between both parts of the Covid vaccination, rather than 21 days.
|
UK
|
The UK's chief medical officers have defended the Covid vaccination plan, after criticism from a doctors' union.
The UK will give both parts of the Oxford and Pfizer vaccines 12 weeks apart, having initially planned to leave 21 days between the Pfizer jabs.
The British Medical Association said cancelling patients booked in for their second doses was "grossly unfair".
But the chief medical officers said getting more people vaccinated with the first jab "is much more preferable".
The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was the first jab approved in the UK, and 944,539 people have had their first jab.
The first person to get the jab on 8 December, Margaret Keenan, has already had her second jab.
Pfizer has said it has tested the vaccine's efficacy only when the two vaccines were given up to 21 days apart.
But the chief medical officers said the "great majority" of initial protection came from the first jab.
"The second vaccine dose is likely to be very important for duration of protection, and at an appropriate dose interval may further increase vaccine efficacy," they said.
"In the short term, the additional increase of vaccine efficacy from the second dose is likely to be modest; the great majority of the initial protection from clinical disease is after the first dose of vaccine."
The decision to delay the second dose has, understandably, caused concern.
There is some evidence regulators say - at least for the Oxford vaccine - that it will actually boost immunity.
But for those who are due to get a second dose soon it will undoubtedly be upsetting that they now have to wait.
But the move is about practicalities. The UK is in the middle of a public health crisis and despite the fact that millions of doses are pre-ordered, there is concern the supply of the vaccine will not be as smooth as everyone would ideally want.
There is a global demand for these vaccines and there are bound to be times when supply does not meet demand.
So the logic of the move is that by spreading this thin resource the most widely, it will have the greatest benefit - not only to the vulnerable but to everyone.
Lives have been put on hold and livelihoods lost.
This is the quickest way back to some degree of normality.
Even if it does leave some of the vaccinated susceptible to infection, it should in theory at least protect them from serious illness.
Given where we are now, the argument is that that is a price worth paying.
As well as approving the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine on Wednesday - the second approved for use in the UK - regulators also said that doctors could wait longer between the two courses.
This means more people will get the first jab sooner, even if they have to wait longer for their second jab.
Experts advising the government, including the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), said the focus should be on giving at-risk people the first dose of whichever vaccine they receive.
Defending the move, the UK's four chief medical officers - including England's Prof Chris Whitty - said in a statement released on New Year's Eve: "In terms of protecting priority groups, a model where we can vaccinate twice the number of people in the next two to three months is obviously much more preferable."
They said they recognised that rescheduling second appointments was "operationally very difficult" and would "distress patients who were looking forward to being fully immunised".
However, they said that for every 1,000 patients booked in for a second dose, which will "gain marginally on protection from severe disease", that would mean 1,000 more people missing out on "substantial initial protection".
The chief medics said that, while one million people had already been vaccinated, approximately 30 million UK patients and health and social care workers eligible in the first phase "remain totally unprotected and many are distressed or anxious about the wait for their turn".
They added that the JCVI was "confident" 12 weeks was a reasonable interval between doses "to achieve good longer-term protection".
"We have to follow public health principles and act at speed if we are to beat this pandemic which is running rampant in our communities, and we believe the public will understand and thank us for this decisive action."
Earlier, the BMA's Dr Richard Vautrey said GPs were unhappy they were being asked to cancel appointments that had already been made for second doses.
He said the BMA would support practices who honour the existing appointments for the follow-up vaccination, calling for the government to do the same.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55503739
|
news_uk-55503739
|
|
Parents' stress and depression 'rise during lockdowns' - BBC News
|
2021-01-19
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Many parents struggle to meet their children's needs during the pandemic, say researchers.
|
Family & Education
|
Not all parents have found it easy to home school their children during coronavirus lockdowns
Levels of stress, depression and anxiety among parents and carers have increased with the pressures of the lockdowns, suggests research from the University of Oxford.
Many parents, especially those of secondary-age pupils, say they are worried about their children's futures.
The government has said it is aware how challenging it is for parents to support children with home learning.
The research, based on responses from 6,246 parents and carers between mid-March and the end of December 2020, found problems including:
On an established scale of depression, anxiety and stress, parents' depression scores increased from April through to June from an average of 9.03 to 9.71, says the study funded by the Economic and Social Research Council.
While these average scores decreased over the summer, when Covid-19 restrictions were eased, to a low of 8.23 in September, they rose again over the course of the autumn term to a high of 10.1 points in December.
Parents' stress scores were at their lowest in August and September at 11.4 points, but increased to a high of 13.2 in December, following the pre-Christmas lockdown.
The researchers said higher levels of stress were detected particularly in low-income families, as well as single-parent households and those with children with special educational needs.
While average anxiety scores were relatively stable throughout the whole period - ranging from a 4.71 points in April to 4.24 in July - they hit a high of 5 points in December.
The study also found just over a third (36%) of parents with young children (10 years or younger) said they were "substantially worried" about their children's behaviour, in contrast to just over a quarter (28%) of parents who had older children only (11 years or older).
However, nearly half (45%) of those with secondary-age children were worried about their children's education and future, compared to 32% of those with young children.
Leticea, a parent who took part in the study, said: "I think that UK leaders should have access to this data to see what is going on with the mental health of families and how they are being affected by Covid-19 with increased levels of stress, depression and anxiety - we need something to look forward to.
"I am also worried that the next three months will show a sharper increase in anxiety and stress where parents are having to do more teaching at home.
"Children are more worried as their teachers are becoming ill - the 'new variant' sounds more scary, my daughter keeps commenting on an increasing worry of catching Covid-19 which she didn't do so much before."
Another parent, Madiha, said: ''Current times are hard enough as they are.
"As a working parent, the most important thing for me is to ensure my family's wellbeing, their safety, and their continued development.
"Prolonged screen time, disruption to daily routine, frequent arguments, lack of exercise, and stress of exams have all been contributing factors to our mental health and wellbeing.
Madiha said she hoped the study would play a part in informing policy and developing interventions to help families.
Cathy Creswell, professor of clinical developmental psychology at Oxford University and co-leader of the study, said the findings showed parents were particularly vulnerable to distress during the first lockdown.
"Our data highlight the particular strains felt by parents during lockdown when many feel that they have been spread too thin by the demands of meeting their children's needs during the pandemic, along with home-schooling and work commitments."
Schools were first closed to most pupils in March
John Jolly, head of the charity Parentkind, said the research highlighted "the additional stress and pressure that partial school closures place on parents".
"Given the disruption to family life, it is vital that policymakers consult and listen to the concerns of parents on issues that directly impact them and their children's futures.
"This includes the safety and reopening of schools, the fair allocation of grades in the absence of exams, and remote learning provision."
The Oxford researchers are tracking children's and parents' mental health throughout the current crisis, to help them identify what protects young people from deteriorating mental health and how this may vary according to child and family characteristics.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-55707322
|
news_education-55707322
|
|
Government narrowly sees off Tory revolt over anti-genocide trade deal law - BBC News
|
2021-01-19
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Tory rebels hope to get another chance to outlaw trade deals with countries involved in mass killings.
|
UK Politics
|
Protests against China's alleged abuse of the Muslim Uighur community
The government has narrowly seen off a rebellion by 33 Tory MPs, who want to outlaw trade deals with countries judged to be committing genocide.
MPs voted by 319 to 308 to remove an amendment to the Trade Bill which would have forced ministers to withdraw from deals with nations the UK High Court ruled guilty of mass killings.
It comes amid condemnation of China's treatment of the Uighur people.
The rebels believe they have enough support to secure another vote soon.
Among those to defy the government were ex-Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith, former cabinet ministers David Davis and Damian Green and Tom Tugendhat, chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.
The rebellion is one of the largest on an issue not related to the Covid-19 pandemic during Boris Johnson's time as prime minister.
The government has a Commons majority of 80 but this was whittled down to just 11 as prominent ex-ministers such as Tobias Ellwood, Caroline Nokes and Nusrat Ghani, as well as a number of MPs first elected last year, sided with the opposition.
MPs have been debating proposals, tabled by cross-bench peer Lord Alton, to give British courts the right to decide if a country is committing genocide, a decision currently left to the jurisdiction of international courts.
The proposals, also backed by Labour, would mean that ministers would have to revoke post-Brexit trade deals with countries that were ruled to be carrying out systematic mass killings.
The issue is expected to resurface when the Trade Bill returns to the House of Lords.
Earlier on Tuesday, Conservative rebels, led by former leader Iain Duncan Smith, were unable to force a vote on a separate amendment they had proposed.
Every speaker in today's debate - from the front and back benches - said genocide was abhorrent. The worst of crimes. There was united criticism of China's brutal treatment of the Uighurs too.
But the question Parliament has been wrestling with is whether the High Court should have the right to decide if a country is committing genocide. And if they did judge a country has been carrying out mass killings, should the High Court be able to compel the government to revoke any trade treaty it has with that country?
Ministers insist it should be the job of elected governments, not judges, to determine trade policy. But opposition parties and a large cohort of Tory backbenchers argue it's essential the High Court can rule on genocide and ensure the UK's new trade-making freedom has an obligation to uphold human rights too.
This also is an argument about where power lies after Brexit and what role Parliament should have in shaping trade policy after decades in the EU.
But BBC Newsnight political editor Nick Watt said that by securing large, but not overwhelming, support for Lord Alton's amendment in the Commons, the rebels hope the government will accept Mr Duncan Smith's own amendment - which would give the Commons the right to debate whether trade deals can be halted if genocide is proven.
The debate came as the US government formally declared that China was committing genocide in its repression of Uighur muslims in Xinjiang.
The UK government has been critical of China's treatment of the Uighurs and last week announced measures to cut UK business links with forced labour camps in the region.
But some MPs suspect the government is pulling its punches to avoid antagonising Beijing.
Mr Duncan Smith said the debate was "all about simply shining a light of hope to all those out there who have failed to get their day in court and failed to be treated properly".
"If this country doesn't stand up for that then I want to know what would it ever stand up for again?," he added.
But Trade Minister Greg Hands said it was unprecedented and unacceptable to give the courts powers to revoke trade deals agreed by elected governments.
And he argued that no one would benefit from the proposal because the UK currently had no free trade deal with China.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55723163
|
news_uk-politics-55723163
|
|
Duchess of Sussex claims privacy and copyright breached by paper group - BBC News
|
2021-01-19
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The Duchess of Sussex is suing the Mail on Sunday over the publication of her letter to her father.
|
UK
|
The publication of a letter from the Duchess of Sussex to her father was a "triple-barrelled invasion" of her privacy, the High Court has been told.
Meghan is suing the publisher of the Mail on Sunday and Mail Online over articles that reproduced parts of the private handwritten letter.
She claims her privacy and copyright were breached by the newspaper group.
Her lawyers are asking for summary judgement - a dismissal of Associated Newspapers' defence instead of a trial.
Meghan's lawyers argue Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) has "no prospect" of defending the privacy and copyright claims being brought against them.
They claim the publication of extracts from the private, handwritten letter to Thomas Markle was "self-evidently... highly intrusive".
Meghan, 39, sent the letter to her father in August 2018, following her marriage to Prince Harry in May that year, which Mr Markle did not attend. The couple are now living in the US with their son Archie.
The five articles, published in February 2019, were a "triple-barrelled invasion" of the duchess's privacy, correspondence and family, the lawyers claim.
Mr Markle said in a witness statement provided to the remote hearing, which started on Tuesday, that he wanted the letter published to "set the record straight" about his relationship with his daughter - but one of Meghan's lawyers described this claim as "ridiculous".
Meghan is seeking damages from the newspaper group for alleged misuse of private information, copyright infringement and breach of the Data Protection Act over the articles.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex now live in the US with their son
Her lawyers told the court the letter was written in sorrow rather than anger and was an attempt to get her father to stop talking to the press.
But the newspaper group said in its response to the court that Meghan had written the letter "with a view to it being disclosed publicly at some future point" in order to "defend her against charges of being an uncaring or unloving daughter".
In written submissions, the newspaper group's barrister Antony White said "she must, at the very least, have appreciated that her father might choose to disclose it" and pointed out that the Kensington Palace communications team had been shown the letter before it was sent.
"No truly private letter from daughter to father would require any input from the Kensington Palace communications team," said Mr White.
But Meghan's lawyers also pointed out the articles themselves had emphasised the private nature of the correspondence - and dismissed any argument that it was in the public interest for the newspaper to reproduce the letter, saying the public interest was at the "very end of the bottom end of the scale".
Justin Rushbrooke, representing the duchess, described the handwritten letter as "a heartfelt plea from an anguished daughter to her father".
He said the "contents and character of the letter were intrinsically private, personal and sensitive in nature" and that Meghan "had a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the contents of the letter".
The effect of publishing the letter was "self-evidently likely to be devastating for the claimant", said Mr Rushbrooke.
The barrister argued that, even if ANL was justified in publishing parts of the letter, "on any view the defendant published far more by way of extracts from the letter than could have been justified in the public interest".
Mr White said that the newspaper group would argue that Meghan's status as a member of the royal family was relevant to the case.
In response to that point, Mr Rushbrooke said: "Yes, she is in some senses a public figure, but that does not reduce her expectation of privacy in relation to information of this kind."
In Thomas Markle's evidence, he said the letter "signalled the end" of his relationship with his daughter, and instead of a reconciliation attempt, the letter was a "criticism" of him.
He said that he had to "defend himself" against an article in People magazine. It carried an interview with a "long-time friend" of his daughter, who suggested Meghan sent the letter to repair her relationship with her father - something he claimed was false.
The People article, he claimed, made him appear "dishonest, exploitative, publicity-seeking, uncaring and cold-hearted".
He said he had "never intended to talk publicly about Meg's letter" until he read the People magazine piece which, he claimed, suggested he was "to blame for the end of the relationship".
The full trial of the duchess's claim had been due to be heard at the High Court this month, but last year the case was adjourned until autumn 2021.
This interim remote hearing - to consider the request for summary judgement - is due to last two days. Mr Justice Warby, who is hearing the case, is expected to reserve his judgement to a later date.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55721547
|
news_uk-55721547
|
|
Border poll would be 'absolutely reckless', says Arlene Foster - BBC News
|
2021-01-24
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
A Sunday Times poll shows 51% of people in favour of holding a border poll in NI within five years.
|
Northern Ireland
|
DUP leader Arlene Foster said people in NI need to "come together to fight against Covid"
DUP leader Arlene Foster has said a potential vote on a united Ireland would be "absolutely reckless".
She was speaking after a poll commissioned by the Sunday Times in NI found 51% of people want a referendum on Irish unity in the next five years.
Speaking to Sky News, the first minister said "we all know how divisive a border poll would be".
Sinn Féin's Michelle O'Neill said there was an "unstoppable conversation under way" on the issue.
The deputy first minister called on the Irish government "to step up preparations" for a border poll.
Provisions for a possible border poll on Irish reunification are included in the the Good Friday Agreement - the deal which led to peace in Northern Ireland after decades of violence.
It states that the Northern Ireland Secretary must call a border poll if it at any time it appears "likely" to that a majority of people in Northern Ireland would vote for a united Ireland.
This Twitter post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser. View original content on Twitter The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Skip twitter post by Michelle O’Neill This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Twitter’s cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
Mrs Foster said she thought it was "very disappointing" that some nationalist parties in the UK were focusing on "constitutional politics" during the Covid-19 pandemic.
"We all know how divisive a border poll would be, and for us in Northern Ireland what we have to do is come together to fight against Covid, and not be distracted by what would be absolutely reckless at this time," she said.
She added if there was a vote on Irish unity, the arguments for the union are "rational, logical, and they will win through".
The polling was carried out by Lucidtalk in Northern Ireland, with similar polling in England, Scotland and Wales to gauge attitudes towards the union.
It found that in Northern Ireland, 47% still want to remain in the UK, with 42% in favour of a united Ireland and 11% undecided.
However for those aged under 45, supporters of Irish reunification outnumber those who want to stay in the UK by 47% to 46%.
Respondents also said they believed there would be a united Ireland within 10 years, by a margin of 48% to 44%.
Polls like this come with the usual health warning - they are a snapshot in a moment in time.
Nonetheless there is some interesting reading here - not least the fact that it paints a picture of a disunited kingdom.
We shouldn't really be surprised about that because we have had very different approaches to the global Covid-19 pandemic with different outcomes.
We know that Brexit is starting to bite and there is a lot of frustration out there and uncertainty and that, I'm sure, has fed into these figures.
The big question for NI, unsurprisingly, is around constitutional change.
It shows that 51% of those polled would want to see a border poll within the next five years, compared to 44% who would not.
However, if they flip that question around it's interesting to see that 42% would want to see a united Ireland, but 47% would want to remain, with 11% of don't knows.
So according to these figures there may be an appetite for a border poll - but if that question was posed the majority are saying they would stay in the UK.
SDLP leader Colum Eastwood said the poll placed a "solemn obligation" on those seeking a united Ireland "to engage with every community, sector and generation".
"The United Kingdom may be coming to an end but we are all called to build a new future together. That's the work the SDLP is engaged in," said the Foyle MP.
The polling found 47% of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain in the UK, with 42% in favour of a united Ireland, and 11% undecided
Ulster Unionist leader Steve Aiken said "all political energy should be focused on making Northern Ireland a better place to live and work rather than a divisive border poll".
"We need to concentrate on the here and now, fostering better relationships and plotting a way through and out of the Covid-19 pandemic," he added.
"As Northern Ireland enters its second century, we should be talking about recovery, renewal and reconciliation."
The polls also found across the UK, respondents believed Scotland would become independent within the next 10 years.
In Scotland, it found a large poll lead for the Scottish National Party, with them potentially being on course to win 70 of 129 seats in Holyrood.
The SNP is set to reveal its 'roadmap to a referendum' to its national assembly on Sunday.
It outlines plans to pursue a vote after the pandemic if there is a pro-independence majority at Holyrood following May's election.
The research was carried out by Lucidtalk in Northern Ireland, Panelbase in Scotland, and YouGov in England and Wales.
The polling was carried out between 15 and 22 of January, with 2,392 people polled in Northern Ireland, 1,206 in Scotland, 1,416 in England, and 1,059 in Wales.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-55783805
|
news_uk-northern-ireland-55783805
|
|
US election: Bannon Twitter account banned amid clampdown - BBC News
|
2021-01-20
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The big social networks are clamping down on threats of violence amid a tense wait for results.
|
Technology
|
Mr Bannon was once considered among the most influential men in Mr Trump's administration
President Trump's former top advisor, Steve Bannon, has been suspended from Twitter over the "glorification of violence" amid the election aftermath.
Mr Bannon said a re-elected Mr Trump should fire the top infectious disease expert and the FBI director, and called for violence against them.
It comes as the tech firms continue a clampdown on misinformation.
Facebook has shut down a large group which alleges fraud, and announced new measures to amplify genuine results.
Mr Bannon, once widely thought of as one of the most powerful men in Washington, served as the boss of Mr Trump's 2016 campaign, and as a top presidential advisor for the first several months of his presidency.
On Thursday, he posted a video podcast to Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, in which he said both Dr Anthony Fauci - the face of the country's fight against coronavirus - and FBI Director Christopher Wray, should be fired after Mr Trump's re-election, but also said they should be subjected to violence.
President Trump has expressed frustration with both men, clashing with Dr Fauci over the pandemic, and with Mr Wray over what he sees as a failure to investigate his opponent, Joe Biden.
Facebook and YouTube both removed the video, but Twitter issued an outright suspension of Mr Bannon's "war room pandemic" account, for violating its policy on the glorification of violence.
The account has been permanently suspended, rather than banned for a limited amount of time, Twitter said in a statement.
President Trump, meanwhile, had another of his tweets hidden and labelled by Twitter after falsely claiming victory and alleging the existence of "illegal votes".
The President responded by tweeting: "Twitter is out of control".
The Stop the Steal Facebook group had about 350,000 members when the social media giant removed it, something the social network admitted was an "exceptional" measure. It did so because it was "creating real-world events" and "we saw worrying calls for violence from some members of the group", Facebook said.
The social network is now taking further measures to restrict the flow of "inaccurate claims" in order "to keep this content from reaching more people".
"These include demotions for content on Facebook and Instagram that our systems predict may be misinformation, including debunked claims about voting. We are also limiting the distribution of live videos that may relate to the election on Facebook," the firm said in a statement.
This Twitter post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser. View original content on Twitter The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Skip twitter post by Facebook Newsroom This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Twitter’s cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
As President Trump continues to allege, without evidence, that widespread voter fraud took place, Facebook also said it would alter its election banner notifications and spread news of the projected winner, once a majority of independent outlets projected the result.
The same notice will be put on posts from both candidates.
Separately, Bloomberg reports that Twitter will remove the "special treatment" it affords President Trump as a world leader, in the event of Joe Biden winning the presidency.
Twitter has specific rules for world leaders, which means it will not ordinarily ban them for the same offences for which it would ban ordinary users. Twitter argues that such posts - even when violating its rules - are sufficiently newsworthy to stay up, with a handful of exceptions.
Instead, Twitter can label the post of a world leader, hiding it from view and restricting engagement - but leaving it viewable to anyone who clicks through a warning message about the content.
It has repeatedly done this to Mr Trump's tweets, leading to high-profile arguments with the president and his supporters.
But Mr Trump would return to the status of a regular user if he loses the election, Bloomberg reported - meaning that his tweets could be deleted outright or his account suspended, for policy violations.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54838977
|
news_technology-54838977
|
|
Joe Biden: 'Middle Class Joe' vows to 'finish the job' - BBC News
|
2021-01-20
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
President Biden has said that democracy and 'freedom' are at stake in the upcoming 2024 election.
|
US & Canada
|
US President Joe Biden has officially announced his bid for re-election, asking Americans to help him "finish the job" he started more than two years ago.
Mr Biden, 80, faced a turbulent first two years in office marked by the Covid-19 pandemic, economic woes and geopolitical challenges including the US pull-out from Afghanistan and Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
On the campaign trail, Mr Biden - who served as Vice-President under Barack Obama - is likely to focus on his efforts to prop up the US economy after the pandemic, as well as his successes pushing through legislation focused on infrastructure, climate change and prescription drugs.
But a key argument for a second term will be what he has described as a turn towards authoritarianism from Donald Trump and his supporters in the "Make America Great Again" movement.
"The question we are facing is whether in the years ahead we have more freedom or less freedom, more rights or fewer," he said in a video launching his new campaign. "I know what I want the answer to be. This is not a time to be complacent. That's why I'm running for re-election."
The President, however, is also likely to face questions about his age and ability to serve, as well as about his handling of inflation, immigration and other issues that worry Americans.
The upcoming campaign is likely the last in a career in politics that has spanned more than four decades, and may again see him square off against Donald Trump.
So who is Joe Biden and how did he get to the White House?
Mr Biden ran for the Democratic 2008 nomination before dropping out and joining the Obama ticket.
His eight years in the Obama White House - where he frequently appeared at the president's side - has allowed Mr Biden to lay claim to much of Mr Obama's legacy, including passage of the Affordable Care Act, as well as the stimulus package and reforms enacted in response to the financial crisis.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. A look back at Joe Biden's life and political career
As a long-time Washington insider, Mr Biden had solid foreign affairs credentials, and helped balance Mr Obama's comparative lack of executive experience.
The so-called "Middle Class Joe" was also brought on board to help woo the blue-collar white voters who had proved a difficult group for Mr Obama to win over.
He made headlines in 2012 by saying he was "absolutely comfortable" with same-sex marriage, comments that were seen to undercut the president, who had yet to give full-throated support for the policy. Mr Obama ultimately did so, just days after Mr Biden.
Mr Biden's two terms supporting the first black president followed a long political career.
The six-term senator from Delaware was first elected in 1972. He ran for president in 1988 but withdrew after he admitted to plagiarising a speech by the then leader of the British Labour Party, Neil Kinnock.
His lengthy tenure in the nation's capital has given critics ample material for attacks.
Early in his career, he sided with southern segregationists in opposing court-ordered school bussing to racially integrate public schools.
And, as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1991, he oversaw Clarence Thomas's Supreme Court confirmation hearings and has been sharply criticised for his handling of Anita Hill's allegations that she was sexually harassed by the nominee.
In 1974, Biden was the youngest US senator
Mr Biden was also a fierce advocate of a 1994 anti-crime bill that many on the left now say encouraged lengthy sentences and mass incarceration.
The record made Mr Obama's moderate vice-president a sometimes uncomfortable fit for the modern Democratic Party.
Mr Biden's life has been dogged by personal tragedy.
In 1972, shortly after he won his first Senate race, he lost his first wife, Neilia, and baby daughter, Naomi, in a car accident. He famously took the oath of office for his first Senate term from the hospital room of his toddler sons Beau and Hunter, who both survived the accident.
In 2015, Beau died of brain cancer at the age of 46. The younger Biden was seen as a rising star of US politics and had intended to run for Delaware state governor in 2016.
Mr Biden garnered considerable goodwill following Beau's death, which served to highlight one of Mr Biden's central strengths: a reputation as a kind and relatable family man.
This perceived warmth is not without its pitfalls. After entering the 2020 race, he faced accusations of unwelcome physical contact during interactions with female voters - complete with uncomfortable accompanying footage.
But the avuncular politician responded by saying he was an empathetic person, though he accepted standards had changed. The episode, however, stoked a perception for some that he was out of touch.
Mr Biden's return to the White House came at a difficult time in US politics, with the country still reeling from the Covid-19 pandemic.
Just two weeks before his inauguration, the country had also seen supporters of former President Donald Trump storm Congress in a bid to thwart the certification of his election victory after Mr Trump falsely claimed that the election had been rigged.
Mr Biden's new campaign is likely to focus heavily on the fight against the ideology on display during the 6 January riot. The video announcing his re-election bid opens with images of a mob of Trump supporters storming the Capitol.
"Every generation of Americans has faced a moment when they've had to defend democracy," he said. "This is ours. Let's finish the job."
As he campaigns, Mr Biden is likely to point to a number of accomplishments during his tenure, including job creation, efforts to prop up the economy in the wake of the pandemic and the passing of a bipartisan infrastructure law billed as a "once-in-a-generation" investment by the White House.
But he will face tough questions on his handling of immigration and the US-Mexico border, as well as on the chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Mr Biden has also acknowledged that many Americans have raised "legitimate" questions about his age and ability to serve as President.
"And the only thing I can say is, watch me," he said earlier this year.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51682000
|
news_world-us-canada-51682000
|
|
Duchess of Sussex claims privacy and copyright breached by paper group - BBC News
|
2021-01-20
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The Duchess of Sussex is suing the Mail on Sunday over the publication of her letter to her father.
|
UK
|
The publication of a letter from the Duchess of Sussex to her father was a "triple-barrelled invasion" of her privacy, the High Court has been told.
Meghan is suing the publisher of the Mail on Sunday and Mail Online over articles that reproduced parts of the private handwritten letter.
She claims her privacy and copyright were breached by the newspaper group.
Her lawyers are asking for summary judgement - a dismissal of Associated Newspapers' defence instead of a trial.
Meghan's lawyers argue Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) has "no prospect" of defending the privacy and copyright claims being brought against them.
They claim the publication of extracts from the private, handwritten letter to Thomas Markle was "self-evidently... highly intrusive".
Meghan, 39, sent the letter to her father in August 2018, following her marriage to Prince Harry in May that year, which Mr Markle did not attend. The couple are now living in the US with their son Archie.
The five articles, published in February 2019, were a "triple-barrelled invasion" of the duchess's privacy, correspondence and family, the lawyers claim.
Mr Markle said in a witness statement provided to the remote hearing, which started on Tuesday, that he wanted the letter published to "set the record straight" about his relationship with his daughter - but one of Meghan's lawyers described this claim as "ridiculous".
Meghan is seeking damages from the newspaper group for alleged misuse of private information, copyright infringement and breach of the Data Protection Act over the articles.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex now live in the US with their son
Her lawyers told the court the letter was written in sorrow rather than anger and was an attempt to get her father to stop talking to the press.
But the newspaper group said in its response to the court that Meghan had written the letter "with a view to it being disclosed publicly at some future point" in order to "defend her against charges of being an uncaring or unloving daughter".
In written submissions, the newspaper group's barrister Antony White said "she must, at the very least, have appreciated that her father might choose to disclose it" and pointed out that the Kensington Palace communications team had been shown the letter before it was sent.
"No truly private letter from daughter to father would require any input from the Kensington Palace communications team," said Mr White.
But Meghan's lawyers also pointed out the articles themselves had emphasised the private nature of the correspondence - and dismissed any argument that it was in the public interest for the newspaper to reproduce the letter, saying the public interest was at the "very end of the bottom end of the scale".
Justin Rushbrooke, representing the duchess, described the handwritten letter as "a heartfelt plea from an anguished daughter to her father".
He said the "contents and character of the letter were intrinsically private, personal and sensitive in nature" and that Meghan "had a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the contents of the letter".
The effect of publishing the letter was "self-evidently likely to be devastating for the claimant", said Mr Rushbrooke.
The barrister argued that, even if ANL was justified in publishing parts of the letter, "on any view the defendant published far more by way of extracts from the letter than could have been justified in the public interest".
Mr White said that the newspaper group would argue that Meghan's status as a member of the royal family was relevant to the case.
In response to that point, Mr Rushbrooke said: "Yes, she is in some senses a public figure, but that does not reduce her expectation of privacy in relation to information of this kind."
In Thomas Markle's evidence, he said the letter "signalled the end" of his relationship with his daughter, and instead of a reconciliation attempt, the letter was a "criticism" of him.
He said that he had to "defend himself" against an article in People magazine. It carried an interview with a "long-time friend" of his daughter, who suggested Meghan sent the letter to repair her relationship with her father - something he claimed was false.
The People article, he claimed, made him appear "dishonest, exploitative, publicity-seeking, uncaring and cold-hearted".
He said he had "never intended to talk publicly about Meg's letter" until he read the People magazine piece which, he claimed, suggested he was "to blame for the end of the relationship".
The full trial of the duchess's claim had been due to be heard at the High Court this month, but last year the case was adjourned until autumn 2021.
This interim remote hearing - to consider the request for summary judgement - is due to last two days. Mr Justice Warby, who is hearing the case, is expected to reserve his judgement to a later date.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55721547
|
news_uk-55721547
|
|
Covid: Minister confident about pupils' school return - BBC News
|
2021-02-21
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
But there is a warning that this does not mean a return to "sleepovers or birthday parties".
|
Wales
|
Three to seven-year-olds will return to school on Monday
Wales' education minister says she is confident more primary school children will be able to return to face-to-face learning from 15 March, if Covid cases continue to fall.
Children aged three to seven start a phased return on Monday, along with some students on college courses.
Kirsty Williams said it could not be a "return to sleepovers or birthday parties" to help keep Covid cases down.
She also said high school pupils may eventually return on a phased basis.
Meanwhile, Plaid Cymru has called for teachers to be given Covid vaccinations as a priority.
Public Health Wales said although Covid case numbers were falling, the rates in north Wales were nearly double the average and there have been small increases in other areas.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. What do pupils feel about going back to school?
Most pupils have been learning from home since December and Ms Williams told BBC Radio Wales' Sunday Supplement: "If the public health situation continues to develop as it has been doing since the lockdown in December, then I am as confident as I can be that we will be able to return more children to face-to-face learning on 15 March.
"Please don't misinterpret this as a sign that things can go back to normal.
"Schools are highly-regulated settings, school staff are working really hard to make them as Covid secure as they can be.
"But it is behaviour around school - on the journey to school, at the school gate, on your way home and at the weekend - that will help us keep the public health situation improving which will allow more children to go back."
Schools closed to most pupils in December, with learning moved online
Ms Williams said trials regarding vaccinating young people against Covid were under way and Wales would be "ready to move forward" if approval was granted by regulators, along with the "get-go" from expert advisers.
UK government scientific adviser Prof John Edmunds, an infectious diseases expert, told the BBC's Andrew Marr programme "there is an argument for turning to children as fast as we can" when it comes to vaccination.
More than 860,000 people in Wales have been given a first dose of the Covid vaccine among the top priority groups, including the over-70s and health workers, according to the latest data.
All schools and colleges in Wales were told to move to online learning before the start of this term in an effort to "suppress the virus".
Schools and colleges have remained open for children of critical workers and vulnerable pupils, as well as children who needed to complete essential exams or assessments.
On secondary schools returning to face-to-face learning, Ms Williams the situation was more "complicated" due to the risk of transmission because coronavirus "behaves much more like it does within adults".
"Our priority will be to use whatever headroom we have to maximise face-to-face learning for years 11 and 13, and many head teachers that we're consulting with would like some flexibility to get some year 10 and year 12 students in as well.
"But we might have to do that on a routine basis, allowing us to cut the number of children in the class down, helping to keep those schools as Covid-secure as possible."
Timetable: the route out of lockdown
Ms Williams also said some university students were due to return to campus this week so they "can undertake the practical assessments and the practical elements of their work".
She said the Welsh Government was working with universities "to bring back students when it's safe and appropriate to do".
She told Radio Cymru's Dewi Llwyd programme that any "spare" vaccinations should be offered to school staff as a priority.
Welsh Conservative Senedd leader Andrew RT Davies welcomed the moves to reopen schools but was concerned that not enough was being done for businesses.
Schools in England and Northern Ireland are set to return from 8 March but Scotland's youngest are to restart face-to-face learning from Monday, as well as some senior pupils.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-56145094
|
news_uk-wales-56145094
|
|
Covid-19: PM joins 'national clap' for Capt Sir Tom Moore - BBC News
|
2021-02-03
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Boris Johnson joins Britons applauding the NHS fundraiser who has died at the age of 100.
|
UK
|
Analysis: Expect many arguments to come...
So good news. Ten million have had a dose of the vaccine. And, importantly, England's chief medical officer says we're past the peak of this wave, or at least we should be if infection rates don’t start climbing again. Both are significant. They’re also the reason why Boris Johnson was starting to come under pressure, with questions like why can’t those who have had the vaccine start to mix with each other at least? Could schools go back earlier in England? It’s clearly still too early for the government to be able to signal to people that they can begin to relax. The numbers of people infected with Covid-19 around the country, at one in 55, are still very high. The prime minister would only say that he will set out, on 22 February "the timetable, the earliest dates we can do things". And he indicated he was still thinking about loosening the current restrictions in stages. "It feels to us that we will be going down the tiers nationally," said Johnson. Expect many arguments to come about when any loosening should happen, how soon should schools reopen, and whether some areas will move faster than others.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-55916020
|
news_live_uk-55916020
|
|
Handforth Parish Council Zoom meeting dogged by rows again - BBC News
|
2021-02-17
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Thousands tune in for the latest Handforth Parish Council meeting but Jackie Weaver is not present.
|
Manchester
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. A cut down version of the December planning and environment meeting soon became a "must see"
A council that sparked an internet sensation when a meeting descended into chaos has again been dogged by rows.
A clip of a Handforth Parish Council meeting featuring insults and members being kicked out was watched by millions earlier this month.
Jackie Weaver, who was trending on Twitter after the December Zoom meeting went viral, was not involved when the council met on Wednesday evening.
Members of the public interjected and made cat-calls throughout the meeting.
Wednesday's meeting was being watched on YouTube by more than 3,500 people at one stage.
Jackie Weaver was not present for the meeting on Wednesday
Councillor John Smith and chairman Brian Tolver had a tense disagreement over the events of the Cheshire council's viral meeting in December.
Mr Smith offered a lengthy defence of Ms Weaver and described Mr Tolver and others' comments towards her as "abusive".
In response, Mr Tolver said: "I have much to dispute in what councillor Smith just said. I don't want to bore everybody but he was wrong on just about every point he raised."
Shortly afterwards a member of the public asked Mr Tolver if he would like to apologise for his actions in the December meeting, and Mr Tolver asked for the person to be muted.
Wednesday's meeting included a number of references to the viral meeting, with members of the public interrupting proceedings with laughter and quoting catchphrases like "read the standing orders, read them and understand them".
An argument also broke out among the councillors about the previous meeting's minutes, with Mr Tolver trying to defer the minutes to a future meeting but other councillors telling him this needed to be decided with a vote.
Mr Tolver then briefly left the meeting after the argument and when a vote on minutes was taking place.
Dozens of members of the public joined the parish council Zoom meeting
Although Ms Weaver was not part of the meeting she did listen in to parts of it.
"I would have been perfectly happy to have been involved this evening but I don't think it's right for Handforth," she said.
"Now the clerk is back it's absolutely right and proper they've taken their proper place, which they're perfectly competent to do."
Tonight's meeting was a demonstration of why the parish council for this commuter village on the northern tip of Cheshire has become so dysfunctional.
The councillors were arguing over nearly everything - most of it being finer points of law and procedure as opposed to policy.
Not to mention the continual din from more than 80 members of the public who were on the Zoom call un-muted.
The most intense debate was about what happened in THAT viral meeting - where the chair who claims he was chucked out asserted that Jackie Weaver had no authority to do so and didn't apologise for his conduct when a member of the public called 'Joe' asked him to.
After that, the councillors agreed the public would be muted.
Cheshire East Council mayor Barry Burkhill, who faces a vote of no-confidence over his role in December's viral meeting, did not attend.
He did not send his apologies but the chairman said he had attended a Cheshire East Council meeting earlier on Wednesday.
His vote of no confidence was referred to Cheshire East Council's Standards Committee.
Why not follow BBC North West on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram? You can also send story ideas to northwest.newsonline@bbc.co.uk
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-56101198
|
news_uk-england-manchester-56101198
|
|
Trump impeachment trial: What verdict means for Trump, Biden and America - BBC News
|
2021-02-13
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Reputations were burnished and tarnished - and a tumultuous stage was set for political battles to come.
|
US & Canada
|
Only five days after it began, Donald Trump's Senate impeachment trial has concluded. As was widely predicted, the final verdict was that the former president was not guilty of inciting an insurrection at the US Capitol last month.
There have now been four presidential impeachment trials in US history, and this one was by far the shortest.
What it lacked in duration, however, it will make up in consequence. A precedent - a former president standing trial - was set. Reputations were burnished and tarnished. And a tumultuous stage was set for political battles to come.
Here's a look at some of the key players, and how they emerged from this moment in US history.
Trump once again avoided conviction by the US Senate because his fellow Republicans, by and large, stuck by his side. The final tally was 57-43, which left the prosecution 10 short of the two-thirds majority required.
That, at its most basic level, is a win for the former president. He is still eligible to run for president again in 2024, if he so chooses. His base, by all indications, is still largely intact. Both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, most Republican officeholders opposed the impeachment proceedings - and those who broke ranks are already facing ferocious criticism and, in some cases, formal reprimands from their Republican constituents.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. How the Proud Boys led the assault - and who was in the pro-Trump mob
In a press statement, the former president celebrated his acquittal, condemned Democrats and said that his political movement was just beginning.
Trump - and his movement - did not emerge from this impeachment trial unscathed, however. One of the most memorable portions of the prosecution case by House managers were the new videos of Trump's supporters, wearing Make America Great Again hats and waving Trump flags, ransacking the Capitol.
Those images will forever be associated with the Trump brand. Every rally he holds from here on will evoke memories of that riot. It may not cost him among the Republican rank and file, but independent voters - and moderates - are unlikely to forget.
A year ago, only one Republican senator - Mitt Romney of Utah - voted to convict Trump. This time, he was joined by six others.
It's no coincidence, however, that of those who broke ranks, three of them - Susan Collins, Ben Sasse and Bill Cassidy - were just re-elected and don't have to face voters for six years. Two - Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Richard Burr of North Carolina - are retiring.
That highlights the challenge facing many of the Republican senators in the chamber. A vote to convict would have attracted the ire of primary voters, many of whom would view the turn against Trump as a betrayal. For those in safe Republican states, a challenge from a fellow conservative is a much more pressing concern than whichever Democrat faces off against them in November.
Republican senators up for re-election next year in swing states - in places like Florida, Wisconsin and Iowa - may have to worry about their vote to acquit being used against them by their Democratic opponents in a general election. One can already envision the attack adverts, accompanied by video of the violence on Capitol Hill.
A lot could depend on what Trump does next. Does he launch himself fully into US politics again, reminding his supporters - and his critics - of these impeachment battles as the next election day approaches? Or does he stick to seclusion of his private clubs and golf course?
I think we all know which is more likely.
If every Senate Republican had their own political calculation to make before casting their vote - weighing whether to risk the ire of their party or the judgement of general election voters - one particular senator's drama was on particularly stark display.
Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, leader of his party in the Senate, had been outspoken for weeks in his criticism of Donald Trump's conduct on 6 January. For a while, his final vote in the trial was in doubt. On Saturday morning, however, he informed his fellow senators he would support acquittal.
After the Senate rendered its final verdict, he explained why. He condemned Trump's behaviour and said he engaged in a "disgraceful dereliction of duty."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
"There's no question that president Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day," McConnell said
His not guilty vote, he said, was because former presidents were not eligible for impeachment trials. If such a precedent were followed, he said, any private citizen - regardless of status - could be impeached and ruled ineligible for public office by the Congress.
McConnell's critics will view that as a cop-out, not a principled stand. And it is noteworthy that his procedural objection allows him to avoid being out of step with the majority of Senate Republicans, which is a risky place for a congressional leader to be.
It's a fine line for McConnell to walk, and time will tell if his fellow Republicans are satisfied by his vote, if not his words.
For most of their careers, members of the House of Representatives languish in relative obscurity. Few in the 435-member chamber, save for the Speaker, ever get the kind of national spotlight that was cast upon the impeachment managers prosecuting the case against Trump in his Senate trial this week.
The nine-member team put together a slick presentation over the course of the five-day trial, complete with packaged videos of the 6 January riot accompanied by maps of the Capitol showing how close the mob came to US politicians, including the Vice-President Mike Pence.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. See how close the mob got to Mike Pence, Mitt Romney and other lawmakers
Lead manager Jamie Raskin will probably best be remembered for his emotional opening remarks, where his voice caught as he recalled a conversation with his 24-year-old daughter after they were evacuated by the Capitol building. Throughout the rest of the week, he presided over the prosecution with a more cerebral detachment that hinted at his background as a constitutional law professor at American University.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Joe Neguse's closing argument: "We humbly ask you to convict President Trump"
Second-term Congressman Joe Neguse has been considered a rising star in Democratic politics, and his turn in front of the cameras did little to dispel that notion. The biggest surprise from the team, however, was probably Stacey Plaskett of the US Virgin Islands. As a non-voting delegate from a US territory, she has little influence in Congress - but she gave some of the most impassioned, memorable monologues of the entire trial. Democrats might start rallying for Virgin Islands statehood after her performance.
If there was one mark against the managers, it was their on-again, off-again attempt to call witnesses. Starting down that road, and then aborting, will be seen by some on the left as an unforced error, leaving a bitter taste in their mouths.
The current president's strategy for handling the former president's impeachment trial was to keep the whole ordeal at arm's length.
He wasn't closely following the proceedings, White House officials said. During the trial he kept a busy schedule of events related to the coronavirus pandemic. When Biden did comment, it was only to remark about the new videos of the Capitol violence - images that had been played repeatedly on television news.
The Biden administration's calculation is that his long-term political fortunes rest on his success in dealing with the pandemic, the economy and the American public's other concerns, and not with the outcome of Trump's impeachment trial.
In the end, the trial had little practical impact on his progress toward enacting his legislative agenda. The Senate lost only three days of business. The chamber won't be able to take up Biden's Covid relief bill until the House passes the version, which it has spent the week working on.
With the trial concluded, the Senate also will resume confirming Biden's administration appointments, including attorney general nominee Merrick Garland, after it returns from a week recess.
All of this should please Biden and his team. If the Democratic base decides, however, that the price of moving forward with Biden's political agenda was the failure to hold Trump fully accountable - for instance, by conducting a speedy trial without witnesses - he may pay a political price nevertheless.
In the political battles ahead, Biden needs a united Democratic Party. If there is second-guessing after this impeachment trial, cracks might start to emerge.
Bruce Castor, the supposed lead lawyer on Donald Trump's legal team, may put that old saying that "there's no such thing as bad publicity" to the test. He opened the defence of the former president with a long, rambling discourse that may have pushed one senator, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, into siding with the Democrats.
After that - and amid reports that Trump himself was displeased - Castor receded into the background, replaced primarily by Michael van der Veen, a fellow Philadelphian who primary law practice involves personal injury and liability law cases.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Van der Veen did a much better job translating the former president's pugnacious attitude toward his political opposition into his legal presentations. He would frequently scrunch his nose into a wide sneer when referring to the House impeachment managers.
At one point, he prompted jeers from Democrats when he derided a question presented by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. And he flashed anger when Democrats laughed at his threat to hold hundreds of depositions at his office in Pennsylvania if the Senate chose to call witnesses in the trial.
In the end, he was able to navigate his way out of the prospect of an extended trial, however, and bring the proceedings to a speedy, satisfactory conclusion.
Lawyers are ultimately judged by their wins and losses, and van der Veen, Castor and fellow lawyer David Schoen got their client off the hook.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56057849
|
news_world-us-canada-56057849
|
|
Malcolm & Marie: Will Gompertz reviews film starring Zendaya & John David Washington ★★☆☆☆ - BBC News
|
2021-02-13
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The actors are good but there is little dramatic tension and structural development to the endless quarrelling.
|
Entertainment & Arts
|
One good scene doesn't make a great movie, but it does hint at what could have been.
Malcolm (John David Washington) and Marie (Zendaya) have been bickering for well over an hour when a moment of theatrical excellence (at 80 mins, to be precise) lights up an otherwise pedestrian drama about a couple having a domestic.
I won't go into details because that would be to take the one ripe banana from the bunch, but I will say that it vividly demonstrated the impressive acting chops of Washington and Zendaya, talents which are otherwise buried beneath a mountain of verbose dialogue that isn't half as interesting as the column inches of comment it has generated.
I'll come to that in a minute, but first an outline of the film which is now streaming on Netflix:
Malcolm and Marie are a young couple returning from the premiere of Malcolm's new film, upon which critics and peers have lavished praise.
The production company behind the movie have rented the couple a fancy modernist home, which is where all the action - such that it is - takes place. It's around 1am. Marie is making macaroni and cheese for Malcolm who is giddy with excitement after his successful evening. He is drinking whisky and dancing to James Brown, she is quietly simmering along with the mac 'n' cheese.
The couple arrive home -- with Marie (played by Zendaya) far from sharing Malcolm's euphoria (acted by John David Washington)
He can't understand why she's down in the dumps and not up on cloud nine with him.
She says it's best left till the morning.
He doesn't want to go to bed until the air is cleared.
He won't let it drop. So, she tells him:
"You forgot to thank me, Malcolm", she says, referring to the speech he gave earlier, in which he acknowledged just about everybody who supported the making of his film except the person he considers to be the "love of my life."
That is a proper clanger. Plus, she's much more than his girlfriend, it is her story that was his inspiration and the basis for his film's strung-out protagonist whom everybody thought so "authentic".
And yet he forgot to thank her?
An argument ensues that goes on and on and on: a verbal boxing match with the occasional big shot but mainly padded out with glancing blows and wild swings that miss by miles. She gets the best lines, he gets to vent.
It's a 20-minute short stretched out to a 105-minute feature film, with a narrative arc that flatlines and characters you care less about the longer it goes on.
Washington (BlacKkKlansman, Tenet) and Zendaya (Euphoria) are good actors with charisma, dynamism, presence and range. Added to which, Zendaya brings a seemingly effortless naturalism to her craft that marks her out as one to watch.
John David Washington picked up a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actor as Ron Stallworth in Spike Lee's critically-acclaimed BlacKkKlansman
Zendaya won an Emmy last year for her role as Rue Bennet in Euphoria, the drama series that was created by Sam Levinson
They are backed up by Sam Levinson's neat and tidy directing, as well as his choice of shooting in black-and-white, which gives the beautifully shot film a superficial elegance to match its characters' insecurity about how they are perceived (being seen as "mediocre" is the one comment that gets to Malcolm, not being publicly acknowledged the insult that gets to Marie).
At 15 minutes the potential for a classic, claustrophobic two-hander is a distinct possibility.
But sadly director-writer Levinson, whose script has Malcolm being hailed as the next Spike Lee or Barry Jenkins, is unlikely to be compared to Harold Pinter (The Dumb Waiter) or Cormac McCarthy (The Sunset Limited) when it comes to the art of building psychological menace into a closed encounter.
The comedian Lee Evans (on the floor) and Jason Isaacs starred in the 50th anniversary revival of Harold Pinter's The Dumb Waiter in 2007
Beyond the first act and aforementioned late scene, there is no dramatic tension, no ominous suspense, and no structural development to the endless quarrelling.
Malcolm rants, Marie puts him right, they kiss and make up. Malcolm rants, Marie puts him right, they kiss and make up. Malcolm rants, Marie puts him right, they kiss and make up. Malcolm rants, Marie puts him right, they kiss and make up. Malcolm rants, Marie puts him right, they kiss and make up. Malcolm rants, Marie puts him right, they kiss and make up.
It is one of Malcolm's many rants that caused the massed-ranks of culture columnists to crank up their typewriters.
Throughout the film Malcolm refers to a white, female film critic working for the LA Times, whom he despises, although she has been positive about his new movie.
This has caused comment on three levels:
The first area of debate concerns Levinson, a white man, writing a black male character through whom he explores issues of race, specifically the experience of black creatives in Hollywood.
The second, is the singling out of a white, female film critic from the LA Times as incapable of appreciating the nuances of filmmaking and character. The accusation levelled at Levinson is for using his male protagonist as a cipher to get at Katie Walsh, a white, female film critic writing for the LA Times who gave an unfavourable review to Levinson's film Assassination Nation (2018).
Sam Levinson's Assassination Nation explored female exploitation in the age of social media
And, thirdly, the use of highly aggressive language deployed to belittle the "white lady" film critic, "the kind of language with which female critics are far too familiar" wrote Mary McNamara, culture columnist at the LA Times.
Sam Levinson has said the movie has autobiographic elements (he once forgot to thank his wife in a speech), and that he wrote it very quickly after shooting on the second season of Euphoria was abruptly cancelled due to Covid and Zendaya asked him to come up with a new project.
Maybe he wrote it too quickly.
He certainly wrote it too long.
• None Review: The film hoping to get us back into cinemas ★★★★☆
|
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-56005449
|
news_entertainment-arts-56005449
|
|
Covid vaccine: Over-70s urged to get vaccine as UK nears target - BBC News
|
2021-02-13
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The government is aiming to offer a vaccine to 15 million people in priority groups by Monday.
|
UK
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Sir Simon Stevens: "This has been a very encouraging start, and obviously there is much more to do".
People aged 70 or over who have not yet had a Covid jab are being urged to come forward, in a final push by ministers to meet their vaccination target.
More than 14 million people in the UK have had at least one dose - with the aim being 15 million by Monday.
Meanwhile, Health Secretary Matt Hancock has said the UK could this year live with Covid "like we do with flu".
"I hope that Covid-19 will become a treatable disease by the end of the year," he told the Daily Telegraph.
Over the weekend, ministers are taking part in a renewed drive to encourage people in the top four priority groups - comprising of people aged 70 and over, front-line health and social care workers, care home residents and the clinically extremely vulnerable - to get vaccinated.
Vaccinating the 15 million people in these priority groups would cover 88% of those most at risk of dying from Covid-19.
On Friday, Wales said it was the first UK nation to meet the target.
Overall uptake of the vaccine has been high, with a 93% take-up rate among the over-75s in England, according to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC).
Across the UK, a quarter of adults have already received one dose, including around nine in 10 over-70s.
People aged 70 or over in England have already been asked to contact the NHS to arrange their jab. They can book an appointment online, or by calling 119 or contacting their local GP.
Health and social care workers should speak to their employer if they have not had their vaccine yet, the DHSC said.
And GP teams have been asked to contact their clinically extremely vulnerable patients to make sure they have been offered a jab.
Almost 30 ministers are taking part in visits and virtual meetings across the UK in a further push to encourage everyone eligible for the jab to get vaccinated.
They will hear from NHS staff and volunteers helping with the rollout, as well as people getting the vaccine.
Mr Hancock said: "I am determined that we protect as many of our country's most vulnerable people from this awful disease as soon as possible."
"Vaccines are the way out of this pandemic and it is testament to the strength of our Union and the combined power of our United Kingdom that we've seen such incredible progress in the roll-out of our vaccination programme," he added.
Prof Stephen Powis, NHS medical director, said the UK's vaccination programme was "off to a strong start".
"People in the priority groups have not missed their chance to get jabbed and if you are aged 70 and over and haven't yet taken up the offer, please do come forward and make an appointment," he said.
The government has also published a plan to help boost vaccine uptake in all communities, including those who may feel more hesitant about it.
It aims to raise awareness of how the NHS is making vaccination available to all, especially ethnic minorities, homeless people, asylum seekers and those with disabilities.
It highlights successful examples of community-led engagement which other areas could replicate, including a mobile vaccination service in Crawley to help reach those who are housebound and the use of social media resources to dispel vaccine myths in Slough.
About two thirds of care home staff have accepted the offer of a vaccine, Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation JCVI, said.
He rejected suggestions the jab should be made compulsory for those who wish to carry on working in care homes.
"I would much prefer to be able to persuade by the power of argument than to force people or to make people lose their jobs because they didn't take up the vaccine," he told BBC Radio 4 Today.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Matt Hancock: "The plan is working but we're a long way off getting this sorted"
The next wave of vaccinations will include the over-50s and people with underlying health conditions, due to be vaccinated by May, with details to be set out next week.
Some regions have already begun inviting the over-60s, who are part of the next phase, to be vaccinated.
On Friday, figures from the Office for National Statistics showed the number of Covid cases was going down in all nations of the UK - although infection levels remained high.
On Friday, 15,144 new cases were recorded in the UK, as well as 758 deaths within 28 days of a positive test.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56048771
|
news_uk-56048771
|
|
Trump impeachment trial: What verdict means for Trump, Biden and America - BBC News
|
2021-02-14
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Reputations were burnished and tarnished - and a tumultuous stage was set for political battles to come.
|
US & Canada
|
Only five days after it began, Donald Trump's Senate impeachment trial has concluded. As was widely predicted, the final verdict was that the former president was not guilty of inciting an insurrection at the US Capitol last month.
There have now been four presidential impeachment trials in US history, and this one was by far the shortest.
What it lacked in duration, however, it will make up in consequence. A precedent - a former president standing trial - was set. Reputations were burnished and tarnished. And a tumultuous stage was set for political battles to come.
Here's a look at some of the key players, and how they emerged from this moment in US history.
Trump once again avoided conviction by the US Senate because his fellow Republicans, by and large, stuck by his side. The final tally was 57-43, which left the prosecution 10 short of the two-thirds majority required.
That, at its most basic level, is a win for the former president. He is still eligible to run for president again in 2024, if he so chooses. His base, by all indications, is still largely intact. Both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, most Republican officeholders opposed the impeachment proceedings - and those who broke ranks are already facing ferocious criticism and, in some cases, formal reprimands from their Republican constituents.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. How the Proud Boys led the assault - and who was in the pro-Trump mob
In a press statement, the former president celebrated his acquittal, condemned Democrats and said that his political movement was just beginning.
Trump - and his movement - did not emerge from this impeachment trial unscathed, however. One of the most memorable portions of the prosecution case by House managers were the new videos of Trump's supporters, wearing Make America Great Again hats and waving Trump flags, ransacking the Capitol.
Those images will forever be associated with the Trump brand. Every rally he holds from here on will evoke memories of that riot. It may not cost him among the Republican rank and file, but independent voters - and moderates - are unlikely to forget.
A year ago, only one Republican senator - Mitt Romney of Utah - voted to convict Trump. This time, he was joined by six others.
It's no coincidence, however, that of those who broke ranks, three of them - Susan Collins, Ben Sasse and Bill Cassidy - were just re-elected and don't have to face voters for six years. Two - Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Richard Burr of North Carolina - are retiring.
That highlights the challenge facing many of the Republican senators in the chamber. A vote to convict would have attracted the ire of primary voters, many of whom would view the turn against Trump as a betrayal. For those in safe Republican states, a challenge from a fellow conservative is a much more pressing concern than whichever Democrat faces off against them in November.
Republican senators up for re-election next year in swing states - in places like Florida, Wisconsin and Iowa - may have to worry about their vote to acquit being used against them by their Democratic opponents in a general election. One can already envision the attack adverts, accompanied by video of the violence on Capitol Hill.
A lot could depend on what Trump does next. Does he launch himself fully into US politics again, reminding his supporters - and his critics - of these impeachment battles as the next election day approaches? Or does he stick to seclusion of his private clubs and golf course?
I think we all know which is more likely.
If every Senate Republican had their own political calculation to make before casting their vote - weighing whether to risk the ire of their party or the judgement of general election voters - one particular senator's drama was on particularly stark display.
Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, leader of his party in the Senate, had been outspoken for weeks in his criticism of Donald Trump's conduct on 6 January. For a while, his final vote in the trial was in doubt. On Saturday morning, however, he informed his fellow senators he would support acquittal.
After the Senate rendered its final verdict, he explained why. He condemned Trump's behaviour and said he engaged in a "disgraceful dereliction of duty."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
"There's no question that president Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day," McConnell said
His not guilty vote, he said, was because former presidents were not eligible for impeachment trials. If such a precedent were followed, he said, any private citizen - regardless of status - could be impeached and ruled ineligible for public office by the Congress.
McConnell's critics will view that as a cop-out, not a principled stand. And it is noteworthy that his procedural objection allows him to avoid being out of step with the majority of Senate Republicans, which is a risky place for a congressional leader to be.
It's a fine line for McConnell to walk, and time will tell if his fellow Republicans are satisfied by his vote, if not his words.
For most of their careers, members of the House of Representatives languish in relative obscurity. Few in the 435-member chamber, save for the Speaker, ever get the kind of national spotlight that was cast upon the impeachment managers prosecuting the case against Trump in his Senate trial this week.
The nine-member team put together a slick presentation over the course of the five-day trial, complete with packaged videos of the 6 January riot accompanied by maps of the Capitol showing how close the mob came to US politicians, including the Vice-President Mike Pence.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. See how close the mob got to Mike Pence, Mitt Romney and other lawmakers
Lead manager Jamie Raskin will probably best be remembered for his emotional opening remarks, where his voice caught as he recalled a conversation with his 24-year-old daughter after they were evacuated by the Capitol building. Throughout the rest of the week, he presided over the prosecution with a more cerebral detachment that hinted at his background as a constitutional law professor at American University.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Joe Neguse's closing argument: "We humbly ask you to convict President Trump"
Second-term Congressman Joe Neguse has been considered a rising star in Democratic politics, and his turn in front of the cameras did little to dispel that notion. The biggest surprise from the team, however, was probably Stacey Plaskett of the US Virgin Islands. As a non-voting delegate from a US territory, she has little influence in Congress - but she gave some of the most impassioned, memorable monologues of the entire trial. Democrats might start rallying for Virgin Islands statehood after her performance.
If there was one mark against the managers, it was their on-again, off-again attempt to call witnesses. Starting down that road, and then aborting, will be seen by some on the left as an unforced error, leaving a bitter taste in their mouths.
The current president's strategy for handling the former president's impeachment trial was to keep the whole ordeal at arm's length.
He wasn't closely following the proceedings, White House officials said. During the trial he kept a busy schedule of events related to the coronavirus pandemic. When Biden did comment, it was only to remark about the new videos of the Capitol violence - images that had been played repeatedly on television news.
The Biden administration's calculation is that his long-term political fortunes rest on his success in dealing with the pandemic, the economy and the American public's other concerns, and not with the outcome of Trump's impeachment trial.
In the end, the trial had little practical impact on his progress toward enacting his legislative agenda. The Senate lost only three days of business. The chamber won't be able to take up Biden's Covid relief bill until the House passes the version, which it has spent the week working on.
With the trial concluded, the Senate also will resume confirming Biden's administration appointments, including attorney general nominee Merrick Garland, after it returns from a week recess.
All of this should please Biden and his team. If the Democratic base decides, however, that the price of moving forward with Biden's political agenda was the failure to hold Trump fully accountable - for instance, by conducting a speedy trial without witnesses - he may pay a political price nevertheless.
In the political battles ahead, Biden needs a united Democratic Party. If there is second-guessing after this impeachment trial, cracks might start to emerge.
Bruce Castor, the supposed lead lawyer on Donald Trump's legal team, may put that old saying that "there's no such thing as bad publicity" to the test. He opened the defence of the former president with a long, rambling discourse that may have pushed one senator, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, into siding with the Democrats.
After that - and amid reports that Trump himself was displeased - Castor receded into the background, replaced primarily by Michael van der Veen, a fellow Philadelphian who primary law practice involves personal injury and liability law cases.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Van der Veen did a much better job translating the former president's pugnacious attitude toward his political opposition into his legal presentations. He would frequently scrunch his nose into a wide sneer when referring to the House impeachment managers.
At one point, he prompted jeers from Democrats when he derided a question presented by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. And he flashed anger when Democrats laughed at his threat to hold hundreds of depositions at his office in Pennsylvania if the Senate chose to call witnesses in the trial.
In the end, he was able to navigate his way out of the prospect of an extended trial, however, and bring the proceedings to a speedy, satisfactory conclusion.
Lawyers are ultimately judged by their wins and losses, and van der Veen, Castor and fellow lawyer David Schoen got their client off the hook.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56057849
|
news_world-us-canada-56057849
|
|
Free school meals in Wales: Labour backbenchers blast snub - BBC News
|
2021-02-10
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
A budget amendment would have seen free school meals extended to families receiving Universal Credit.
|
Wales politics
|
A budget amendment would have seen free school meals extended to families receiving Universal Credit
More children in Wales should get free school meals, backbench Labour Senedd members have said.
A Plaid Cymru amendment to next year's draft budget was voted down in a debate in the Senedd on Tuesday.
It would have seen free school meals extended to all pupils whose families receive Universal Credit, which First Minister Mark Drakeford has resisted.
But Labour Member of the Senedd (MS) Alun Davies said the Welsh Government was on the "wrong side" of the debate.
Ministers should "commit to looking at" the proposal "and looking at how much it's going to cost and where the money is going to come from", Labour MS Mike Hedges added.
The amendment said the extra costs could be paid for out of funds the Welsh Government has set aside to combat coronavirus.
Mr Davies said the amendment was "broadly right", adding: "The government is on the wrong side of this argument and I hope that the government will recognise that and I hope that the government will, in returning to the chamber, recognise its position is neither sustainable nor credible on that particular matter."
Rebecca Evans says any proposal should be within current "budgetary constraints"
Finance Minister Rebecca Evans said: "I hope those colleagues who have talked on this issue today will be supporting our budget when we come to the final budget.
"I will say it's important that we continue to explore all the options available to us and seek to build on the actions that we've already taken.
"But I do recognise also that it has to be within the context of the budgetary constraints that we are under."
Using money earmarked for fighting the pandemic involved "trade-offs" that could leave less for the NHS or local councils, Ms Evans argued.
"These are the serious decisions and serious choices we have to make when we are calling for additional funding for parts of the budget," she added.
The Welsh Government has extended free school meals during the holidays until Easter 2022.
Footballer Marcus Rashford welcomed it as "a great move" when it was announced in December.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-56004239
|
news_uk-wales-politics-56004239
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.