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: No new measures in England but we rule nothing out, says PM - BBC News
|
2021-12-21
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Boris Johnson urges people to exercise "caution" ahead of Christmas, as Omicron cases surge.
|
UK
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Boris Johnson: "We will have to reserve the possibility of taking further action to protect the public"
The government needs to "reserve the possibility" of bringing in new Covid rules in England as cases of the Omicron variant surge before Christmas, the prime minister has said.
Boris Johnson did not announce any new measures but said ministers were "looking at all kinds of things".
The PM said the data was being reviewed "hour by hour" and there were still "some things that we need to be clearer about before we decide to go further".
A further 91,743 Covid cases were reported across the UK on Monday, the second highest daily total on record.
The government's scientific advisers say new restrictions may be required very soon - and have suggested reducing the size of groups that can meet and closing venues where there is a high risk of transmission.
But Mr Johnson faces opposition to new restrictions from within his party. Nearly 100 Tory MPs voted against the government's decision to bring in Covid passes last week, while Brexit minister Lord Frost resigned from government at the weekend over "coercive measures" to tackle Covid.
Speaking after a two-hour cabinet meeting, Mr Johnson said the arguments for taking action were "very, very finely balanced".
He added: "Unfortunately I must say to people that we will have to reserve the possibility of taking further action to protect the public, to protect public health, to protect our NHS. And we won't hesitate to take that action."
Asked about the prospect of further restrictions before or after Christmas, Mr Johnson said: "We are looking at all kinds of things to keep Omicron under control and we will rule nothing out.
"But at the moment, what I think we want people to focus on is exercising caution - so ventilation, masks in the appropriate places, all the usual stuff about washing hands, but remember how contagious Omicron really is."
The prime minister said "what really matters is for everybody to get vaccinated and get boosted".
He also acknowledged the impact that recent behavioural changes by some people, such as cancelling bookings, were having on businesses in the hospitality sector, saying the economic impacts would be kept "under constant review".
London Mayor Sadiq Khan urged the government to provide "immediate support" to businesses in the hospitality, retail and culture sector to prevent jobs being lost, saying in a tweet that "time is running out".
The PM had been urged to give clarity. The nation was waiting to hear if there would be more restrictions coming - and if so, what and when?
Boris Johnson and his cabinet had spent more than two hours deliberating. But what Mr Johnson told us didn't answer those questions.
On how serious things are, he said there were still "uncertainties" and "we should keep the data under review".
On what possible action might come, he said: "We are looking at all kinds of things."
Could it still happen before Christmas? "We will rule nothing out," he replied.
So this was a decision by the PM not to do more right now, despite the fact he said cases were "surging".
Was that because of doubts around the cabinet table? Or because the PM - as he pointed out - believes people are already adapting their behaviour and he wants more time to see if that's enough to control the spread of Omicron?
Perhaps, but it perpetuates the uncertainty. And, as the scientists have said, delay has consequences in itself, because cases continue to rise.
Leaked notes from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) suggest that, without intervention beyond current Plan B rules in England, hospital admissions could reach 3,000 a day.
And the BBC has been told that civil servants have produced three options for future Covid measures, ranging in severity from low to medium and high.
Deputy PM Dominic Raab earlier refused to guarantee that no new rules - such as a circuit-breaker lockdown - would be brought in, saying: "We've said we can't make hard, fast guarantees... it depends on the severity of the Omicron cases."
Shadow health secretary Wes Streeting accused Mr Johnson of having "absolutely nothing new to say, no plan whatsoever".
He told Radio 4's PM programme: "Boris Johnson is paralysed by weakness because of fear of his own backbenchers... no-one wants to bite the bullet and level with the public this side of Christmas."
And Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey criticised Boris Johnson's "indecision", arguing he was providing "more chaos and confusion" at a time people "urgently need clarity and reassurance".
The current rules for England - known as Plan B - include Covid passes for certain events, face masks in more places and people being urged to work from home if they can.
Other nations of the UK have similar rules, though Scotland has gone further by asking people to limit social contact to three households at a time in the run-up to Christmas.
However, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon confirmed on Monday that people in Scotland would not face fresh restrictions on Christmas Day gatherings.
Wales has also ordered nightclubs to close from 27 December.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Nicola Sturgeon says she wants "people to have clarity about what we are expecting of them" ahead of Christmas Day
Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, said health experts were not calling for further restrictions as they know they "can be very damaging to people's health and wellbeing", but added officials feel it is "now a question of when rather than if" they will be needed.
He said: "If the Plan B measures and boosters prove not to be enough, [experts] expect the government to respond quickly and pre-emptively in the national interest to the range of advice and modelling it has."
There were 1,024,833 people given a Covid-19 vaccine dose on Saturday - the highest single daily jab figure on record - more than 940,606 of which were booster or third doses.
Vaccinations dropped to 919,521 on Sunday, which is still the fourth highest total on record - beaten only by the number of doses administered on Thursday and Friday.
The news means 50.4% of the UK population - nearly 29 million people - have had a booster dose, with 81.8% having had two jabs and 89.5% one dose.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59733893
|
news_uk-59733893
|
|
Omicron: Why tougher Covid measures may not be worth it - BBC News
|
2021-12-21
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Omicron is expected to cause a surge in infections. Should more be done to suppress it?
|
Health
|
Infections caused by the new variant Omicron are rising rapidly, doubling every two to three days.
Modelling is warning hospital admissions could rise sharply.
Ministers across the UK are under pressure to bring in tougher measures.
There are strong arguments for those, but there are also reasons why trying to do more to suppress Omicron may not be worth it.
Much has been made of suggestions that this variant is causing milder illness. In South Africa, reports are emerging that people are not as seriously ill in this wave as they were in earlier ones.
There is still uncertainty about this. But it is logical. Not because the virus has changed to become less severe, but because reinfections and infections post-vaccination are likely to be milder.
The immune system now recognises this virus and while it may not be able to prevent infection, it knows how to fight it.
"The balance of evidence," says Prof Paul Hunter, an expert in infectious diseases at the University of East Anglia, "certainly points to that."
Booster jabs have been shown to be effective against Omicron
If so, that puts the UK in a strong position to be able to deal with this wave.
Around 95% of the adult population has some immunity to the virus either through infection or vaccination or both, according to the Office for National Statistics.
Research by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine published at the start of winter before Omicron emerged said such high levels of immunity meant we had the smallest pool of vulnerable people in Europe.
On top of that there is now the impact of the rapid rollout of boosters, which research suggests are vital to blunting the impact of Omicron.
Around 60% of those eligible have had one including nearly 90% of the most vulnerable.
Taken together, it is a very different picture from last winter when the lockdown allowed the rollout of the vaccination programme to get going and provide protection to the majority of the adult population.
Prof Hunter says the combined level of vaccine-induced and infection-induced immunity in the population now means the case for extra restrictions beyond what has been announced is much weaker than it was previously.
Tougher measures, he says, will not stop the epidemic, they will just extend it. "If you are waiting for vaccines or better treatments, suppressing the virus could be an advantage - but it's hard to see the argument for that now."
Protecting the NHS from being completely overwhelmed would, of course, necessitate action.
But Prof Hunter says he is "cautiously optimistic" that will not happen, believing the public will naturally start to curb their behaviour given the concern being expressed about Omicron.
And, once we get through this, he believes we will be in a much better position. "There will be other variants but exposure will have built up our immunity even further. We will see milder disease - until eventually it is something like the common cold."
So what are the chances of the NHS buckling in the coming weeks? While there are strong grounds to hope the proportion of infections leading to a hospital admission will be lower than it was previously, if infection levels rise too high the absolute numbers could still be much bigger than they are now.
This much can be seen from the modelling published by the LSHTM.
It sets out what could be called the best and worst-case scenarios.
The best would see admissions peak at just over half the level of last winter, the worst would see admissions edge towards double.
Dr Raghib Ali, a clinical epidemiologist at University of Cambridge, and a front-line doctor, says given the levels of immunity in the population there is no need to panic yet.
"We need to keep calm," he says, and wait until we start getting a clear idea of what is happening with hospital admissions. "We should know soon."
He admits some further action may be needed to "flatten the peak" to stop hospitals getting overwhelmed.
But he believes the Christmas break and January may come to our aid as workplace mixing and travel reduces, although he stresses that taking precautions such as regular testing, mask-wearing and ventilating indoor spaces is essential.
"We have to be realistic, we are not going to stop Omicron."
Suppress it too much and arguably it will just delay deaths and serious illness - and may cause more overall harm than good when you consider the wider impact on health, education and the economy, he says.
The key, though, will be that the NHS can keep delivering care to those who need it.
Chris Hopson, of NHS Providers, which represents hospital bosses, says he is "very concerned" given what has already happened with patients facing longer waits for ambulances and A&E.
Care is already becoming "less safe", he says, and the service is being forced to run "beyond full stretch".
It is clear the peak in admissions needs to be towards the lower end of the modelling estimates for the NHS to have a chance of getting through the next few months.
And even if the wave of infections does not cause enough serious illness to overwhelm the NHS, University of Reading scientist Dr Simon Clarke says there could still be significant societal problems.
"Mass sickness of people who are not ill enough to end up in hospital, but who need to convalesce at home, could deliver a substantial shutdown of public services and slowing of economic activity," he says.
How long could this last? The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) believes we are likely to be looking at a period of four to eight weeks where we will be battling the acute stage of the Omicron surge.
It will be, says Dr Susan Hopkins, UKHSA's chief medical adviser, a "very difficult" period.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59658486
|
news_health-59658486
|
|
Meghan wins ruling in Mail on Sunday privacy fight - BBC News
|
2021-12-03
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The Duchess of Sussex took action after the paper carried extracts of a letter to her father.
|
UK
|
The Duchess of Sussex has won the latest stage in her legal fight against the publisher of the Mail on Sunday over a letter she sent to her father.
The Court of Appeal rejected Associated Newspapers' attempt to have a trial in the privacy and copyright case.
Meghan said it was a win "not just for me, but for anyone who has ever felt scared to stand up for what's right".
Associated Newspapers said it was disappointed, and was considering a further appeal to the Supreme Court.
A judge had previously ruled in favour of Meghan after extracts from the letter appeared in the paper.
In a statement issued after the ruling, the duchess urged people to be "brave enough to reshape a tabloid industry that... profits from the lies and pain that they create".
Meghan, who started the civil action against newspaper group in 2019, said: "In the nearly three years since this began, I have been patient in the face of deception, intimidation and calculated attacks."
She added: "The courts have held the defendant to account and my hope is that we all begin to do the same. Because as far removed as it may seem from your personal life, it's not. Tomorrow it could be you.
"These harmful practices don't happen once in a blue moon - they are a daily fail that divide us and we all deserve better."
A spokesman for Associated Newspapers said: "It is our strong view that judgment should be given only on the basis of evidence tested at trial, and not on a summary basis in a heavily contested case."
The Court of Appeal accepted Meghan's argument that the letter to Thomas Markle in August 2018 - three months after her wedding to Prince Harry - was "deeply personal".
It had been given to the Mail on Sunday by Mr Markle, who wanted to address what he thought were unfair media accounts.
The judges were told that 585 out of the 1,250 words in the letter to her estranged father had been republished in five articles.
In their decision, the three judges said the letter's contents were "personal, private and not matters of legitimate public interest".
The letter from Meghan to her father - picture together in 2003 - was written shortly after her marriage to Prince Harry
In February, the High Court had ruled against the newspaper group on the issue of privacy and copyright - saying the issues in the case were so clear cut that there was no need for a full hearing.
Associated Newspapers was refused permission to appeal against the decision but went to the Court of Appeal in an attempt to get the original ruling overturned.
But on Thursday, judges at the appeal said it was hard to see what evidence at a trial would have altered the situation.
They added: "The judge had correctly decided that, whilst it might have been proportionate to publish a very small part of the letter for that purpose, it was not necessary to publish half the contents of the letter."
At the three-day appeal hearing last month, lawyers for Associated Newspapers presented evidence to support its contention that Meghan's privacy and copyright claims against the publisher should be heard at a full trial.
During the case, it was revealed that Meghan had authorised her former communications secretary, Jason Knauf, to co-operate with the authors of a book about her and Prince Harry, something she had previously denied.
They also produced a witness statement from Mr Knauf, which indicated that the duchess had written the letter knowing it might be leaked.
Mr Knauf said Meghan sent him an early draft of the letter and had written: "Obviously everything I have drafted is with the understanding that it could be leaked so I have been meticulous in my word choice, but please do let me know if anything stands out for you as a liability."
But in written evidence, Meghan denied she thought it likely that her father would leak the letter, saying she "merely recognised that this was a possibility".
A statement issued by Associated Newspapers after the latest ruling said "Mr Knauf's evidence raises issues as to the duchess's credibility".
Explaining why it was considering a Supreme Court challenge, Associated said its article raised "issues of public interest including the reasons for the breakdown in the relationship between the duchess and her father".
Meghan has won a significant victory in this courtroom battle to protect her privacy.
She's drawn a line in the sand. Even if her life is of public interest, she's shown that it doesn't make her public property.
It was a high-risk strategy, which could have put her in court facing awkward questions, but the appeal court ruling has seen her winning without that.
But it's already come with some bruising headlines - such as having to apologise for having forgotten how information was given to authors writing a book about her and Prince Harry.
This might have been an "unfortunate lapse of memory", said the appeal court ruling, but it didn't bear on the fundamental issues of whether such a private letter to her father should have been published.
Meghan divides public opinion - with vocal supporters and critics both seeing bias and prejudice on the other side - and this court case is unlikely to change that.
But she has succeeded in a legal battle that previous generations of royals would probably have avoided.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59502787
|
news_uk-59502787
|
|
Omicron: Why tougher Covid measures may not be worth it - BBC News
|
2021-12-17
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Omicron is expected to cause a surge in infections. Should more be done to suppress it?
|
Health
|
Infections caused by the new variant Omicron are rising rapidly, doubling every two to three days.
Modelling is warning hospital admissions could rise sharply.
Ministers across the UK are under pressure to bring in tougher measures.
There are strong arguments for those, but there are also reasons why trying to do more to suppress Omicron may not be worth it.
Much has been made of suggestions that this variant is causing milder illness. In South Africa, reports are emerging that people are not as seriously ill in this wave as they were in earlier ones.
There is still uncertainty about this. But it is logical. Not because the virus has changed to become less severe, but because reinfections and infections post-vaccination are likely to be milder.
The immune system now recognises this virus and while it may not be able to prevent infection, it knows how to fight it.
"The balance of evidence," says Prof Paul Hunter, an expert in infectious diseases at the University of East Anglia, "certainly points to that."
Booster jabs have been shown to be effective against Omicron
If so, that puts the UK in a strong position to be able to deal with this wave.
Around 95% of the adult population has some immunity to the virus either through infection or vaccination or both, according to the Office for National Statistics.
Research by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine published at the start of winter before Omicron emerged said such high levels of immunity meant we had the smallest pool of vulnerable people in Europe.
On top of that there is now the impact of the rapid rollout of boosters, which research suggests are vital to blunting the impact of Omicron.
Around 60% of those eligible have had one including nearly 90% of the most vulnerable.
Taken together, it is a very different picture from last winter when the lockdown allowed the rollout of the vaccination programme to get going and provide protection to the majority of the adult population.
Prof Hunter says the combined level of vaccine-induced and infection-induced immunity in the population now means the case for extra restrictions beyond what has been announced is much weaker than it was previously.
Tougher measures, he says, will not stop the epidemic, they will just extend it. "If you are waiting for vaccines or better treatments, suppressing the virus could be an advantage - but it's hard to see the argument for that now."
Protecting the NHS from being completely overwhelmed would, of course, necessitate action.
But Prof Hunter says he is "cautiously optimistic" that will not happen, believing the public will naturally start to curb their behaviour given the concern being expressed about Omicron.
And, once we get through this, he believes we will be in a much better position. "There will be other variants but exposure will have built up our immunity even further. We will see milder disease - until eventually it is something like the common cold."
So what are the chances of the NHS buckling in the coming weeks? While there are strong grounds to hope the proportion of infections leading to a hospital admission will be lower than it was previously, if infection levels rise too high the absolute numbers could still be much bigger than they are now.
This much can be seen from the modelling published by the LSHTM.
It sets out what could be called the best and worst-case scenarios.
The best would see admissions peak at just over half the level of last winter, the worst would see admissions edge towards double.
Dr Raghib Ali, a clinical epidemiologist at University of Cambridge, and a front-line doctor, says given the levels of immunity in the population there is no need to panic yet.
"We need to keep calm," he says, and wait until we start getting a clear idea of what is happening with hospital admissions. "We should know soon."
He admits some further action may be needed to "flatten the peak" to stop hospitals getting overwhelmed.
But he believes the Christmas break and January may come to our aid as workplace mixing and travel reduces, although he stresses that taking precautions such as regular testing, mask-wearing and ventilating indoor spaces is essential.
"We have to be realistic, we are not going to stop Omicron."
Suppress it too much and arguably it will just delay deaths and serious illness - and may cause more overall harm than good when you consider the wider impact on health, education and the economy, he says.
The key, though, will be that the NHS can keep delivering care to those who need it.
Chris Hopson, of NHS Providers, which represents hospital bosses, says he is "very concerned" given what has already happened with patients facing longer waits for ambulances and A&E.
Care is already becoming "less safe", he says, and the service is being forced to run "beyond full stretch".
It is clear the peak in admissions needs to be towards the lower end of the modelling estimates for the NHS to have a chance of getting through the next few months.
And even if the wave of infections does not cause enough serious illness to overwhelm the NHS, University of Reading scientist Dr Simon Clarke says there could still be significant societal problems.
"Mass sickness of people who are not ill enough to end up in hospital, but who need to convalesce at home, could deliver a substantial shutdown of public services and slowing of economic activity," he says.
How long could this last? The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) believes we are likely to be looking at a period of four to eight weeks where we will be battling the acute stage of the Omicron surge.
It will be, says Dr Susan Hopkins, UKHSA's chief medical adviser, a "very difficult" period.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59658486
|
news_health-59658486
|
|
Boris Johnson: Is 'Planet Boris' finally going to implode? - BBC News
|
2021-12-17
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Day after day, for more than a month, Downing Street has been struggling to keep hold of events.
|
UK Politics
|
"Planet Boris is the strangest place in the world - no rules apply," a cabinet minister told me a few days ago as they marvelled at the strangeness of the current political universe.
Events had been disastrous, they admitted, yet they seemed sure at that moment that the prime minister's ability to defy any normal political gravity would see him through.
But then, on Tuesday night, a video emerged showing aides joking about a Downing Street event last Christmas as Britain was in lockdown. The humiliating leak engulfed No 10 in a fresh crisis that shows no sign of easing.
So this weekend it is worth asking if "Planet Boris" might actually, finally implode?
One senior official summed up the state of play simply: "It's a disaster."
Day after day, for more than a month, Downing Street has been struggling to keep hold of events.
There have been miscalculations and missteps - attempts to change the rules to protect one of their own, Owen Paterson; the disastrous efforts to close down stories about Christmas parties last year, and most recently, a fine for the Conservative Party over the financing of Mr and Mrs Johnson's lavish renovation of the No 10 flat.
The mistakes have been all the worse because they were miscalculations of Downing Street's own making. Almost nothing riles MPs and ministers outside the clique at the top of government more than No 10 making mistakes for which they all have to answer.
Each incident fuelled the opposition's main argument they had been making for months - that Mr Johnson behaves as if he's exempt from following the rules.
Whether it's the Christmas parties or the cash for the flat, the mess has highlighted this prime minister's complicated relationship with the truth, which we've discussed here before.
There has been little sense that No 10 has been able to, you might say, take back control. In fact, as pressure has cranked up in recent days it's been hard sometimes to get any sense of what is going on at all.
[L]ike a theme park of soft decision-making and avoidance
The atmosphere inside is described as deadly silent, horrible, as if the lights are on, but no-one's really home.
Some ministers loyal to Boris Johnson reject the notion that anything is serious or somehow in permanent decline.
It's true that the prime minister's career has been built on proudly dismissing, and dismantling norms. It's also true that he has slipped before, but surged back, time and again. He is the campaigner of his generation, they believe, and can recover.
But it is notable that MPs who were involved in getting Boris Johnson to No 10 say privately, and increasingly colourfully, that he has to sharpen up.
One of them told me that Downing Street has become "like a theme park of soft decision-making and avoidance".
"There's the helter-skelter, there's the lost-in-space ride, there's the final ride which is the 'make a decision and see if you can stick to it by the end of the ride'."
With deep irritation they told me: "They all have to be shut down. We do not need a fairground. Downing Street has to be run like a military camp."
Others talk of drift and decline. "Nothing important's discussed in our meetings," one says.
At the start of meetings the PM verbally encourages them to contribute, but the implicit message is, "Don't speak up." they feel. Ministers sometimes choose to stay silent. One jokes that they message each other instead about how bad things are.
After the last few torrid weeks, the trouble, according to one former cabinet minister is that the different Tory tribes, who sometimes can't stand each other, now find themselves able to agree. The problem for Mr Johnson is that the only thing they agree on is how unhappy they are.
According to this analysis, moderates who might see themselves as "internationalists" are grumpy about foreign policy and the government's cuts to foreign aid. The Brexiteer gang are cross that he's not being tough enough about Northern Ireland.
The "red wall" group, with new seats from 2019, know they owe them in large part to Mr Johnson, but they also see themselves as champions of their areas. And some of them don't feel they have much to show for that just yet. Some Northern Tories are said, increasingly, to believe that the PM is "all mouth, no trousers".
And among the right-wing of the party, there's increasing frustration that the government won't take more radical action - changing human rights law, for example - at the Channel to stop migrants crossing in small boats.
These groups shift around of course, but right now they are said to be "coagulating" - instead of spats between each other they are coming together on one thing, that the recent mess can't be allowed to go on.
Many MPs are hopeful it could end up with a new Downing Street operation. One said there needs to be a "clear-out of the 'born to rule' cabal", suggesting that the recent fiascos were inevitable given who has been around the PM.
None of us should be surprised... when the grown-ups leave, the children have an illegal house party
"Frankly none of us should have been surprised when the grown-ups leave, that the children have an illegal house party," the MP said, adding that the Downing Street party fiasco should be the moment to "clear the sycophants out".
There isn't much sign yet that Mr Johnson is planning a big shake up of his team though. Allegra Stratton, who resigned on Wednesday as a senior government spokeswoman, carried the can for this week's humiliating leaked video footage.
And there's chatter that the prime minister has made a strategic decision to hold on to director of communications Jack Doyle for now, while lining him up to take the fall when the inquiry emerges.
Two sources have told the BBC Mr Doyle's resignation was offered but refused, although No 10 has denied this happened.
But as so often, while the Westminster rumour mill loves almost nothing more than speculating about who is in and who is out, the fairly desperate state of affairs is in the end, always, about the boss. Tone and culture is set by the person at the top, whoever else is up or down.
That's why what's next is, first and foremost, down to the decisions Mr Johnson makes himself. Does he acknowledge there have been problems? Will he resolve to lead in a different way? Will he "[look] in the mirror", as his friend and former minister Robert Buckland urged him publicly to do, and say "surely I can do this better"?
If not, well, Mr Johnson still has his huge majority. He still has enormous powers as the leader of the government, and as the political campaigner and celebrity.
Yet this week it feels sentiment has moved in the Tory party, with more and more of his own side imagining what life might be like under a different leader.
Carrie Johnson gave birth to the couple's second child this week, a daughter
Is the moment nearly upon them when he becomes less a flawed, but fundamentally sparkling, asset, than a liability?
A former minister who has analysed the party tribes even suggests "stage one" of a leadership change is complete: when the party agrees among itself privately that the PM is running out of road.
"Stage two", however, is the who next, how and when, and "that can take a very long time".
Right now, it seems far-fetched to imagine any kind of challenge soon. Don't doubt, however, that allies of potential candidates for next time round, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, are thinking hard about what's next.
There are even whispers that some MPs have been urging former cabinet minister Jeremy Hunt to put himself forward soon as a kind of safety, continuity candidate in the new year, even though right now, I'm told, "He doesn't want to play."
Of course, anyone that's mentioned in connection with the leadership would publicly deny any ambition, or any plotting. Breathless conversations about replacing leaders are rarely far from the topic of conversation in Westminster.
A former minister admits they have been approached about exactly that twice in a matter of days, but cautions that to act any time soon would be "collective political suicide". With the pandemic still raging, the economy pretty fragile, and only two years on from the last election, would the public really want to indulge the Tory party tearing itself apart in public, yet again?
But the volume of discussions about replacements for the prime minister is increasing. Many MPs believe it's down to him to get a grip if that's to fade.
Mr Johnson faces two tests next week, that could deepen the sense of an impending Christmas crisis, or dial down the drama. There's a potentially huge rebellion in the Commons on Tuesday about the Covid regulations. Dozens of his backbenchers have already gone on the record to say they will vote against the plans.
With Labour support, the vote will pass, but a huge Tory vote against would display a real two fingers up to No 10. The whips and Mr Johnson, equally, have a huge opportunity to try to quell the anger in the next few days.
And there's the possibility of a different kind of rebellion next Thursday, when the by-election takes place to replace Owen Paterson as MP for North Shropshire. Many Conservatives fear doom on the ground there. A terrible result in what should be a safe seat would heighten the danger for the PM.
As we head into the last week of Parliament in 2021, there is plenty of peril. The prime minister faces risks all around.
It's madness to write him off - his biography is a living warning against that. Yet, a backer of the prime minister told me that while the situation doesn't have to be terminal, it has - they said with no pleasure - to change.
"If it doesn't, we all know where it leads. It leads to the front door."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59615564
|
news_uk-politics-59615564
|
|
Ghislaine Maxwell defence rests as she calls case 'unproven' - BBC News
|
2021-12-17
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The defence struggled to produce witnesses on Friday and only nine out of a proposed 35 testified.
|
US & Canada
|
Ghislaine Maxwell has rested her sex-trafficking case after calling the prosecution's arguments against her "unproven" and declining to testify.
Her decision comes after her lawyers called nine witnesses over two days.
Ms Maxwell, 59, denies grooming underage girls for abuse by the late paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
Closing arguments begin on Monday. The Briton faces up to 80 years in prison if convicted on charges of sex trafficking and perjury.
"The government has not proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt and so there is no need for me to testify," Ms Maxwell, who has been in a US jail cell since her arrest last year, told the judge in court on Friday.
Prosecutors have called Ms Maxwell a predator who manipulated young girls and served them up to Epstein, her former boyfriend and business associate. Over two weeks of testimony, they called 24 witnesses, including four accusers.
But her lawyers argued that accusers' testimony was impacted by "[lapses in] memory, manipulation and money". They also alleged the government needed a scapegoat for Epstein's crimes.
Epstein died in a jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. His death was ruled a suicide.
A spokesperson for the Maxwell family had previously said she would not take the stand because she was "too fragile" after being poorly treated in detention.
Ms Maxwell's defence team meanwhile complained on Friday that they needed more time to gather their witnesses.
"We are flying people across the country, across the pond, our client's life is on the line, and we are given only a half a day to put on a witness," said attorney Laura Menninger.
Judge Alison Nathan rebuked the lawyers for not having their witnesses ready and refused to delay the trial.
"I have a rule, you have your next witness or you rest," she said.
A former girlfriend of Epstein - Eva Andersson-Dubin - also testified for the defence on Friday.
A former physician and Miss Sweden winner, she said she had dated Epstein on and off from 1983 to 1991 and that her children called him "Uncle Jeff".
She denied involvement in group sexual encounters with a Maxwell accuser who testified last week.
Eva Andersson-Dubin said she had dated Jeffrey Epstein from 1983 to 1991
But when pressed by prosecutors about the extent of her memory, she said: "I can't remember the past... sometimes I can't remember what happened a month ago." She said it was because of a health issue.
Mrs Andersson-Dubin married billionaire hedge fund manager Glenn Dubin in 1994 and the couple was close to both Epstein and Ms Maxwell.
The four were discussed in 2016 depositions by Virginia Giuffre, the most vocal Epstein accuser, and Rinaldo Rizzo, a former butler to the Dubins.
Mrs Giuffre has claimed the Dubins were her first sexual encounter "after my training" by Ms Maxwell, while Mr Rizzo said he recalled that a 15-year-old girl came into his kitchen and said she had been pressured into sex on Epstein's private island.
The couple have vigorously denied these allegations, saying they "were horrified by and completely unaware of Jeffrey Epstein's unspeakable conduct".
Mrs Andersson-Dubin previously defended Epstein in his 2008 state sex crimes case in Florida, writing in a testimonial that she "could not ask for a better friend or godfather to my children".
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59703611
|
news_world-us-canada-59703611
|
|
PM’s message to sit up and pay attention - BBC News
|
2021-12-13
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
But Boris Johnson's stern words tonight may run into three challenges.
|
UK Politics
|
Boris Johnson has gone far with the help of simple three word slogans.
Tonight, as the country is again in the grip of a fast spreading virus variant, and he is in the grip of a political mess, there's a new one, "Get Boosted Now".
The prime minister's language was dramatic, warning people that the pandemic is again an 'emergency' with a 'tidal wave' now coming of the omicron variant.
He called on you to have that booster dose as soon as humanly possible or, if not, the NHS could be overwhelmed by a terrible new wave of the pandemic.
The booster is the defence against what's coming, his argument. The responsibility therefore on all of us to come forward for another dose of the jab.
The practicalities he promised sound like a huge expansion of the scheme. Instead of all over 18s in England being offered a booster by the end of January, the new target is that they'll be offered one by the end of this year.
There'll be 42 'new military planning teams' across every region. New mobile vaccination units, bigger sites, expanded hours for centres that are already in operation.
A new, what the prime minister described, "Omicron emergency booster national mission".
He's promised extra cash for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, too.
There is no doubt that to deliver a speech in this manner, any prime minister, alone at the polished table in the grandeur of Downing Street, sends a massive message to the public to sit up and pay attention.
The so-called 'national address' is a lever that Number 10 is only meant to pull in extraordinary moments.
Government insiders argue that the spread of Omicron is so much faster than expected that to wait any longer before making such an appeal, not to shout about the risk from the rooftops would be a mistake.
Many members of the public may be worried enough to take action, to rush to book their booster if they have not yet had it, or even to come forward for their vaccination which they have turned down so far.
Yet Mr Johnson's stern words tonight may run into three different challenges.
It won't be easy to expand the booster programme at such a pace. There's been plenty of anecdotal evidence about the availability and eligibility, and questions about why it didn't get going much more quickly, weeks ago.
Second, Mr Johnson's credibility has taken a significant knock in recent weeks. Will the public, this time, be as willing to listen to him?
And in his own party there is frustration at his decision making and scepticism about what's going on. The prime minister can make bold and urgent promises about the booster, but keeping them is something else.
• None PM's press chief spoke at No 10 party last year
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59631893
|
news_uk-politics-59631893
|
|
Max Verstappen wins title after last-lap overtake of Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes protests rejected - BBC Sport
|
2021-12-13
|
None
|
Red Bull's Max Verstappen wins his first Formula 1 world title in dramatic circumstances at the season finale in Abu Dhabi.
| null |
Red Bull's Max Verstappen snatched his first Formula 1 world title by beating Lewis Hamilton on the last lap of a thrilling season finale in Abu Dhabi - then had to wait while the Briton's Mercedes team had two protests against the result rejected by stewards.
Hamilton had appeared in control of the race and on course for the title himself, despite controversy on the first lap, until a late safety car.
The race was restarted with one lap to go with Verstappen on fresh tyres and Hamilton on old ones and the Dutchman swept by to win.
The victor screamed with delight and Red Bull celebrated, while Hamilton sat in his Mercedes for several minutes, disbelieving at the way events had turned against him in the final minutes.
After he stepped off the podium as champion, Verstappen's celebrations were interrupted by Mercedes' protests, and he had to wait more than four hours until they could resume, though even then Mercedes indicated they would appeal.
It was, in so many ways, a fitting end to one of the greatest and most contentious seasons in Formula 1 history - and the arguments over right and wrong will rage for some time to come.
• None 'A Verstappen can't lose' - the making of an F1 phenomenon
• None Verstappen relishes 'unbelievable' title win and wants Red Bull to dominate
The race had appeared to surrender to Hamilton after he was controversially allowed to keep the lead he had earned with a better start than Verstappen, despite going off track to retain his position when the Dutchman tried to pass him at the end of the first back straight.
Red Bull and Verstappen were exasperated and disbelieving about it, but Hamilton was imperious from then on, through a pit stop and a virtual safety car, until Nicholas Latifi crashed his Williams with five laps to go.
Mercedes felt they could not afford to pit Hamilton because to do so would have been surrendering the lead if Verstappen did not do the same - and he may well not have done because his tyres were relatively fresh after a second stop.
But when Hamilton did not stop for fresh tyres, Verstappen did and that was the decisive call.
There was more controversy as race director Michael Masi initially said lapped cars between Hamilton and Verstappen would not be allowed to un-lap themselves, as is normal practice.
Red Bull complained and Masi changed his mind, allowing the lapped cars between the title contenders past Hamilton, which put Verstappen right behind Hamilton for the one remaining lap of racing.
Verstappen passed Hamilton into Turn Five and held off his attempts to re-pass down the two straights that followed and completed the lap before erupting with joy.
Yet whatever anyone's view of the various incidents in the race, few would begrudge Verstappen the title after a season in which he and Hamilton have gone toe-to-toe throughout in one of the most remarkable F1 seasons there has ever been.
Hamilton, meanwhile, will have to console himself with Mercedes' victory in the constructors' championship - for an unprecedented eighth consecutive year.
At the same time, it was a fitting way to end a season that has been characterised by on-track clashes and off-track arguments between Hamilton, Verstappen and their teams.
The race unfolded as the season has, with Hamilton and Verstappen in a race and league of their own, and for a long time the year's destiny appeared to be heading towards Hamilton.
There was drama from the opening lap, after Verstappen made a poor start from pole position, Hamilton an electric one from second on the grid, and the Mercedes was ahead before the first corner.
Verstappen tracked him through the first few corners, slipstreamed him down the long, first back straight and dived for the inside into the chicane at Turns Six and Seven.
Verstappen got down the inside of Hamilton but went in deep to the corner, his speed carrying him to the outside kerb long before the second right-handed part of the corner.
Hamilton avoided him, as he has so many times this season, and cut across the chicane, retaining the lead.
He slowed a little over the rest of the lap to give back the advantage he considered himself to have gained, and the arguments started on the pit wall.
Verstappen said over the radio: "He has to give it back."
Red Bull radioed race director Michael Masi to insist that Verstappen was "ahead and stays on track".
Masi replied: "He has forced him off. All the advantage was given back before the end of the first lap."
The officials decided that no investigation was necessary and when Verstappen was told of the decision he said: "That is incredible. What are they doing there?"
The recriminations will doubtless continue for some time, especially as Verstappen came into the weekend complaining that he was being treated differently than other drivers by the stewards after the controversial Saudi Arabian Grand Prix last weekend, and Red Bull have been ratcheting the tension between the teams with a series of controversial claims in the media.
Hamilton had the race - until luck intervened
On track, though, the fundamental truth for much of the race was that once Hamilton had got by, he and Mercedes simply had too much pace for Red Bull and Verstappen, as they have for the past four races.
Red Bull threw everything they could at Hamilton.
After Hamilton and Verstappen pitted for fresh tyres, they left Perez out and ordered him to hold Hamilton back.
Hamilton passed Perez down to Turn Six on lap 20, but was then repassed down the next straight.
Perez was then ordered to "back him up" through the marina section of the track, and Verstappen closed what had been an 8.7-second deficit to 1.7 by the time Hamilton finally passed Perez a lap later.
But Hamilton eased away again, until a virtual safety car deployed to clear the stranded Alfa Romeo of Antonio Giovinazzi gave Red Bull an opportunity.
They pitted Verstappen for fresh tyres, hoping to come back at Hamilton over the final 20 laps.
But so strong was Hamilton that Verstappen was able to make only minimal inroads into his lead, and the race appeared to be over until the late drama snatched it - and what would have been his eighth world title - from Hamilton's grasp.
• None 'He lived for his music': The extraordinary story of Freddie Mercury and his battle with Aids
• None Meet the man who's driving 870 miles in the world's smallest car
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59628024
|
rt_formula1_59628024
|
|
Hunting bill: NI politicians reject hunting with dogs ban - BBC News
|
2021-12-07
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK where hunting wild animals with dogs is permitted.
|
Northern Ireland
|
Hunting with dogs has been illegal in England, Scotland and Wales since the early 2000s
The Northern Ireland Assembly has rejected a bill which sought to ban hunting wild animals with dogs in Northern Ireland.
The private members bill had been brought by the Alliance Party's John Blair who told the assembly a ban is "long overdue".
It was defeated by 45 votes to 38 in the Assembly on Monday.
Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK where the practice is still permitted.
The bill will not move to the committee stage.
Ahead of the debate, Agriculture and Environment Minister Edwin Poots said he, personally, could not support the bill.
Animal welfare charity, the USPCA, had backed the bill.
It said it was "very disappointed" with the outcome.
"This result is contrary to the views of the public, as outlined in the consultation response and in previous public opinion polls," said USPCA chief executive Brendan Mullan.
"Hunting wild mammals with dogs is sadistic and cruel and has no place in an advanced and compassionate society.
"We are staggered that half of our political representatives do not hold this view and encourage members of the public to reflect on whether their views have been appropriately represented on this issue."
Mr Blair, who brought the bill, said his personal and political view was that the practice could not be considered a sport.
"Fox hunting and stag hunting should have no place in a civilised society," he said.
A public consultation saw more than 18,000 respondents, with 80% in favour of a ban.
Hunting wild mammals with dogs has been illegal in Scotland, England and Wales since the early 2000s.
Mr Blair said he felt that some of the arguments against the bill were "scare tactics"
The second stage of Mr Blair's bill took place at Stormont on Monday, with 83 MLAs taking part in the vote.
It is believed some of the parties allowed their members a conscience vote on the issue.
Even if a majority of MLAs had voted to support it, the legislation could have struggled to make it into law before March 2022, when the assembly will be dissolved ahead of next year's election.
Opinion was divided during the assembly debate.
Sinn Féin's Declan McAleer, who is also chair of Stormont's Agriculture and Environment committee, said more time was needed to scrutinise the bill.
"There are elements of the bill we agree with, but the legislation as it currently stands, we feel, is unworkable," he told the assembly.
"We would need additional time on the committee to rectify it and it is time we don't have."
Mr McAleer added that he believed the legislation would be best taken forward by the agriculture and environment department in the next mandate.
DUP MLA William Irwin described the bill as "bad legislation" which would have "unintended consequences".
He said he had received correspondence from constituents who were concerned about how the legislation had been drafted and said he believed it "should be taken off the table".
SDLP MLA Patsy McGlone said he had a "major concern" relating to the wording of the draft legislation.
UUP Rosemary Barton said there are many people who "would argue that hunting with dogs is a necessity to keep predators like foxes under control, others would contend that this method of control is very cruel and causes unnecessary suffering".
Mr Blair told the BBC's Good Morning Ulster programme that "the context of the bill is that the pursuit of wild mammals by hunting dogs for the purpose of human enjoyment is cruel and unnecessary".
He said that he felt that some of the arguments being used against introducing the bill amounted to an attempt to revert to the "do nothing option".
Mr Poots told the same programme that while he did not like hunting, he could not back the bill.
"I think it isn't well thought through - it might be well meaning, but not well thought through - and it has damaging consequences if it came into force," he said.
Before the vote, Edwin Poots said he would not be supporting the bill
Mr Poots added that biodiversity was a key aspect of his department.
"We have predators, particularly on our ground nesting birds and other smaller mammals," he said.
"If you have no ability to manage those predators then you will further damage biodiversity in Northern Ireland.
"One of the biggest impacts that we have on birds like red grouse and hen harriers and so forth is foxes, badgers and, indeed, crows and some of the other birds who take the eggs before those eggs have a chance to hatch.
"If we're serious about diversity then we need to have management tools and we need to be very cautious about removing management tools."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-59543635
|
news_uk-northern-ireland-59543635
|
|
Connah's Quay murder: Emma Berry jailed for stabbing Dean Bennett - BBC News
|
2021-12-07
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Emma Berry, 47, is jailed for 16 years after admitting the killing 31-year-old Dean Bennett.
|
Wales
|
Emma Berry was sentenced to life for the killing of Dean Bennett
A woman has been jailed for a minimum of 16 years for murdering a 31-year old man in his bedsit.
Emma Berry, 47, who lived at Quay House in Connah's Quay, was found guilty of stabbing Dean Bennett through the heart.
While handing down the sentence at Mold Crown Court, judge Rhys Rowlands told Berry Mr Bennett had "done nothing to you, and posed no threat to you."
She was sentenced to life and will serve a minimum of 16 years.
Berry stabbed Dean Bennett after she witnessed him and his girlfriend arguing.
Witnesses said Berry said: "I am going to stab him" before going into the communal kitchen to get a knife.
She then entered Mr Bennett's room, got on top of him and stabbed him through a tattoo of his eight-year-old daughter's name across his chest, and into his heart.
He was taken to the University Hospital Aintree by air ambulance, but couldn't be saved.
Mold Crown Court heard that both Emma Berry and Mr Bennett lived at Quay House in Connah's Quay, a former pub which had been converted into bed-sits with some communal flats.
On the morning Mr Bennett was killed, Berry was assaulted by her partner, who also lived at Quay House.
Mr Bennett's girlfriend, who was in the vicinity at the time, was also assaulted by the man.
Mr Bennett left the building and went to the pub asking if anyone could put him up, he didn't want to return to Quay House and wanted to get away from "a load of idiots" who he said showed "no respect for anyone's food or property."
He did however return later that afternoon, and following the argument with his partner, was attacked by Berry.
The court was told that Berry, was in an abusive relationship with her partner, was dependent on alcohol and was often intoxicated, including the day of the murder.
During police interviews she said she had drunk half a litre of vodka and two cans of strong lager, and had become scared when she saw Mr Bennett and his girlfriend arguing.
She said she didn't want the same thing that happened to her, to happen to the young woman.
Judge Rhys Rowlands said: "In drink, you sought out a knife and stabbed him" after an argument that "didn't involve physical violence and didn't involve you."
He said her actions caused "anguish" to Mr Bennett's family and that it was clear Berry, who had previous convictions for violence, was a "dangerous individual."
In a victim impact statement read to the court, Dean Bennett's former partner Lucy Morris, the mother of his daughter, said that he was an "amazing dad" and that her and her daughter's lives would "never be the same."
She also said the little girl suffered "nightmares" since her father's death and had become "angry and introverted."
On behalf of the family, Mr Bennett's brother, Dirk said that they were "heartbroken" and they would "walk through life with a shadow hanging over us."
Detective Chief Inspector Chris Bell, from North Wales Police Major Incident Team said: "this is an incredibly tragic case which saw a young man lose his life as a result of a single stab wound.
"Dean's family have understandably been left devastated by his death and this tragic case is a stark reminder of the devastating consequences of knife crime."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-59565236
|
news_uk-wales-59565236
|
|
James Webb: A $10bn machine in search of the end of darkness - BBC News
|
2021-12-25
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The biggest space telescope ever built is ready to show us the first stars to light up the cosmos.
|
Science & Environment
|
Darkness. Total and complete. Few of us get to experience it.
At the bottom of a cave, perhaps; or in a basement when the power shuts off. But there's usually some faint glow coming from somewhere. Even the night sky never seems truly black, not least because there's usually a star or two twinkling in the distance.
So it's hard to imagine a time when all that existed was darkness, when you could travel in any direction for millions of years and still see absolutely nothing.
But this is the story that scientists tell us, of the "dark ages" that gripped the Universe before the first stars ignited. And very shortly, they intend to show us that time, or rather how it ended - how the cosmos ultimately became filled with light.
They'll do it using the biggest telescope ever placed beyond the Earth: The James Webb Space Telescope.
Launching in the coming days, JWST is on a mission to look deeper into the Universe - and therefore further back in time - than even the legendary Hubble Space Telescope, which it succeeds.
Simply mesmerising: Webb's huge mirror is made from beryllium coated in gold
Equipped with a 6.5m-wide (21ft) mirror and four super-sensitive instruments, Webb will stare for days at a very narrow spot on the sky to detect light that has been travelling through the immensity of space for more than 13.5 billion years.
"They will be just little red specks," says JWST senior project scientist and Nobel Prize winner John Mather.
"We think there should be stars, or galaxies, or black holes maybe beginning at 100 million years after the Big Bang. There won't be many of them to find at that time but the Webb telescope can see them if they're there, and we're lucky," the US space agency (Nasa) researcher tells a special edition of Discovery on the BBC World Service.
It's an astounding idea that you might still be able to witness such a thing. But that's the consequence of light having a finite speed in a vast and expanding cosmos. If you keep probing deeper and deeper, you should eventually get to retrieve the light from the pioneer stars as they group together into the first galaxies.
For what purpose, though? Why spend 10 years conceiving, and another 20 years building, a $10bn machine to detect some faint, red blobs on the sky?
Well, essentially it comes down to the most fundamental of questions: Where do we come from?
When the Universe was formed in the Big Bang, it contained only hydrogen, helium and a smattering of lithium. Nothing else.
All the chemical elements in the Periodic Table heavier than these three had to be forged in stars. All the carbon that makes up living things; all the nitrogen in Earth's atmosphere; all the silicon in rocks - all these atoms had to be "manufactured" in the nuclear reactions that make stars shine, and in the mighty explosions that end their existence.
We're only here because the first stars and their descendants seeded the Universe with the material to make stuff.
"Webb's mission is about the formation of all likeness; it's the 'we're all made of stardust' argument," ponders Rebecca Bowler, a University of Oxford astronomer who's a team-member on Webb's NIRSpec instrument.
"It's about the formation of the first carbon atom ever. It's absolutely amazing to me that we could actually observe that process in progress."
We don't know much about the first stars. We can put the laws of physics into computer models and run them to get a sense of what might be possible. And it sounds fantastical.
"Estimates range from anywhere of order 100 to 1,000 times the mass of our Sun," says Marcia Rieke, the principal investigator on Webb's NIRCam instrument. "And, in fact, all stars follow the rule that the length of time they can exist as a star is inversely proportional to their mass - meaning, the more massive a star, the faster it uses up its fuel. And so these early stars might have only lasted at most a million years or so."
Live fast, die young. Our own Sun seems so timid in comparison. It's already burned for nearly five billion years and will probably keep on burning for another five.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Hubble took us on an incredible journey into the past
The emphasis on the search for the first starlight makes Webb sound like a "one note flute". It's actually anything but.
It'll observe just about everything there is to see out there beyond Earth - from the icy moons and comets in our own Solar System to the colossal black holes that seem to reside at the core of all galaxies. It should be particularly adept at studying planets around other suns.
Webb has, however, been tuned to look at all its targets in a very particular way... in the infrared.
Hubble was designed to be sensitive to light predominantly at optical, or visible, wavelengths. That's the same type of light we detect with our eyes.
Webb, on the other hand, is set up specifically to detect longer wavelengths, which, although invisible to our eyes, are exactly in the regime where the glow from the most distant objects in the Universe will show up.
"Distant starlight gets stretched by the expansion of the Universe and shifts into the infrared region of the spectrum. We call it redshift," explains Richard Ellis, a University College London astronomer who's impatient to explore the end of the dark ages.
"The limiting factor we have with Hubble, for example, is that it doesn't reach far enough into the infrared to detect the starlight signal we want. It's also not a particularly large telescope. It's been a pioneering facility, for sure. Amazing pictures. But the diameter of its mirror is only 2.4m, and the power of a telescope scales with the square of the diameter of the mirror. And that's where JWST comes in."
It was the 18th-Century astronomer William Herschel who discovered the infrared. He also revolutionised the production of telescope mirrors.
His hand-cranked polishing machines could achieve a super-smooth reflecting surface on a disc cast from an alloy of tin and copper.
Herschel would have appreciated the innovation that went into producing Webb's mirrors.
They're made from the metal beryllium, which is light-weight and holds its shape at very low temperatures. And then there's the gold coating. It's extremely thin, just a few hundred atoms thick, but this addition turns the mirrors into near-perfect reflectors in the infrared.
Ninety-eight percent of incident light is bounced back, ensuring the emission from distant stars experiences minimal loses by the time it reaches Webb's instruments.
Anyone who's seen the telescope's segmented 6.5m primary mirror will attest to its mesmerising quality. Even those who've worked on it for two decades never tire of its beauty.
"There was a time when the mirror was pointed downwards and I had to climb under it to do an inspection of the aft optics," recalls Nasa's Lee Feinberg, who's led the Webb mirror team.
"So, there I was in my bunny suit, looking up at all those gold surfaces and seeing myself being reflected back. It was really quite amazing - all these surfaces focusing back on me. I had this incredible feeling of energy being at the centre of it all."
Hubble famously had a major problem with its primary mirror.
When the telescope arrived in orbit in 1990, scientists realised the reflector hadn't been polished correctly. Its initial pictures of galaxies were blurred.
It wasn't until astronauts could take up some corrective optics that Hubble started to see the cosmos with clarity. And perhaps not unreasonably, it's because of that experience that everyone asks whether Webb's mirror can be guaranteed to be flawless.
Your device may not support this visualisation
August 2017 was the month that saw Hurricane Harvey stall over Texas, dumping a staggering 127 billion tonnes of rainwater on the state.
It's noteworthy because in the midst of that deluge, Webb was actually "in town", in Houston, at Nasa's Johnson Space Center, undergoing critical testing that would prove its optics were fit to fly.
Engineers had put the telescope in the space simulator that was used in the 1960s to run the rule over Apollo hardware, and even space-suited astronauts.
Chamber A, as the vacuum vessel is known, is gargantuan in volume, and was able to swallow the telescope whole (minus its sunshield). The purpose of the three-month test was to take Webb down to its operating space temperature of just below -233C (40 kelvin), to see if all its mirrors would focus as designed.
It would also give the teams working on Webb's four instruments the chance to see how their systems performed in mock off-world conditions. Assuming, that is, Hurricane Harvey would oblige.
The Apollo chamber gave Webb a taste of what it will be like to operate in space
At times, the computer consoles talking to Webb inside Chamber A had to be covered in plastic sheeting to protect them from the risk of water dripping from the ceiling. But tucked away behind the thick walls of the vacuum vessel, Webb itself was secure and demonstrating it didn't have a "Hubble problem".
"The segments on the primary mirror have actuators behind them that allow us to move them around, to even change their curvature," explains Lee Feinberg. "When first deployed in space, those segments will be misaligned. But all those actuators will take us from a misalignment measured in millimetres, all the way down to just nanometres. A factor of a million improvement."
Those actuators will make the 18 segments behave as though they're a single, monolithic mirror.
Nasa instrument systems engineer Begoña Vila adds: "This is what we demonstrated in the test chamber. We know when we first focus on a star in space, we'll actually see 18 different spots of light because the 18 individual mirror segments won't be aligned. But then we'll adjust the mirrors to bring all the spots together to make a single star that's not aberrated and good for normal operations. We know Webb works."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Gillian Wright: "The technologies on James Webb took years to develop"
"This isn't any old Tupperware; it's space-qualified Tupperware. It meets all the international standards for keeping things flawlessly clean for years," the UK Astronomy Technology Centre director says.
If you want to understand just how brilliant Webb is, but also why it's taken so long to build - some 20 years in the construction phase - you need to look in Gillian's plastic box.
It contains a spare "slicing mirror" from the Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI) that she and colleagues have built for the telescope.
About the size of a British 50-pence piece, it looks like a mini musical accordion made for a doll. The little mirror - once again coated in gold - contains a series of slanted "steps".
The arrangement allows the mirror to acquire both an image of the sky but also to chop up the light from, say, a galaxy or the edge of a black hole, and then send that light into a spectrograph. This device will reveal the chemistry, temperature, density and velocity of the targets under study.
"But not just at one point in the image, but at every point across the image, all at the same time. You go from 2D to 3D - to what we call a data cube," she tells me.
James E Webb was a key figure at Nasa tasked with implementing the Apollo Moon-landings project
This had been done in ground-based astronomy, but was novel for Webb. What's more the level of engineering precision required was extremely challenging. The steps had to be very carefully machined so that they had supremely sharp edges, otherwise light of different wavelengths would bleed across the mirror, contaminating the data.
It took a year to convince the space agencies that MIRI's slicing mirrors would meet the specifications. And here's the thing: this is but one small component in one part of a giant telescope.
When they assembled Webb, every such element had to be tested and then tested again when joined to another element. The whole edifice was built up like a Russian doll.
Former Nasa project scientist Mark Clampin explains: "Because it's such a big and complex observatory, and also because it has to work at cryogenic temperatures, you can't just put everything together at once, and then test it. You put everything into sealed, thermally isolated packages, starting with the smallest pieces and working upwards, testing at every stage. And then as everything gets bigger and bigger, it becomes virtually impossible to go back because you found a problem in a detector, let's say."
Imagine towards the end of the telescope's construction they realised one of MIRI's slicing mirrors was defective.
Disassembling the multi-billion-dollar observatory to get at the sub-standard part would be the nightmare of all nightmares.
James Webb is so big it has to be folded to fit in the nosecone of its launch rocket
Mark McCaughrean is a British infrared astronomer who's worked on the project for 23 years in an advisory capacity for the European Space Agency. He's seen bits and pieces of Webb before, but just weeks before the expected launch, from the Kourou spaceport in French Guiana, he's getting the chance to examine the completed observatory for the first time.
"I have no idea what to say. It's astonishing." There's emotion in his voice.
The mirrors and insulation blankets are a blaze of gold and silver. The latter colour has a slight purple tinge to it. We're viewing Webb in its folded configuration, but still it's the size of a single decker bus.
This "bus" has been upended to fit snuggly in the nosecone of its Ariane launch rocket.
"It has an amazing scale to it," comments Mark. "When it unfolds in space - a bird flying freely in space - wouldn't that be a thing to see!"
Webb has had to battle the naysayers all through its development. "It's too complex," they would say. And when you consider the sequence of deployments the telescope must complete in order to begin its observations of the cosmos, it is kind of scary.
Engineers refer to "single point failures" to describe the actions, which, if they don't occur on cue and in the right order, are likely to scupper the whole undertaking. Webb must get past 344 of these decisive hurdles.
Some actions should be very straightforward, such as the deployment of a solar panel and radio antenna in the minutes immediately after launch.
Even the opening of the wings of the primary mirror ought to be regarded as a fairly standard operation. But the actions concentrated around the unfurling of the tennis court-sized shield that will keep Webb cool and protect its vision from the glare of the Sun - that's another matter.
"Some of the key hardware includes 140 release mechanisms, about 70 hinge assemblies, eight deployment motors; we have bearings, springs, gears; about 400 pulleys are needed and 90 cables, totalling 1,312ft (400m)," says Krystal Puga from aerospace manufacturer Northrop Grumman.
"To perfect the sequence, we performed multiple deployment testing over several years on both small and full-size models. We practised not only the deployment but also the stowing process. This gives us the confidence that Webb is going to deploy successfully."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Amber Straughn, an astrophysicist on Nasa's JWST science team, explains why the telescope is so exciting and important
For those of us who haven't been directly involved in the project, the whole unfolding process looks terrifying. What if one of the cords pulling on the super-thin membranes snags, or, worse still, snaps?
John Mather is the calming voice. His many years on the Webb venture have led him to a philosophical position.
"I'm confident," he says, "and yet, I'm also aware that no matter how good a plan we have - and we have a very good plan - bad things can still happen. But my opinion has no effect on the hardware. And, consequently, my worrying also has no effect on the hardware. So I mostly don't worry."
Given all that Hubble has shown us, the old telescope now looks like a very solid investment
I've left the topic until last, but it cannot pass without some comment. The cost.
The figure everyone quotes is $10bn (£7.5bn; €9bn). It covers the direct 20-year build period, the launch and five years of operations in space.
As a cold number, it is eye-watering. But it's worth remembering that Hubble was also very expensive. The legendary observatory had cost more than $7bn in 2021 dollars by the time it had been launched and repaired. It must be nearer twice that now.
But given all that Hubble has shown us about the Universe, and our place in it, the old telescope seems good value.
For Europeans, the cost of Webb has amounted to the price of a cheap cup of coffee
If Webb succeeds in showing us our atomic origins, who will continue to quibble about cost?
"On face value there's a lot of zeroes, and Europe alone has spent €700m (£600m; $800m) on James Webb," says former European Space Agency project manager Peter Jensen.
"But when you look at it as a cost per inhabitant in Europe, it comes down to a cheap cup of coffee in a cheap café, drunk over a period of 20 years."
You can hear Jonathan talking to key figures on the James Webb mission in a special edition of Discovery on the BBC World Service and on Inside Science on BBC Radio 4.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59476869
|
news_science-environment-59476869
|
|
Maureen Lipman: Cancel culture could wipe out comedy - BBC News
|
2021-12-22
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The actress says comedians fear being cancelled as a poll finds Britons often censor their opinions.
|
Entertainment & Arts
|
Dame Maureen Lipman: "Sooner or later the cancellers will win"
Dame Maureen Lipman has said comedy is in danger of being "wiped out" due to fears over being cancelled.
She told the BBC she believes comedians are now so worried about offending, "a revolution" is taking place.
"It's in the balance whether we will ever be funny again," she said.
Her comments come as more than half of Britons say they have stopped themselves from expressing political and social views for fear of being judged.
A YouGov poll seen exclusively by the BBC found 57% of those asked said they censor themselves on issues including immigration and trans rights, particularly if their views are deemed at the less politically correct end of the spectrum.
YouGov questioned 1,677 people in mid November to find out their views on what's become known as "cancel culture".
It is a term, first used in the US, to describe attempts to block or "cancel" people or groups with certain viewpoints.
While only a third (35%) of those polled said they knew what cancel culture was, many more effectively said they felt cancelled from time to time.
The less politically correct the views held, the more likely people were to say they feel shouted down.
They are most likely to keep quiet about what they really think when they are with people they've just met (49%) or are at work (40%), according to the data. A third (31%) also self-censor with friends, a fifth (21%) with family.
Russell Kane says it's "complete nonsense" that comedians are sacrificing being funny for fear of cancellation
The cultural world often reflects what's happening in real life.
I met Dame Maureen in Manchester, where she was filming Coronation Street. She told me: "Cancel culture, this cancelling, this punishment, it's everywhere. Punishment. An eye for an eye. 'You said that, therefore you must never work again.' Sooner or later the cancellers will win."
She highlighted the world of comedy, which she claims is in danger of being "wiped out" because comedians fear audiences will take offence so they tone down their material.
It's a dramatic prediction. "Something has to be forbidden to make you laugh, really belly laugh. It's when you shouldn't be laughing," she said. "All the things that have been cancelled out by being correct are, I'm afraid, all the things that make people laugh."
But is she right? Many comedians say their industry is in fine - and funny - form. Nobody is being censored, they claim. And in the end, it is audiences who decide what's funny and what's offensive.
Take comedian Russell Kane, who knows a thing or two about cancellation. He presents Radio 4's Evil Genius, which each week takes a different figure from history and decides, based on their actions, whether they should be saved or cancelled.
Services such as TweetDelete can reduce the chances of someone being cancelled for previously expressed opinions
He told me it's "complete nonsense" that comedians are sacrificing being funny because they don't want to be cancelled.
"I don't think anyone is saying you can't be offended, nobody is saying that, what we're saying is you can't use hate speech that would prompt a gender-related crime, a sex-related crime or a race-related crime."
"There's been a massive, much needed shift in the conversation around gender, around men's attitudes to women, around consent. Society has moved on."
However, he does think he and his fellow comedians worry about being cancelled for things they might have said in the past which have since become less acceptable. "I signed up for a website called TweetDelete and all my posts that are older than six months have gone. It's a bit of self-protection."
The whole issue of "cancel culture" and whether it really exists is contentious.
In one corner are those who claim that a new, judgmental world exists, particularly on social media, which leads to censorship and puts freedom of speech under attack.
Recently, London's Old Vic theatre announced it would not be staging a planned production of Sondheim's Into the Woods, co-directed by Terry Gilliam.
The former Monty Python star claimed on social media that the Old Vic was "intimidated" into cancelling the show by what he called "a small group of closed-minded, humour averse ideologues" because, he said, he recommended his Facebook followers watch a show by the comedian Dave Chappelle.
Dave Chappelle was criticised by some for his comments on trans issues
Chappelle has been accused of making anti-transgender comments in a Netflix special.
The Old Vic says the decision not to put on Into the Woods was "mutually agreed" and wished the show "well for its future life". The musical will now open at the Theatre Royal in Bath instead.
In the other corner of the debate are those who argue that calling people out for views that are deemed offensive is a form of social justice.
They point out that the people who complain about being cancelled are very often celebrities with huge platforms to air their views and while they still have their voices listened to, it's the opposing arguments that have for too long gone unheard. They say this is about creating a kinder, more tolerant world.
The Harry Potter author JK Rowling is the most high-profile celebrity to find her views under attack. She has been accused of transphobia by those who say her views discriminate against trans people. She says she is "speaking up for women's sex-based rights".
According to those polled by YouGov, nearly a third (29%) of people who hold gender critical views said they always or mostly don't say what they really think when they are talking about this controversial topic.
Other difficult areas where the people polled said they don't speak freely are those who believe immigration has been a bad thing for the UK (one third - 33% - of people who held that view said they keep quiet about it).
Author JK Rowling is one of the most high-profile people to have been caught in the so-called culture wars
A fifth of people who believe women have things as good as men in the UK feel they can't say it.
"I don't believe freedom of speech is under threat," he said. "Why would we want to use hateful language? Why should we tolerate it? I think there's a lot of people with much more extreme views, illegal views, hate crime provoking views, who are driving this narrative that those with moderate concerns about immigration, for example, can't say it."
He believes it's being driven by people on the right and left, who are "trying to create culture wars at either end of the spectrum".
Simon Fanshawe co-founded Stonewall, though he has been publicly critical of the LGBTQ+ charity's current approach to campaigning. He has recently published a book, The Power of Difference, and believes we are facing a crisis of dialogue.
He told the BBC: "At Stonewall, we only ever talked to people we didn't agree with. When somebody says something, you need to argue with it even if you think it's offensive or damaging or hurtful. That's the only way to get them to change their minds.
"What the poll is telling us is that the inability to discuss differences is seeping into every area of our lives. Even with friends, a third don't express their opinions. Divisions are being exacerbated. We need to try and bridge those divides."
The consequences for society are difficult to measure, especially when cancel culture and censorship have become political pawns in a polarised debate.
Much of the argument is around whether freedom of speech is under attack from a new "woke" agenda. YouGov's poll suggests younger generations particularly prioritise preventing hateful offensive speech over being able to say what you want.
These tensions get to the heart of the so-called culture wars. Some will argue people are being silenced, others that outdated views are simply being weeded out, in real life and in comedy too.
Ricky Gervais has joked that the woke generation will eventually in turn be cancelled by the next generation
Comedian Ricky Gervais recently said: "I want to live long enough to see the younger generation not be woke enough for the next generation. It's going to happen. Don't they realise that, it's like, they're next. That's what's funny."
The YouGov poll shared with the BBC suggests younger people are more confident their views won't age than older respondents.
While nearly half (47%) of the oldest Britons expect future generations to take a dim view of some of their views, only one in three (36%) 18-24 year olds feel the same way.
Will they be proved right - or will Ricky Gervais have the last laugh?
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59703257
|
news_entertainment-arts-59703257
|
|
As it happened: All countries taken off travel red list but Covid tests still required - BBC News
|
2021-12-14
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Transport secretary Grant Shapps says 11 countries will be removed from Wednesday but testing measures remain in place.
|
UK
|
As we've just heard, a number of countries have now been removed from the travel red list, including South Africa.
This has come too late for some people who have been forced to quarantine, including Alison Stitt.
She was in South Africa visiting her father for his 90th birthday when the country went on the UK's red list.
She says it took her days to re-arrange a flight home on a date that a quarantine hotel room was available. They had to stay longer in their Airbnb and re-book their car hire while they waited - on top of extending their car parking and kennels bookings in the UK.
Now, she and her husband David are at a hotel near Gatwick.
Alison says the total cost of their extended stay in South Africa and their quarantine, has been at least £5,500.
Speaking to the BBC before all countries were taken off the red list, she said the idea of the travel rules being changed "has fuelled our argument that this whole fiasco was wrong".
Quote Message: "It was one expense after another. It's all going on credit cards. It was meant to be a budget trip from Alison Stitt "It was one expense after another. It's all going on credit cards. It was meant to be a budget trip
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-59646151
|
news_live_uk-59646151
|
|
PM’s message to sit up and pay attention - BBC News
|
2021-12-14
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
But Boris Johnson's stern words tonight may run into three challenges.
|
UK Politics
|
Boris Johnson has gone far with the help of simple three word slogans.
Tonight, as the country is again in the grip of a fast spreading virus variant, and he is in the grip of a political mess, there's a new one, "Get Boosted Now".
The prime minister's language was dramatic, warning people that the pandemic is again an 'emergency' with a 'tidal wave' now coming of the omicron variant.
He called on you to have that booster dose as soon as humanly possible or, if not, the NHS could be overwhelmed by a terrible new wave of the pandemic.
The booster is the defence against what's coming, his argument. The responsibility therefore on all of us to come forward for another dose of the jab.
The practicalities he promised sound like a huge expansion of the scheme. Instead of all over 18s in England being offered a booster by the end of January, the new target is that they'll be offered one by the end of this year.
There'll be 42 'new military planning teams' across every region. New mobile vaccination units, bigger sites, expanded hours for centres that are already in operation.
A new, what the prime minister described, "Omicron emergency booster national mission".
He's promised extra cash for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, too.
There is no doubt that to deliver a speech in this manner, any prime minister, alone at the polished table in the grandeur of Downing Street, sends a massive message to the public to sit up and pay attention.
The so-called 'national address' is a lever that Number 10 is only meant to pull in extraordinary moments.
Government insiders argue that the spread of Omicron is so much faster than expected that to wait any longer before making such an appeal, not to shout about the risk from the rooftops would be a mistake.
Many members of the public may be worried enough to take action, to rush to book their booster if they have not yet had it, or even to come forward for their vaccination which they have turned down so far.
Yet Mr Johnson's stern words tonight may run into three different challenges.
It won't be easy to expand the booster programme at such a pace. There's been plenty of anecdotal evidence about the availability and eligibility, and questions about why it didn't get going much more quickly, weeks ago.
Second, Mr Johnson's credibility has taken a significant knock in recent weeks. Will the public, this time, be as willing to listen to him?
And in his own party there is frustration at his decision making and scepticism about what's going on. The prime minister can make bold and urgent promises about the booster, but keeping them is something else.
• None PM's press chief spoke at No 10 party last year
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59631893
|
news_uk-politics-59631893
|
|
Boris Johnson loses Covid argument with his own MPs - BBC News
|
2021-12-14
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Boris Johnson's massive majority, won only two years ago, no longer feels like something on which he can always rely.
|
UK Politics
|
There were long queues at St Thomas's hospital - opposite the Houses of Parliament - for booster jabs
Boris Johnson didn't lose. But no prime minister wants to feel they're losing the argument in much of their own party.
And the scale of the rebellion is even worse than predicted. Not just a slap on the wrist for Mr Johnson, but a very serious rejection of his plan.
Something that can't be dismissed, despite his own personal appeals to his ranks.
Many of tonight's Tory rebels rejected the plan for Covid passes because of their instinct - a fundamental dislike in Conservative thinking of forcing people to do anything.
That's genuine, and strongly felt by many of them.
The resistance was also a real-life demonstration of Tory anger with many recent mistakes in Number 10 - bad judgements, bad handling - that has upset many backbenchers too.
But according to insiders, what we saw in the Commons is also evidence of a "deeper malaise". What, in some quarters in government, is starting to be called concern about a "Covid state".
The arrival of another Covid variant has, of course, prompted the government to act to try to protect the public's health.
If the Omicron outbreak is as enormous as the worst-case scenarios predict, much of the current political debate may be swamped, or indeed feel quickly irrelevant or self-indulgent.
But right now, Tory fears about the action ministers are taking are not just about the specifics of today's debate but about what many perceive as a lack of thinking about whether we can live like this for ever.
One insider said: "The trajectory we are on is to become a high-tax, high-spending, high-inflation country, and there seems to be little grip or strategy to address that underlying, big, big point."
The chancellor is understood to have raised concerns about the medium-term costs of handling the pandemic in the so-called "Covid O" meeting of senior ministers this week.
Several billion pounds has already been allocated to cover the cost of vaccines, boosters, and therapeutic drugs to help tackle Covid until next April.
But what about after that?
An ally of Rishi Sunak categorically ruled out the possibility of raising taxes again to help pay if this cycle continues, saying: "Whatever extra and unforeseen Covid costs come our way that are necessary to protect the British public, the chancellor will not be raising taxes to pay for them."
There is growing unease about what the next few months hold in store for the economy, with one government source suggesting winter to spring, "is going to be hell".
Even the former prime minister, Theresa May, who is developing a role as a spiky loyalist in the Commons, said recently: "Variants will continue to appear, year after year… We cannot respond to new variants by stopping and starting sectors of our economy, which leads to businesses going under, and jobs being lost."
The prime minister may have got his way tonight but not without political pain, nor with the prospect of relief from it soon.
Voters in the former MP Owen Paterson's seat will choose their next MP on Thursday.
It's extraordinary to imagine, but true, that there is a chance of the Tories losing their majority there, which stands at nearly 23,000.
Even more extraordinary is that some Conservatives might be happy to see it lost, to provide shock therapy to Number 10, not just to improve how it works but to do some hard thinking about what's coming next. One insider said: "I hope we lose it, because it would give them a real kick in the pants to say, this problem is very, very great."
With Omicron surging, philosophical concerns about this government on its own side may just have to wait.
Tonight's rebels may be out of step with much of public opinion and rising fears about the nation's health.
But no prime minister can ignore losing the argument with some of their own for long. Mr Johnson's massive majority, won only two years ago, no longer feels like something on which he can always rely.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59656616
|
news_uk-politics-59656616
|
|
Star Hobson: The short life and death of a beloved toddler - BBC News
|
2021-12-14
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
How did a toddler loved and adored by many end up dead after months of physical and emotional abuse?
|
Leeds & West Yorkshire
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
In her 16 short months, Star Hobson lived a life in two halves - the first filled with the warmth of true love, the second with cold, callous mistreatment. Concerns were raised. Star's family say they tried to warn authorities. So how did a little girl adored by so many end up dead after months of physical and emotional abuse?
Star Hobson was, in many ways, a typical toddler. Born in May 2019 into a big family, she was adored and showered with love and affection. An extended support network of relatives close and distant meant someone who doted upon the infant was rarely far away.
"I couldn't wait to get home from work to see her. I'd be dashing home and think: 'little Star will be there when we get back'," says great-grandad David Fawcett.
He remembers happy times with the toddler, watching her playful personality emerge at his home in Baildon, West Yorkshire.
"Every time she heard music, that'd be it. Her little head would be going and she'd start dancing in front of the telly," he says.
Star Hobson suffered a cardiac arrest as a result of catastrophic injuries and died in September 2020
Star's earlier, happier life was filled with love. Pictures posted on social media show a cheeky, smiling little girl with piercing blue eyes and a mop of short, mousey brown hair. In one family snap she is surrounded by gift bags, wearing a pink dress and an elaborate plastic tiara.
To those who loved her, Star was their princess.
"If you could bottle that time...I'd just love to replay it over and over again, because it was absolutely brilliant," says David.
But the happy baby who melted the hearts of all who met her would endure a second, darker existence.
Gradually isolated and shielded from the loving gaze of devoted family members, she would slowly succumb to mistreatment at the hands of two people who should have cared for her the most: mother Frankie Smith and her partner Savannah Brockhill.
Star was loved by the many members of her extended family
On the day of Star's death in September 2020 she was found, lifeless and pale, at the pair's flat in Keighley, West Yorkshire, and pronounced dead in hospital. A post-mortem examination would find evidence of catastrophic, unsurvivable injuries. Their likely cause: punching, kicking or stamping.
This act of violence was not a one-off. Further investigation would reveal a string of other significant injuries to her tiny body, not least a skull fracture and a shin fracture caused by "forceful twisting".
Relatives say they raised the alarm. Five referrals were made to social services. But it was not enough to save the little girl from her mother and her domineering, controlling partner.
Frankie Smith (left) and Savannah Brockhill had a volatile, sometimes violent, relationship, the court heard
Star was six months old when Frankie Smith broke up with the child's father, Jordan Hobson, in November 2019.
A month later, she met Savannah Brockhill at the pub where the older woman worked on door security. The two began an on-off, volatile relationship peppered with arguments and instances of domestic violence.
David Fawcett, Frankie Smith's grandfather, says her family noticed a change in her attitude towards Star after she met Brockhill. It wasn't long before the "dominating and controlling" bouncer and security guard "got into Frankie's head" and left the young mother fearful of her partner.
This appeared to have an effect on the little girl. Star's babysitter thought she had changed and "not for the better". In January 2020, she would be the first person to contact Bradford social services.
Star's great-grandparents say they warned social services they would have "another Baby P" if they did not intervene
By February 2020, the relationship and caring duties had taken their toll on Smith and she asked her grandmother, Anita Smith, for help with the toddler.
David says he and Anita, his partner of 27 years, picked up Star and thought she looked thin, sad and depressed.
"I've never seen a depressed baby before. She was looking at the floor and Anita said: 'Oh, look at her, poor little Star. She's never gonna be the same again'," he says.
But David says staying with her great-grandparents brought about an almost instant change in Star: "Within about two, three days she just perked up and she was absolutely brilliant. Magic."
Star would stay with David and Anita for 11 weeks until late April 2020. David says the point Star returned to her mother was when "everything changed".
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. 'Possessive" Savannah Brockhill dubbed herself a "psycho" in a Snapchat video warning others away from girlfriend Frankie Smith
"Frankie rang and said, 'we're gonna keep her here now', he says. "And then Savannah more or less said: 'She's our child. We're gonna bring her up our way'. And that's how all this started off, really."
Soon afterwards, in May 2020, Anita Smith would become the second person to contact Bradford social services about Star after learning she had been "slam-choked" by Brockhill.
David says: "We'd never heard of it. What's slam-choking a 10-month-old baby? What's going on? We were told Savannah...she picks her up and she grabs her neck and throws her on the bed."
He says Anita called social services and warned Bradford Council they would have "another Baby P on their hands" if they did not intervene in Star's case. But he says the complaint was closed after it had been dismissed as malicious and based on their dislike of Brockhill.
It was at this point that the couple began to isolate themselves from family members. According to David, Brockhill helped to move Frankie Smith and Star to Keighley, several miles away from her great-grandparents in Baildon.
He says: "Savannah didn't want anything to do with us. She was telling Frankie to keep Star away. It wasn't so long before our phone calls were getting blocked."
Away from watchful eyes, Star would endure an accelerating campaign of physical and psychological torment.
Star Hobson's relatives became increasingly concerned that something terrible would happen to her
At the women's trial, Bradford Crown Court would hear that Brockhill favoured a tough parenting style, one which Smith would try to enforce with shouting and other punishments.
Brockhill admitted striking the toddler. In a text to Smith, she described Star as a "brat". "She thinks nothing of you," she added.
Relatives, on the increasingly rare occasions they were allowed to see the toddler, would begin to notice marks and bruises on her body. During the couple's trial it was heard that, as early as June 2020, Brockhill was making internet searches for how to take away bruising quickly.
In the same month, Star's father, Jordan Hobson, would make a third referral to authorities after seeing photos of Star with a bruised cheek.
Police visited Frankie Smith and Star was examined by a doctor. This would be the only time she was taken for medical treatment. On this occasion, as on others, the couple explained away the injuries, blaming them on the clumsy toddler: Star hitting her head on a coffee table; walking into a sofa; falling and tripping. It was enough for the cases to be closed.
David Fawcett says Star's family feels let down by social services and her death could have been prevented
Social media posts over the summer would provide a further clue that all was not well in Star's world. A series of "disturbing and bizarre" videos recorded on the defendant's mobile phones would depict Star as an object of amusement, described by prosecutor Alistair MacDonald QC as "clearly exhausted but treated completely without love". In one, Star is seen falling off a plastic chair and hitting the floor. In another, she slumps forward into a bowl of food.
Some of these clips were posted online, with light-hearted captions, music and visual effects. In her evidence, Brockhill likened them to videos seen on TV show You've Been Framed.
As they became further cut off from their beloved great-granddaughter, David Fawcett and Anita Smith had become increasingly concerned that something terrible would happen to her.
"Anita used to say, and she used to say this quite a lot: 'Poor little Star. You do realise she's gonna end up a little star in the sky, don't you?'," says David.
Two more referrals were made by others over the summer, one by a family friend and a final alert from Smith's grandfather, Frank, weeks before Star's death.
Star was found "apparently lifeless, pale" at her mother's flat on Wesley Place in Keighley
By September, as the abuse had continued to increase, Brockhill, working overnight as a security guard, drove with Star to a recycling plant in Doncaster. In CCTV footage recorded over the course of three hours outside the site, Brockhill is seen to deliver a total of 21 blows to the toddler. At one point, the little girl falls out of the car. A video recorded the next morning, on 14 September, upon their return to the couple's flat shows a large mark on Star's cheek.
According to evidence heard in court, this episode prompted a dispute between the couple, with Smith texting Brockhill: "Stay away from us". It was not to last.
Just over a week later, Star was playing with two other children at the couple's flat when she was violently assaulted. Internet searches on "shock in babies" and "how to bring a baby out of shock" were made 15 minutes before any 999 call.
The fatal injury to Star's abdomen left lacerations on her internal organs, deemed to be the result of "severe and forceful" blows. In court, prosecutor Alistair MacDonald QC told jurors there "never was any real chance of saving her life" once those injuries had been inflicted.
Hospital staff said Star was dead on arrival by the time she was brought to Airedale General Hospital, a few miles from Keighley. They were struck by Brockhill and Smith's odd behaviour - Brockhill's aggression, Smith's reluctance to hold her daughter - and flagged their concerns to a safeguarding team.
The women would be arrested and charged with Star's murder. Investigations would reveal the child's multiple injuries, the strange social media videos and dozens of texts illustrating the dysfunctional relationship the little girl had become caught in the middle of.
Star's family say they hope to work to prevent other families enduring the same horror as them
By the time the couple's lies were exposed, it was too late for Star. It was only after her death that the extent of physical abuse became apparent. Only after her death did Brockhill's text messages, full of disdain for the "nasty, naughty" child, come to light. Only after her death did it emerge that her two carers delayed 15 minutes before calling 999 as she lay on the floor experiencing a "medical catastrophe".
David Fawcett says Star's family feels let down by social services. He believes her death could have been prevented if action had been taken sooner. As they await the publication of a safeguarding review into the actions of different agencies, Mr Fawcett says the family wants to find a way to make sure other families don't have to go through the same thing they have.
But Star Hobson will leave another legacy. Though she lived for just 16 months, she will be remembered by those who loved her for much longer.
Last month, 150 people turned up to attend a vigil in her honour. Pink and yellow balloons were released into the air - colours the little girl was often seen dressed in. It was an outpouring of love and a celebration of Star's better life, happy, and adored by those around her. Her godfather, Jake Lowndes, who organised the event, said it had been a fitting tribute to a girl who "had the perfect name for the perfect baby".
David Fawcett says: "I know for a fact we'll never, ever get over losing Star, but we'll learn to live with it."
"I'm going to work crying some mornings", he says, knowing the little girl he used to rush home to see will never again be there to greet him.
"It just hits you and you just get overcome with it. You just can't believe we're never going to see her again."
The memory of their final meeting, in August 2020, about six weeks before Star's death, is particularly painful.
"I just thought we'll see her again. That was the last time. I'll never forget it, just disappearing out of sight, like sand going through your fingers. Now she's gone."
If you have been affected by the issues raised in this article, help and support is available via BBC Action Line.
Follow BBC Yorkshire on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Send your story ideas to yorkslincs.news@bbc.co.uk or send video here.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-59599884
|
news_uk-england-leeds-59599884
|
|
Jussie Smollett: Actor found guilty of lying about attack - BBC News
|
2021-12-10
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
A lawyer for the actor has said his client plans "100%" to appeal the verdict.
|
US & Canada
|
US actor Jussie Smollett lied to police when he claimed to have been the victim of a racist, homophobic assault, a Chicago jury has found.
At trial this week, Smollett, 39, stood by denials that he staged the hoax attack against himself.
Prosecutors countered that he "lied for hours" on the stand as he repeated what he told to Chicago police.
He was found guilty on Thursday of five counts of disorderly conduct.
Each count carries a penalty of up to three years in prison. Given Smollett's lack of previous convictions, experts have said a lighter sentence or probation is likely. A sentencing date has yet to be scheduled.
The jury of six men and six women reached its decision one day after deliberations began.
The trial stemmed from an incident nearly three years ago, in January 2019, when the former Empire television show star told police he was the victim of an attack.
Smollett, who is black and gay, told police he was set upon by two assailants who shouted slurs, yelled a Trump slogan, dumped a "chemical substance" on him, and tied a noose around his neck while he was walking late at night in Chicago.
Authorities opened an investigation into the attack, but in February of that year, police charged Smollett with filing a false police report, alleging he had staged the assault.
He faced a total of six charges, each referring to different instances in which he was accused of lying to police. He was found guilty of five of the six charges, meaning that the last one had not been proven in court.
At trial, jurors heard from brothers Abimbola and Olabinjo Osundairo, who said Smollett had orchestrated the attack himself and paid them $3,500 (£2,600) to carry it out.
Smollett said the cheque was for a meal and workout plan from Abimbola, a friend and an extra on Empire, a TV drama about a hip hop dynasty. Asked by his defence lawyer if he gave the man payment for the alleged scheme, Smollett replied: "Never."
He also testified that he and Abimbola were involved in a sexual relationship before the alleged attack.
Special prosecutor Dan Webb asked the actor repeatedly about a "hoax" attack. Each time, Smollett denied that was the case.
"There was no hoax on my part," he said. "Any question you're going to ask about that is going to be denied."
In his closing arguments, Mr Webb said Smollett caused Chicago police to spend enormous resources investigating the alleged crime.
"Besides being against the law, it is just plain wrong to outright denigrate something as serious as a real hate crime and then make sure it involved words and symbols that have such historical significance in our country," Mr Webb said.
Outside the court after the verdict was read, Mr Webb added that "for Mr Smollett to get up in front of [the jury] and lie for hours and hours, that really compounded his misconduct".
He called it "unexpected" that Smollett would lie repeatedly during trial, and said that it will be something that he raises with the judge during sentencing.
Nenye Uche, a lawyer for Smollett, said that the team "obviously respectfully disagree with the jury's verdict", and that they are "100% confident" that the case will be overturned on appeal.
Authorities have said Smollett wanted to boost his profile because he was "dissatisfied with his salary" on Empire. By the fifth season of the show, he said he was being paid $100,000 per episode.
He was eventually written out amid the controversy around the alleged attack.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch the background to the bizarre Jussie Smollett case - this video was published in April 2019
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59599142
|
news_world-us-canada-59599142
|
|
Ex-Tory minister Andrew Griffiths found to have raped wife - BBC News
|
2021-12-10
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Andrew Griffiths used "coercive and controlling behaviour", a family court judge hears.
|
Stoke & Staffordshire
|
Andrew Griffiths resigned as minister and MP in July 2018
A former Conservative minister has been found to have raped and physically abused his wife.
A family court judge concluded Andrew Griffiths, 51, pressurised Kate Griffiths, MP for Burton-upon-Trent, into engaging in sexual activity.
Mr Griffiths, a former MP for the Staffordshire town, used "coercive and controlling behaviour".
In July 2018 he resigned after it was reported he sent "depraved" messages to two women constituents.
The ex-MP denied allegations made by Ms Griffiths and "adamantly denied" rape.
Judge Elizabeth Williscroft had been overseeing a dispute between Mr and Ms Griffiths, who are now divorced, at a private family court hearing in Derby.
Ms Griffiths, 51, made a series of allegations against Mr Griffiths and asked Judge Williscroft to make findings of fact.
The judge made findings in favour of Ms Griffiths but decided that they should not be made public, in order to protect the child at the centre of the family court proceedings.
A High Court judge, however, ruled that Judge Williscroft's findings should be revealed, after it was argued by the Press Association and Tortoise Media they were in the public interest.
Ms Griffiths had backed the move, which Mr Griffiths was against, and agreed to be named in media reports, even though victims of sexual abuse have a legal right to anonymity.
Kate Griffiths was elected as an MP in November 2019
Speaking after appeal judges ruled details could be made public, Ms Griffiths said she "welcomed" the decision following a case that had "taken a huge emotional and financial toll" on her family.
She said she waived her right to anonymity "because I recognise the unique position I am in to campaign to improve the outcomes of cases such as this, for those who endure domestic violence, and the actions taken to protect the children involved".
Mr Griffiths - who used to be MP for Burton and the minister for small business, and once worked as former prime minister Theresa May's chief of staff - resigned over allegations he bombarded a 28-year-old barmaid and her friend with lewd comments over social media during a three-week period.
He was cleared of wrongdoing by the parliamentary standards watchdog, which said it found no evidence.
Ms Griffiths stood in his place as the Conservative candidate for the area and was elected in November 2019. She announced at the time she was divorcing her husband.
Judge Williscroft made a number of findings of fact - on the balance of probability - about the way Mr Griffiths had treated Ms Griffiths.
The judge said Ms Griffiths had "proved in her oral evidence to me" that Mr Griffiths "did rape her when sexual intercourse took place".
She said Ms Griffiths's allegations had been "confirmed" by Mr Griffiths's "responses".
Ms Griffiths said rapes had begun while she was asleep.
Andrew Griffiths is pictured arriving at the Royal Courts of Justice in London in July 2021
In the timeline of events relayed in the judgment, dates for the offence are not given.
The judge heard that the couple married in 2013 after forming a relationship about five years earlier, and that Ms Griffiths had learned of sexual indiscretions by Mr Griffiths including a "long affair" and, with someone else, "the sending of sexual texts".
The MP, who gave evidence behind a screen at court hearings so she could not see Mr Griffiths, also gave accounts of "physical abuse". The judge said she found those accounts "proved".
Ms Griffiths had said that during an argument, Mr Griffiths knelt on her and put his hands on her throat, trying to strangle her.
Mr Griffiths said no assault had taken place but Judge Williscroft said she "preferred" Ms Griffiths's account.
The judge also found that Mr Griffiths had pushed Ms Griffiths when she was heavily pregnant.
Mr Griffiths said in a written statement: "I am deeply disappointed that the Court of Appeal has allowed the publication of proceedings in the family court.
"Whilst there remain legal constraints on what I can say, because the entirety of the judgment has not been published, I strongly denied the allegations put to me. However, the family court, which I believed to be private, made findings against me on the balance of probabilities."
He said his aim had been always to protect his child from publicity and he would continue to do what he could to "repair the damage that publication of this case has caused".
If you have been affected by the issues raised in this article, help and support is available via BBC Action Line.
Follow BBC West Midlands on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Send your story ideas to: newsonline.westmidlands@bbc.co.uk
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-59611761
|
news_uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-59611761
|
|
Ghislaine Maxwell trial: Prosecutors rest case after 10 days - BBC News
|
2021-12-10
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Prosecutors say Ms Maxwell ran "a pyramid scheme of abuse" with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
|
US & Canada
|
Prosecutors say Ms Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein were "partners in crime" but she has pleaded not guilty to eight charges
Prosecutors in Ghislaine Maxwell's sex trafficking trial have rested their case following two weeks of testimony.
Annie Farmer, the last of four alleged victims to testify, recounted on Friday the "dark memory" of abuse by Ms Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.
Ms Farmer, now 42, said she had been groped by Ms Maxwell, who is accused of grooming underage girls for Epstein between 1994 and 2004.
Ms Maxwell has pleaded not guilty to eight charges against her.
Over the past two weeks, prosecutors sought to portray her as an accomplice to Epstein, a convicted sex offender, calling them "partners in crime" who had built "a pyramid scheme of abuse".
Epstein was convicted of state sex crimes in Florida in 2008, but died by suicide in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.
Ms Maxwell's defence say she is being scapegoated for crimes committed by Epstein because he is not able to face trial.
Unlike the three women before her who used pseudonyms for their testimony, Ms Farmer took the stand with the words: "I am Annie Farmer."
Previously, she and her sister Maria were among the earliest alleged victims to accuse Epstein and Ms Maxwell of abuse.
The court in New York heard on Friday how she had come to meet the two.
Her sister, a painter, had been working for Epstein, acquiring art on his behalf, when he offered help getting her into college, Ms Farmer said.
Epstein bought her a plane ticket to New York, she said, and later took them to a movie, where he "caressed" her hand and "rubbed" her leg, only stopping when her sister looked over at them. She was 16 years old at the time.
"I felt sick to my stomach," Ms Farmer said. "It wasn't something that I was at all expecting."
A few months later, she met Ms Maxwell for the first time, at Epstein's Zorro Ranch in New Mexico.
She was under the impression it was an event for college-bound students, but when she arrived, there were no other students.
She recalled how Epstein and Ms Maxwell had "appeared intimate", as if they were romantic partners.
She said Ms Maxwell had "instructed" her to massage Epstein, showing her how to do it. "I did what she told me," Ms Farmer testified. "I felt very uncomfortable. I wanted to stop."
Pointing at the defendant in court, Ms Farmer accused Ms Maxwell of forcing her to undress and massaging her exposed breasts. She had had a "sense" that Epstein was watching, Ms Farmer said.
Upon her return home, Ms Farmer said she had told her mother she was not raped but had not wanted to talk about what had happened.
Defence lawyers for Ms Maxwell rejected Ms Farmer's testimony, alleging parts of her story were not backed up by evidence.
Attorney Laura Menninger also questioned whether her testimony had been influenced by money or the comments of other accusers.
Ms Farmer confirmed on Friday that she had received $1.5m (£1.1m) from a victim compensation fund created by the late financier's estate.
She also said she was in a WhatsApp group with other Epstein victims and in email contact with Virginia Giuffre, who has been among the most vocal Epstein accusers.
Prosecutors initially asked for three weeks to make their arguments but have moved through the case more quickly than expected.
Lawyers for Ms Maxwell will tell her side of the story next week.
This trial is moving incredibly fast. The prosecution had anticipated needing around four weeks but then rested their case after 10 days. There's no doubt they've faced setbacks. There were witnesses they were unable to call, including one of the accusers' brothers. And the judge ruled that because two of the four women were at, or over, the age of consent at the time and place in question, those alleged sexual encounters were not illegal.
That's not to say they won't be able to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Epstein's former staff members all consistently placed Ghislaine Maxwell as a key figure in Epstein's life - as the lady of the house and his number two. Several employees also identified seeing one of the underage girls in the case, Jane, and another teenager, Virginia Roberts, with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
Still, the heart of their case is of course the emotional and graphic testimony of the alleged victims, who each faced intense cross-examination. The defence's attacks on them and their memories got testy and heated several times. Ultimately, after Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyers present their case, the only thing that matters is who the jury thinks did a better job.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Financier Jeffrey Epstein is arrested in New Jersey after returning from France on a private jet. Federal charges accuse Epstein of trafficking a “vast network” of underage girls for sex. He kills himself in a New York jail 36 days after his arrest. British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell is arrested in New Hampshire and accused of helping Epstein groom his victims. Charges accuse her of befriending girls as young as 14 and enticing them into having sexual relations with Epstein. One alleged victim told the BBC that she “controlled the girls - she was like Madam”. Prosecutors claim the abuse occurred in locations around the world, including Ms Maxwell’s London home. She pleads not guilty. A judge denies her bail, calling her a flight risk. Two new US federal charges of sex trafficking conspiracy and sex trafficking of a minor are filed against Ms Maxwell, adding to the six she already faced. Prosecutors say a fourth victim has been identified. The victim was allegedly abused in 2001 when she was 14 years old. Ms Maxwell denies these charges. Ms Maxwell appears in court for the first time, pleading not guilty to multiple charges of sex abuse, sex-trafficking and perjury. Her defence lawyers argue that the conditions in her Brooklyn jail are inhumane and argue that she is “being treated horribly”. She is denied bail. Ms Maxwell trial begins in New York, where she has been in jail since her arrest. Earlier in November, a jury candidate pool of over 600 New Yorkers was whittled down to 12 jury members.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59616024
|
news_world-us-canada-59616024
|
|
Taylor Swift to face trial in Shake It Off copyright case - BBC News
|
2021-12-10
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The phrase "haters gonna hate" is at the centre of the case, which had previously been dismissed.
|
Entertainment & Arts
|
Swift is the only female artist to have eight UK number one albums this century
Taylor Swift must face a jury trial over accusations that she copied lyrics for Shake It Off from another song.
A US judge has refused Swift's request to dismiss the case, saying a jury may find that her 2014 hit copied girl group 3LW's 2001 tune Playas Gon' Play.
Both tracks feature variations of the phrases "players gonna play" and "haters gonna hate".
The judge had previously rejected the case, saying the lyrics were too "banal" to be copyrighted.
In his original ruling, District Judge Michael W Fitzgerald cited 13 earlier songs that featured similar phrases, including Playa Hater by The Notorious B.I.G. and Dreams by Fleetwood Mac.
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 BBCRadio1VEVO 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.
"In the early 2000s, popular culture was adequately suffused with the concepts of players and haters to render the phrases 'playas… gonna play' or 'haters… gonna hate', standing on their own, no more creative than 'runners gonna run'; 'drummers gonna drum'; or 'swimmers gonna swim,'" he wrote.
"The concept of actors acting in accordance with their essential nature is not at all creative; it is banal.
"In sum, the lyrics at issue... are too brief, unoriginal, and uncreative to warrant protection under the Copyright Act."
However, songwriters Sean Hall and Nathan Butler appealed against the ruling and a federal appeals court reversed his decision.
That sent the case back to Judge Fitzgerald. Swift asked for a summary judgment - an immediate ruling that she had not infringed copyright - but on Thursday, he refused.
"Even though there are some noticeable differences between the works, there are also significant similarities in word usage and sequence/structure," he wrote.
He added that "the court cannot presently determine that no reasonable juror could find substantial similarity of lyrical phrasing, word arrangement, or poetic structure between the two works".
Swift's experts had made "persuasive arguments," he concluded, but that was not enough to stop the case coming to 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 2 by 3LWVEVO 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.
Playas Gon' Play was a minor hit for 3LW. Hall has subsequently written and produced songs for such artists as Justin Bieber and Maroon 5, while Butler has worked with acts including Backstreet Boys and Luther Vandross.
Swift's Shake It Off is the biggest-selling single of her career, topping the US charts and reaching number two in the UK (where it was held off the top spot by Meghan Trainor's All About That Bass).
Lawyers for Hall and Butler welcomed the decision, saying the court "did the right thing". Swift's team declined to comment when contacted by the BBC.
A date for the trial has yet to be announced.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59606655
|
news_entertainment-arts-59606655
|
|
Desmond Tutu: Queen leads UK tributes to archbishop - BBC News
|
2021-12-26
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Tributes are paid in the UK to Archbishop Desmond Tutu after his death at the age of 90.
|
UK
|
Archbishop Desmond Tutu tirelessly championed human rights, the Queen has said, following the death on Sunday of the Nobel Peace Prize laureate who helped end apartheid in South Africa.
Leading UK tributes to Tutu, who has died in Cape Town aged 90, the Queen remembered "with fondness my meetings with him, his great warmth and humour".
The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby said he had changed the world.
The Queen said: "I am joined by the whole Royal Family in being deeply saddened by the news of the death of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a man who tirelessly championed human rights in South Africa and across the world."
The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall said they were "deeply saddened" to hear his death, saying his bravery in speaking out "against the evil of apartheid and highlighting the threat of climate change" was an inspiration.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex said when they introduced their son Archie to the archbishop in South Africa in 2019, Tutu made a joke about "Arch and The Arch", and his "infectious laughter" rang through the room and relaxed "anyone in his presence".
"He was an icon for racial justice and beloved across the world," they said.
Archbishop Tutu was one of the driving forces behind the movement to end apartheid, the policy that saw racial segregation and discrimination against the black majority in South Africa by the white minority government.
He was credited with coming up with the term Rainbow Nation to describe the ethnic mix of post-apartheid South Africa, but in his latter years he expressed regret that the nation had not come together as he had hoped.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Justin Welby: Tutu just had this extraordinary, bubbly, overwhelming sense of humour
The prime minister added: "He was a critical figure in the fight against apartheid and in the struggle to create a new South Africa - and will be remembered for his spiritual leadership and irrepressible good humour."
Labour Party leader Keir Starmer described Tutu as "a tower of a man and a leader of moral activism" who "dedicated his life to tackling injustice and standing up for the oppressed".
He said: "His impact on the world crosses borders and echoes through generations."
Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said: "His was a life that made the world a better place."
Archbishop Desmond Tutu at Westminster Abbey for a celebration of Nelson Mandela's life in 2014
Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab described Archbishop Tutu as a "truly great figure".
He said he had met him in The Hague, when the archbishop was working for victims of war crimes, and added: "His adage, 'don't raise your voice, improve your argument', has never felt more apt."
Former cabinet minister Lord Hain, who grew up in South Africa and was a leading anti-apartheid campaigner, said Tutu was "somebody on Nelson Mandela's level who inspired millions with his honesty, his vision, his courage and his sincerity".
At the height of the anti-apartheid struggle, Tutu "roused the faithful, inspired people and also had a way of engaging that was soft and yet hard", Lord Hain said, adding that he "spoke truth to power".
Ex-president of the British Anti-Apartheid Movement and former Liberal Party leader, Lord David Steel, said: "Desmond Tutu was a gigantic and effective opponent of apartheid". He said Tutu's "vital role can never be underestimated".
Former prime minister Tony Blair was "saddened" to hear of Tutu's death. He said the archbishop's "spiritual leadership and willingness to take action in pursuit of peaceful change earned him the respect of millions in South Africa and the rest of the world".
Archbishop Desmond Tutu with the Queen on one of his many visits to the UK
Tutu first lived in the UK in the 1960s, where he studied King's College London and received degrees in theology.
He was in the country for five years and then returned in 1972, as vice-director of the Theological Education Fund of the World Council of Churches. Tutu eventually went back to South Africa to become the first African to be appointed Anglican Dean of Johannesburg.
Tutu visited Birmingham in 1989 as part of the city-wide Christian Celebrations and he and his wife saw a number of establishments, including the Nelson Mandela School in Sparkbrook.
When he was there, he criticised what he termed "two-nation" Britain, and said there were too many black people in the country's prisons.
Tutu was given the freedom of Hull in 1999 after giving the annual Wilberforce lecture there, commemorating the life and achievements of anti-slavery campaigner William Wilberforce. And he returned to the UK yet again in 2004 as visiting professor in Post-Conflict Societies at King's College London.
Archbishop Welby said Tutu - "always known as Arch" - was "a prophet and priest, a man of words and action, one who embodied the hope and joy that were the foundations of his life".
He added: "He was a man of extraordinary personal courage and bravery: when the police burst into Capetown Cathedral, he defied them by dancing down the aisle."
Tutu's love "transformed the lives of politicians and priests, township dwellers and world leaders", he added, saying he was a pioneer and "a man of enormous vision".
He also spoke of his "extraordinary, bubbly, overwhelming sense of humour", adding "you laughed the whole time when you met him".
Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell said "the world itself feels a little smaller without him".
He said Tutu had been asked to chair the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Cape Town as "one of the few people in South Africa other than Nelson Mandela himself, who could unite the nation and carry the trust of everyone.
"In this respect, he was a giant," he added.
The archbishop added that when he got to chapel this morning to celebrate Eucharist, he might "dance a little jig in thankful memory of this wonderful human being".
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Former Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu said Tutu was a man of "amazing faith" who was "so rooted in Christ he feared nothing".
He added: "His feet were firmly on the ground but always looking to the horizon of hope."
Terry Waite, the Archbishop of Canterbury's envoy in the 1980s, said that Archbishop Tutu "worked tirelessly for a free and fair South Africa and was never silent when he needed to speak out on behalf of the poor and the oppressed".
"He is a great man and a hero of our times," he added.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59794470
|
news_uk-59794470
|
|
Kim Potter: 'Taser mix-up' ex-officer weeps in manslaughter testimony - BBC News
|
2021-12-18
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Kim Potter testified at her manslaughter trial about the "chaotic" fatal shooting of Daunte Wright.
|
US & Canada
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Officer who shot Daunte Wright breaks down in court: "I'm sorry it happened"
A former Minnesota police officer has tearfully recounted the "chaotic" moment she shot and killed a black motorist in April.
Kim Potter, 49, claims she mistakenly drew her gun instead of her Taser and killed 20-year-old Daunte Wright.
She now faces two manslaughter charges for his death. Her defence team claims he was resisting arrest.
In court, Ms Potter testified that she saw "a look of fear" on the face of a fellow officer during the scuffle.
The shooting on 11 April 2021 caused several days of demonstrations.
It happened as another Minnesota police officer, Derek Chauvin, was standing trial for the murder of George Floyd.
Footage of the incident shown in court last week shows Ms Potter repeatedly yelling "Taser" before firing a single shot from her pistol. She is later seen sitting on the pavement in tears.
Testifying in her own defence for the first time on Friday, Ms Potter said that she was standing near the vehicle as Mr Wright and another officer, Mychal Johnson, struggled during the attempted arrest.
"He [Mr Johnson] had a look of fear on his face. It's something I've never seen before," a visibly upset Ms Potter said. "It just went chaotic."
"I remember yelling 'Taser, Taser, Taser', and nothing happened. Then he told me I shot him," she added, breaking down in tears.
She added that she has largely lost her memory of what happened in the immediate aftermath of the shooting.
Ms Potter resigned from the police force two days after the incident. In court, she said that "she did not want anything bad to happen to the city" following the shooting, which had received widespread attention.
Additionally, Ms Potter said that she had been trained on Tasers since 2002, and had drawn the weapon for "de-escalation" multiple times in her career, but never fired it.
Similarly, she said she had never fired a pistol in her 26-year-long career.
Ms Potter said she was "very distraught" after the shooting.
"I just shot somebody. I've never done that," she said, again crying. "I'm so sorry it happened. I'm sorry."
The defence rested its case on Friday afternoon after two days of testimony in which they called eight witnesses, including Ms Potter.
Closing arguments are scheduled to begin on Monday.
On Thursday, jurors heard from former Brooklyn Center police chief Tim Gannon, who called Ms Potter "a fine officer".
In his testimony, Mr Gannon said that upon reviewing the footage in the aftermath of the incident, he saw "no violation" of "policy, procedure and law".
Ms Potter's attorneys have argued that the use of force - including deadly force - was justified, claiming that Mr Wright endangered the officers in an attempt to flee from the arrest.
In his testimony, Mr Gannon said that his own experiences being dragged by a car during an arrest left him with a feeling of "sheer terror" and "simply trying to survive".
Another defence witness, use-of-force expert and former Springfield, Missouri assistant police chief Stephen Ijames, said he believed that the officers were legally bound to attempt to arrest Mr Wright as a result of an outstanding warrant for a weapons violation.
In his remarks, Mr Ijames added that officers had to operate under the assumption that Mr Wright "very likely could have a gun".
Tensions are high in Minnesota during the trial
He also said that deadly force is warranted in instances in which a police officer is partially inside a car that is attempting to flee. During the incident that led to Mr Wright's death, two officers were attempting to remove him from the vehicle when the shooting took place.
Mr Ijames' testimony stood in stark contrast to use-of-force expert Seth Stoughton, who told the jury that even the use of a Taser would have been "unreasonable" during the incident.
"[A police officer] would not have concluded that there was an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, and thus the use of force was excessive," he said.
Over several days of testimony, prosecutors alleged that Ms Potter should have known the difference between her gun and a Taser. Assistant Minnesota Attorney General Erin Eldridge said the case was about "recklessness and negligence".
Earlier this week, jurors also heard from Mr Wright's father Arbuey, who said Daunte was loved and missed by his family.
Under Minnesota state law, a person can be found guilty of second-degree manslaughter if it is proven that they demonstrated negligence by creating unreasonable risk and "consciously take chances of causing death or great bodily harm" to another person.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59691902
|
news_world-us-canada-59691902
|
|
Sir Rod Stewart pleads guilty to battery over Florida hotel 'punch' - BBC News
|
2021-12-18
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The singer and his son clashed with a Florida hotel guard who refused them entry to a party.
|
US & Canada
|
Sir Rod was accused of striking a security guard in the chest
Sir Rod Stewart and his son have pleaded guilty to battery over an altercation with a security guard at a hotel in Florida in 2019.
The singer and son Sean were accused of assault after they were refused access to a private event on New Year's Eve, according to a police report.
Sean, 41, allegedly shoved the security guard and Sir Rod, 76, struck his chest "with a closed fist", the report said.
The pair have entered guilty pleas to a misdemeanour count of "simple battery".
It means neither will go to court, nor will they go to jail, pay a fine or go on probation, Sir Rod's lawyer Guy Fronstin said.
The judge withheld adjudication - meaning they have not been formally convicted.
Mr Fronstin said: "No-one was injured in the incident and a jury did not find Sir Rod Stewart guilty of the accusation.
"Instead, Sir Rod Stewart decided to enter a plea to avoid the inconvenience and unnecessary burden on the court and the public that a high-profile proceeding would cause."
The altercation with the guard, Jessie Dixon, happened at the luxury Breakers Palm Beach Hotel.
Mr Dixon told officers that he had asked Sean Stewart to back away after the rock star's son got "nose to nose" with him.
According to court documents, Sean Stewart pushed Mr Dixon, before Sir Rod stepped towards the security guard and threw a punch, hitting him in the left ribcage.
Sir Rod told police that after the family were denied access, Mr Dixon became argumentative with them, causing his family to become "agitated", according to the court file.
Sir Rod apologised for his role in the incident, the arresting officer's report said.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59707192
|
news_world-us-canada-59707192
|
|
Boris Johnson: Is 'Planet Boris' finally going to implode? - BBC News
|
2021-12-18
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Day after day, for more than a month, Downing Street has been struggling to keep hold of events.
|
UK Politics
|
"Planet Boris is the strangest place in the world - no rules apply," a cabinet minister told me a few days ago as they marvelled at the strangeness of the current political universe.
Events had been disastrous, they admitted, yet they seemed sure at that moment that the prime minister's ability to defy any normal political gravity would see him through.
But then, on Tuesday night, a video emerged showing aides joking about a Downing Street event last Christmas as Britain was in lockdown. The humiliating leak engulfed No 10 in a fresh crisis that shows no sign of easing.
So this weekend it is worth asking if "Planet Boris" might actually, finally implode?
One senior official summed up the state of play simply: "It's a disaster."
Day after day, for more than a month, Downing Street has been struggling to keep hold of events.
There have been miscalculations and missteps - attempts to change the rules to protect one of their own, Owen Paterson; the disastrous efforts to close down stories about Christmas parties last year, and most recently, a fine for the Conservative Party over the financing of Mr and Mrs Johnson's lavish renovation of the No 10 flat.
The mistakes have been all the worse because they were miscalculations of Downing Street's own making. Almost nothing riles MPs and ministers outside the clique at the top of government more than No 10 making mistakes for which they all have to answer.
Each incident fuelled the opposition's main argument they had been making for months - that Mr Johnson behaves as if he's exempt from following the rules.
Whether it's the Christmas parties or the cash for the flat, the mess has highlighted this prime minister's complicated relationship with the truth, which we've discussed here before.
There has been little sense that No 10 has been able to, you might say, take back control. In fact, as pressure has cranked up in recent days it's been hard sometimes to get any sense of what is going on at all.
[L]ike a theme park of soft decision-making and avoidance
The atmosphere inside is described as deadly silent, horrible, as if the lights are on, but no-one's really home.
Some ministers loyal to Boris Johnson reject the notion that anything is serious or somehow in permanent decline.
It's true that the prime minister's career has been built on proudly dismissing, and dismantling norms. It's also true that he has slipped before, but surged back, time and again. He is the campaigner of his generation, they believe, and can recover.
But it is notable that MPs who were involved in getting Boris Johnson to No 10 say privately, and increasingly colourfully, that he has to sharpen up.
One of them told me that Downing Street has become "like a theme park of soft decision-making and avoidance".
"There's the helter-skelter, there's the lost-in-space ride, there's the final ride which is the 'make a decision and see if you can stick to it by the end of the ride'."
With deep irritation they told me: "They all have to be shut down. We do not need a fairground. Downing Street has to be run like a military camp."
Others talk of drift and decline. "Nothing important's discussed in our meetings," one says.
At the start of meetings the PM verbally encourages them to contribute, but the implicit message is, "Don't speak up." they feel. Ministers sometimes choose to stay silent. One jokes that they message each other instead about how bad things are.
After the last few torrid weeks, the trouble, according to one former cabinet minister is that the different Tory tribes, who sometimes can't stand each other, now find themselves able to agree. The problem for Mr Johnson is that the only thing they agree on is how unhappy they are.
According to this analysis, moderates who might see themselves as "internationalists" are grumpy about foreign policy and the government's cuts to foreign aid. The Brexiteer gang are cross that he's not being tough enough about Northern Ireland.
The "red wall" group, with new seats from 2019, know they owe them in large part to Mr Johnson, but they also see themselves as champions of their areas. And some of them don't feel they have much to show for that just yet. Some Northern Tories are said, increasingly, to believe that the PM is "all mouth, no trousers".
And among the right-wing of the party, there's increasing frustration that the government won't take more radical action - changing human rights law, for example - at the Channel to stop migrants crossing in small boats.
These groups shift around of course, but right now they are said to be "coagulating" - instead of spats between each other they are coming together on one thing, that the recent mess can't be allowed to go on.
Many MPs are hopeful it could end up with a new Downing Street operation. One said there needs to be a "clear-out of the 'born to rule' cabal", suggesting that the recent fiascos were inevitable given who has been around the PM.
None of us should be surprised... when the grown-ups leave, the children have an illegal house party
"Frankly none of us should have been surprised when the grown-ups leave, that the children have an illegal house party," the MP said, adding that the Downing Street party fiasco should be the moment to "clear the sycophants out".
There isn't much sign yet that Mr Johnson is planning a big shake up of his team though. Allegra Stratton, who resigned on Wednesday as a senior government spokeswoman, carried the can for this week's humiliating leaked video footage.
And there's chatter that the prime minister has made a strategic decision to hold on to director of communications Jack Doyle for now, while lining him up to take the fall when the inquiry emerges.
Two sources have told the BBC Mr Doyle's resignation was offered but refused, although No 10 has denied this happened.
But as so often, while the Westminster rumour mill loves almost nothing more than speculating about who is in and who is out, the fairly desperate state of affairs is in the end, always, about the boss. Tone and culture is set by the person at the top, whoever else is up or down.
That's why what's next is, first and foremost, down to the decisions Mr Johnson makes himself. Does he acknowledge there have been problems? Will he resolve to lead in a different way? Will he "[look] in the mirror", as his friend and former minister Robert Buckland urged him publicly to do, and say "surely I can do this better"?
If not, well, Mr Johnson still has his huge majority. He still has enormous powers as the leader of the government, and as the political campaigner and celebrity.
Yet this week it feels sentiment has moved in the Tory party, with more and more of his own side imagining what life might be like under a different leader.
Carrie Johnson gave birth to the couple's second child this week, a daughter
Is the moment nearly upon them when he becomes less a flawed, but fundamentally sparkling, asset, than a liability?
A former minister who has analysed the party tribes even suggests "stage one" of a leadership change is complete: when the party agrees among itself privately that the PM is running out of road.
"Stage two", however, is the who next, how and when, and "that can take a very long time".
Right now, it seems far-fetched to imagine any kind of challenge soon. Don't doubt, however, that allies of potential candidates for next time round, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, are thinking hard about what's next.
There are even whispers that some MPs have been urging former cabinet minister Jeremy Hunt to put himself forward soon as a kind of safety, continuity candidate in the new year, even though right now, I'm told, "He doesn't want to play."
Of course, anyone that's mentioned in connection with the leadership would publicly deny any ambition, or any plotting. Breathless conversations about replacing leaders are rarely far from the topic of conversation in Westminster.
A former minister admits they have been approached about exactly that twice in a matter of days, but cautions that to act any time soon would be "collective political suicide". With the pandemic still raging, the economy pretty fragile, and only two years on from the last election, would the public really want to indulge the Tory party tearing itself apart in public, yet again?
But the volume of discussions about replacements for the prime minister is increasing. Many MPs believe it's down to him to get a grip if that's to fade.
Mr Johnson faces two tests next week, that could deepen the sense of an impending Christmas crisis, or dial down the drama. There's a potentially huge rebellion in the Commons on Tuesday about the Covid regulations. Dozens of his backbenchers have already gone on the record to say they will vote against the plans.
With Labour support, the vote will pass, but a huge Tory vote against would display a real two fingers up to No 10. The whips and Mr Johnson, equally, have a huge opportunity to try to quell the anger in the next few days.
And there's the possibility of a different kind of rebellion next Thursday, when the by-election takes place to replace Owen Paterson as MP for North Shropshire. Many Conservatives fear doom on the ground there. A terrible result in what should be a safe seat would heighten the danger for the PM.
As we head into the last week of Parliament in 2021, there is plenty of peril. The prime minister faces risks all around.
It's madness to write him off - his biography is a living warning against that. Yet, a backer of the prime minister told me that while the situation doesn't have to be terminal, it has - they said with no pleasure - to change.
"If it doesn't, we all know where it leads. It leads to the front door."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59615564
|
news_uk-politics-59615564
|
|
Ghislaine Maxwell defence rests as she calls case 'unproven' - BBC News
|
2021-12-18
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The defence struggled to produce witnesses on Friday and only nine out of a proposed 35 testified.
|
US & Canada
|
Ghislaine Maxwell has rested her sex-trafficking case after calling the prosecution's arguments against her "unproven" and declining to testify.
Her decision comes after her lawyers called nine witnesses over two days.
Ms Maxwell, 59, denies grooming underage girls for abuse by the late paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
Closing arguments begin on Monday. The Briton faces up to 80 years in prison if convicted on charges of sex trafficking and perjury.
"The government has not proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt and so there is no need for me to testify," Ms Maxwell, who has been in a US jail cell since her arrest last year, told the judge in court on Friday.
Prosecutors have called Ms Maxwell a predator who manipulated young girls and served them up to Epstein, her former boyfriend and business associate. Over two weeks of testimony, they called 24 witnesses, including four accusers.
But her lawyers argued that accusers' testimony was impacted by "[lapses in] memory, manipulation and money". They also alleged the government needed a scapegoat for Epstein's crimes.
Epstein died in a jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. His death was ruled a suicide.
A spokesperson for the Maxwell family had previously said she would not take the stand because she was "too fragile" after being poorly treated in detention.
Ms Maxwell's defence team meanwhile complained on Friday that they needed more time to gather their witnesses.
"We are flying people across the country, across the pond, our client's life is on the line, and we are given only a half a day to put on a witness," said attorney Laura Menninger.
Judge Alison Nathan rebuked the lawyers for not having their witnesses ready and refused to delay the trial.
"I have a rule, you have your next witness or you rest," she said.
A former girlfriend of Epstein - Eva Andersson-Dubin - also testified for the defence on Friday.
A former physician and Miss Sweden winner, she said she had dated Epstein on and off from 1983 to 1991 and that her children called him "Uncle Jeff".
She denied involvement in group sexual encounters with a Maxwell accuser who testified last week.
Eva Andersson-Dubin said she had dated Jeffrey Epstein from 1983 to 1991
But when pressed by prosecutors about the extent of her memory, she said: "I can't remember the past... sometimes I can't remember what happened a month ago." She said it was because of a health issue.
Mrs Andersson-Dubin married billionaire hedge fund manager Glenn Dubin in 1994 and the couple was close to both Epstein and Ms Maxwell.
The four were discussed in 2016 depositions by Virginia Giuffre, the most vocal Epstein accuser, and Rinaldo Rizzo, a former butler to the Dubins.
Mrs Giuffre has claimed the Dubins were her first sexual encounter "after my training" by Ms Maxwell, while Mr Rizzo said he recalled that a 15-year-old girl came into his kitchen and said she had been pressured into sex on Epstein's private island.
The couple have vigorously denied these allegations, saying they "were horrified by and completely unaware of Jeffrey Epstein's unspeakable conduct".
Mrs Andersson-Dubin previously defended Epstein in his 2008 state sex crimes case in Florida, writing in a testimonial that she "could not ask for a better friend or godfather to my children".
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59703611
|
news_world-us-canada-59703611
|
|
Troubles legal aid claims from government 'utterly wrong' - BBC News
|
2021-12-05
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
A lawyer says a "very minimal" amount of legal aid was spent on civil cases related to the Troubles.
|
Northern Ireland
|
The government said in July that it would legislate to ban Troubles-related prosecutions and civil cases
The government has been accused of misinformation on legal aid as it considers legislating to end Troubles-era prosecutions and civil cases.
A government paper on the proposals states a "significant proportion" of £500m of legal aid spending since 2011 was on civil actions against the Ministry of Defence and others.
A leading Belfast lawyer said he had written to the government to object.
Kevin Winters said the figures were wrong.
The UK government reiterated that a "significant proportion" of legal aid spending was on civil claims.
It said there were currently 1,000 civil claims against the Ministry of Defence, Northern Ireland Office and other state agencies.
Kevin Winters said he had written to the government about the claims
Mr Winters told BBC News NI's Sunday Politics programme: "Those statistics are completely and utterly wrong and we have already taken issue with that with the authorities.
"Those are figures in relation to legal aid generally.
"The actual legal aid spend on amnesty issues, on legacy proposals, is very, very minimal, exceedingly small, and we have already dealt with that point in open correspondence."
Mr Winters also said government claims that most civil actions in relation to the Troubles were funded by legal aid were "completely and utterly wrong" and described them as a "cheap argument".
"At least half the clients we represent are not legally-aided and have had to deal with these cases with no form of funding whatsoever," he added.
Mark Thompson from Relatives for Justice said there were more than 900 civil cases in the courts
Mark Thompson from Relatives for Justice also disputes the figure.
He said there were more than 900 civil cases in the courts and many of the families involved do not get legal aid.
"The vast majority of people are working so they do not qualify for legal aid," he said.
"We are working with a family of a 15-year-old girl who was shot by a British soldier in west Belfast who have had to self-fund to get forensic and specialist reports done to seek the truth about what happened to their daughter and sister.
"They are relying on lawyers doing pro-bono work, NGOs (non-governmental organisations), the goodwill of technical support people and specialist skilled people."
A UK government spokesperson: "As the legacy command paper sets out, £500m has been spent since 2011 on legal aid in Northern Ireland, with a significant proportion spent on civil claims.
"There are currently more than 1,000 civil claims against the Ministry of Defence, Northern Ireland Office and other state agencies.
"A significant number of these cases are yet to progress beyond the initial stage of a court order being issued.
"It is clear the current system for addressing the past is not working well for anybody, particularly victims and survivors and that is why we have proposed a new way forward that will deliver better outcomes for all those impacted by the Troubles."
In July the government said it wanted to legislate to end Troubles-era investigations, prosecutions, inquests and civil actions.
That has been rejected by all Northern Ireland parties and victims' groups.
Under the UK government's plan, a statute of limitations would cover crimes committed during the Troubles up to April 1998 and would apply to military veterans as well as ex-paramilitaries.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said the idea would allow Northern Ireland to "draw a line under the Troubles".
The main Stormont parties and UK and Irish governments discussed Troubles legacy issues last Tuesday.
After the meeting Sinn Féin said it had given its "clearest signal yet" that it would introduce legislation on the topic.
Sinn Féin assembly member Declan Kearney said the plan was "the antithesis of reconciliation".
Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson said victims of the Troubles should be put at the "front and centre" of any process for dealing with the past.
He pointed out that that the government's plan was "overwhelmingly opposed" by victims.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-59537741
|
news_uk-northern-ireland-59537741
|
|
Bob Dole: From WW2 casualty to top Republican - BBC News
|
2021-12-05
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Long-serving senator, who recovered from terrible injuries to run for president, dies at 98
|
US & Canada
|
Bob Dole, a World War Two veteran who went on to be a long-time Republican senator and US presidential candidate, has died aged 98.
His death was announced in a statement from the Elizabeth Dole Foundation: "It is with heavy hearts we announce that Senator Robert Joseph Dole died early this morning in his sleep. At his death, at age 98, he had served the United States of America faithfully for 79 years."
Earlier this year Dole had said that he was receiving treatment for lung cancer.
His political career was marked by a decade-long stint as the top Republican in the US Senate, and running unsuccessfully for the White House against Bill Clinton in 1996.
But decades before his bid for the presidency, on 14 April 1945, Bob Dole was lying on a World War Two battlefield in northern Italy, left for dead.
Despite his lack of combat experience, the young 10th Mountain Division lieutenant had been ordered to lead an attack on a German machine-gun post.
Three-quarters of his squad lay strewn on the battlefield. When he ran to help a fallen soldier, gunfire and enemy shells shattered Dole's right arm and upper back.
He fell unconscious, and an army sergeant rolled him to safety. He gave him a huge dose of morphine and painted an "M" on his forehead - in Dole's own blood - to stop passing medics giving a second, lethal hit.
"I gave him a shot because he's gone," the man told his commanding officer. "At least he'll have some comfort."
That Dole survived was a miracle. That he went on to rebuild his broken body - and become one of the Republican Party's longest-serving senators and a presidential candidate - was a tribute to his determination. Many believed the survival and determination were linked.
Dole receives the Congressional Gold Medal from President Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan in 2018
Robert Joseph Dole was born on 22 July 1923 and grew up in the Dust Bowl of Kansas during the Great Depression. It was a provincial childhood, 200 miles (320km) from the nearest midsized city. As a youth, Bobby only left Kansas once, on a fishing trip to the mountains of nearby Colorado.
His salesmen parents struggled financially - their four children sharing a single room - but preached the values of hard work and religious devotion.
They "taught me to put my trust in God, not government," he later said, "and never confuse the two."
There were no books at home. "Be a doer, not a stewer," was the family motto - with Dole encouraged to play outside at every opportunity.
While his friends studied for college, Bob shot hoops and worked serving ice cream at a local drugstore.
At the University of Kansas, he studied medicine but did not treat college as a place to expand the mind. Intellectually lazy, he partied and became a star athlete, competing at basketball and football as well as on the track.
Then came the war, Dole's enlistment in the army - and the day that changed his life.
He lay near death for nine hours on that Italian battleground, with injuries including a fractured shoulder, a broken neck and spine, paralysis, a ruined kidney and bits of shrapnel. The hidden iron in his soul had, fortunately, been left intact.
For his service, he was awarded two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star but the hardest battle was yet to come. More than three years were spent in recovery, stuck in a sterile hospital room in Michigan fighting off boredom, blood clots and infections that nearly claimed his life.
Bob Dole spent 39 months recovering from his injuries in hospital after the war
Facing amputation of his arm, he was fortunate to encounter a maverick surgeon who performed multiple operations, free of charge. Dole credited him with an impact on his life second only to his family.
Demoralised and robbed of his ability to lead the outdoor life he loved, Dole began to read. Unable to hold the books, he used a projector to beam the pages onto the ceiling above the bed.
He devoured the works of Plato, George Washington and, his favourite, Abraham Lincoln. "It was a way to maintain sanity, I guess," he said.
He met an occupational therapist, Phyllis Holden, and took her to an officers' club dance. Three months later they married - despite the objections of her parents who believed Dole was in no fit state to care for her. She shook him out of his "funk".
Returning home, they rigged up a rope-and-pulley system to build up his strength. He kept it there for more than half a century, to remind him how far he had come.
Dole using his rope-and-pulley system at his house to help him get stronger
He never regained use of his arm and right hand, spending the rest of his life limply holding a pen to discourage innocent offers of a handshake. What he lacked physically, however, he now made up with drive.
Unable to write notes, he recorded law school lectures and stayed up all night transcribing them left-handed. He could only write brief notes in his final exams, but they were sharp enough to pass.
Encouraged to enter politics, Dole took advice. He was a moderate but saw sense in the argument that "if you want to do something politically in Kansas, you'd better declare yourself a Republican".
In 1950, he was elected to the state legislature with the help of a campaign featuring a female singing group, Dolls for Dole.
A decade later, he made it to Washington as a member of the House of Representatives for a rural area of Kansas that had only just permitted alcohol and saw a 'commie' under every rock.
Politics began to consume him, and he built a reputation as the conservative his district expected. The family made the long drive home each summer in a car crammed with pets and luggage. One year their dog died from the heat.
With Richard Nixon in the Oval Office. Years later, Dole held back tears while giving the eulogy at his funeral
In 1968 - the same year Richard Nixon became president - Dole reached the Senate. But his dedication to politics took a toll on his marriage and at the end of his first term, he divorced.
His decision to leave Phyllis shocked her. But, in the course of their last year together, Dole had eaten just two meals with his wife and daughter. It is a measure of the degree to which politics now obsessed him that he consulted Nixon about potential damage to the Republican Party before informing her.
By 1972, he was Republican national chairman and with a new partner, Elizabeth Hanford, who shared his enthusiasm for politics. They married three years later.
Bob Dole married his second wife, Elizabeth Hanford, in 1975
Elizabeth Dole would later become Ronald Reagan's secretary of transportation and eventually won a seat in the Senate herself.
With a reputation for blunt speaking, Dole became incumbent Gerald Ford's vice-presidential running mate in 1976, but they lost. During the campaign Dole blundered in the debate against his opposite number, Walter Mondale, describing America's 20th Century conflicts as "Democrat wars". It was a phrase that would come back to haunt him.
Public speaking was his weakness as a politician: he was naturally taciturn, couldn't physically write speeches and was loath to rehearse or read words others had written.
He was a natural in the House and Senate; at the backend of politics he could do deals, make trade-offs and build consensus. Out front - in the bear-pit of a national election - he lacked the magic ingredient required for success.
Jimmy Carter, Reagan and later Bill Clinton had the common touch and easy delivery that Dole could never muster. On the stump, they were fluent but he was staccato, with speeches riddled with random clichés.
Nor did he have the thing Americans call "vision". His personal story was the stuff of presidents but when asked what he wanted for the country, he struggled - responding with vague fatuities and empty slogans.
In 1988, when George HW Bush beat him in the New Hampshire primary, he boiled over on television and demanded his opponent "stop lying about my record".
He was irritated at Bush's campaign ads and constant posing for the cameras, with photocalls driving trucks and shovelling snow. Dole knew he physically couldn't do the same and the frustration made him snap.
He nursed his grievances in the Senate. With his eye still on a national campaign, politically he tacked to the centre ground. With fellow Republican John McCain, he reached across the aisle in a series of bipartisan initiatives, in particular on disability rights.
His colleagues in the Senate remembered his ability to listen in meetings (he still couldn't take notes) and his air of inscrutability. McCain knew him for a decade before he discovered Dole had worn a memory bracelet with McCain's name on it throughout his captivity in Vietnam.
In 1996, the 73-year-old finally got to run for president. He went up against Bill Clinton, a formidable force with the advantage of incumbency and a booming economy. As a campaigner, Dole had met his match.
Dole takes on Bill Clinton during the 1996 presidential campaign
In his speech accepting the nomination, he left an open goal. "Let me be the bridge to an America that only the unknowing call myth." he said. "Let me be the bridge to a time of tranquillity, faith and confidence in action."
Clinton's response was cutting: the country needed a bridge to the future and not the past.
Dole failed to find the national cheerleader within him, couldn't stand spin doctors and was cursed with the smile of an undertaker.
"A Dark Man for Dark Times," said one Democrat bumper sticker. The oldest first-time presidential candidate in history lost gracefully and by a landslide.
Retiring from public office, Dole remained active - becoming a regular on Sunday political talk shows and an influential elder statesman of American politics.
He picked up his career in the law, appeared in TV commercials for Dunkin' Donuts and Viagra, and wrote a book on jokes told by US presidents, ranking them by their sense of humour.
His endorsement in presidential campaigns remained valuable. He backed moderate Republicans like Marco Rubio and Mitt Romney - with less enthusiasm for his party's emerging right.
In 2019, Congress unanimously voted his promotion from captain to colonel for his service during World War Two. He accepted the honour gracefully, although he quipped that, "I was happy being a captain and it pays the same."
Two years later - when Dole had been diagnosed with advanced lung cancer - newly elected President Joe Biden was one of the first to visit the veteran Republican at home. It was a mark of the respect in which Bob Dole was held on both sides of the political divide.
Dole, at the age of 92, greets supporters at the WWII Memorial on Veterans Day in 2015
In 2005, Dole wrote his life story. He recalled that moment on the battlefield in Italy, just three weeks before the German surrender.
He told how he thought he'd end up on a street corner "selling pencils"; about how meeting injured troops in Iraq brought back memories; and of the debt America owes to its fighting men.
He will be remembered as one of his country's most distinguished public servants - a man who displayed tremendous courage in battle and fortitude in recovery.
At his great friend Richard Nixon's funeral, Dole described him in words many would apply to the speaker himself: "Brave, unafraid of controversy and living every day of his life to the hilt."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45667690
|
news_world-us-canada-45667690
|
|
Covid: Mark Drakeford reflects on 'challenging year' - BBC News
|
2021-12-27
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Mark Drakeford says 2021 was a “difficult” 12 months, but is hopeful for 2022.
|
Wales
|
First Minister Mark Drakeford reflected on a "difficult and challenging year on the whole"
The First Minister has said he is looking to ahead 2022 with "trepidation" as well as "optimism".
Mark Drakeford warned the early part of the new year will be "difficult" because of the Omicron variant.
However, he added he had "genuine optimism" about the government's ability later in the year to "make those differences that improve lives."
The comments came as he reflected on a "difficult and challenging year on the whole".
"Coronavirus has always been there in the background and that creates an unsettling context for everybody.
"But it's not all been bad news," he added, referencing the "rebounding" economy and recalling the way people "appreciated being able to go about the daily lives" when restrictions were eased over the summer.
It was also a year in which Mr Drakeford's Welsh Labour extended their hold on power , the party winning half the seats in Cardiff Bay at May's Senedd election.
The Welsh Conservatives came second and Plaid Cymru came third, with former leader Leanne Wood losing Rhondda.
Jane Dodds is the only Liberal Democrat in the Welsh Parliament
And as voters rejected the argument for abolishing the Senedd, the Liberal Democrats retained their one seat - former MP Jane Dodds' victory ensuring the party would still have a presence in the Bay following former education minister Kirsty Williams' decision to stand down.
"It felt a bit like I was Billy-no-mates," Ms Dodds said as she recalled starting work at the Senedd.
"But I must say people have been very helpful, have been very welcoming and I now think that after six months I'm finally understanding what I need to do."
And how does the Bay compare to Westminster?
"When I was elected as a Member of Parliament it was a difficult time, it was the Brexit period, and I found that people were very tribal and it was very difficult in the House of Commons.
"Here there's much more commitment to cross-party working to make sure we achieve things for people in Wales."
Paul Davies has represented Preseli Pembrokeshire in the Senedd since 2007
At the start of the year, the political headlines belonged to the Welsh Conservatives.
Paul Davies stepped down as the Tory Senedd group leader after it emerged he was one of four MSs who had drunk alcohol on the parliamentary estate last December, in breach of the Covid rules at the time.
And so, Andrew RT Davies returned to the helm less than three years since he stepped down from the role.
It's been a "rollercoaster year", according to Conservative MS Sam Kurtz, who was first elected in May.
"I never thought as a farmer's son from west Wales that I'd be sat here at the heart of Welsh democracy, in the law-making centre of Wales, and I still sit in the chamber and look around in disbelief that I'm here.
"As a party there's been slight turbulence these last 12 months.
"I think we've come out the other end quite strong... the energy that some of us new members has brought in has boosted those returning members, so I think we're in a good place here in Wales."
As a result of Conservative MS Gareth Davies failing to log in on time, the Covid pass policy scraped through
In October it was another of the new Tory MSs who was the centre of attention.
Gareth Davies failed to logon in time to vote remotely on introducing Covid passes.
As a result, despite the opposition parties all opposing the move, the policy scraped through.
It was an extraordinary, narrow win for the government and further proof, if it was needed, of the difficulties Mark Drakeford could face without a majority in the Siambr.
By then talks were already underway with Plaid Cymru over a possible deal in the Senedd.
Mark Drakeford (left) had been in talks with Plaid Cymru's Adam Price over the deal
At the end of November confirmation came that a cooperation agreement had been struck, which would see Plaid and Labour work together on dozens of policy areas over the next three years.
Looking to the future, Plaid Cymru MS Sioned Williams said the deal will allow Plaid to "realise some of our ambitions for Wales" after a "disappointing" election result for her party.
"To see in the agreement free school meals for all primary school children gives me a lot of hope.
"I've seen as a new member how slowly the Senedd can work at times so I realise that three year timetable is quite challenging, but I think there is a determination - certainly on the part of Plaid Cymru - to make sure that it gets delivered."
However heading into the new year the priority will be Covid, as the pandemic continues to cast a shadow over Cardiff Bay and beyond.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-59782594
|
news_uk-wales-59782594
|
|
Energy firms face stricter tests after collapses - BBC News
|
2021-12-27
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Bosses of firms will also face vetting after criticism of the regulator about competition in the market.
|
Business
|
Energy companies will face more robust financial checks from January after a host of companies failed owing to a wholesale price surge, the regulator Ofgem has announced.
Bosses of firms will also undergo more stringent vetting.
More than 20, mostly small, suppliers have collapsed following a spike in wholesale gas prices.
Nearly four million other households have seen their supplier fail since the start of the pandemic.
The regulator also said it was consulting on the future set up of the energy price cap, designed to protect customers who have not switched. It has been highlighted as part of the problem by some failed companies.
"I am setting out clear action so that we have robust stress testing for suppliers so they can't pass inappropriate risk to consumers," said Ofgem chief executive Jonathan Brearley.
"Our priority has been, and will always be, to act in the best interests of energy consumers. The months ahead will be difficult for many, and we are working with the government and energy companies to mitigate the impact as much as we can, particularly for the most vulnerable households."
A significant rise in bills for 15 million people is inevitable in April, but Ofgem is also consulting on possible changes to the way tariffs are offered in the longer-term.
Options include customers being tied in to a standard tariff for six months, like a fixed term mortgage. If they left early for a cheaper deal, they would be charged an exit fee, unlike now.
The argument is that suppliers and remaining customers would not be left picking up the cost of their departure, although exit fees would be controversial.
Other suggestions include forcing companies to offer the same price to existing customers as they do to new customers. A similar rule is being introduced for home and motor insurance in January.
There might also be a charge paid by a supplier each time it takes on a new customer.
The price cap may also be reviewed every three months, rather than the current six, or an interim price cap introduced if market conditions changed dramatically.
When a host of energy companies collapsed, Ofgem was heavily criticised for having been asleep at the wheel, and unprepared for such a crisis.
Citizens Advice, the official advocate for energy customers, recently published what it described as Ofgem's "catalogue of errors" in recent years, that was now ultimately leaving customers having to pick up a multi-million pound bill.
That included an accusation that poor practice was rife, with many companies showing clear evidence of financial unsustainability, "including firms run out of the owners' living rooms and kitchens".
These latest announcement by Ofgem will address some of those concerns. They include:
The regulator is also consulting on whether to block firms from taking on new customers once they hit certain milestones - such as 50,000 and 200,000 accounts - until it is happy with their balance sheet strength.
"What we want to say to suppliers is either get some insurance, buy your energy ahead or have enough money in the bank to weather a storm like this," Mr Brearley told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
Customers of collapsed firms now have to pay more for their energy, because their original tariff was not protected. Those on the price cap also saw prices rises in October.
This has been a major factor in the rising cost of living, with inflation now rising at its fastest rate for a decade.
Mr Brearley said that customers should brace themselves for a further significant rise in gas prices in April, when a new price cap is introduced.
"Where you have legitimate price increases and the increase in gas is legitimate then those costs need to be passed onto customers. I know that's really hard, but we do expect a significant rise in April," he said.
He added that it was too early to give a figure and refuted that Ofgem had failed to take control of the market.
"Our job as a regulator is to make sure people pay a fair price for energy but no more than that," he said.
Ofgem said the cap had saved consumers an estimated £1bn a year since its introduction.
However it said the current methodology, while protecting consumers from price spikes, exposed suppliers to risks that are harder to manage at times of high energy price volatility.
"There is a risk that, if not tackled, this could lead to higher costs for consumers," the regulator said.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59664188
|
news_business-59664188
|
|
Desmond Tutu: Queen leads UK tributes to archbishop - BBC News
|
2021-12-27
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Tributes are paid in the UK to Archbishop Desmond Tutu after his death at the age of 90.
|
UK
|
Archbishop Desmond Tutu tirelessly championed human rights, the Queen has said, following the death on Sunday of the Nobel Peace Prize laureate who helped end apartheid in South Africa.
Leading UK tributes to Tutu, who has died in Cape Town aged 90, the Queen remembered "with fondness my meetings with him, his great warmth and humour".
The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby said he had changed the world.
The Queen said: "I am joined by the whole Royal Family in being deeply saddened by the news of the death of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a man who tirelessly championed human rights in South Africa and across the world."
The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall said they were "deeply saddened" to hear his death, saying his bravery in speaking out "against the evil of apartheid and highlighting the threat of climate change" was an inspiration.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex said when they introduced their son Archie to the archbishop in South Africa in 2019, Tutu made a joke about "Arch and The Arch", and his "infectious laughter" rang through the room and relaxed "anyone in his presence".
"He was an icon for racial justice and beloved across the world," they said.
Archbishop Tutu was one of the driving forces behind the movement to end apartheid, the policy that saw racial segregation and discrimination against the black majority in South Africa by the white minority government.
He was credited with coming up with the term Rainbow Nation to describe the ethnic mix of post-apartheid South Africa, but in his latter years he expressed regret that the nation had not come together as he had hoped.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Justin Welby: Tutu just had this extraordinary, bubbly, overwhelming sense of humour
The prime minister added: "He was a critical figure in the fight against apartheid and in the struggle to create a new South Africa - and will be remembered for his spiritual leadership and irrepressible good humour."
Labour Party leader Keir Starmer described Tutu as "a tower of a man and a leader of moral activism" who "dedicated his life to tackling injustice and standing up for the oppressed".
He said: "His impact on the world crosses borders and echoes through generations."
Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said: "His was a life that made the world a better place."
Archbishop Desmond Tutu at Westminster Abbey for a celebration of Nelson Mandela's life in 2014
Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab described Archbishop Tutu as a "truly great figure".
He said he had met him in The Hague, when the archbishop was working for victims of war crimes, and added: "His adage, 'don't raise your voice, improve your argument', has never felt more apt."
Former cabinet minister Lord Hain, who grew up in South Africa and was a leading anti-apartheid campaigner, said Tutu was "somebody on Nelson Mandela's level who inspired millions with his honesty, his vision, his courage and his sincerity".
At the height of the anti-apartheid struggle, Tutu "roused the faithful, inspired people and also had a way of engaging that was soft and yet hard", Lord Hain said, adding that he "spoke truth to power".
Ex-president of the British Anti-Apartheid Movement and former Liberal Party leader, Lord David Steel, said: "Desmond Tutu was a gigantic and effective opponent of apartheid". He said Tutu's "vital role can never be underestimated".
Former prime minister Tony Blair was "saddened" to hear of Tutu's death. He said the archbishop's "spiritual leadership and willingness to take action in pursuit of peaceful change earned him the respect of millions in South Africa and the rest of the world".
Archbishop Desmond Tutu with the Queen on one of his many visits to the UK
Tutu first lived in the UK in the 1960s, where he studied King's College London and received degrees in theology.
He was in the country for five years and then returned in 1972, as vice-director of the Theological Education Fund of the World Council of Churches. Tutu eventually went back to South Africa to become the first African to be appointed Anglican Dean of Johannesburg.
Tutu visited Birmingham in 1989 as part of the city-wide Christian Celebrations and he and his wife saw a number of establishments, including the Nelson Mandela School in Sparkbrook.
When he was there, he criticised what he termed "two-nation" Britain, and said there were too many black people in the country's prisons.
Tutu was given the freedom of Hull in 1999 after giving the annual Wilberforce lecture there, commemorating the life and achievements of anti-slavery campaigner William Wilberforce. And he returned to the UK yet again in 2004 as visiting professor in Post-Conflict Societies at King's College London.
Archbishop Welby said Tutu - "always known as Arch" - was "a prophet and priest, a man of words and action, one who embodied the hope and joy that were the foundations of his life".
He added: "He was a man of extraordinary personal courage and bravery: when the police burst into Capetown Cathedral, he defied them by dancing down the aisle."
Tutu's love "transformed the lives of politicians and priests, township dwellers and world leaders", he added, saying he was a pioneer and "a man of enormous vision".
He also spoke of his "extraordinary, bubbly, overwhelming sense of humour", adding "you laughed the whole time when you met him".
Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell said "the world itself feels a little smaller without him".
He said Tutu had been asked to chair the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Cape Town as "one of the few people in South Africa other than Nelson Mandela himself, who could unite the nation and carry the trust of everyone.
"In this respect, he was a giant," he added.
The archbishop added that when he got to chapel this morning to celebrate Eucharist, he might "dance a little jig in thankful memory of this wonderful human being".
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Former Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu said Tutu was a man of "amazing faith" who was "so rooted in Christ he feared nothing".
He added: "His feet were firmly on the ground but always looking to the horizon of hope."
Terry Waite, the Archbishop of Canterbury's envoy in the 1980s, said that Archbishop Tutu "worked tirelessly for a free and fair South Africa and was never silent when he needed to speak out on behalf of the poor and the oppressed".
"He is a great man and a hero of our times," he added.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59794470
|
news_uk-59794470
|
|
Ghislaine Maxwell trial: Prosecutors rest case after 10 days - BBC News
|
2021-12-11
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Prosecutors say Ms Maxwell ran "a pyramid scheme of abuse" with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
|
US & Canada
|
Prosecutors say Ms Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein were "partners in crime" but she has pleaded not guilty to eight charges
Prosecutors in Ghislaine Maxwell's sex trafficking trial have rested their case following two weeks of testimony.
Annie Farmer, the last of four alleged victims to testify, recounted on Friday the "dark memory" of abuse by Ms Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.
Ms Farmer, now 42, said she had been groped by Ms Maxwell, who is accused of grooming underage girls for Epstein between 1994 and 2004.
Ms Maxwell has pleaded not guilty to eight charges against her.
Over the past two weeks, prosecutors sought to portray her as an accomplice to Epstein, a convicted sex offender, calling them "partners in crime" who had built "a pyramid scheme of abuse".
Epstein was convicted of state sex crimes in Florida in 2008, but died by suicide in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.
Ms Maxwell's defence say she is being scapegoated for crimes committed by Epstein because he is not able to face trial.
Unlike the three women before her who used pseudonyms for their testimony, Ms Farmer took the stand with the words: "I am Annie Farmer."
Previously, she and her sister Maria were among the earliest alleged victims to accuse Epstein and Ms Maxwell of abuse.
The court in New York heard on Friday how she had come to meet the two.
Her sister, a painter, had been working for Epstein, acquiring art on his behalf, when he offered help getting her into college, Ms Farmer said.
Epstein bought her a plane ticket to New York, she said, and later took them to a movie, where he "caressed" her hand and "rubbed" her leg, only stopping when her sister looked over at them. She was 16 years old at the time.
"I felt sick to my stomach," Ms Farmer said. "It wasn't something that I was at all expecting."
A few months later, she met Ms Maxwell for the first time, at Epstein's Zorro Ranch in New Mexico.
She was under the impression it was an event for college-bound students, but when she arrived, there were no other students.
She recalled how Epstein and Ms Maxwell had "appeared intimate", as if they were romantic partners.
She said Ms Maxwell had "instructed" her to massage Epstein, showing her how to do it. "I did what she told me," Ms Farmer testified. "I felt very uncomfortable. I wanted to stop."
Pointing at the defendant in court, Ms Farmer accused Ms Maxwell of forcing her to undress and massaging her exposed breasts. She had had a "sense" that Epstein was watching, Ms Farmer said.
Upon her return home, Ms Farmer said she had told her mother she was not raped but had not wanted to talk about what had happened.
Defence lawyers for Ms Maxwell rejected Ms Farmer's testimony, alleging parts of her story were not backed up by evidence.
Attorney Laura Menninger also questioned whether her testimony had been influenced by money or the comments of other accusers.
Ms Farmer confirmed on Friday that she had received $1.5m (£1.1m) from a victim compensation fund created by the late financier's estate.
She also said she was in a WhatsApp group with other Epstein victims and in email contact with Virginia Giuffre, who has been among the most vocal Epstein accusers.
Prosecutors initially asked for three weeks to make their arguments but have moved through the case more quickly than expected.
Lawyers for Ms Maxwell will tell her side of the story next week.
This trial is moving incredibly fast. The prosecution had anticipated needing around four weeks but then rested their case after 10 days. There's no doubt they've faced setbacks. There were witnesses they were unable to call, including one of the accusers' brothers. And the judge ruled that because two of the four women were at, or over, the age of consent at the time and place in question, those alleged sexual encounters were not illegal.
That's not to say they won't be able to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Epstein's former staff members all consistently placed Ghislaine Maxwell as a key figure in Epstein's life - as the lady of the house and his number two. Several employees also identified seeing one of the underage girls in the case, Jane, and another teenager, Virginia Roberts, with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
Still, the heart of their case is of course the emotional and graphic testimony of the alleged victims, who each faced intense cross-examination. The defence's attacks on them and their memories got testy and heated several times. Ultimately, after Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyers present their case, the only thing that matters is who the jury thinks did a better job.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Financier Jeffrey Epstein is arrested in New Jersey after returning from France on a private jet. Federal charges accuse Epstein of trafficking a “vast network” of underage girls for sex. He kills himself in a New York jail 36 days after his arrest. British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell is arrested in New Hampshire and accused of helping Epstein groom his victims. Charges accuse her of befriending girls as young as 14 and enticing them into having sexual relations with Epstein. One alleged victim told the BBC that she “controlled the girls - she was like Madam”. Prosecutors claim the abuse occurred in locations around the world, including Ms Maxwell’s London home. She pleads not guilty. A judge denies her bail, calling her a flight risk. Two new US federal charges of sex trafficking conspiracy and sex trafficking of a minor are filed against Ms Maxwell, adding to the six she already faced. Prosecutors say a fourth victim has been identified. The victim was allegedly abused in 2001 when she was 14 years old. Ms Maxwell denies these charges. Ms Maxwell appears in court for the first time, pleading not guilty to multiple charges of sex abuse, sex-trafficking and perjury. Her defence lawyers argue that the conditions in her Brooklyn jail are inhumane and argue that she is “being treated horribly”. She is denied bail. Ms Maxwell trial begins in New York, where she has been in jail since her arrest. Earlier in November, a jury candidate pool of over 600 New Yorkers was whittled down to 12 jury members.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59616024
|
news_world-us-canada-59616024
|
|
Boris Johnson: Is 'Planet Boris' finally going to implode? - BBC News
|
2021-12-11
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Day after day, for more than a month, Downing Street has been struggling to keep hold of events.
|
UK Politics
|
"Planet Boris is the strangest place in the world - no rules apply," a cabinet minister told me a few days ago as they marvelled at the strangeness of the current political universe.
Events had been disastrous, they admitted, yet they seemed sure at that moment that the prime minister's ability to defy any normal political gravity would see him through.
But then, on Tuesday night, a video emerged showing aides joking about a Downing Street event last Christmas as Britain was in lockdown. The humiliating leak engulfed No 10 in a fresh crisis that shows no sign of easing.
So this weekend it is worth asking if "Planet Boris" might actually, finally implode?
One senior official summed up the state of play simply: "It's a disaster."
Day after day, for more than a month, Downing Street has been struggling to keep hold of events.
There have been miscalculations and missteps - attempts to change the rules to protect one of their own, Owen Paterson; the disastrous efforts to close down stories about Christmas parties last year, and most recently, a fine for the Conservative Party over the financing of Mr and Mrs Johnson's lavish renovation of the No 10 flat.
The mistakes have been all the worse because they were miscalculations of Downing Street's own making. Almost nothing riles MPs and ministers outside the clique at the top of government more than No 10 making mistakes for which they all have to answer.
Each incident fuelled the opposition's main argument they had been making for months - that Mr Johnson behaves as if he's exempt from following the rules.
Whether it's the Christmas parties or the cash for the flat, the mess has highlighted this prime minister's complicated relationship with the truth, which we've discussed here before.
There has been little sense that No 10 has been able to, you might say, take back control. In fact, as pressure has cranked up in recent days it's been hard sometimes to get any sense of what is going on at all.
[L]ike a theme park of soft decision-making and avoidance
The atmosphere inside is described as deadly silent, horrible, as if the lights are on, but no-one's really home.
Some ministers loyal to Boris Johnson reject the notion that anything is serious or somehow in permanent decline.
It's true that the prime minister's career has been built on proudly dismissing, and dismantling norms. It's also true that he has slipped before, but surged back, time and again. He is the campaigner of his generation, they believe, and can recover.
But it is notable that MPs who were involved in getting Boris Johnson to No 10 say privately, and increasingly colourfully, that he has to sharpen up.
One of them told me that Downing Street has become "like a theme park of soft decision-making and avoidance".
"There's the helter-skelter, there's the lost-in-space ride, there's the final ride which is the 'make a decision and see if you can stick to it by the end of the ride'."
With deep irritation they told me: "They all have to be shut down. We do not need a fairground. Downing Street has to be run like a military camp."
Others talk of drift and decline. "Nothing important's discussed in our meetings," one says.
At the start of meetings the PM verbally encourages them to contribute, but the implicit message is, "Don't speak up." they feel. Ministers sometimes choose to stay silent. One jokes that they message each other instead about how bad things are.
After the last few torrid weeks, the trouble, according to one former cabinet minister is that the different Tory tribes, who sometimes can't stand each other, now find themselves able to agree. The problem for Mr Johnson is that the only thing they agree on is how unhappy they are.
According to this analysis, moderates who might see themselves as "internationalists" are grumpy about foreign policy and the government's cuts to foreign aid. The Brexiteer gang are cross that he's not being tough enough about Northern Ireland.
The "red wall" group, with new seats from 2019, know they owe them in large part to Mr Johnson, but they also see themselves as champions of their areas. And some of them don't feel they have much to show for that just yet. Some Northern Tories are said, increasingly, to believe that the PM is "all mouth, no trousers".
And among the right-wing of the party, there's increasing frustration that the government won't take more radical action - changing human rights law, for example - at the Channel to stop migrants crossing in small boats.
These groups shift around of course, but right now they are said to be "coagulating" - instead of spats between each other they are coming together on one thing, that the recent mess can't be allowed to go on.
Many MPs are hopeful it could end up with a new Downing Street operation. One said there needs to be a "clear-out of the 'born to rule' cabal", suggesting that the recent fiascos were inevitable given who has been around the PM.
None of us should be surprised... when the grown-ups leave, the children have an illegal house party
"Frankly none of us should have been surprised when the grown-ups leave, that the children have an illegal house party," the MP said, adding that the Downing Street party fiasco should be the moment to "clear the sycophants out".
There isn't much sign yet that Mr Johnson is planning a big shake up of his team though. Allegra Stratton, who resigned on Wednesday as a senior government spokeswoman, carried the can for this week's humiliating leaked video footage.
And there's chatter that the prime minister has made a strategic decision to hold on to director of communications Jack Doyle for now, while lining him up to take the fall when the inquiry emerges.
Two sources have told the BBC Mr Doyle's resignation was offered but refused, although No 10 has denied this happened.
But as so often, while the Westminster rumour mill loves almost nothing more than speculating about who is in and who is out, the fairly desperate state of affairs is in the end, always, about the boss. Tone and culture is set by the person at the top, whoever else is up or down.
That's why what's next is, first and foremost, down to the decisions Mr Johnson makes himself. Does he acknowledge there have been problems? Will he resolve to lead in a different way? Will he "[look] in the mirror", as his friend and former minister Robert Buckland urged him publicly to do, and say "surely I can do this better"?
If not, well, Mr Johnson still has his huge majority. He still has enormous powers as the leader of the government, and as the political campaigner and celebrity.
Yet this week it feels sentiment has moved in the Tory party, with more and more of his own side imagining what life might be like under a different leader.
Carrie Johnson gave birth to the couple's second child this week, a daughter
Is the moment nearly upon them when he becomes less a flawed, but fundamentally sparkling, asset, than a liability?
A former minister who has analysed the party tribes even suggests "stage one" of a leadership change is complete: when the party agrees among itself privately that the PM is running out of road.
"Stage two", however, is the who next, how and when, and "that can take a very long time".
Right now, it seems far-fetched to imagine any kind of challenge soon. Don't doubt, however, that allies of potential candidates for next time round, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, are thinking hard about what's next.
There are even whispers that some MPs have been urging former cabinet minister Jeremy Hunt to put himself forward soon as a kind of safety, continuity candidate in the new year, even though right now, I'm told, "He doesn't want to play."
Of course, anyone that's mentioned in connection with the leadership would publicly deny any ambition, or any plotting. Breathless conversations about replacing leaders are rarely far from the topic of conversation in Westminster.
A former minister admits they have been approached about exactly that twice in a matter of days, but cautions that to act any time soon would be "collective political suicide". With the pandemic still raging, the economy pretty fragile, and only two years on from the last election, would the public really want to indulge the Tory party tearing itself apart in public, yet again?
But the volume of discussions about replacements for the prime minister is increasing. Many MPs believe it's down to him to get a grip if that's to fade.
Mr Johnson faces two tests next week, that could deepen the sense of an impending Christmas crisis, or dial down the drama. There's a potentially huge rebellion in the Commons on Tuesday about the Covid regulations. Dozens of his backbenchers have already gone on the record to say they will vote against the plans.
With Labour support, the vote will pass, but a huge Tory vote against would display a real two fingers up to No 10. The whips and Mr Johnson, equally, have a huge opportunity to try to quell the anger in the next few days.
And there's the possibility of a different kind of rebellion next Thursday, when the by-election takes place to replace Owen Paterson as MP for North Shropshire. Many Conservatives fear doom on the ground there. A terrible result in what should be a safe seat would heighten the danger for the PM.
As we head into the last week of Parliament in 2021, there is plenty of peril. The prime minister faces risks all around.
It's madness to write him off - his biography is a living warning against that. Yet, a backer of the prime minister told me that while the situation doesn't have to be terminal, it has - they said with no pleasure - to change.
"If it doesn't, we all know where it leads. It leads to the front door."
|
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59615564
|
news_uk-politics-59615564
|
|
French court jails former Tory councillor David Turtle over wife's murder - BBC News
|
2021-12-11
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Stephanie Turtle was killed when her husband deliberately ran her over with his car in 2017
|
UK
|
Stephanie and David Turtle moved to France to set up a guest house
A former Conservative councillor has been convicted of killing his wife by deliberately running her over with his car outside their French home in 2017.
David Turtle, 67, was found guilty of murdering his wife, Stephanie, 50, and sentenced to 14 years imprisonment.
The Cahors Criminal Court found that he had intentionally driven over his wife with his Mercedes car after a heated argument over a television programme.
Turtle denies murdering his wife. He said he intends to appeal the verdict.
He told the court in south-west France that his wife's death had been a tragic accident and had followed an evening of arguments at the home in Prayssac, near Cahors, over what to watch on television.
Turtle said he fell asleep on the couch following the initial row, before his wife woke him after midnight and the argument intensified.
He claimed he decided to go for a drive and did not realise that his wife was in front of the car.
He told the court that his office was convinced that David Turtle "could not fail to have been aware of the fact that his wife was in front of the car when [he] started to drive it. Mr Turtle started the car. If she was in front of it on the ground, wouldn't she have stood up? Wouldn't she have shouted?".
Police said Ms Turtle had suffered a crushed rib cage, injuries to her collarbone, abdomen, pelvis and lungs and was found beneath a car by firefighters the following morning.
Officers said they believed that Ms Turtle had lain down in front of the car to stop her husband leaving.
Turtle served as a Conservative councillor on the Bournemouth Council from May 2015 to July 2016.
He resigned his position to move to France with his wife, where the couple opened a guest house business.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59623256
|
news_uk-59623256
|
|
Ex-Tory minister Andrew Griffiths found to have raped wife - BBC News
|
2021-12-11
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Andrew Griffiths used "coercive and controlling behaviour", a family court judge hears.
|
Stoke & Staffordshire
|
Andrew Griffiths resigned as minister and MP in July 2018
A former Conservative minister has been found to have raped and physically abused his wife.
A family court judge concluded Andrew Griffiths, 51, pressurised Kate Griffiths, MP for Burton-upon-Trent, into engaging in sexual activity.
Mr Griffiths, a former MP for the Staffordshire town, used "coercive and controlling behaviour".
In July 2018 he resigned after it was reported he sent "depraved" messages to two women constituents.
The ex-MP denied allegations made by Ms Griffiths and "adamantly denied" rape.
Judge Elizabeth Williscroft had been overseeing a dispute between Mr and Ms Griffiths, who are now divorced, at a private family court hearing in Derby.
Ms Griffiths, 51, made a series of allegations against Mr Griffiths and asked Judge Williscroft to make findings of fact.
The judge made findings in favour of Ms Griffiths but decided that they should not be made public, in order to protect the child at the centre of the family court proceedings.
A High Court judge, however, ruled that Judge Williscroft's findings should be revealed, after it was argued by the Press Association and Tortoise Media they were in the public interest.
Ms Griffiths had backed the move, which Mr Griffiths was against, and agreed to be named in media reports, even though victims of sexual abuse have a legal right to anonymity.
Kate Griffiths was elected as an MP in November 2019
Speaking after appeal judges ruled details could be made public, Ms Griffiths said she "welcomed" the decision following a case that had "taken a huge emotional and financial toll" on her family.
She said she waived her right to anonymity "because I recognise the unique position I am in to campaign to improve the outcomes of cases such as this, for those who endure domestic violence, and the actions taken to protect the children involved".
Mr Griffiths - who used to be MP for Burton and the minister for small business, and once worked as former prime minister Theresa May's chief of staff - resigned over allegations he bombarded a 28-year-old barmaid and her friend with lewd comments over social media during a three-week period.
He was cleared of wrongdoing by the parliamentary standards watchdog, which said it found no evidence.
Ms Griffiths stood in his place as the Conservative candidate for the area and was elected in November 2019. She announced at the time she was divorcing her husband.
Judge Williscroft made a number of findings of fact - on the balance of probability - about the way Mr Griffiths had treated Ms Griffiths.
The judge said Ms Griffiths had "proved in her oral evidence to me" that Mr Griffiths "did rape her when sexual intercourse took place".
She said Ms Griffiths's allegations had been "confirmed" by Mr Griffiths's "responses".
Ms Griffiths said rapes had begun while she was asleep.
Andrew Griffiths is pictured arriving at the Royal Courts of Justice in London in July 2021
In the timeline of events relayed in the judgment, dates for the offence are not given.
The judge heard that the couple married in 2013 after forming a relationship about five years earlier, and that Ms Griffiths had learned of sexual indiscretions by Mr Griffiths including a "long affair" and, with someone else, "the sending of sexual texts".
The MP, who gave evidence behind a screen at court hearings so she could not see Mr Griffiths, also gave accounts of "physical abuse". The judge said she found those accounts "proved".
Ms Griffiths had said that during an argument, Mr Griffiths knelt on her and put his hands on her throat, trying to strangle her.
Mr Griffiths said no assault had taken place but Judge Williscroft said she "preferred" Ms Griffiths's account.
The judge also found that Mr Griffiths had pushed Ms Griffiths when she was heavily pregnant.
Mr Griffiths said in a written statement: "I am deeply disappointed that the Court of Appeal has allowed the publication of proceedings in the family court.
"Whilst there remain legal constraints on what I can say, because the entirety of the judgment has not been published, I strongly denied the allegations put to me. However, the family court, which I believed to be private, made findings against me on the balance of probabilities."
He said his aim had been always to protect his child from publicity and he would continue to do what he could to "repair the damage that publication of this case has caused".
If you have been affected by the issues raised in this article, help and support is available via BBC Action Line.
Follow BBC West Midlands on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Send your story ideas to: newsonline.westmidlands@bbc.co.uk
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-59611761
|
news_uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-59611761
|
|
Abu Dhabi Grand Prix 'tarnishing image' of F1, says sport's governing body - BBC Sport
|
2021-12-15
|
None
|
Formula 1's governing body says the controversial Abu Dhabi Grand Prix is "tarnishing the image" of the sport.
| null |
Last updated on .From the section Formula 1
Max Verstappen won his first world title in controversial circumstances after a late-race safety car Formula 1's governing body says the controversial Abu Dhabi Grand Prix is "tarnishing the image" of the sport. The FIA will conduct a "detailed analysis and clarification exercise" into the running of Sunday's race, with all the teams and drivers, "to draw any lessons from the situation". It is an effective admission of mistakes in the running of the race that decided the world championship. Race director Michael Masi's actions are at the centre of the controversy. The Australian appeared not to follow the rules and standard protocol on restarting the race after a late-race safety-car period, but he is not mentioned in the FIA statement. Masi's decisions left Mercedes driver Lewis Hamilton, who had led for the vast majority of the race and was on course for the world title, as a sitting duck on old tyres, with Max Verstappen's Red Bull behind him on fresh rubber. The race was restarted for one final lap and the Dutchman passed Hamilton to win and take the drivers' title. The FIA's statement looks to be extending an olive branch to Mercedes, who have announced they intend to appeal against Sunday night's decision to reject their initial protest against the race result. Mercedes have been in talks with the FIA since the race as they seek redress for what happened at Yas Marina. Mercedes have until about 19:00 BST on Thursday to decide whether to press on with that appeal.
• None 'We sometimes hated each other' - Verstappen on Hamilton I think races should be won on the track - Verstappen tells BBC sports editor Dan Roan What will the FIA do? The FIA made its announcement after a meeting of its World Council, F1's legislative body, on Wednesday. It said that the circumstances surrounding the safety car and communications between teams and Masi had "generated significant misunderstanding and reactions from Formula 1 teams, drivers and fans". It referred to the controversy over why Masi let only some lapped cars unlap themselves and did not comply with rules about the the timing of the restart of the race, describing it as "an argument" that was "tarnishing the image of the championship and the due celebration" of both Max Verstappen's drivers' title and Mercedes' eighth constructors' crown. And it pledged that "clarity [would] be provided to the participants, media, and fans about the current regulations to preserve the competitive nature of our sport while ensuring the safety of the drivers and officials". This would be done in time for "any identified meaningful feedback and conclusions to be made before the beginning of the 2022 season". At a news conference on Wednesday at Red Bull's UK F1 headquarters, Verstappen and Red Bull team principal Christian Horner said Masi needed more support to be able to do his job effectively. Verstappen said: "Michael is a nice guy and he tries his very best and it's very unfair to now start hating on him because it is a very tough job." Horner added: "Michael has been under massive pressure from all sides." After the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix, the penultimate race of the season, Horner said that F1 was missing the late Charlie Whiting, who was race director as one of his responsibilities in his role as FIA F1 director. Horner said: "You have to remember Charlie had Herbie [Blash, the former deputy race director] sitting next to him. They were a double act. "And I think that it's a little unfair that, you know, he's [Masi] up there on his own. He doesn't have any form of support. "And I think the level at which teams are now operating, all the data and information that they have available to them is immense and I think that the takeaway from this season - not just from Abu Dhabi - is: How can we do a better job? How can the FIA do a better job?" Were there other World Council decisions? The FIA also provided more clarity on the plans for the new engine formula to be introduced in 2026. In addition to plans to use 100% sustainable fuel and lower costs, it said that the energy from the hybrid part of the engine would go up to 350kW - more than double the current 160kW. In addition, it confirmed that the MGU-H - the part of the hybrid system that recovers energy from the exhaust - would be removed. A cap on engine costs will also be introduced. The overall aims of the new engine formula, it said, would be to ensure a "powerful and high-revving power unit, car performance, sound, drivers' ability to race, avoiding excessive differentiation".
• None 'You have the chance to change the world': Ed Balls explores the similarities he shares with his ancestors
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59675264
|
rt_formula1_59675264
|
|
Omicron: Why tougher Covid measures may not be worth it - BBC News
|
2021-12-15
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Omicron is expected to cause a surge in infections. Should more be done to suppress it?
|
Health
|
Infections caused by the new variant Omicron are rising rapidly, doubling every two to three days.
Modelling is warning hospital admissions could rise sharply.
Ministers across the UK are under pressure to bring in tougher measures.
There are strong arguments for those, but there are also reasons why trying to do more to suppress Omicron may not be worth it.
Much has been made of suggestions that this variant is causing milder illness. In South Africa, reports are emerging that people are not as seriously ill in this wave as they were in earlier ones.
There is still uncertainty about this. But it is logical. Not because the virus has changed to become less severe, but because reinfections and infections post-vaccination are likely to be milder.
The immune system now recognises this virus and while it may not be able to prevent infection, it knows how to fight it.
"The balance of evidence," says Prof Paul Hunter, an expert in infectious diseases at the University of East Anglia, "certainly points to that."
Booster jabs have been shown to be effective against Omicron
If so, that puts the UK in a strong position to be able to deal with this wave.
Around 95% of the adult population has some immunity to the virus either through infection or vaccination or both, according to the Office for National Statistics.
Research by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine published at the start of winter before Omicron emerged said such high levels of immunity meant we had the smallest pool of vulnerable people in Europe.
On top of that there is now the impact of the rapid rollout of boosters, which research suggests are vital to blunting the impact of Omicron.
Around 60% of those eligible have had one including nearly 90% of the most vulnerable.
Taken together, it is a very different picture from last winter when the lockdown allowed the rollout of the vaccination programme to get going and provide protection to the majority of the adult population.
Prof Hunter says the combined level of vaccine-induced and infection-induced immunity in the population now means the case for extra restrictions beyond what has been announced is much weaker than it was previously.
Tougher measures, he says, will not stop the epidemic, they will just extend it. "If you are waiting for vaccines or better treatments, suppressing the virus could be an advantage - but it's hard to see the argument for that now."
Protecting the NHS from being completely overwhelmed would, of course, necessitate action.
But Prof Hunter says he is "cautiously optimistic" that will not happen, believing the public will naturally start to curb their behaviour given the concern being expressed about Omicron.
And, once we get through this, he believes we will be in a much better position. "There will be other variants but exposure will have built up our immunity even further. We will see milder disease - until eventually it is something like the common cold."
So what are the chances of the NHS buckling in the coming weeks? While there are strong grounds to hope the proportion of infections leading to a hospital admission will be lower than it was previously, if infection levels rise too high the absolute numbers could still be much bigger than they are now.
This much can be seen from the modelling published by the LSHTM.
It sets out what could be called the best and worst-case scenarios.
The best would see admissions peak at just over half the level of last winter, the worst would see admissions edge towards double.
Dr Raghib Ali, a clinical epidemiologist at University of Cambridge, and a front-line doctor, says given the levels of immunity in the population there is no need to panic yet.
"We need to keep calm," he says, and wait until we start getting a clear idea of what is happening with hospital admissions. "We should know soon."
He admits some further action may be needed to "flatten the peak" to stop hospitals getting overwhelmed.
But he believes the Christmas break and January may come to our aid as workplace mixing and travel reduces, although he stresses that taking precautions such as regular testing, mask-wearing and ventilating indoor spaces is essential.
"We have to be realistic, we are not going to stop Omicron."
Suppress it too much and arguably it will just delay deaths and serious illness - and may cause more overall harm than good when you consider the wider impact on health, education and the economy, he says.
The key, though, will be that the NHS can keep delivering care to those who need it.
Chris Hopson, of NHS Providers, which represents hospital bosses, says he is "very concerned" given what has already happened with patients facing longer waits for ambulances and A&E.
Care is already becoming "less safe", he says, and the service is being forced to run "beyond full stretch".
It is clear the peak in admissions needs to be towards the lower end of the modelling estimates for the NHS to have a chance of getting through the next few months.
And even if the wave of infections does not cause enough serious illness to overwhelm the NHS, University of Reading scientist Dr Simon Clarke says there could still be significant societal problems.
"Mass sickness of people who are not ill enough to end up in hospital, but who need to convalesce at home, could deliver a substantial shutdown of public services and slowing of economic activity," he says.
How long could this last? The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) believes we are likely to be looking at a period of four to eight weeks where we will be battling the acute stage of the Omicron surge.
It will be, says Dr Susan Hopkins, UKHSA's chief medical adviser, a "very difficult" period.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59658486
|
news_health-59658486
|
|
Gender-neutral passports: Campaigner Christie Elan-Cane loses Supreme Court case - BBC News
|
2021-12-15
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Campaigner Christie Elan-Cane loses a challenge against rules that passports must state gender.
|
UK
|
A campaigner has lost a Supreme Court case challenging the government's refusal to issue gender-neutral passports.
Christie Elan-Cane said the application process breaches human rights laws by not allowing an "X" option.
But the court said applicants' gender was "a biographical detail which can be used to confirm their identity".
Christie Elan-Cane said the case will now go to the European Court of Human Rights.
The campaigner, who has called for legal recognition of non-gendered identity for decades, said on Twitter that the "UK government and judicial system are on the wrong side of history" and "this is not the end".
Gender-neutral passports are already issued by Argentina, Australia, the US, Canada, Denmark, India, Malta, Nepal, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Pakistan, while Germany has introduced an intersex category.
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Christie Elan-Cane's appeal, which came after the Home Office won an earlier ruling in the Court of Appeal.
Lord Reed, president of the Supreme Court, said in the ruling that gender could be checked against birth, adoption or gender recognition certificates as part of confirming an applicant's identity.
"It is therefore the gender recognised for legal purposes and recorded in those documents which is relevant," he said.
He said Christie Elan-Cane's interest in having an "X" passport was outweighed by other considerations, including "maintaining a coherent approach across government".
"There is no legislation in the United Kingdom which recognises a non-gendered category of individuals," he said.
He said legislation "across the statute book" assumes all people can be categorised in two sexes or genders - "terms which have been used interchangeably".
At a hearing in July, Kate Gallafent QC, representing Christie Elan-Cane, told the court non-gendered people and non-binary people have to make a false declaration to get a passport, which "strikes at the foundation of the standards of honesty and integrity to be expected of such official processes".
But Lord Reed said while non-gendered identity may be central to Christie Elan-Cane's private life, the designation of an identity in a passport is not "a particularly important facet of the appellant's existence or identity".
Representing Her Majesty's Passport Office - part of the Home Office - Sir James Eadie QC said it was "obviously problematic and highly undesirable" for only one part of government to recognise non-binary or non-gendered identities.
He said in written arguments it could lead to a person being treated as having one sex or gender by the passport office and a different one by other parts of government.
• None 'Why UK passports need to have an X'
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59667786
|
news_uk-59667786
|
|
Megan Thee Stallion 'told to dance' by Tory Lanez before alleged shooting - BBC News
|
2021-12-15
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Rapper Tory Lanez is accused of hurting the songwriter after a party in Hollywood in July 2020.
|
Newsbeat
|
Megan Thee Stallion was injured after a Hollywood party in July 2020
Tory Lanez told Megan Thee Stallion to "dance" before allegedly shooting at her feet, a court has heard.
The rapper, whose real name is Daystar Peterson, is accused of shooting Megan after a party in the Hollywood Hills on 12 July 2020.
Rapper Megan, 26, and Tory, 29, got into an argument while driving away from the event hosted by Kylie Jenner, news agency AFP reported.
Tory denies assault with a gun and carrying a loaded gun in a vehicle.
Megan, whose real name is Megan Pete, demanded to be let out of the car and then heard Tory shout "dance, b***h" as he opened fire with a handgun, Los Angeles Police Department Detective Ryan Stogner told a judge on Tuesday.
The singer told police she was "bleeding profusely" from her feet and that she fell to the ground and crawled to a nearby driveway, AFP reported.
Tory then "emphatically apologised for what he did" and offered to drive her home, the court heard, with the rapper later telling officers he had offered her money to not say anything about the shooting.
Megan initially told police she had injured her feet by stepping on broken glass after the party, the Los Angeles Times said.
She told Stogner she was "scared [Tory] was going to get in trouble", but later alleged that he had shot her.
Megan posted on Instagram that she had been shot by Tory, but many of the tracks on his album, Daystar, claim he's being framed.
At Tuesday's hearing a judge refused a defence application to dismiss the charges.
The next hearing will take place on 13 January.
Tory faces up to 23 years in prison if convicted.
Listen to Newsbeat live at 12:45 and 17:45 weekdays - or listen back here.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-59666623
|
news_newsbeat-59666623
|
|
Boris Johnson's biggest Commons rebellion - and why it matters - BBC News
|
2021-12-15
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Two years after his greatest triumph, the PM couldn't head off a mass Tory rejection of Covid measures.
|
UK Politics
|
So said one government minister on Tuesday evening as the prime minister addressed the 1922 Committee of Conservative backbench MPs.
Boris Johnson made a last-ditch effort to win over his party in the packed meeting just an hour before the Commons voted on new Covid regulations.
He promised MPs they would be consulted on any future restrictions if they were needed. He warned his party it had "absolutely no choice but to act" and that nobody could be sure Omicron would be less severe than other variants.
Mr Johnson had also spent the day phoning potential rebels, trying to win them over to the merits of Covid certification. Meanwhile, Prof Chris Whitty briefed MPs on the rise of Omicron - with a government loyalist predicting this would win some over.
Leading figures in government seemed to think their argument was working. One senior cabinet minister said on Tuesday evening that the PM's efforts had gone down well.
Mr Johnson himself declared to journalists after the 1922 Committee that he had done his best to persuade his party.
It wasn't enough. Far from it.
The rebellion on Covid passes was far bigger than many had predicted and by some distance the biggest of Mr Johnson's premiership.
It's all the more significant because of the prime minister's efforts to limit the damage.
What will worry Downing Street is that the vote brought different wings of the Conservative Party together in opposition to the government's plans.
There was the Covid Recovery Group of backbenchers, who had long been sceptical of restrictions and had consistently voted against the government.
But there were also centrists like Damian Green - who told BBC Radio 4's World at One that the plans for Covid certification wouldn't work, saying: "It's a gesture. It's doing something for the sake of doing something."
Anti-Covid pass protesters say they don't work and infringe civil liberties
Then there were the likes of the Scottish Conservatives, who do not believe Covid passports worked in Scotland.
They didn't take part in the Commons vote because the measures only applied to England - but they made their opposition abundantly clear.
Aberdeenshire MP Andrew Bowie told me: "We need to stop lurching from a something must be done position. Vaccine passports do not work."
As well as the 99 confirmed Covid pass rebels, there were many more who sat on their hands.
One former minister, a Johnson loyalist while in government, said he had made plans to avoid having to back Covid passports.
We don't know for certain how many took a similar position, but it takes the number refusing to back Mr Johnson over the 100 mark.
A majority of MPs did ultimately back Covid certification and the measures will still be brought in in England.
But a prime minister with a majority of 80 was forced to rely on opposition votes to get his plans through. That raises two big questions.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: The moment MPs approved the introduction of a Covid pass in England
The first: Is Mr Johnson's authority waning?
Number 10 has undoubtedly been battered and bruised by the controversies of the past fortnight.
But in the past, Mr Johnson has been able to persuade and cajole his MPs into backing him - often when they didn't want to. This time, it just didn't work.
Secondly, will Mr Johnson now have to think twice about introducing more restrictions if they are needed?
This point is more complicated because there are some MPs who didn't like Covid certification - but do back other measures to stop the spread of Omicron and may vote for more in future.
But one leading and long-standing Covid rebel called this vote a shot across Downing Street's bow - a warning of what might be to come if the government did opt for stricter restrictions in the coming weeks.
Two years ago, Mr Johnson won a general election which gave him the biggest Conservative majority since Margaret Thatcher.
After months of Brexit battles in Parliament, the assumption was December 2019 marked the end of mass Tory rebellions.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59661619
|
news_uk-politics-59661619
|
|
Boris Johnson loses Covid argument with his own MPs - BBC News
|
2021-12-15
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Boris Johnson's massive majority, won only two years ago, no longer feels like something on which he can always rely.
|
UK Politics
|
There were long queues at St Thomas's hospital - opposite the Houses of Parliament - for booster jabs
Boris Johnson didn't lose. But no prime minister wants to feel they're losing the argument in much of their own party.
And the scale of the rebellion is even worse than predicted. Not just a slap on the wrist for Mr Johnson, but a very serious rejection of his plan.
Something that can't be dismissed, despite his own personal appeals to his ranks.
Many of tonight's Tory rebels rejected the plan for Covid passes because of their instinct - a fundamental dislike in Conservative thinking of forcing people to do anything.
That's genuine, and strongly felt by many of them.
The resistance was also a real-life demonstration of Tory anger with many recent mistakes in Number 10 - bad judgements, bad handling - that has upset many backbenchers too.
But according to insiders, what we saw in the Commons is also evidence of a "deeper malaise". What, in some quarters in government, is starting to be called concern about a "Covid state".
The arrival of another Covid variant has, of course, prompted the government to act to try to protect the public's health.
If the Omicron outbreak is as enormous as the worst-case scenarios predict, much of the current political debate may be swamped, or indeed feel quickly irrelevant or self-indulgent.
But right now, Tory fears about the action ministers are taking are not just about the specifics of today's debate but about what many perceive as a lack of thinking about whether we can live like this for ever.
One insider said: "The trajectory we are on is to become a high-tax, high-spending, high-inflation country, and there seems to be little grip or strategy to address that underlying, big, big point."
The chancellor is understood to have raised concerns about the medium-term costs of handling the pandemic in the so-called "Covid O" meeting of senior ministers this week.
Several billion pounds has already been allocated to cover the cost of vaccines, boosters, and therapeutic drugs to help tackle Covid until next April.
But what about after that?
An ally of Rishi Sunak categorically ruled out the possibility of raising taxes again to help pay if this cycle continues, saying: "Whatever extra and unforeseen Covid costs come our way that are necessary to protect the British public, the chancellor will not be raising taxes to pay for them."
There is growing unease about what the next few months hold in store for the economy, with one government source suggesting winter to spring, "is going to be hell".
Even the former prime minister, Theresa May, who is developing a role as a spiky loyalist in the Commons, said recently: "Variants will continue to appear, year after year… We cannot respond to new variants by stopping and starting sectors of our economy, which leads to businesses going under, and jobs being lost."
The prime minister may have got his way tonight but not without political pain, nor with the prospect of relief from it soon.
Voters in the former MP Owen Paterson's seat will choose their next MP on Thursday.
It's extraordinary to imagine, but true, that there is a chance of the Tories losing their majority there, which stands at nearly 23,000.
Even more extraordinary is that some Conservatives might be happy to see it lost, to provide shock therapy to Number 10, not just to improve how it works but to do some hard thinking about what's coming next. One insider said: "I hope we lose it, because it would give them a real kick in the pants to say, this problem is very, very great."
With Omicron surging, philosophical concerns about this government on its own side may just have to wait.
Tonight's rebels may be out of step with much of public opinion and rising fears about the nation's health.
But no prime minister can ignore losing the argument with some of their own for long. Mr Johnson's massive majority, won only two years ago, no longer feels like something on which he can always rely.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59656616
|
news_uk-politics-59656616
|
|
Omicron: Why tougher Covid measures may not be worth it - BBC News
|
2021-12-23
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Omicron is expected to cause a surge in infections. Should more be done to suppress it?
|
Health
|
Infections caused by the new variant Omicron are rising rapidly, doubling every two to three days.
Modelling is warning hospital admissions could rise sharply.
Ministers across the UK are under pressure to bring in tougher measures.
There are strong arguments for those, but there are also reasons why trying to do more to suppress Omicron may not be worth it.
Much has been made of suggestions that this variant is causing milder illness. In South Africa, reports are emerging that people are not as seriously ill in this wave as they were in earlier ones.
There is still uncertainty about this. But it is logical. Not because the virus has changed to become less severe, but because reinfections and infections post-vaccination are likely to be milder.
The immune system now recognises this virus and while it may not be able to prevent infection, it knows how to fight it.
"The balance of evidence," says Prof Paul Hunter, an expert in infectious diseases at the University of East Anglia, "certainly points to that."
Booster jabs have been shown to be effective against Omicron
If so, that puts the UK in a strong position to be able to deal with this wave.
Around 95% of the adult population has some immunity to the virus either through infection or vaccination or both, according to the Office for National Statistics.
Research by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine published at the start of winter before Omicron emerged said such high levels of immunity meant we had the smallest pool of vulnerable people in Europe.
On top of that there is now the impact of the rapid rollout of boosters, which research suggests are vital to blunting the impact of Omicron.
Around 60% of those eligible have had one including nearly 90% of the most vulnerable.
Taken together, it is a very different picture from last winter when the lockdown allowed the rollout of the vaccination programme to get going and provide protection to the majority of the adult population.
Prof Hunter says the combined level of vaccine-induced and infection-induced immunity in the population now means the case for extra restrictions beyond what has been announced is much weaker than it was previously.
Tougher measures, he says, will not stop the epidemic, they will just extend it. "If you are waiting for vaccines or better treatments, suppressing the virus could be an advantage - but it's hard to see the argument for that now."
Protecting the NHS from being completely overwhelmed would, of course, necessitate action.
But Prof Hunter says he is "cautiously optimistic" that will not happen, believing the public will naturally start to curb their behaviour given the concern being expressed about Omicron.
And, once we get through this, he believes we will be in a much better position. "There will be other variants but exposure will have built up our immunity even further. We will see milder disease - until eventually it is something like the common cold."
So what are the chances of the NHS buckling in the coming weeks? While there are strong grounds to hope the proportion of infections leading to a hospital admission will be lower than it was previously, if infection levels rise too high the absolute numbers could still be much bigger than they are now.
This much can be seen from the modelling published by the LSHTM.
It sets out what could be called the best and worst-case scenarios.
The best would see admissions peak at just over half the level of last winter, the worst would see admissions edge towards double.
Dr Raghib Ali, a clinical epidemiologist at University of Cambridge, and a front-line doctor, says given the levels of immunity in the population there is no need to panic yet.
"We need to keep calm," he says, and wait until we start getting a clear idea of what is happening with hospital admissions. "We should know soon."
He admits some further action may be needed to "flatten the peak" to stop hospitals getting overwhelmed.
But he believes the Christmas break and January may come to our aid as workplace mixing and travel reduces, although he stresses that taking precautions such as regular testing, mask-wearing and ventilating indoor spaces is essential.
"We have to be realistic, we are not going to stop Omicron."
Suppress it too much and arguably it will just delay deaths and serious illness - and may cause more overall harm than good when you consider the wider impact on health, education and the economy, he says.
The key, though, will be that the NHS can keep delivering care to those who need it.
Chris Hopson, of NHS Providers, which represents hospital bosses, says he is "very concerned" given what has already happened with patients facing longer waits for ambulances and A&E.
Care is already becoming "less safe", he says, and the service is being forced to run "beyond full stretch".
It is clear the peak in admissions needs to be towards the lower end of the modelling estimates for the NHS to have a chance of getting through the next few months.
And even if the wave of infections does not cause enough serious illness to overwhelm the NHS, University of Reading scientist Dr Simon Clarke says there could still be significant societal problems.
"Mass sickness of people who are not ill enough to end up in hospital, but who need to convalesce at home, could deliver a substantial shutdown of public services and slowing of economic activity," he says.
How long could this last? The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) believes we are likely to be looking at a period of four to eight weeks where we will be battling the acute stage of the Omicron surge.
It will be, says Dr Susan Hopkins, UKHSA's chief medical adviser, a "very difficult" period.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59658486
|
news_health-59658486
|
|
Christmas: Dogs perform Welsh chapel's nativity play - BBC News
|
2021-12-23
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The Christmas story is performed by a Welsh chapel's dogs with the help of treats and tinsel.
|
Wales
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. The Christ-mutts Story, told by three wise whippets
The Christmas story has been told with the help of a Welsh chapel's unlikely helpers - the congregation's dogs.
Gellionnen Chapel enlisted about 10 dogs to help perform the nativity to "cheer people up" watching at home.
A Facebook video with baby Jesus played by a pug Jack Russell cross and the three wise men as whippets, has already racked up more than 3,000 views.
Reverend Rory Castle Jones, minister of the chapel near Pontardawe, Swansea, said it was chaos organising them.
No auditions were held for the parts, with dogs selected because they looked like certain characters.
"We looked at each dog and thought 'Who looks like they could be a Mary, who looks like they could be a good shepherd?'
"We had a very cute tiny puppy - so obviously that had to be Jesus."
The baby Jesus was played by a Jack Russell pug cross puppy, called Margaret
Margaret, the dog who played Jesus, was the "most well behaved" and stayed still wrapped in her blanket, the minister said.
"She seemed to sum up the whole thing really, not what you'd expect, but perfect for the role and ridiculously cute," Mr Castle Jones said.
Meanwhile, the three wise men were played by three whippets - one of which, Edna, was the minister's own pet.
The three whippets, Edna, Betty and Topsy played the three wise men
Rev Rory Castle Jones said the chapel was dog-friendly
"They all get on very well and enjoy running laps of the chapel, and they are there every Sunday," he added.
The pooches were dressed in tinsel, tea towels and colourful scarves brought by members of the congregation to assume their roles.
"They didn't like the costumes, but it was all quite ridiculous and bizarre," Rev Rory Castle Jones said.
Mary and Joseph were played by dogs Finley and Fearne
"We didn't have any arguments over casting. But some of the dogs didn't work so well with others."
"The inn keepers was a bit grumpy. I don't think she was particularly excited about welcoming Mary and Joseph to the chapel, but she excelled in the end."
He added that the three wise whippets preferred to run everywhere, rather than walk wisely.
"It was utter chaos, definitely. But we had some tricks up our sleeves," the minister said.
Treats were used to help direct the pooches in their roles
Treats were wrapped in tights and swung around at the end of bamboo canes and owners strategically positioned at certain places in the chapel to direct the action.
"It was quite a strange sight for people walking past up the mountain to see all these people waving sticks with tights on and dogs running around in costumes - so we had to do some explaining," he added.
The whole production took a several hours in a morning to make the two minute film.
Next year it could be cats taking on the chapel's nativity
Mr Castle Jones said the chapel's team who organise events had wanted to "put a smile of people's faces" and give people a "nice, warm Christmas feeling".
The dogs themselves were volunteered by their owners who are members of the chapel's congregation or friends in the nearby area.
He added that the chapel was open to new ideas for its nativity next year, but there have already been suggestions for cats to take up the task - or more exotic animals.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-59771186
|
news_uk-wales-59771186
|
|
Ava White: Boy in court accused of Liverpool stab murder - BBC News
|
2021-12-01
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The boy is charged with murdering 12-year-old Ava White who was stabbed to death in Liverpool.
|
Liverpool
|
Ava White was out with friends in Liverpool when she was attacked
A teenage boy has appeared in court charged with murdering a 12-year-old girl who was stabbed to death.
Ava White was out with friends in Liverpool city centre when she was attacked on Thursday.
She was stabbed shortly after the city's Christmas lights switch-on at about 20:40 GMT.
The 14-year-old boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was remanded in secure accommodation until a plea hearing on 18 February.
The teenager, who appeared in court via video-link, is also charged with possession of a bladed article.
He spoke only to confirm his name during the 15-minute hearing.
Honorary Recorder of Liverpool, Judge Andrew Menary QC, listed the case for trial on 16 May and said it was likely to last two to three weeks.
Floral tributes were left near the scene of Ava's stabbing
Ava was involved in a "verbal argument" which escalated into an "assault on her with a knife" in the city centre, police said.
She was taken to Alder Hey Children's Hospital but died a short time later.
Floral tributes have been left near the scene where she was attacked.
Ava, who attended Notre Dame Catholic College in Everton, was described as "an incredibly popular girl with a fantastic group of friends" by her head teacher Peter Duffy.
Three other boys, aged between 13 and 15, who were also arrested in connection with the stabbing, have been conditionally bailed as inquiries continue.
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-merseyside-59489666
|
news_uk-england-merseyside-59489666
|
|
Jussie Smollett: Actor found guilty of lying about attack - BBC News
|
2021-12-09
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
A lawyer for the actor has said his client plans "100%" to appeal the verdict.
|
US & Canada
|
US actor Jussie Smollett lied to police when he claimed to have been the victim of a racist, homophobic assault, a Chicago jury has found.
At trial this week, Smollett, 39, stood by denials that he staged the hoax attack against himself.
Prosecutors countered that he "lied for hours" on the stand as he repeated what he told to Chicago police.
He was found guilty on Thursday of five counts of disorderly conduct.
Each count carries a penalty of up to three years in prison. Given Smollett's lack of previous convictions, experts have said a lighter sentence or probation is likely. A sentencing date has yet to be scheduled.
The jury of six men and six women reached its decision one day after deliberations began.
The trial stemmed from an incident nearly three years ago, in January 2019, when the former Empire television show star told police he was the victim of an attack.
Smollett, who is black and gay, told police he was set upon by two assailants who shouted slurs, yelled a Trump slogan, dumped a "chemical substance" on him, and tied a noose around his neck while he was walking late at night in Chicago.
Authorities opened an investigation into the attack, but in February of that year, police charged Smollett with filing a false police report, alleging he had staged the assault.
He faced a total of six charges, each referring to different instances in which he was accused of lying to police. He was found guilty of five of the six charges, meaning that the last one had not been proven in court.
At trial, jurors heard from brothers Abimbola and Olabinjo Osundairo, who said Smollett had orchestrated the attack himself and paid them $3,500 (£2,600) to carry it out.
Smollett said the cheque was for a meal and workout plan from Abimbola, a friend and an extra on Empire, a TV drama about a hip hop dynasty. Asked by his defence lawyer if he gave the man payment for the alleged scheme, Smollett replied: "Never."
He also testified that he and Abimbola were involved in a sexual relationship before the alleged attack.
Special prosecutor Dan Webb asked the actor repeatedly about a "hoax" attack. Each time, Smollett denied that was the case.
"There was no hoax on my part," he said. "Any question you're going to ask about that is going to be denied."
In his closing arguments, Mr Webb said Smollett caused Chicago police to spend enormous resources investigating the alleged crime.
"Besides being against the law, it is just plain wrong to outright denigrate something as serious as a real hate crime and then make sure it involved words and symbols that have such historical significance in our country," Mr Webb said.
Outside the court after the verdict was read, Mr Webb added that "for Mr Smollett to get up in front of [the jury] and lie for hours and hours, that really compounded his misconduct".
He called it "unexpected" that Smollett would lie repeatedly during trial, and said that it will be something that he raises with the judge during sentencing.
Nenye Uche, a lawyer for Smollett, said that the team "obviously respectfully disagree with the jury's verdict", and that they are "100% confident" that the case will be overturned on appeal.
Authorities have said Smollett wanted to boost his profile because he was "dissatisfied with his salary" on Empire. By the fifth season of the show, he said he was being paid $100,000 per episode.
He was eventually written out amid the controversy around the alleged attack.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch the background to the bizarre Jussie Smollett case - this video was published in April 2019
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59599142
|
news_world-us-canada-59599142
|
|
Omicron: Why tougher Covid measures may not be worth it - BBC News
|
2021-12-19
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Omicron is expected to cause a surge in infections. Should more be done to suppress it?
|
Health
|
Infections caused by the new variant Omicron are rising rapidly, doubling every two to three days.
Modelling is warning hospital admissions could rise sharply.
Ministers across the UK are under pressure to bring in tougher measures.
There are strong arguments for those, but there are also reasons why trying to do more to suppress Omicron may not be worth it.
Much has been made of suggestions that this variant is causing milder illness. In South Africa, reports are emerging that people are not as seriously ill in this wave as they were in earlier ones.
There is still uncertainty about this. But it is logical. Not because the virus has changed to become less severe, but because reinfections and infections post-vaccination are likely to be milder.
The immune system now recognises this virus and while it may not be able to prevent infection, it knows how to fight it.
"The balance of evidence," says Prof Paul Hunter, an expert in infectious diseases at the University of East Anglia, "certainly points to that."
Booster jabs have been shown to be effective against Omicron
If so, that puts the UK in a strong position to be able to deal with this wave.
Around 95% of the adult population has some immunity to the virus either through infection or vaccination or both, according to the Office for National Statistics.
Research by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine published at the start of winter before Omicron emerged said such high levels of immunity meant we had the smallest pool of vulnerable people in Europe.
On top of that there is now the impact of the rapid rollout of boosters, which research suggests are vital to blunting the impact of Omicron.
Around 60% of those eligible have had one including nearly 90% of the most vulnerable.
Taken together, it is a very different picture from last winter when the lockdown allowed the rollout of the vaccination programme to get going and provide protection to the majority of the adult population.
Prof Hunter says the combined level of vaccine-induced and infection-induced immunity in the population now means the case for extra restrictions beyond what has been announced is much weaker than it was previously.
Tougher measures, he says, will not stop the epidemic, they will just extend it. "If you are waiting for vaccines or better treatments, suppressing the virus could be an advantage - but it's hard to see the argument for that now."
Protecting the NHS from being completely overwhelmed would, of course, necessitate action.
But Prof Hunter says he is "cautiously optimistic" that will not happen, believing the public will naturally start to curb their behaviour given the concern being expressed about Omicron.
And, once we get through this, he believes we will be in a much better position. "There will be other variants but exposure will have built up our immunity even further. We will see milder disease - until eventually it is something like the common cold."
So what are the chances of the NHS buckling in the coming weeks? While there are strong grounds to hope the proportion of infections leading to a hospital admission will be lower than it was previously, if infection levels rise too high the absolute numbers could still be much bigger than they are now.
This much can be seen from the modelling published by the LSHTM.
It sets out what could be called the best and worst-case scenarios.
The best would see admissions peak at just over half the level of last winter, the worst would see admissions edge towards double.
Dr Raghib Ali, a clinical epidemiologist at University of Cambridge, and a front-line doctor, says given the levels of immunity in the population there is no need to panic yet.
"We need to keep calm," he says, and wait until we start getting a clear idea of what is happening with hospital admissions. "We should know soon."
He admits some further action may be needed to "flatten the peak" to stop hospitals getting overwhelmed.
But he believes the Christmas break and January may come to our aid as workplace mixing and travel reduces, although he stresses that taking precautions such as regular testing, mask-wearing and ventilating indoor spaces is essential.
"We have to be realistic, we are not going to stop Omicron."
Suppress it too much and arguably it will just delay deaths and serious illness - and may cause more overall harm than good when you consider the wider impact on health, education and the economy, he says.
The key, though, will be that the NHS can keep delivering care to those who need it.
Chris Hopson, of NHS Providers, which represents hospital bosses, says he is "very concerned" given what has already happened with patients facing longer waits for ambulances and A&E.
Care is already becoming "less safe", he says, and the service is being forced to run "beyond full stretch".
It is clear the peak in admissions needs to be towards the lower end of the modelling estimates for the NHS to have a chance of getting through the next few months.
And even if the wave of infections does not cause enough serious illness to overwhelm the NHS, University of Reading scientist Dr Simon Clarke says there could still be significant societal problems.
"Mass sickness of people who are not ill enough to end up in hospital, but who need to convalesce at home, could deliver a substantial shutdown of public services and slowing of economic activity," he says.
How long could this last? The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) believes we are likely to be looking at a period of four to eight weeks where we will be battling the acute stage of the Omicron surge.
It will be, says Dr Susan Hopkins, UKHSA's chief medical adviser, a "very difficult" period.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59658486
|
news_health-59658486
|
|
Boris Johnson: Is 'Planet Boris' finally going to implode? - BBC News
|
2021-12-19
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Day after day, for more than a month, Downing Street has been struggling to keep hold of events.
|
UK Politics
|
"Planet Boris is the strangest place in the world - no rules apply," a cabinet minister told me a few days ago as they marvelled at the strangeness of the current political universe.
Events had been disastrous, they admitted, yet they seemed sure at that moment that the prime minister's ability to defy any normal political gravity would see him through.
But then, on Tuesday night, a video emerged showing aides joking about a Downing Street event last Christmas as Britain was in lockdown. The humiliating leak engulfed No 10 in a fresh crisis that shows no sign of easing.
So this weekend it is worth asking if "Planet Boris" might actually, finally implode?
One senior official summed up the state of play simply: "It's a disaster."
Day after day, for more than a month, Downing Street has been struggling to keep hold of events.
There have been miscalculations and missteps - attempts to change the rules to protect one of their own, Owen Paterson; the disastrous efforts to close down stories about Christmas parties last year, and most recently, a fine for the Conservative Party over the financing of Mr and Mrs Johnson's lavish renovation of the No 10 flat.
The mistakes have been all the worse because they were miscalculations of Downing Street's own making. Almost nothing riles MPs and ministers outside the clique at the top of government more than No 10 making mistakes for which they all have to answer.
Each incident fuelled the opposition's main argument they had been making for months - that Mr Johnson behaves as if he's exempt from following the rules.
Whether it's the Christmas parties or the cash for the flat, the mess has highlighted this prime minister's complicated relationship with the truth, which we've discussed here before.
There has been little sense that No 10 has been able to, you might say, take back control. In fact, as pressure has cranked up in recent days it's been hard sometimes to get any sense of what is going on at all.
[L]ike a theme park of soft decision-making and avoidance
The atmosphere inside is described as deadly silent, horrible, as if the lights are on, but no-one's really home.
Some ministers loyal to Boris Johnson reject the notion that anything is serious or somehow in permanent decline.
It's true that the prime minister's career has been built on proudly dismissing, and dismantling norms. It's also true that he has slipped before, but surged back, time and again. He is the campaigner of his generation, they believe, and can recover.
But it is notable that MPs who were involved in getting Boris Johnson to No 10 say privately, and increasingly colourfully, that he has to sharpen up.
One of them told me that Downing Street has become "like a theme park of soft decision-making and avoidance".
"There's the helter-skelter, there's the lost-in-space ride, there's the final ride which is the 'make a decision and see if you can stick to it by the end of the ride'."
With deep irritation they told me: "They all have to be shut down. We do not need a fairground. Downing Street has to be run like a military camp."
Others talk of drift and decline. "Nothing important's discussed in our meetings," one says.
At the start of meetings the PM verbally encourages them to contribute, but the implicit message is, "Don't speak up." they feel. Ministers sometimes choose to stay silent. One jokes that they message each other instead about how bad things are.
After the last few torrid weeks, the trouble, according to one former cabinet minister is that the different Tory tribes, who sometimes can't stand each other, now find themselves able to agree. The problem for Mr Johnson is that the only thing they agree on is how unhappy they are.
According to this analysis, moderates who might see themselves as "internationalists" are grumpy about foreign policy and the government's cuts to foreign aid. The Brexiteer gang are cross that he's not being tough enough about Northern Ireland.
The "red wall" group, with new seats from 2019, know they owe them in large part to Mr Johnson, but they also see themselves as champions of their areas. And some of them don't feel they have much to show for that just yet. Some Northern Tories are said, increasingly, to believe that the PM is "all mouth, no trousers".
And among the right-wing of the party, there's increasing frustration that the government won't take more radical action - changing human rights law, for example - at the Channel to stop migrants crossing in small boats.
These groups shift around of course, but right now they are said to be "coagulating" - instead of spats between each other they are coming together on one thing, that the recent mess can't be allowed to go on.
Many MPs are hopeful it could end up with a new Downing Street operation. One said there needs to be a "clear-out of the 'born to rule' cabal", suggesting that the recent fiascos were inevitable given who has been around the PM.
None of us should be surprised... when the grown-ups leave, the children have an illegal house party
"Frankly none of us should have been surprised when the grown-ups leave, that the children have an illegal house party," the MP said, adding that the Downing Street party fiasco should be the moment to "clear the sycophants out".
There isn't much sign yet that Mr Johnson is planning a big shake up of his team though. Allegra Stratton, who resigned on Wednesday as a senior government spokeswoman, carried the can for this week's humiliating leaked video footage.
And there's chatter that the prime minister has made a strategic decision to hold on to director of communications Jack Doyle for now, while lining him up to take the fall when the inquiry emerges.
Two sources have told the BBC Mr Doyle's resignation was offered but refused, although No 10 has denied this happened.
But as so often, while the Westminster rumour mill loves almost nothing more than speculating about who is in and who is out, the fairly desperate state of affairs is in the end, always, about the boss. Tone and culture is set by the person at the top, whoever else is up or down.
That's why what's next is, first and foremost, down to the decisions Mr Johnson makes himself. Does he acknowledge there have been problems? Will he resolve to lead in a different way? Will he "[look] in the mirror", as his friend and former minister Robert Buckland urged him publicly to do, and say "surely I can do this better"?
If not, well, Mr Johnson still has his huge majority. He still has enormous powers as the leader of the government, and as the political campaigner and celebrity.
Yet this week it feels sentiment has moved in the Tory party, with more and more of his own side imagining what life might be like under a different leader.
Carrie Johnson gave birth to the couple's second child this week, a daughter
Is the moment nearly upon them when he becomes less a flawed, but fundamentally sparkling, asset, than a liability?
A former minister who has analysed the party tribes even suggests "stage one" of a leadership change is complete: when the party agrees among itself privately that the PM is running out of road.
"Stage two", however, is the who next, how and when, and "that can take a very long time".
Right now, it seems far-fetched to imagine any kind of challenge soon. Don't doubt, however, that allies of potential candidates for next time round, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, are thinking hard about what's next.
There are even whispers that some MPs have been urging former cabinet minister Jeremy Hunt to put himself forward soon as a kind of safety, continuity candidate in the new year, even though right now, I'm told, "He doesn't want to play."
Of course, anyone that's mentioned in connection with the leadership would publicly deny any ambition, or any plotting. Breathless conversations about replacing leaders are rarely far from the topic of conversation in Westminster.
A former minister admits they have been approached about exactly that twice in a matter of days, but cautions that to act any time soon would be "collective political suicide". With the pandemic still raging, the economy pretty fragile, and only two years on from the last election, would the public really want to indulge the Tory party tearing itself apart in public, yet again?
But the volume of discussions about replacements for the prime minister is increasing. Many MPs believe it's down to him to get a grip if that's to fade.
Mr Johnson faces two tests next week, that could deepen the sense of an impending Christmas crisis, or dial down the drama. There's a potentially huge rebellion in the Commons on Tuesday about the Covid regulations. Dozens of his backbenchers have already gone on the record to say they will vote against the plans.
With Labour support, the vote will pass, but a huge Tory vote against would display a real two fingers up to No 10. The whips and Mr Johnson, equally, have a huge opportunity to try to quell the anger in the next few days.
And there's the possibility of a different kind of rebellion next Thursday, when the by-election takes place to replace Owen Paterson as MP for North Shropshire. Many Conservatives fear doom on the ground there. A terrible result in what should be a safe seat would heighten the danger for the PM.
As we head into the last week of Parliament in 2021, there is plenty of peril. The prime minister faces risks all around.
It's madness to write him off - his biography is a living warning against that. Yet, a backer of the prime minister told me that while the situation doesn't have to be terminal, it has - they said with no pleasure - to change.
"If it doesn't, we all know where it leads. It leads to the front door."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59615564
|
news_uk-politics-59615564
|
|
As it happened: Javid does not rule out more Covid measures - BBC News
|
2021-12-19
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The health secretary says there are "no guarantees" in the pandemic when asked if he was ruling out new restrictions before Christmas.
|
UK
|
Introducing restrictions buys time, but it does not solve the problem.
The risk is you just delay the inevitable because you get a rebound in infections once they are lifted.
So the question that has to be asked is, what will be done with the time that a short circuit breaker would provide if it was introduced.
It would certainly allow more boosters to be given. But more than 80% of the most vulnerable have already been boosted, so the gains from that are nowhere near what they were for last winter’s lockdown when the vaccine programme was in its infancy.
If admissions were to rise as quickly as some of the most pessimistic modelling suggests, restrictions could stop the NHS being overwhelmed by flattening the peak.
This perhaps remains the strongest argument in favour of a circuit breaker given the uncertainty for the moment over how much serious illness will be caused by this Omicron wave.
And all of that, of course, needs to be weighed against the costs to society, the economy and wider mental health.
You can read more from Nick on what tougher measures will achieve, here.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-59716357
|
news_live_uk-59716357
|
|
Covid-19: Sajid Javid refuses to rule out more restrictions - BBC News
|
2021-12-19
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
More than 12,000 new Omicron cases are confirmed in the UK, as the variant continues to surge.
|
UK
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch as the health secretary tells Andrew Marr he won't rule out bringing in tighter Covid measures
The health secretary has refused to rule out further Covid restrictions for England, as the Omicron variant spreads around the country.
A further 12,133 Omicron cases have been confirmed in the UK, although the true number is likely to be far higher.
Asked about possible new measures to slow the spread, Sajid Javid said there were "no guarantees in this pandemic".
The government and devolved leaders discussed the situation in a Cobra meeting on Sunday.
When it was suggested to him he was not ruling out a circuit-breaker - a short, sharp lockdown - or new restrictions before Christmas, Mr Javid told the BBC's Andrew Marr: "There are no guarantees in this pandemic, I don't think.
"At this point we just have to keep everything under review."
A further 82,886 daily Covid cases were reported across the UK on Sunday, after several days of record highs last week.
And leaked notes from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergency (Sage) suggest that, without intervention beyond current Plan B rules in England, hospital admissions could reach 3,000 a day.
On those notes, Mr Javid said: "It's a very sobering analysis. We take it very seriously."
However, he added: "We do have to challenge data and underlying assumptions, I think that is appropriate, and take into account a broader set of facts."
Current Plan B rules for England include Covid passes for certain events, face masks in more places and people being urged to work from home if they can.
Other nations of the UK have similar rules - though Scotland has gone further by asking people to limit social contact to three households at a time in the run-up to Christmas, and could go further still in the new year.
Wales has also ordered nightclubs to close from 27 December.
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan told the BBC it was "inevitable" new coronavirus measures would be brought in for England.
"I think if we don't bring in new restrictions sooner rather than later, you're going to see even more positive cases and potentially public services like the NHS on the verge of collapse, if not collapsing," he said.
"I think we should be able to celebrate Christmas safely. But I think sooner rather than later we're going to look at social distancing, we're going to have to look at household mixing.
"If we don't, the number of cases is only going one way."
Speaking to Sky News, Mr Javid said ministers were monitoring the data and discussing it with scientists "almost on an hourly basis".
He confirmed that if new measures were to be proposed, Parliament would be recalled to approve them.
The health secretary's comments come exactly a year after Prime Minister Boris Johnson imposed Christmas restrictions on almost 18 million people across London and parts of England, in the face of the spread of the Alpha variant, which was first identified in Kent.
But Mr Javid said current factors, including vaccinations and antiviral medication, meant "the situation today in terms of our defences is very different".
He added that a record 906,656 vaccine doses were administered yesterday in England - including more than 830,000 boosters.
It means more than 27 million people in the UK have now had their third or booster dose.
Saturday's data - which included the second-highest number of cases since mass testing began last year - also saw another 125 deaths recorded within 28 days of a positive test, down slightly on a week ago.
The UK Health Security Agency said that, so far, seven people with Omicron have died in England.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. The BBC's Laura Foster explains what a circuit breaker is and how it could help tackle Covid-19
While the devolved nations consider the possibility of further measures, a number of European countries are taking tough action - including limiting travel to and from the UK.
Both Germany and France have now banned arrivals from Britain - though there are exceptions for some groups.
And in the Netherlands, a strict lockdown has been announced, set to last until 14 January.
Introducing restrictions buys time, but it does not solve the problem.
The risk is you just delay the inevitable because you get a rebound in infections once they are lifted.
So the question that has to be asked is what will be done with the time that a short "circuit-breaker" would provide if it was introduced.
It would certainly allow more boosters to be done. But given more than 80% of the most vulnerable have been boosted the gains from that are nowhere near what they were for last winter's lockdown when the vaccine programme was in its infancy.
If admissions were to rise as quickly as some of the most pessimistic modelling suggests restrictions could stop the NHS being overwhelmed by flattening the peak.
This perhaps remains the strongest argument in favour of a circuit breaker given the uncertainty for the moment over how much serious illness will be caused by this Omicron wave.
And all of that, of course, needs to be weighed against the costs to society, the economy and wider mental health.
Brexit minister Lord Frost, meanwhile, has resigned from the UK government over "concerns about the current direction of travel".
In a letter to Mr Johnson, the peer, who led Brexit negotiations, said he hoped the PM would "not be tempted" by "coercive measures" to tackle Covid.
Asked about the resignation, Mr Javid said Lord Frost was an "outstanding public servant", telling the BBC that while he disagreed with his remarks, the minister had "resigned out of principle... and we have to respect that".
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59718601
|
news_uk-59718601
|
|
Hunting bill: NI politicians reject hunting with dogs ban - BBC News
|
2021-12-06
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK where hunting wild animals with dogs is permitted.
|
Northern Ireland
|
Hunting with dogs has been illegal in England, Scotland and Wales since the early 2000s
The Northern Ireland Assembly has rejected a bill which sought to ban hunting wild animals with dogs in Northern Ireland.
The private members bill had been brought by the Alliance Party's John Blair who told the assembly a ban is "long overdue".
It was defeated by 45 votes to 38 in the Assembly on Monday.
Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK where the practice is still permitted.
The bill will not move to the committee stage.
Ahead of the debate, Agriculture and Environment Minister Edwin Poots said he, personally, could not support the bill.
Animal welfare charity, the USPCA, had backed the bill.
It said it was "very disappointed" with the outcome.
"This result is contrary to the views of the public, as outlined in the consultation response and in previous public opinion polls," said USPCA chief executive Brendan Mullan.
"Hunting wild mammals with dogs is sadistic and cruel and has no place in an advanced and compassionate society.
"We are staggered that half of our political representatives do not hold this view and encourage members of the public to reflect on whether their views have been appropriately represented on this issue."
Mr Blair, who brought the bill, said his personal and political view was that the practice could not be considered a sport.
"Fox hunting and stag hunting should have no place in a civilised society," he said.
A public consultation saw more than 18,000 respondents, with 80% in favour of a ban.
Hunting wild mammals with dogs has been illegal in Scotland, England and Wales since the early 2000s.
Mr Blair said he felt that some of the arguments against the bill were "scare tactics"
The second stage of Mr Blair's bill took place at Stormont on Monday, with 83 MLAs taking part in the vote.
It is believed some of the parties allowed their members a conscience vote on the issue.
Even if a majority of MLAs had voted to support it, the legislation could have struggled to make it into law before March 2022, when the assembly will be dissolved ahead of next year's election.
Opinion was divided during the assembly debate.
Sinn Féin's Declan McAleer, who is also chair of Stormont's Agriculture and Environment committee, said more time was needed to scrutinise the bill.
"There are elements of the bill we agree with, but the legislation as it currently stands, we feel, is unworkable," he told the assembly.
"We would need additional time on the committee to rectify it and it is time we don't have."
Mr McAleer added that he believed the legislation would be best taken forward by the agriculture and environment department in the next mandate.
DUP MLA William Irwin described the bill as "bad legislation" which would have "unintended consequences".
He said he had received correspondence from constituents who were concerned about how the legislation had been drafted and said he believed it "should be taken off the table".
SDLP MLA Patsy McGlone said he had a "major concern" relating to the wording of the draft legislation.
UUP Rosemary Barton said there are many people who "would argue that hunting with dogs is a necessity to keep predators like foxes under control, others would contend that this method of control is very cruel and causes unnecessary suffering".
Mr Blair told the BBC's Good Morning Ulster programme that "the context of the bill is that the pursuit of wild mammals by hunting dogs for the purpose of human enjoyment is cruel and unnecessary".
He said that he felt that some of the arguments being used against introducing the bill amounted to an attempt to revert to the "do nothing option".
Mr Poots told the same programme that while he did not like hunting, he could not back the bill.
"I think it isn't well thought through - it might be well meaning, but not well thought through - and it has damaging consequences if it came into force," he said.
Before the vote, Edwin Poots said he would not be supporting the bill
Mr Poots added that biodiversity was a key aspect of his department.
"We have predators, particularly on our ground nesting birds and other smaller mammals," he said.
"If you have no ability to manage those predators then you will further damage biodiversity in Northern Ireland.
"One of the biggest impacts that we have on birds like red grouse and hen harriers and so forth is foxes, badgers and, indeed, crows and some of the other birds who take the eggs before those eggs have a chance to hatch.
"If we're serious about diversity then we need to have management tools and we need to be very cautious about removing management tools."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-59543635
|
news_uk-northern-ireland-59543635
|
|
French court jails former Tory councillor David Turtle over wife's murder - BBC News
|
2021-12-12
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Stephanie Turtle was killed when her husband deliberately ran her over with his car in 2017
|
UK
|
Stephanie and David Turtle moved to France to set up a guest house
A former Conservative councillor has been convicted of killing his wife by deliberately running her over with his car outside their French home in 2017.
David Turtle, 67, was found guilty of murdering his wife, Stephanie, 50, and sentenced to 14 years imprisonment.
The Cahors Criminal Court found that he had intentionally driven over his wife with his Mercedes car after a heated argument over a television programme.
Turtle denies murdering his wife. He said he intends to appeal the verdict.
He told the court in south-west France that his wife's death had been a tragic accident and had followed an evening of arguments at the home in Prayssac, near Cahors, over what to watch on television.
Turtle said he fell asleep on the couch following the initial row, before his wife woke him after midnight and the argument intensified.
He claimed he decided to go for a drive and did not realise that his wife was in front of the car.
He told the court that his office was convinced that David Turtle "could not fail to have been aware of the fact that his wife was in front of the car when [he] started to drive it. Mr Turtle started the car. If she was in front of it on the ground, wouldn't she have stood up? Wouldn't she have shouted?".
Police said Ms Turtle had suffered a crushed rib cage, injuries to her collarbone, abdomen, pelvis and lungs and was found beneath a car by firefighters the following morning.
Officers said they believed that Ms Turtle had lain down in front of the car to stop her husband leaving.
Turtle served as a Conservative councillor on the Bournemouth Council from May 2015 to July 2016.
He resigned his position to move to France with his wife, where the couple opened a guest house business.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59623256
|
news_uk-59623256
|
|
Boris Johnson: Is 'Planet Boris' finally going to implode? - BBC News
|
2021-12-12
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Day after day, for more than a month, Downing Street has been struggling to keep hold of events.
|
UK Politics
|
"Planet Boris is the strangest place in the world - no rules apply," a cabinet minister told me a few days ago as they marvelled at the strangeness of the current political universe.
Events had been disastrous, they admitted, yet they seemed sure at that moment that the prime minister's ability to defy any normal political gravity would see him through.
But then, on Tuesday night, a video emerged showing aides joking about a Downing Street event last Christmas as Britain was in lockdown. The humiliating leak engulfed No 10 in a fresh crisis that shows no sign of easing.
So this weekend it is worth asking if "Planet Boris" might actually, finally implode?
One senior official summed up the state of play simply: "It's a disaster."
Day after day, for more than a month, Downing Street has been struggling to keep hold of events.
There have been miscalculations and missteps - attempts to change the rules to protect one of their own, Owen Paterson; the disastrous efforts to close down stories about Christmas parties last year, and most recently, a fine for the Conservative Party over the financing of Mr and Mrs Johnson's lavish renovation of the No 10 flat.
The mistakes have been all the worse because they were miscalculations of Downing Street's own making. Almost nothing riles MPs and ministers outside the clique at the top of government more than No 10 making mistakes for which they all have to answer.
Each incident fuelled the opposition's main argument they had been making for months - that Mr Johnson behaves as if he's exempt from following the rules.
Whether it's the Christmas parties or the cash for the flat, the mess has highlighted this prime minister's complicated relationship with the truth, which we've discussed here before.
There has been little sense that No 10 has been able to, you might say, take back control. In fact, as pressure has cranked up in recent days it's been hard sometimes to get any sense of what is going on at all.
[L]ike a theme park of soft decision-making and avoidance
The atmosphere inside is described as deadly silent, horrible, as if the lights are on, but no-one's really home.
Some ministers loyal to Boris Johnson reject the notion that anything is serious or somehow in permanent decline.
It's true that the prime minister's career has been built on proudly dismissing, and dismantling norms. It's also true that he has slipped before, but surged back, time and again. He is the campaigner of his generation, they believe, and can recover.
But it is notable that MPs who were involved in getting Boris Johnson to No 10 say privately, and increasingly colourfully, that he has to sharpen up.
One of them told me that Downing Street has become "like a theme park of soft decision-making and avoidance".
"There's the helter-skelter, there's the lost-in-space ride, there's the final ride which is the 'make a decision and see if you can stick to it by the end of the ride'."
With deep irritation they told me: "They all have to be shut down. We do not need a fairground. Downing Street has to be run like a military camp."
Others talk of drift and decline. "Nothing important's discussed in our meetings," one says.
At the start of meetings the PM verbally encourages them to contribute, but the implicit message is, "Don't speak up." they feel. Ministers sometimes choose to stay silent. One jokes that they message each other instead about how bad things are.
After the last few torrid weeks, the trouble, according to one former cabinet minister is that the different Tory tribes, who sometimes can't stand each other, now find themselves able to agree. The problem for Mr Johnson is that the only thing they agree on is how unhappy they are.
According to this analysis, moderates who might see themselves as "internationalists" are grumpy about foreign policy and the government's cuts to foreign aid. The Brexiteer gang are cross that he's not being tough enough about Northern Ireland.
The "red wall" group, with new seats from 2019, know they owe them in large part to Mr Johnson, but they also see themselves as champions of their areas. And some of them don't feel they have much to show for that just yet. Some Northern Tories are said, increasingly, to believe that the PM is "all mouth, no trousers".
And among the right-wing of the party, there's increasing frustration that the government won't take more radical action - changing human rights law, for example - at the Channel to stop migrants crossing in small boats.
These groups shift around of course, but right now they are said to be "coagulating" - instead of spats between each other they are coming together on one thing, that the recent mess can't be allowed to go on.
Many MPs are hopeful it could end up with a new Downing Street operation. One said there needs to be a "clear-out of the 'born to rule' cabal", suggesting that the recent fiascos were inevitable given who has been around the PM.
None of us should be surprised... when the grown-ups leave, the children have an illegal house party
"Frankly none of us should have been surprised when the grown-ups leave, that the children have an illegal house party," the MP said, adding that the Downing Street party fiasco should be the moment to "clear the sycophants out".
There isn't much sign yet that Mr Johnson is planning a big shake up of his team though. Allegra Stratton, who resigned on Wednesday as a senior government spokeswoman, carried the can for this week's humiliating leaked video footage.
And there's chatter that the prime minister has made a strategic decision to hold on to director of communications Jack Doyle for now, while lining him up to take the fall when the inquiry emerges.
Two sources have told the BBC Mr Doyle's resignation was offered but refused, although No 10 has denied this happened.
But as so often, while the Westminster rumour mill loves almost nothing more than speculating about who is in and who is out, the fairly desperate state of affairs is in the end, always, about the boss. Tone and culture is set by the person at the top, whoever else is up or down.
That's why what's next is, first and foremost, down to the decisions Mr Johnson makes himself. Does he acknowledge there have been problems? Will he resolve to lead in a different way? Will he "[look] in the mirror", as his friend and former minister Robert Buckland urged him publicly to do, and say "surely I can do this better"?
If not, well, Mr Johnson still has his huge majority. He still has enormous powers as the leader of the government, and as the political campaigner and celebrity.
Yet this week it feels sentiment has moved in the Tory party, with more and more of his own side imagining what life might be like under a different leader.
Carrie Johnson gave birth to the couple's second child this week, a daughter
Is the moment nearly upon them when he becomes less a flawed, but fundamentally sparkling, asset, than a liability?
A former minister who has analysed the party tribes even suggests "stage one" of a leadership change is complete: when the party agrees among itself privately that the PM is running out of road.
"Stage two", however, is the who next, how and when, and "that can take a very long time".
Right now, it seems far-fetched to imagine any kind of challenge soon. Don't doubt, however, that allies of potential candidates for next time round, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, are thinking hard about what's next.
There are even whispers that some MPs have been urging former cabinet minister Jeremy Hunt to put himself forward soon as a kind of safety, continuity candidate in the new year, even though right now, I'm told, "He doesn't want to play."
Of course, anyone that's mentioned in connection with the leadership would publicly deny any ambition, or any plotting. Breathless conversations about replacing leaders are rarely far from the topic of conversation in Westminster.
A former minister admits they have been approached about exactly that twice in a matter of days, but cautions that to act any time soon would be "collective political suicide". With the pandemic still raging, the economy pretty fragile, and only two years on from the last election, would the public really want to indulge the Tory party tearing itself apart in public, yet again?
But the volume of discussions about replacements for the prime minister is increasing. Many MPs believe it's down to him to get a grip if that's to fade.
Mr Johnson faces two tests next week, that could deepen the sense of an impending Christmas crisis, or dial down the drama. There's a potentially huge rebellion in the Commons on Tuesday about the Covid regulations. Dozens of his backbenchers have already gone on the record to say they will vote against the plans.
With Labour support, the vote will pass, but a huge Tory vote against would display a real two fingers up to No 10. The whips and Mr Johnson, equally, have a huge opportunity to try to quell the anger in the next few days.
And there's the possibility of a different kind of rebellion next Thursday, when the by-election takes place to replace Owen Paterson as MP for North Shropshire. Many Conservatives fear doom on the ground there. A terrible result in what should be a safe seat would heighten the danger for the PM.
As we head into the last week of Parliament in 2021, there is plenty of peril. The prime minister faces risks all around.
It's madness to write him off - his biography is a living warning against that. Yet, a backer of the prime minister told me that while the situation doesn't have to be terminal, it has - they said with no pleasure - to change.
"If it doesn't, we all know where it leads. It leads to the front door."
|
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59615564
|
news_uk-politics-59615564
|
|
PM’s message to sit up and pay attention - BBC News
|
2021-12-12
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
But Boris Johnson's stern words tonight may run into three challenges.
|
UK Politics
|
Boris Johnson has gone far with the help of simple three word slogans.
Tonight, as the country is again in the grip of a fast spreading virus variant, and he is in the grip of a political mess, there's a new one, "Get Boosted Now".
The prime minister's language was dramatic, warning people that the pandemic is again an 'emergency' with a 'tidal wave' now coming of the omicron variant.
He called on you to have that booster dose as soon as humanly possible or, if not, the NHS could be overwhelmed by a terrible new wave of the pandemic.
The booster is the defence against what's coming, his argument. The responsibility therefore on all of us to come forward for another dose of the jab.
The practicalities he promised sound like a huge expansion of the scheme. Instead of all over 18s in England being offered a booster by the end of January, the new target is that they'll be offered one by the end of this year.
There'll be 42 'new military planning teams' across every region. New mobile vaccination units, bigger sites, expanded hours for centres that are already in operation.
A new, what the prime minister described, "Omicron emergency booster national mission".
He's promised extra cash for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, too.
There is no doubt that to deliver a speech in this manner, any prime minister, alone at the polished table in the grandeur of Downing Street, sends a massive message to the public to sit up and pay attention.
The so-called 'national address' is a lever that Number 10 is only meant to pull in extraordinary moments.
Government insiders argue that the spread of Omicron is so much faster than expected that to wait any longer before making such an appeal, not to shout about the risk from the rooftops would be a mistake.
Many members of the public may be worried enough to take action, to rush to book their booster if they have not yet had it, or even to come forward for their vaccination which they have turned down so far.
Yet Mr Johnson's stern words tonight may run into three different challenges.
It won't be easy to expand the booster programme at such a pace. There's been plenty of anecdotal evidence about the availability and eligibility, and questions about why it didn't get going much more quickly, weeks ago.
Second, Mr Johnson's credibility has taken a significant knock in recent weeks. Will the public, this time, be as willing to listen to him?
And in his own party there is frustration at his decision making and scepticism about what's going on. The prime minister can make bold and urgent promises about the booster, but keeping them is something else.
• None PM's press chief spoke at No 10 party last year
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59631893
|
news_uk-politics-59631893
|
|
Max Verstappen wins title after last-lap overtake of Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes protests rejected - BBC Sport
|
2021-12-12
|
None
|
Red Bull's Max Verstappen wins his first Formula 1 world title in dramatic circumstances at the season finale in Abu Dhabi.
| null |
Red Bull's Max Verstappen snatched his first Formula 1 world title by beating Lewis Hamilton on the last lap of a thrilling season finale in Abu Dhabi - then had to wait while the Briton's Mercedes team had two protests against the result rejected by stewards.
Hamilton had appeared in control of the race and on course for the title himself, despite controversy on the first lap, until a late safety car.
The race was restarted with one lap to go with Verstappen on fresh tyres and Hamilton on old ones and the Dutchman swept by to win.
The victor screamed with delight and Red Bull celebrated, while Hamilton sat in his Mercedes for several minutes, disbelieving at the way events had turned against him in the final minutes.
After he stepped off the podium as champion, Verstappen's celebrations were interrupted by Mercedes' protests, and he had to wait more than four hours until they could resume, though even then Mercedes indicated they would appeal.
It was, in so many ways, a fitting end to one of the greatest and most contentious seasons in Formula 1 history - and the arguments over right and wrong will rage for some time to come.
• None 'A Verstappen can't lose' - the making of an F1 phenomenon
• None Verstappen relishes 'unbelievable' title win and wants Red Bull to dominate
The race had appeared to surrender to Hamilton after he was controversially allowed to keep the lead he had earned with a better start than Verstappen, despite going off track to retain his position when the Dutchman tried to pass him at the end of the first back straight.
Red Bull and Verstappen were exasperated and disbelieving about it, but Hamilton was imperious from then on, through a pit stop and a virtual safety car, until Nicholas Latifi crashed his Williams with five laps to go.
Mercedes felt they could not afford to pit Hamilton because to do so would have been surrendering the lead if Verstappen did not do the same - and he may well not have done because his tyres were relatively fresh after a second stop.
But when Hamilton did not stop for fresh tyres, Verstappen did and that was the decisive call.
There was more controversy as race director Michael Masi initially said lapped cars between Hamilton and Verstappen would not be allowed to un-lap themselves, as is normal practice.
Red Bull complained and Masi changed his mind, allowing the lapped cars between the title contenders past Hamilton, which put Verstappen right behind Hamilton for the one remaining lap of racing.
Verstappen passed Hamilton into Turn Five and held off his attempts to re-pass down the two straights that followed and completed the lap before erupting with joy.
Yet whatever anyone's view of the various incidents in the race, few would begrudge Verstappen the title after a season in which he and Hamilton have gone toe-to-toe throughout in one of the most remarkable F1 seasons there has ever been.
Hamilton, meanwhile, will have to console himself with Mercedes' victory in the constructors' championship - for an unprecedented eighth consecutive year.
At the same time, it was a fitting way to end a season that has been characterised by on-track clashes and off-track arguments between Hamilton, Verstappen and their teams.
The race unfolded as the season has, with Hamilton and Verstappen in a race and league of their own, and for a long time the year's destiny appeared to be heading towards Hamilton.
There was drama from the opening lap, after Verstappen made a poor start from pole position, Hamilton an electric one from second on the grid, and the Mercedes was ahead before the first corner.
Verstappen tracked him through the first few corners, slipstreamed him down the long, first back straight and dived for the inside into the chicane at Turns Six and Seven.
Verstappen got down the inside of Hamilton but went in deep to the corner, his speed carrying him to the outside kerb long before the second right-handed part of the corner.
Hamilton avoided him, as he has so many times this season, and cut across the chicane, retaining the lead.
He slowed a little over the rest of the lap to give back the advantage he considered himself to have gained, and the arguments started on the pit wall.
Verstappen said over the radio: "He has to give it back."
Red Bull radioed race director Michael Masi to insist that Verstappen was "ahead and stays on track".
Masi replied: "He has forced him off. All the advantage was given back before the end of the first lap."
The officials decided that no investigation was necessary and when Verstappen was told of the decision he said: "That is incredible. What are they doing there?"
The recriminations will doubtless continue for some time, especially as Verstappen came into the weekend complaining that he was being treated differently than other drivers by the stewards after the controversial Saudi Arabian Grand Prix last weekend, and Red Bull have been ratcheting the tension between the teams with a series of controversial claims in the media.
Hamilton had the race - until luck intervened
On track, though, the fundamental truth for much of the race was that once Hamilton had got by, he and Mercedes simply had too much pace for Red Bull and Verstappen, as they have for the past four races.
Red Bull threw everything they could at Hamilton.
After Hamilton and Verstappen pitted for fresh tyres, they left Perez out and ordered him to hold Hamilton back.
Hamilton passed Perez down to Turn Six on lap 20, but was then repassed down the next straight.
Perez was then ordered to "back him up" through the marina section of the track, and Verstappen closed what had been an 8.7-second deficit to 1.7 by the time Hamilton finally passed Perez a lap later.
But Hamilton eased away again, until a virtual safety car deployed to clear the stranded Alfa Romeo of Antonio Giovinazzi gave Red Bull an opportunity.
They pitted Verstappen for fresh tyres, hoping to come back at Hamilton over the final 20 laps.
But so strong was Hamilton that Verstappen was able to make only minimal inroads into his lead, and the race appeared to be over until the late drama snatched it - and what would have been his eighth world title - from Hamilton's grasp.
• None 'He lived for his music': The extraordinary story of Freddie Mercury and his battle with Aids
• None Meet the man who's driving 870 miles in the world's smallest car
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59628024
|
rt_formula1_59628024
|
|
Omicron: Why tougher Covid measures may not be worth it - BBC News
|
2021-12-16
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Omicron is expected to cause a surge in infections. Should more be done to suppress it?
|
Health
|
Infections caused by the new variant Omicron are rising rapidly, doubling every two to three days.
Modelling is warning hospital admissions could rise sharply.
Ministers across the UK are under pressure to bring in tougher measures.
There are strong arguments for those, but there are also reasons why trying to do more to suppress Omicron may not be worth it.
Much has been made of suggestions that this variant is causing milder illness. In South Africa, reports are emerging that people are not as seriously ill in this wave as they were in earlier ones.
There is still uncertainty about this. But it is logical. Not because the virus has changed to become less severe, but because reinfections and infections post-vaccination are likely to be milder.
The immune system now recognises this virus and while it may not be able to prevent infection, it knows how to fight it.
"The balance of evidence," says Prof Paul Hunter, an expert in infectious diseases at the University of East Anglia, "certainly points to that."
Booster jabs have been shown to be effective against Omicron
If so, that puts the UK in a strong position to be able to deal with this wave.
Around 95% of the adult population has some immunity to the virus either through infection or vaccination or both, according to the Office for National Statistics.
Research by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine published at the start of winter before Omicron emerged said such high levels of immunity meant we had the smallest pool of vulnerable people in Europe.
On top of that there is now the impact of the rapid rollout of boosters, which research suggests are vital to blunting the impact of Omicron.
Around 60% of those eligible have had one including nearly 90% of the most vulnerable.
Taken together, it is a very different picture from last winter when the lockdown allowed the rollout of the vaccination programme to get going and provide protection to the majority of the adult population.
Prof Hunter says the combined level of vaccine-induced and infection-induced immunity in the population now means the case for extra restrictions beyond what has been announced is much weaker than it was previously.
Tougher measures, he says, will not stop the epidemic, they will just extend it. "If you are waiting for vaccines or better treatments, suppressing the virus could be an advantage - but it's hard to see the argument for that now."
Protecting the NHS from being completely overwhelmed would, of course, necessitate action.
But Prof Hunter says he is "cautiously optimistic" that will not happen, believing the public will naturally start to curb their behaviour given the concern being expressed about Omicron.
And, once we get through this, he believes we will be in a much better position. "There will be other variants but exposure will have built up our immunity even further. We will see milder disease - until eventually it is something like the common cold."
So what are the chances of the NHS buckling in the coming weeks? While there are strong grounds to hope the proportion of infections leading to a hospital admission will be lower than it was previously, if infection levels rise too high the absolute numbers could still be much bigger than they are now.
This much can be seen from the modelling published by the LSHTM.
It sets out what could be called the best and worst-case scenarios.
The best would see admissions peak at just over half the level of last winter, the worst would see admissions edge towards double.
Dr Raghib Ali, a clinical epidemiologist at University of Cambridge, and a front-line doctor, says given the levels of immunity in the population there is no need to panic yet.
"We need to keep calm," he says, and wait until we start getting a clear idea of what is happening with hospital admissions. "We should know soon."
He admits some further action may be needed to "flatten the peak" to stop hospitals getting overwhelmed.
But he believes the Christmas break and January may come to our aid as workplace mixing and travel reduces, although he stresses that taking precautions such as regular testing, mask-wearing and ventilating indoor spaces is essential.
"We have to be realistic, we are not going to stop Omicron."
Suppress it too much and arguably it will just delay deaths and serious illness - and may cause more overall harm than good when you consider the wider impact on health, education and the economy, he says.
The key, though, will be that the NHS can keep delivering care to those who need it.
Chris Hopson, of NHS Providers, which represents hospital bosses, says he is "very concerned" given what has already happened with patients facing longer waits for ambulances and A&E.
Care is already becoming "less safe", he says, and the service is being forced to run "beyond full stretch".
It is clear the peak in admissions needs to be towards the lower end of the modelling estimates for the NHS to have a chance of getting through the next few months.
And even if the wave of infections does not cause enough serious illness to overwhelm the NHS, University of Reading scientist Dr Simon Clarke says there could still be significant societal problems.
"Mass sickness of people who are not ill enough to end up in hospital, but who need to convalesce at home, could deliver a substantial shutdown of public services and slowing of economic activity," he says.
How long could this last? The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) believes we are likely to be looking at a period of four to eight weeks where we will be battling the acute stage of the Omicron surge.
It will be, says Dr Susan Hopkins, UKHSA's chief medical adviser, a "very difficult" period.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59658486
|
news_health-59658486
|
|
Megan Thee Stallion 'told to dance' by Tory Lanez before alleged shooting - BBC News
|
2021-12-16
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Rapper Tory Lanez is accused of hurting the songwriter after a party in Hollywood in July 2020.
|
Newsbeat
|
Megan Thee Stallion was injured after a Hollywood party in July 2020
Tory Lanez told Megan Thee Stallion to "dance" before allegedly shooting at her feet, a court has heard.
The rapper, whose real name is Daystar Peterson, is accused of shooting Megan after a party in the Hollywood Hills on 12 July 2020.
Rapper Megan, 26, and Tory, 29, got into an argument while driving away from the event hosted by Kylie Jenner, news agency AFP reported.
Tory denies assault with a gun and carrying a loaded gun in a vehicle.
Megan, whose real name is Megan Pete, demanded to be let out of the car and then heard Tory shout "dance, b***h" as he opened fire with a handgun, Los Angeles Police Department Detective Ryan Stogner told a judge on Tuesday.
The singer told police she was "bleeding profusely" from her feet and that she fell to the ground and crawled to a nearby driveway, AFP reported.
Tory then "emphatically apologised for what he did" and offered to drive her home, the court heard, with the rapper later telling officers he had offered her money to not say anything about the shooting.
Megan initially told police she had injured her feet by stepping on broken glass after the party, the Los Angeles Times said.
She told Stogner she was "scared [Tory] was going to get in trouble", but later alleged that he had shot her.
Megan posted on Instagram that she had been shot by Tory, but many of the tracks on his album, Daystar, claim he's being framed.
At Tuesday's hearing a judge refused a defence application to dismiss the charges.
The next hearing will take place on 13 January.
Tory faces up to 23 years in prison if convicted.
Listen to Newsbeat live at 12:45 and 17:45 weekdays - or listen back here.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-59666623
|
news_newsbeat-59666623
|
|
Abu Dhabi Grand Prix 'tarnishing image' of F1, says sport's governing body - BBC Sport
|
2021-12-16
|
None
|
Formula 1's governing body says the controversial Abu Dhabi Grand Prix is "tarnishing the image" of the sport.
| null |
Last updated on .From the section Formula 1
Max Verstappen won his first world title in controversial circumstances after a late-race safety car Formula 1's governing body says the controversial Abu Dhabi Grand Prix is "tarnishing the image" of the sport. The FIA will conduct a "detailed analysis and clarification exercise" into the running of Sunday's race, with all the teams and drivers, "to draw any lessons from the situation". It is an effective admission of mistakes in the running of the race that decided the world championship. Race director Michael Masi's actions are at the centre of the controversy. The Australian appeared not to follow the rules and standard protocol on restarting the race after a late-race safety-car period, but he is not mentioned in the FIA statement. Masi's decisions left Mercedes driver Lewis Hamilton, who had led for the vast majority of the race and was on course for the world title, as a sitting duck on old tyres, with Max Verstappen's Red Bull behind him on fresh rubber. The race was restarted for one final lap and the Dutchman passed Hamilton to win and take the drivers' title. The FIA's statement looks to be extending an olive branch to Mercedes, who have announced they intend to appeal against Sunday night's decision to reject their initial protest against the race result. Mercedes have been in talks with the FIA since the race as they seek redress for what happened at Yas Marina. Mercedes have until about 19:00 BST on Thursday to decide whether to press on with that appeal.
• None 'We sometimes hated each other' - Verstappen on Hamilton I think races should be won on the track - Verstappen tells BBC sports editor Dan Roan What will the FIA do? The FIA made its announcement after a meeting of its World Council, F1's legislative body, on Wednesday. It said that the circumstances surrounding the safety car and communications between teams and Masi had "generated significant misunderstanding and reactions from Formula 1 teams, drivers and fans". It referred to the controversy over why Masi let only some lapped cars unlap themselves and did not comply with rules about the the timing of the restart of the race, describing it as "an argument" that was "tarnishing the image of the championship and the due celebration" of both Max Verstappen's drivers' title and Mercedes' eighth constructors' crown. And it pledged that "clarity [would] be provided to the participants, media, and fans about the current regulations to preserve the competitive nature of our sport while ensuring the safety of the drivers and officials". This would be done in time for "any identified meaningful feedback and conclusions to be made before the beginning of the 2022 season". At a news conference on Wednesday at Red Bull's UK F1 headquarters, Verstappen and Red Bull team principal Christian Horner said Masi needed more support to be able to do his job effectively. Verstappen said: "Michael is a nice guy and he tries his very best and it's very unfair to now start hating on him because it is a very tough job." Horner added: "Michael has been under massive pressure from all sides." After the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix, the penultimate race of the season, Horner said that F1 was missing the late Charlie Whiting, who was race director as one of his responsibilities in his role as FIA F1 director. Horner said: "You have to remember Charlie had Herbie [Blash, the former deputy race director] sitting next to him. They were a double act. "And I think that it's a little unfair that, you know, he's [Masi] up there on his own. He doesn't have any form of support. "And I think the level at which teams are now operating, all the data and information that they have available to them is immense and I think that the takeaway from this season - not just from Abu Dhabi - is: How can we do a better job? How can the FIA do a better job?" Were there other World Council decisions? The FIA also provided more clarity on the plans for the new engine formula to be introduced in 2026. In addition to plans to use 100% sustainable fuel and lower costs, it said that the energy from the hybrid part of the engine would go up to 350kW - more than double the current 160kW. In addition, it confirmed that the MGU-H - the part of the hybrid system that recovers energy from the exhaust - would be removed. A cap on engine costs will also be introduced. The overall aims of the new engine formula, it said, would be to ensure a "powerful and high-revving power unit, car performance, sound, drivers' ability to race, avoiding excessive differentiation".
• None 'You have the chance to change the world': Ed Balls explores the similarities he shares with his ancestors
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/59675264
|
rt_formula1_59675264
|
|
Omicron: Why tougher Covid measures may not be worth it - BBC News
|
2021-12-20
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Omicron is expected to cause a surge in infections. Should more be done to suppress it?
|
Health
|
Infections caused by the new variant Omicron are rising rapidly, doubling every two to three days.
Modelling is warning hospital admissions could rise sharply.
Ministers across the UK are under pressure to bring in tougher measures.
There are strong arguments for those, but there are also reasons why trying to do more to suppress Omicron may not be worth it.
Much has been made of suggestions that this variant is causing milder illness. In South Africa, reports are emerging that people are not as seriously ill in this wave as they were in earlier ones.
There is still uncertainty about this. But it is logical. Not because the virus has changed to become less severe, but because reinfections and infections post-vaccination are likely to be milder.
The immune system now recognises this virus and while it may not be able to prevent infection, it knows how to fight it.
"The balance of evidence," says Prof Paul Hunter, an expert in infectious diseases at the University of East Anglia, "certainly points to that."
Booster jabs have been shown to be effective against Omicron
If so, that puts the UK in a strong position to be able to deal with this wave.
Around 95% of the adult population has some immunity to the virus either through infection or vaccination or both, according to the Office for National Statistics.
Research by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine published at the start of winter before Omicron emerged said such high levels of immunity meant we had the smallest pool of vulnerable people in Europe.
On top of that there is now the impact of the rapid rollout of boosters, which research suggests are vital to blunting the impact of Omicron.
Around 60% of those eligible have had one including nearly 90% of the most vulnerable.
Taken together, it is a very different picture from last winter when the lockdown allowed the rollout of the vaccination programme to get going and provide protection to the majority of the adult population.
Prof Hunter says the combined level of vaccine-induced and infection-induced immunity in the population now means the case for extra restrictions beyond what has been announced is much weaker than it was previously.
Tougher measures, he says, will not stop the epidemic, they will just extend it. "If you are waiting for vaccines or better treatments, suppressing the virus could be an advantage - but it's hard to see the argument for that now."
Protecting the NHS from being completely overwhelmed would, of course, necessitate action.
But Prof Hunter says he is "cautiously optimistic" that will not happen, believing the public will naturally start to curb their behaviour given the concern being expressed about Omicron.
And, once we get through this, he believes we will be in a much better position. "There will be other variants but exposure will have built up our immunity even further. We will see milder disease - until eventually it is something like the common cold."
So what are the chances of the NHS buckling in the coming weeks? While there are strong grounds to hope the proportion of infections leading to a hospital admission will be lower than it was previously, if infection levels rise too high the absolute numbers could still be much bigger than they are now.
This much can be seen from the modelling published by the LSHTM.
It sets out what could be called the best and worst-case scenarios.
The best would see admissions peak at just over half the level of last winter, the worst would see admissions edge towards double.
Dr Raghib Ali, a clinical epidemiologist at University of Cambridge, and a front-line doctor, says given the levels of immunity in the population there is no need to panic yet.
"We need to keep calm," he says, and wait until we start getting a clear idea of what is happening with hospital admissions. "We should know soon."
He admits some further action may be needed to "flatten the peak" to stop hospitals getting overwhelmed.
But he believes the Christmas break and January may come to our aid as workplace mixing and travel reduces, although he stresses that taking precautions such as regular testing, mask-wearing and ventilating indoor spaces is essential.
"We have to be realistic, we are not going to stop Omicron."
Suppress it too much and arguably it will just delay deaths and serious illness - and may cause more overall harm than good when you consider the wider impact on health, education and the economy, he says.
The key, though, will be that the NHS can keep delivering care to those who need it.
Chris Hopson, of NHS Providers, which represents hospital bosses, says he is "very concerned" given what has already happened with patients facing longer waits for ambulances and A&E.
Care is already becoming "less safe", he says, and the service is being forced to run "beyond full stretch".
It is clear the peak in admissions needs to be towards the lower end of the modelling estimates for the NHS to have a chance of getting through the next few months.
And even if the wave of infections does not cause enough serious illness to overwhelm the NHS, University of Reading scientist Dr Simon Clarke says there could still be significant societal problems.
"Mass sickness of people who are not ill enough to end up in hospital, but who need to convalesce at home, could deliver a substantial shutdown of public services and slowing of economic activity," he says.
How long could this last? The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) believes we are likely to be looking at a period of four to eight weeks where we will be battling the acute stage of the Omicron surge.
It will be, says Dr Susan Hopkins, UKHSA's chief medical adviser, a "very difficult" period.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59658486
|
news_health-59658486
|
|
Rachel Riley wins £10,000 damages over Nazi tweet - BBC News
|
2021-12-20
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The Countdown star sued an ex-aide of Jeremy Corbyn over comments made on Twitter in 2019.
|
Entertainment & Arts
|
Rachel Riley replaced Carol Vorderman as the maths expert on Countdown in 2009
Countdown star Rachel Riley has been awarded £10,000 damages by a High Court judge after suing an ex-aide of Jeremy Corbyn over comments made on Twitter more than two years ago.
Riley, currently on maternity leave from the Channel 4 show, had complained about a tweet sent by Laura Murray.
Mr Justice Nicklin, who oversaw the case in May, said Ms Riley was "entitled" to "vindication".
But he noted there had been a "clear element of provocation" by the TV star.
Reacting to Monday's outcome, Ms Riley said she was "extremely pleased" to have won the case.
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 Rachel Riley 💙 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.
Both women in their 30s, the court heard, posted tweets after then-Labour party leader Corbyn was hit with an egg while visiting a mosque in March 2019.
Ms Riley posted a screenshot of a tweet by Guardian columnist Owen Jones about an attack on former British National Party leader Nick Griffin, which read: "I think sound life advice is, if you don't want eggs thrown at you, don't be a Nazi."
"Good advice", she added, with accompanying emojis of an egg and a red rose - which is the emblem of the Labour party.
In response, Ms Murray, who was stakeholder manager in Mr Corbyn's office before going on to become the party's head of complaints and then into teaching, later tweeted: "Today Jeremy Corbyn went to his local mosque for Visit My Mosque Day, and was attacked by a Brexiteer.
"Rachel Riley tweets that Corbyn deserves to be violently attacked because he is a Nazi. This woman is as dangerous as she is stupid. Nobody should engage with her. Ever."
Ms Riley argued she was being sarcastic in her tweet and that she had not called Mr Corbyn a Nazi. Ms Murray's tweet, she said, had caused serious harm to her reputation. She added her own tweet was true and reflected her honestly-held opinions.
She told the judge that she is Jewish and has a "hatred of antisemitism", which she thought the Corbyn-led Labour party had been fostering.
Labour had been plagued with allegations of anti-Semitism since 2016, leading to fractious rows within the party. In May 2019, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) announced it would be investigating the party over its handling of the claims.
Their report was published in October 2020, and said the EHRC's analysis pointed to "a culture within the party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent anti-Semitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it".
After the ERHC report was published, Mr Corbyn issued a statement saying he did not accept all the findings. He said the scale of anti-Semitism within Labour had been "dramatically overstated" by opponents.
Labour then suspended Mr Corbyn from the party and he lost the whip, meaning he would no longer be part of the Parliamentary Labour Party. He was later reinstated as a party member but Labour did not restore the whip. He now sits in the House of Commons as an independent MP.
Throughout his time as Labour leader, from 2015 to 2020, Mr Corbyn said there was no place in the party for anti-Semitism.
Mr Justice Nicklin was asked to consider whether serious harm had been caused to Ms Riley's reputation, and whether Ms Murray had a defence of truth, honest opinion, or public interest.
"This case is unusual," said the judge, who previously ruled Ms Murray's tweet to be defamatory, in a written ruling on Monday. "It turns, largely, on two tweets: the good advice tweet and the defendant's tweet.
"I have found that the publication of the defendant's tweet has caused serious harm to the claimant's reputation, and I have rejected the defendant's defences.
"The claimant is therefore entitled to a sum in damages."
He added that Ms Murray's tweet had misrepresented what Ms Riley had tweeted. Yet he rejected Ms Riley's argument that Ms Murray had been "motivated by any improper purpose".
While not "bad conduct", he said Ms Riley's tweet could be viewed as "provocative, even mischievous".
"There is a clear element of provocation in the good advice tweet, in the sense that the claimant must have readily appreciated that the meaning of the good advice tweet was ambiguous and could be read as suggesting, at least, that Jeremy Corbyn deserved to be egged because of his political views," he concluded.
"The claimant can hardly be surprised - and she can hardly complain - that the good advice tweet provoked the reaction it did, including the defendant's tweet."
Such context, he said, was taken into consideration when deciding on the amount of damages she would receive.
Riley appears on Channel 4 series Countdown and is known as the show's maths expert. She appears alongside host Anne Robinson and lexicographer Susie Dent.
Correction 16 February 2022: This article was amended to clarify the chronology of the publication of the EHRC report and Mr Corbyn's suspension from the Labour party.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59731932
|
news_entertainment-arts-59731932
|
|
Welsh budget: Bumper funding rise for Welsh NHS amid backlog - BBC News
|
2021-12-20
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Welsh NHS cash to be hiked by almost £900m next year to tackle waiting lists caused by Covid.
|
Wales politics
|
NHS spending in Wales will jump next year to tackle record high waiting times created by Covid.
An extra £893m will be pumped in during 2022, as part of the £24.6bn Welsh government budget.
More cash has also been promised for councils, and Labour Finance Minister Rebecca Evans said the budget will help make Wales "a fairer nation".
Welsh Conservatives said the budget had been made possible after record funding from the UK government.
Shops and hospitality will get a 50% cut to business rates - a relief to some firms waiting to hear if there would be any help for the tax from April.
Plaid Cymru said the spending plans will deliver a "stronger" Wales, following the party's co-operation agreement with Welsh Labour ministers.
The Welsh government say that over three years it will provide £1.3bn in extra direct funding to the Welsh NHS.
Most of that - £893m - will arrive in the first financial year. That is a 10.7% increase on the current budget, or 7.8% when inflation is taken into account, with smaller increases in later years.
Budget documents say the government's "highest priority is to address the backlog of treatments that have been delayed by the pandemic".
Helen Whyley of the Royal College of Nurses said a significant portion has to be spent on NHS salaries, with 1,719 vacancies in Wales.
The union is currently in dispute with the Welsh government over pay.
"You can have all the money in the world for services," Ms Whyley said. "But if you don't have the staff to care for patients, and to deliver that care safely, it won't buy you anything."
Despite the rise in day-to-day spending, funding for health care facilities will fall from £377m to £279m next year.
Firms were worried they would face higher bills after the pandemic
The Welsh NHS Confederation, which represents health organisations, said its "members are disappointed in the lack of investment in capital infrastructure to improve and redesign NHS estates and facilities".
Cardiff University's Guto Ifan said the planned increase for NHS spending in Wales appears to be "slightly below" extra cash for Wales triggered because of NHS spending in England.
"There are huge uncertainties about the medium-term impact of the pandemic and these spending plans could well need to be revised upwards in later years."
Council funding will increase by £384m to £5.1bn - 8.1% in nominal terms or 5.2% when inflation is taken into account.
Officials say this is the largest increase to the cash for local government - which is spent on social care and other services - since devolution began.
Mr Ifan said councils should be able to meet their spending needs next year "with relatively low increases in council tax".
The announcement follows a promise of more cash for Welsh public services from the Treasury, which provides the lion's share of the Welsh government's money.
Experts at Cardiff University say £2.9bn will be available to spend by 2024.
It also comes after an agreement between the Welsh government and Plaid Cymru which included free school meals over three years and expanding free childcare to two-year-olds.
Both were included in the budget, with £30m for early years and childcare, and £90m for free school meals over three years.
The Vale Resort is starting to recover after a difficult 21 months
According to the Welsh government, businesses in retail, leisure and hospitality will receive 50% rates relief for 2022-23, matching similar plans announced by Chancellor Rishi Sunak for England.
It will be less than the 100% discount many such firms receive now. The scheme will be capped at £110,000 per business.
With other relief schemes ministers say 85,000 properties will be supported, while a further £35m will be spent to freeze rates for 2022-23.
Despite the announcement, Michael Manghan and Rhian Davies, who run the Crown and Sceptre in Cadoxton, Neath, are still concerned for what 2022 will hold.
Ms Davies feared the rate bill they would now need to pay was a "big chunk of money to find".
She said she would have like to have seen more, but added: "It's better than nothing."
Mr Manghan said: "The money we've lost over the last year - we're only just coming back to repay people."
Michael Manghan and Rhian Davies are concerned for the future of the business
Sam Dabb, who runs Le Pub in Newport, was pleased to hear the news. "It's one of the main costs of the business, it's absolutely massive."
One businessman said the Welsh government definitely had to meet the 50% cut introduced in England, and warned next year could be tough.
The Vale Resort in Hensol, Vale of Glamorgan, is starting to recover after a difficult 21 months.
Bookings have increased since Covid restrictions were lifted and the company has opened a distillery on site to expand the business.
Its managing director, Stephen Leeke, said government support schemes such as furlough, business rate relief and the Economic Resilience Fund (ERF) had helped the company stay afloat.
He said: "There's certainly an argument to say that they might consider going further, because I think we are in for a bit of a roller coaster now in the next couple of months and I don't think there's any doubt the industry will need some support."
The Welsh government said it would spend £1.8bn on investments in its climate change department over three years, which includes £1.6bn on housing.
Of that, £1bn will be spent on housing and £375m for building safety.
Finance Minister Rebecca Evans said the Welsh government was still operating in a "difficult financial context with our budget nearly £3bn lower than if it had increased in line with the economy since 2010-11".
"This budget will support the Wales of today and shape the Wales of tomorrow. It will support our public services to be stronger, put Wales further down the path to being a net zero nation, and create a fairer nation with equality at its heart," she said.
Welsh Conservative finance spokesman Peter Fox said: "Today's budget has been made possible by the Conservative government delivering record funding for Wales.
"In that light, I welcome the much-needed business rates holiday to help firms recover from the ongoing challenges of the pandemic, along with an important uplift in funding for our local authorities who deliver so many key services in communities across Wales."
Llyr Gruffydd, Plaid Cymru finance spokesperson, said: "Thanks to Plaid Cymru, this budget will deliver an even fairer, even greener, even stronger Wales through ambitious policy pledges.
"From free school meals for all primary pupils to extending free childcare to all two-year olds and much more, the commitments secured by Plaid Cymru as part of the co-operation agreement with Welsh government will secure transformational support for some of our poorest households and will change people's lives for the better across Wales."
There will be relief among the many thousands working in hospitality, retail and leisure across Wales.
The Welsh government has matched what is happening in England and business rates for those industries will be halved. Most of them will still struggle to pay that as the pandemic continues to play havoc with trade with fewer people out shopping.
With a new Welsh government department focused on climate change, it's hardly surprising that it's getting more money. What is interesting, and tells us about the departments priorities, is that of the £1.8bn for capital spending by the climate change minister almost all of it (£1.6bn) is to improve the quality and supply of housing.
This budget is taking the long term view even though the immediate economic landscape is extremely fragile.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-59720795
|
news_uk-wales-politics-59720795
|
|
Covid-19: Sajid Javid refuses to rule out more restrictions - BBC News
|
2021-12-20
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
More than 12,000 new Omicron cases are confirmed in the UK, as the variant continues to surge.
|
UK
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch as the health secretary tells Andrew Marr he won't rule out bringing in tighter Covid measures
The health secretary has refused to rule out further Covid restrictions for England, as the Omicron variant spreads around the country.
A further 12,133 Omicron cases have been confirmed in the UK, although the true number is likely to be far higher.
Asked about possible new measures to slow the spread, Sajid Javid said there were "no guarantees in this pandemic".
The government and devolved leaders discussed the situation in a Cobra meeting on Sunday.
When it was suggested to him he was not ruling out a circuit-breaker - a short, sharp lockdown - or new restrictions before Christmas, Mr Javid told the BBC's Andrew Marr: "There are no guarantees in this pandemic, I don't think.
"At this point we just have to keep everything under review."
A further 82,886 daily Covid cases were reported across the UK on Sunday, after several days of record highs last week.
And leaked notes from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergency (Sage) suggest that, without intervention beyond current Plan B rules in England, hospital admissions could reach 3,000 a day.
On those notes, Mr Javid said: "It's a very sobering analysis. We take it very seriously."
However, he added: "We do have to challenge data and underlying assumptions, I think that is appropriate, and take into account a broader set of facts."
Current Plan B rules for England include Covid passes for certain events, face masks in more places and people being urged to work from home if they can.
Other nations of the UK have similar rules - though Scotland has gone further by asking people to limit social contact to three households at a time in the run-up to Christmas, and could go further still in the new year.
Wales has also ordered nightclubs to close from 27 December.
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan told the BBC it was "inevitable" new coronavirus measures would be brought in for England.
"I think if we don't bring in new restrictions sooner rather than later, you're going to see even more positive cases and potentially public services like the NHS on the verge of collapse, if not collapsing," he said.
"I think we should be able to celebrate Christmas safely. But I think sooner rather than later we're going to look at social distancing, we're going to have to look at household mixing.
"If we don't, the number of cases is only going one way."
Speaking to Sky News, Mr Javid said ministers were monitoring the data and discussing it with scientists "almost on an hourly basis".
He confirmed that if new measures were to be proposed, Parliament would be recalled to approve them.
The health secretary's comments come exactly a year after Prime Minister Boris Johnson imposed Christmas restrictions on almost 18 million people across London and parts of England, in the face of the spread of the Alpha variant, which was first identified in Kent.
But Mr Javid said current factors, including vaccinations and antiviral medication, meant "the situation today in terms of our defences is very different".
He added that a record 906,656 vaccine doses were administered yesterday in England - including more than 830,000 boosters.
It means more than 27 million people in the UK have now had their third or booster dose.
Saturday's data - which included the second-highest number of cases since mass testing began last year - also saw another 125 deaths recorded within 28 days of a positive test, down slightly on a week ago.
The UK Health Security Agency said that, so far, seven people with Omicron have died in England.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. The BBC's Laura Foster explains what a circuit breaker is and how it could help tackle Covid-19
While the devolved nations consider the possibility of further measures, a number of European countries are taking tough action - including limiting travel to and from the UK.
Both Germany and France have now banned arrivals from Britain - though there are exceptions for some groups.
And in the Netherlands, a strict lockdown has been announced, set to last until 14 January.
Introducing restrictions buys time, but it does not solve the problem.
The risk is you just delay the inevitable because you get a rebound in infections once they are lifted.
So the question that has to be asked is what will be done with the time that a short "circuit-breaker" would provide if it was introduced.
It would certainly allow more boosters to be done. But given more than 80% of the most vulnerable have been boosted the gains from that are nowhere near what they were for last winter's lockdown when the vaccine programme was in its infancy.
If admissions were to rise as quickly as some of the most pessimistic modelling suggests restrictions could stop the NHS being overwhelmed by flattening the peak.
This perhaps remains the strongest argument in favour of a circuit breaker given the uncertainty for the moment over how much serious illness will be caused by this Omicron wave.
And all of that, of course, needs to be weighed against the costs to society, the economy and wider mental health.
Brexit minister Lord Frost, meanwhile, has resigned from the UK government over "concerns about the current direction of travel".
In a letter to Mr Johnson, the peer, who led Brexit negotiations, said he hoped the PM would "not be tempted" by "coercive measures" to tackle Covid.
Asked about the resignation, Mr Javid said Lord Frost was an "outstanding public servant", telling the BBC that while he disagreed with his remarks, the minister had "resigned out of principle... and we have to respect that".
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59718601
|
news_uk-59718601
|
|
Covid: No new measures in England but we rule nothing out, says PM - BBC News
|
2021-12-20
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Boris Johnson urges people to exercise "caution" ahead of Christmas, as Omicron cases surge.
|
UK
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Boris Johnson: "We will have to reserve the possibility of taking further action to protect the public"
The government needs to "reserve the possibility" of bringing in new Covid rules in England as cases of the Omicron variant surge before Christmas, the prime minister has said.
Boris Johnson did not announce any new measures but said ministers were "looking at all kinds of things".
The PM said the data was being reviewed "hour by hour" and there were still "some things that we need to be clearer about before we decide to go further".
A further 91,743 Covid cases were reported across the UK on Monday, the second highest daily total on record.
The government's scientific advisers say new restrictions may be required very soon - and have suggested reducing the size of groups that can meet and closing venues where there is a high risk of transmission.
But Mr Johnson faces opposition to new restrictions from within his party. Nearly 100 Tory MPs voted against the government's decision to bring in Covid passes last week, while Brexit minister Lord Frost resigned from government at the weekend over "coercive measures" to tackle Covid.
Speaking after a two-hour cabinet meeting, Mr Johnson said the arguments for taking action were "very, very finely balanced".
He added: "Unfortunately I must say to people that we will have to reserve the possibility of taking further action to protect the public, to protect public health, to protect our NHS. And we won't hesitate to take that action."
Asked about the prospect of further restrictions before or after Christmas, Mr Johnson said: "We are looking at all kinds of things to keep Omicron under control and we will rule nothing out.
"But at the moment, what I think we want people to focus on is exercising caution - so ventilation, masks in the appropriate places, all the usual stuff about washing hands, but remember how contagious Omicron really is."
The prime minister said "what really matters is for everybody to get vaccinated and get boosted".
He also acknowledged the impact that recent behavioural changes by some people, such as cancelling bookings, were having on businesses in the hospitality sector, saying the economic impacts would be kept "under constant review".
London Mayor Sadiq Khan urged the government to provide "immediate support" to businesses in the hospitality, retail and culture sector to prevent jobs being lost, saying in a tweet that "time is running out".
The PM had been urged to give clarity. The nation was waiting to hear if there would be more restrictions coming - and if so, what and when?
Boris Johnson and his cabinet had spent more than two hours deliberating. But what Mr Johnson told us didn't answer those questions.
On how serious things are, he said there were still "uncertainties" and "we should keep the data under review".
On what possible action might come, he said: "We are looking at all kinds of things."
Could it still happen before Christmas? "We will rule nothing out," he replied.
So this was a decision by the PM not to do more right now, despite the fact he said cases were "surging".
Was that because of doubts around the cabinet table? Or because the PM - as he pointed out - believes people are already adapting their behaviour and he wants more time to see if that's enough to control the spread of Omicron?
Perhaps, but it perpetuates the uncertainty. And, as the scientists have said, delay has consequences in itself, because cases continue to rise.
Leaked notes from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) suggest that, without intervention beyond current Plan B rules in England, hospital admissions could reach 3,000 a day.
And the BBC has been told that civil servants have produced three options for future Covid measures, ranging in severity from low to medium and high.
Deputy PM Dominic Raab earlier refused to guarantee that no new rules - such as a circuit-breaker lockdown - would be brought in, saying: "We've said we can't make hard, fast guarantees... it depends on the severity of the Omicron cases."
Shadow health secretary Wes Streeting accused Mr Johnson of having "absolutely nothing new to say, no plan whatsoever".
He told Radio 4's PM programme: "Boris Johnson is paralysed by weakness because of fear of his own backbenchers... no-one wants to bite the bullet and level with the public this side of Christmas."
And Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey criticised Boris Johnson's "indecision", arguing he was providing "more chaos and confusion" at a time people "urgently need clarity and reassurance".
The current rules for England - known as Plan B - include Covid passes for certain events, face masks in more places and people being urged to work from home if they can.
Other nations of the UK have similar rules, though Scotland has gone further by asking people to limit social contact to three households at a time in the run-up to Christmas.
However, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon confirmed on Monday that people in Scotland would not face fresh restrictions on Christmas Day gatherings.
Wales has also ordered nightclubs to close from 27 December.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Nicola Sturgeon says she wants "people to have clarity about what we are expecting of them" ahead of Christmas Day
Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, said health experts were not calling for further restrictions as they know they "can be very damaging to people's health and wellbeing", but added officials feel it is "now a question of when rather than if" they will be needed.
He said: "If the Plan B measures and boosters prove not to be enough, [experts] expect the government to respond quickly and pre-emptively in the national interest to the range of advice and modelling it has."
There were 1,024,833 people given a Covid-19 vaccine dose on Saturday - the highest single daily jab figure on record - more than 940,606 of which were booster or third doses.
Vaccinations dropped to 919,521 on Sunday, which is still the fourth highest total on record - beaten only by the number of doses administered on Thursday and Friday.
The news means 50.4% of the UK population - nearly 29 million people - have had a booster dose, with 81.8% having had two jabs and 89.5% one dose.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59733893
|
news_uk-59733893
|
|
Meghan wins ruling in Mail on Sunday privacy fight - BBC News
|
2021-12-02
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The Duchess of Sussex took action after the paper carried extracts of a letter to her father.
|
UK
|
The Duchess of Sussex has won the latest stage in her legal fight against the publisher of the Mail on Sunday over a letter she sent to her father.
The Court of Appeal rejected Associated Newspapers' attempt to have a trial in the privacy and copyright case.
Meghan said it was a win "not just for me, but for anyone who has ever felt scared to stand up for what's right".
Associated Newspapers said it was disappointed, and was considering a further appeal to the Supreme Court.
A judge had previously ruled in favour of Meghan after extracts from the letter appeared in the paper.
In a statement issued after the ruling, the duchess urged people to be "brave enough to reshape a tabloid industry that... profits from the lies and pain that they create".
Meghan, who started the civil action against newspaper group in 2019, said: "In the nearly three years since this began, I have been patient in the face of deception, intimidation and calculated attacks."
She added: "The courts have held the defendant to account and my hope is that we all begin to do the same. Because as far removed as it may seem from your personal life, it's not. Tomorrow it could be you.
"These harmful practices don't happen once in a blue moon - they are a daily fail that divide us and we all deserve better."
A spokesman for Associated Newspapers said: "It is our strong view that judgment should be given only on the basis of evidence tested at trial, and not on a summary basis in a heavily contested case."
The Court of Appeal accepted Meghan's argument that the letter to Thomas Markle in August 2018 - three months after her wedding to Prince Harry - was "deeply personal".
It had been given to the Mail on Sunday by Mr Markle, who wanted to address what he thought were unfair media accounts.
The judges were told that 585 out of the 1,250 words in the letter to her estranged father had been republished in five articles.
In their decision, the three judges said the letter's contents were "personal, private and not matters of legitimate public interest".
The letter from Meghan to her father - picture together in 2003 - was written shortly after her marriage to Prince Harry
In February, the High Court had ruled against the newspaper group on the issue of privacy and copyright - saying the issues in the case were so clear cut that there was no need for a full hearing.
Associated Newspapers was refused permission to appeal against the decision but went to the Court of Appeal in an attempt to get the original ruling overturned.
But on Thursday, judges at the appeal said it was hard to see what evidence at a trial would have altered the situation.
They added: "The judge had correctly decided that, whilst it might have been proportionate to publish a very small part of the letter for that purpose, it was not necessary to publish half the contents of the letter."
At the three-day appeal hearing last month, lawyers for Associated Newspapers presented evidence to support its contention that Meghan's privacy and copyright claims against the publisher should be heard at a full trial.
During the case, it was revealed that Meghan had authorised her former communications secretary, Jason Knauf, to co-operate with the authors of a book about her and Prince Harry, something she had previously denied.
They also produced a witness statement from Mr Knauf, which indicated that the duchess had written the letter knowing it might be leaked.
Mr Knauf said Meghan sent him an early draft of the letter and had written: "Obviously everything I have drafted is with the understanding that it could be leaked so I have been meticulous in my word choice, but please do let me know if anything stands out for you as a liability."
But in written evidence, Meghan denied she thought it likely that her father would leak the letter, saying she "merely recognised that this was a possibility".
A statement issued by Associated Newspapers after the latest ruling said "Mr Knauf's evidence raises issues as to the duchess's credibility".
Explaining why it was considering a Supreme Court challenge, Associated said its article raised "issues of public interest including the reasons for the breakdown in the relationship between the duchess and her father".
Meghan has won a significant victory in this courtroom battle to protect her privacy.
She's drawn a line in the sand. Even if her life is of public interest, she's shown that it doesn't make her public property.
It was a high-risk strategy, which could have put her in court facing awkward questions, but the appeal court ruling has seen her winning without that.
But it's already come with some bruising headlines - such as having to apologise for having forgotten how information was given to authors writing a book about her and Prince Harry.
This might have been an "unfortunate lapse of memory", said the appeal court ruling, but it didn't bear on the fundamental issues of whether such a private letter to her father should have been published.
Meghan divides public opinion - with vocal supporters and critics both seeing bias and prejudice on the other side - and this court case is unlikely to change that.
But she has succeeded in a legal battle that previous generations of royals would probably have avoided.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59502787
|
news_uk-59502787
|
|
Pfizer boss: Annual Covid jabs for years to come - BBC News
|
2021-12-02
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
In an exclusive interview, Dr Albert Bourla says jabs have saved millions of lives.
|
Health
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch our exclusive interview with Pfizer's CEO as he hits out at the fake news that his wife died from the vaccine
People will be likely to need to have annual Covid vaccinations for many years to come, the head of Pfizer has told the BBC
Dr Albert Bourla said he thought this would be needed to maintain a "very high level of protection".
The UK has now secured an extra 114 million doses of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to be delivered over the next two years.
A year ago the UK was the first country to approve the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
Pfizers's chief executive was speaking to the BBC before the emergence of the Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa and also before the announcement that the UK government had signed contracts to buy the 54 million additional Pfizer-BioNTech and 60 million Moderna doses for 2022 and 2023.
These deals include access to modified vaccines if needed to combat Omicron and future variants of concern, the Department of Health has said.
Dr Bourla said Pfizer had already made updated vaccines in response to the Beta, also first identified in South Africa, and Delta, first identified in India, variants but that they had not been needed.
The company is now working on an updated jab in response to the Omicron variant that could be ready in 100 days.
He said vaccines had helped save millions of lives during the pandemic, and without them the "fundamental structure of our society would be threatened"
By the end of the year Pfizer expects to have supplied three billion doses of its messenger ribonucleic-acid (mRNA) vaccine with four billion planned for next year.
There had been a global race to protect people protected, Dr Bourla said, but in 2022, countries would have "as many doses as they need".
Several global health charities see the money Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna are making out of the pandemic as immoral.
Pfizer will generate at least $35bn of Covid vaccine sales this year and has seen its share price soar.
But while most people in the world have now had at least one Covid jab, in parts of Africa it is less than one person in 20.
Dr Bourla was unapologetic about making a profit, saying "the bottom line is millions of lives were saved."
He continued; "We have saved the global economy trillions of dollars.
"It is a strong incentive for innovation for the next pandemic.
"But people will see that if they step up to the game, to bring something that saves lives and saves money, there is also a financial reward."
He denied profiteering - saying the jab was the "cost of a takeaway meal" for richer countries but sold at no profit to low-income ones - but accepted rich countries such as the UK had placed orders early and availability had initially been limited.
Having to be stored at -70C, the Pfizer vaccine has been tricky to deploy in countries with limited health services.
But within a month or so, Pfizer says it will roll out a new formulation of the vaccine that can be stored for three months in a fridge, which Dr Bourla said, would make a "huge difference" for sub-Saharan African countries.
Pfizer has also developed an antiviral pill, Paxlovid, which in trials cut hospital admissions and deaths by nearly 90%.
It should be approved in the US shortly and the UK government has agreed to buy enough for 250,000 patients.
Pfizer is also conducting Covid-vaccine trials in the under-fives.
And in October, the United States Food and Drug Administration approved the Pfizer jab for five to 11-year-olds.
Immunising that age group in the UK and Europe would be a very good idea, Dr Bourla said.
"Covid in schools is thriving," he said.
"This is disturbing, significantly, the educational system, and there are kids that will have severe symptoms.
"So there is no doubt in my mind that the benefits, completely, are in favour of doing it."
The mRNA vaccines, from Pfizer and Moderna have now taken over almost completely from the UK developed Oxford-AstraZeneca jab.
And Dr Bourla had a strong message for those who did not want to have vaccines.
"For those that are just afraid, the only emotion of human beings stronger than fear is love," he said.
"So I am using always this argument that the decision to get another vaccine is not going to influence only your health, it is going to affect the health of others and particularly the health of the people you love the most, because they are the ones that you will interact with.
"So take the courage to overcome your fears and do the right thing."
He has recently been the target of some bizarre fake news stories, alleging the US Federal Bureau of Investigation had arrested him for fraud and his wife had died as a result of side-effects from the Pfizer vaccine - both untrue.
"In the first news, that I was arrested by the FBI, of course I laughed," he said.
"On the second news, that my wife died, with a picture of her, I was really [angry].
"I worried about my kids, so I tried to call them and I could not get my son on the phone.
"What we had to go through, it is nothing compared to the lives that will be lost because of the rubbish that those people published, because people will really think that my wife died because of the vaccine... and she is fine - she is wonderful."
Update 20 February 2023: Following publication of this article, the opinions expressed by Dr Bourla were the subject of a lengthy complaint to the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority. In a ruling published in Dec 2022, some aspects of the complaint were upheld by the PMCPA Appeal Board.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59488848
|
news_health-59488848
|
|
Meghan told ex-aide she wrote to estranged father to protect Harry - BBC News
|
2021-12-02
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The Duchess of Sussex said Prince Harry was being berated by the royals over her father's behaviour.
|
UK
|
The Duchess of Sussex said she chose to write to her father, Thomas Markle, to protect Prince Harry from the Royal Family's "constant berating" over his media interviews, text messages reveal.
Meghan told ex-aide Jason Knauf the royals did not understand why she could not visit her estranged father's home in Mexico to "make this stop".
She also said she had seen the "pain" the situation was causing Prince Harry.
The messages were released by a court on Friday after a media application.
Meghan, 40, won her privacy case against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), the publisher of the Mail on Sunday, earlier this year, when the High Court found its publication of her letter to her father - sent in August 2018 - was unlawful.
But ANL brought an appeal to overturn the ruling, which has been the subject of hearings at the Court of Appeal this week. The ruling is due at a later date.
This long ongoing court case is an attempt to protect the privacy of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex but in bringing the action it is, in some ways, doing the opposite.
The obvious anger and distress caused by the Mail on Sunday publishing extracts of a deeply personal letter has led to the release of a series of court documents which reveal arguments and disagreements from behind closed doors.
The fact that Harry and Meghan felt under pressure from the Royal Family to resolve the difficult relationship with her father, Thomas, has been discussed at length in court.
These text messages which mention what she feels was the "constant berating" of her husband over the issue of her father reveal something of the level of feeling in the days leading up to the letter being written.
It is also worth noting that this was taking place in the summer of 2018, just three months after the happy scenes at their wedding when Prince Charles walked Meghan down the aisle at Windsor.
The latest revelations come a day after the Court of Appeal heard Mr Knauf, the couple's former communications chief, "regretted" not giving evidence in her High Court case against ANL.
After extracts of texts and emails between Meghan and Mr Knauf were used in court, further messages were released on Friday following an application by the PA news agency and the Times newspaper.
In the newly released text messages, sent to Mr Knauf while she was drafting the handwritten letter to her father, the duchess said she was motivated to write to her father due to the "pain" the situation was causing Prince Harry.
She wrote: "Even after a week with his dad and endlessly explaining the situation, his family seem to forget the context - and revert to 'Can't she just go and see him and make this stop?'"
She accused the Royal Family of "fundamentally" failing to understand and that by writing to her father, her husband would be able to tell them "she wrote him a letter and he's still doing it".
The duchess added that she was doing this to "protect my husband from this constant berating and while unlikely perhaps it will give my father a moment to pause".
However, she told Mr Knauf the letter "does not open the door for a conversation".
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex were pictured at an event in New York on Wednesday
On Wednesday Mr Knauf, who is due to stand down from his current role as the chief executive officer of the Royal Foundation at the end of the year, said in a witness statement that the duchess had written the letter to her father with the understanding that it could be leaked.
The Court of Appeal also heard this week that Mr Knauf had been asked by Meghan to pass information to Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, the authors of the Finding Freedom biography - leading to the duchess apologising to the court for forgetting about emails sent about the book.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59269616
|
news_uk-59269616
|
|
Meghan apologises to court for forgetting biography briefing notes - BBC News
|
2021-12-02
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The Duchess of Sussex says she forgot her exchanges with an aide prior to the Finding Freedom biography.
|
UK
|
The Duchess of Sussex has apologised to a court for making a misleading statement in her privacy case against the Mail on Sunday's publishers.
The Appeal Court heard she had asked an aide to pass on information to the authors of a biography - despite having earlier said she "did not contribute".
Meghan said she had forgotten the events and had not intended to mislead.
Associated Newspapers is trying to overturn a ruling after it published a letter from the duchess to her father.
Meghan, 40, won her privacy case against the publisher of the Mail on Sunday earlier this year, when the High Court found its publication of the letter was unlawful.
Associated Newspapers' legal team are now seeking to overturn this judgement at the Court of Appeal, disputing that this was simply a private and personal letter - and have argued that it was crafted with the "possibility of public consumption" in mind.
A spokesman for the Sussexes had previously said the couple "did not contribute" to the Finding Freedom biography, written by Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand.
But in new evidence heard on Wednesday, Jason Knauf, the couple's former communications secretary, said the book was "discussed on a routine basis" and "discussed directly with the duchess multiple times in person and over email".
He also discussed planning a meeting with the authors to provide background information and said Meghan had given him briefing points to share with them, including information on how she had "very minimal contact" with her half-siblings during her childhood.
Two of the arguments put forward by Meghan's lawyers in her battle with the Mail on Sunday would appear to have been compromised by these latest revelations.
She has always claimed that she did not co-operate with the authors of the book Finding Freedom, but she has now remembered that she provided "briefing notes" to one of her key aides who she knew was in touch with the book's authors.
The second strand of her case that would appear to have been undermined is her assertion that she had an "expectation of privacy" when she sent her handwritten letter to her estranged father Thomas Markle, which was partially published by the Mail on Sunday.
It has now emerged in previously unpublished texts that she accepted the possibility the letter might be leaked.
She had used language, she said in one text to her head of communications, that "would pull at the heartstrings".
It will now be for the Court of Appeal to decide whether to stand by or overturn the original finding that was in favour of the duchess.
In the second day of the appeal hearing, lawyers for Associated Newspapers had also challenged the extent to which the letter from Meghan to her father - at the centre of the case it is trying to overturn - was "private".
They quoted an exchange of text messages between the duchess and Mr Knauf in which Meghan said: "Obviously everything I have drafted is with the understanding that it could be leaked, so I have been meticulous in my word choice."
Mr Knauf's evidence to the court also included emails with the Duke of Sussex, discussing the proposed meeting with the authors and the need to conceal any involvement by Prince Harry and Meghan.
The former aide said Prince Harry replied: "I totally agree that we have to be able to say we didn't have anything to do with it.
"Equally, you giving the right context and background to them would help get some truths out there."
In a witness statement to the court the duchess said she accepted that her aide did provide information to the authors of the book with her knowledge but she said the "extent of the information he shared is unknown to me".
"When I approved the passage... I did not have the benefit of seeing these emails and I apologise to the court for the fact that I had not remembered these exchanges at the time," she said.
"I had absolutely no wish or intention to mislead the defendant or the court."
The court heard Prince Harry - pictured with Meghan at an event in New York on Wednesday - had said the couple needed to be able to deny any involvement in briefing the authors
The duchess added that she would have been "more than happy" to refer to the exchanges with Mr Knauf if she had been aware of them at the time, but said they were "a far cry from the very detailed personal information that the defendant alleges that I wanted or permitted to put into the public domain".
Another reason the duchess gave for not discovering the emails between her and Mr Knauf sooner was that the disclosure stage of the litigation had not yet been reached, and in October last year her lawyers applied to adjourn the trial date as she was pregnant.
She said she was advised to avoid stress after a recent miscarriage, which came shortly after Associated Newspapers Limited indicated it wished to reveal the identities of her five friends who gave an interview to the US magazine People, in which they referred to her relationship with her father.
Meghan said: "I was in the first trimester of my third pregnancy at the time, having suffered a miscarriage a few months prior, and was feeling very unwell.
"My doctor advised me to avoid stress, particularly given the recent miscarriage days after the defendant threatened to break the confidentiality of the original 'sources' for the People magazine article, which resulted in my having to make an urgent application for an anonymity order.
"This was granted... but I found the process extremely stressful, and it took its toll physically and emotionally.
"I have at all times wanted to protect the privacy of those friends, while the defendant was, it seemed to me, doing everything it could to make this litigation as intrusive as possible."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59242093
|
news_uk-59242093
|
|
UK plays down Brexit link in US steel tariff row - BBC News
|
2021-12-02
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Reports suggesting a US decision to maintain tariffs on UK steel is linked to Brexit are rejected.
|
Business
|
Reports suggesting a US decision to maintain tariffs on British steel is linked to Brexit and Northern Ireland are a "false narrative", trade minister Penny Mordaunt has said.
She said wrangles with Brussels over the Irish border were "entirely separate" from trade with Washington.
It comes after the Financial Times reported the issue was stopping the UK resolving the steel row with America.
The US lifted tariffs on EU steel last month but kept them on UK steel.
Speaking in the Commons, Ms Mordaunt said the FT's report "might be true in terms of how some people in the US feel, but it is a false narrative. These are two entirely separate issues."
"We don't do ourselves any favours if we perpetuate these false narratives," she added.
The Trump-era tariffs of 25% on steel products and 10% on aluminium were imposed on the EU in 2018, when the UK was still part of the trading bloc.
The US agreed to end the duties on EU products in the autumn, but the tariffs, which nearly halved UK steel exports to its second largest market, remain in place on British steel.
The FT reported that US and UK talks to resolve the issue could not move ahead due to Washington's concerns over UK threats to trigger Article 16 of the Northern Ireland Protocol.
The protocol is a clause in the Brexit deal that leaves Northern Ireland in the EU's single market for goods, while checks are imposed between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The idea was to prevent a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, which many feared would would have destabilised the Good Friday Agreement peace deal.
But it has increased red tape on trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, and, according to unionist leaders, sparked rioting and violence this year in Belfast.
Downing Street has threatened to trigger Article 16 to override the protocol - something Washington has warned against.
Kim Darroch, a former ambassador to the US, said the reports on the "troubled state" of trade relations between the UK and the US are "confirmation that the US will act to protect a peace they helped broker" in Northern Ireland.
He added that the UK was "not going to have a thriving trade relationship with our biggest trading partner" - the EU, nor a free trade agreement with the US, "until the government stops threatening to walk away from an international agreement [on Northern Ireland] they negotiated and acclaimed only a few months ago".
President Biden and head of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen have both warned the UK against triggering Article 16
The warnings have been coming thick and fast - and publicly - for some time. Washington is not impressed by UK threats to invoke Article 16 of the Northern Ireland Protocol.
That's true in the White House. It's also true within the vocal Irish lobby in the US Congress.
The UK and the EU have been holding talks on the effects of the Protocol - including checks and controls on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
The UK wants the text of the Protocol rewritten, and the Brexit Minister Lord Frost has called for more urgency in the discussion.
The EU has offered a package of measures which it says would reduce checks considerably.
It also argues that the UK needs to honour the agreement it signed up to, which is now part of an international treaty, rather than walk away from it.
The US is backing that line.
It's true that negotiations on the steel tariffs and negotiations on the NI Protocol are entirely separate processes. But political links are being made in influential quarters in Washington.
The International Trade Secretary, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, will travel to the US next week for previously planned talks on the steel tariffs and other issues.
But if unresolved arguments about the Protocol start to have a direct effect on other trade matters, that will be a cause for concern in London.
Ms Mordaunt said that International Trade Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan would be holding talks about steel and other issues with her American counterparts next week.
She also defended the UK's approach to discussions on the Northern Ireland protocol: "We have acted in good faith. We will do more to tell America we have acted in good faith and we are determined to be pragmatic. Lord Frost [the Brexit Minister] is going to do that."
She was answering a question from the SNP MP and chair of the International Trade Committee Angus MacNeil, who said: "Does she welcome America keeping control?" - a reference to the Brexiteer slogan that Brexit would allow the UK to "Take Back Control".
Earlier another International Trade Minister, Ranil Jayawardena described the punishing US steel tariffs as "unfair and unnecessary."
"We will continue to make representations to back British businesses," he said.
A Department for International Trade spokesman said it welcomed the US government's willingness "to address trade issues relating to steel and aluminium".
"We remain focused on agreeing a resolution that sees damaging tariffs removed to the benefit of businesses on both sides of the Atlantic.
"We continue to engage closely with the administration on the Northern Ireland Protocol and we share a deep commitment to the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement and the peace process."
Gareth Stace, director general of UK Steel, a trade group, said: "The UK's steel sector and our customers in the US urge the UK and US governments to continue to work together to find a solution to the issue of Section 232 tariffs, and to strain every sinew to do so.
"On the 1st January, steelmakers in the EU will gain a significant price advantage over their UK counterparts.
"Already, customers in the US will be factoring in January 2022 prices to their plans for the next year, which of course risks the UK sector losing market share in the US, to EU exporters."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59506556
|
news_business-59506556
|
|
Boris Johnson: I've seen no evidence of plotters being blackmailed - BBC News
|
2022-01-21
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The PM rejects the claims of a Tory MP, who says rebels face intimidation from ministers.
|
UK Politics
|
Boris Johnson was asked about the claims on a visit to Somerset
Boris Johnson says he has "seen no evidence" of blackmail in his party after claims by one of his own MPs.
William Wragg - who has called on the PM to resign over parties at No 10 - said suspected plotters against the PM have been threatened with bad publicity and cuts to constituency funding.
He has advised colleagues who feel threatened to go to the police.
An ex-Tory MP who defected to Labour, Christian Wakeford, also said he was threatened over funding for a school.
Mr Johnson told reporters on Thursday he had "seen no evidence [and] heard no evidence" of Mr Wragg's claims, but he would look into them.
On Friday, the Times reported rebels have met to discuss the tactics of government whips, the MPs in charge of party discipline.
The newspaper reported the plotters discussed whether to make public text messages and other evidence of how they have been treated.
Labour's deputy leader Angela Rayner called Mr Wragg's claims "shocking" and Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey accused Mr Johnson of "acting more like a mafia boss than a prime minister".
Scotland's First Minister, the SNP's Nicola Sturgeon, said: "If Tories are threatening to withhold public investment from constituencies as a way of keeping MPs in line then, yes, that's blackmail and intimidation - but it is also corruption.
"The moral decay at the heart of Johnson's government may be even worse than we thought."
But Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries accused Mr Wragg of "attention-seeking behaviour", calling his accusations "nonsense".
And Energy Minister Greg Hands, who used to work as a government whip, said Mr Wakeford was not a "credible source" because his defection meant his job was now to "do down the Conservative Party".
He added that Mr Wragg's claims had "not been borne out by anybody else", adding: "This is not something that happens."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Mr Johnson is facing down an attempt from some Tory MPs to oust him as leader over lockdown parties held in Downing Street.
He has called on potential rebels to wait for the outcome of civil servant Sue Gray's inquiry into parties, expected next week, before passing judgement on him.
But prominent Tory backbencher, Steve Baker, told the BBC's Political Thinking podcast that it "looks like checkmate" for the prime minister.
"Honestly, at the moment, I'm looking to the cabinet for leadership," he told host Nick Robinson.
"At the moment, I'm afraid it does look like checkmate - but whether he can save himself, we'll see."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. MPs should report intimidation tactics to the police, says William Wragg
Mr Wragg launched a stinging attack on the way the government has handled dissent among Tory MPs on Thursday, in another sign of worsening relations between Mr Johnson and his backbenchers.
Speaking at a Commons committee that he chairs, the MP for Hazel Grove accused government whips of threatening those suspected of plotting with the removal of government investment in their constituencies.
He also said he had received reports of government ministers, advisers and staff at No 10 "encouraging the publication of stories in the press seeking to embarrass" those suspected of lacking confidence in the PM.
Mr Wragg claimed the reports "would seem to constitute blackmail" - and as well as contacting police, affected MPs should contact the Commons Speaker.
After the appearance, Mr Wakeford - who defected to the Labour Party on Thursday - said he had been threatened into supporting the government when sitting as a Tory MP.
"I was threatened that I would not get the school for Radcliffe if I didn't vote one particular way," he told BBC North West Tonight.
"This is a town that's not had a high school for the best part of 10 years and how would you feel with holding back the regeneration of a town for a vote?"
He said the incident "didn't sit comfortably" and it led to him "starting to question my place where I was and ultimately to where I am now".
Black books and dark arts, quiet words and not so quiet words.
The art of persuasion is as old as the stones in Parliament's walls.
But William Wragg's intervention stands out because it alleges blackmail, potential criminal wrongdoing and breaches of the ministerial code.
One or two are whispering privately here that Mr Wragg is overcooking his argument and has long been outspoken about the prime minister.
And a few are saying similar stuff publicly.
It's a reminder that while the imminent pressure on Boris Johnson has eased for now, the anger and vitriol provoked by these rows is still very real, very live.
Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle said "serious allegations" had been made, and MPs with concerns should write to him.
He said government ministers and those who work for them "are not above the criminal law," after Mr Wragg said MPs concerned about potential blackmail should contact the Metropolitan Police.
But the Speaker added: "The investigation of allegedly criminal conduct is a matter for the police and decisions about prosecution are for the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service]."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Christian Wakeford says he was threatened to vote in a certain way
One rebel MP told the BBC that some dissenters had been threatened with funding cuts, whilst an impending shake-up of parliamentary boundaries due next year had also been used to put down rebellion.
"It's been done to the weakest to make an example," they added.
However, Tory MP Anthony Mangnall, said he had never been threatened, despite rebelling against the government on "quite a lot of matters".
Ms Dorries also called Mr Wragg's accusations "disappointing" and told BBC West Midlands: "That is nonsense because that is not how government works, and we are the party of government.
"The whips have no say over what happens in individual constituencies.
"And not only is it nonsense, it is just attention seeking behaviour from William Wragg, who has been a constant critic of the prime minister."
It follows a dramatic day in Westminster on Wednesday, when Tory MP Christian Wakeford defected to Labour, describing the PM as incapable of leading.
Tory grandee and former ally of Mr Johnson David Davis told the PM: "In the name of God, go."
So far six Conservative MPs have publicly declared no confidence in the PM, but more are thought to have submitted letters to Sir Graham Brady, chairman of the backbench 1922 committee, who organises Tory leadership contests.
There are claims that the threshold of 54 letters needed to trigger a no-confidence vote and leadership election could soon be reached, but no official word has been given.
However, some Conservatives have told the BBC the mood has changed, following the defection of Mr Wakeford.
Northern Ireland Minister Conor Burns - a close ally of Mr Johnson - claimed Tory MPs were "stepping back" from calling for the PM to go now, and were waiting for Ms Gray's report.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60068612
|
news_uk-politics-60068612
|
|
Prince Andrew accuser’s 2009 deal with Jeffrey Epstein made public - BBC News
|
2022-01-03
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
It shows Virginia Giuffre agreed not to sue anyone who could be described as a "potential defendant".
|
UK
|
Virginia Giuffre agreed not to sue anyone connected to Jeffrey Epstein who could be described as a "potential defendant", a 2009 damages settlement against the sex offender shows.
The document, disclosed by a New York court, reveals the financier paid her $500,000 (£371,000) to end her claim.
Ms Giuffre is suing the Duke of York in a civil case for allegedly sexually assaulting her 20 years ago, when she was a teenager.
He has consistently denied the claims.
The document was released ahead of a critical hearing on Tuesday in the civil case involving Prince Andrew - and the interpretation of the settlement will form a central plank of the argument between the two sides.
Ms Giuffre alleges she was trafficked to the prince by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
Although the settlement does not mention the prince by name, his lawyers say this 2009 deal means she cannot sue him - because she agreed to end all legal action against anyone connected to the offender who could be described as a "potential defendant".
Epstein died in prison in 2019, while Maxwell was last week convicted of recruiting and trafficking young girls to be abused by the late financier.
Ms Giuffre's legal team say the terms of the Florida settlement are irrelevant to her case against the prince - which alleges sexual abuse by the royal in New York, London and the US Virgin Islands.
In her 2009 claim against Epstein, lawyers for Ms Giuffre said she was lured into a world of sexual abuse at his Florida home when she was a teenager.
They added: "In addition to being continually exploited to satisfy defendant's [Epstein] every sexual whim, [Ms Giuffre] was also required to be sexually exploited by defendant's adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen and or other professional and personal acquaintances."
That case never went to trial because on 17 November 2009 Jeffrey Epstein agreed to pay her $500,000 to stop it in its tracks. That deal was confidential until now - but has been made public because of its potential importance to the Prince Andrew case.
In the document, Ms Giuffre, also referred to by her unmarried name Roberts, agreed to "release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge" Epstein and "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant".
The settlement's wording says she discharges "potential defendants" from any US legal action, including damages claims dating "from the beginning of the world".
The precise meaning of that wording is expected to be the subject of intense legal arguments in New York on Tuesday.
Epstein and Maxwell have been pictured at the Queen's private Scottish estate, Balmoral
In filings to the New York court last month, Andrew B. Brettler, the duke's lead lawyer, said the Epstein settlement's plain language would be clear once it was released to the public.
"Epstein negotiated for this broad release, insisting that it cover any and all persons who Giuffre identified as potential targets of future lawsuits, regardless of the merit— or lack thereof —to any such claims," he said.
"Giuffre's baseless claims against Prince Andrew... must be dismissed at this stage."
In a statement, one of Ms Giuffre's lawyers, David Boies, said the settlement was not relevant to her claim and "does not mention Prince Andrew".
"He did not even know about it," he said.
In a previous court filing her lawyers said that the Epstein deal was "outside the four corners" of her action against Prince Andrew because it does not cover her claims against him.
Lisa Bloom, a lawyer for alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein, described the settlement as "one of the most bizarre" she had ever seen, telling BBC News she thought it was "incomprehensibly vague".
"We want contracts to clearly specify who is released from a lawsuit and who is not," she said, adding that she could not see a judge releasing Prince Andrew from a lawsuit because he was not named specifically.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59861831
|
news_uk-59861831
|
|
Eric Zemmour: Far-right candidate found guilty of hate speech - BBC News
|
2022-01-17
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Eric Zemmour called unaccompanied migrant children coming to France "thieves" and "murderers".
|
Europe
|
Far-right French presidential candidate Eric Zemmour has been fined €10,000 (£8,350) by a Paris court for hate speech.
The case was launched over a TV appearance, where he described unaccompanied migrant children as "thieves", "rapists" and "murderers".
Former broadcaster Zemmour is known for his anti-Islam and anti-immigration views.
His lawyer said he would appeal against the court's decision.
Reacting to the verdict on social media, Zemmour complained that his freedom of speech was being restricted, and said there was an "urgent need to drive ideology out of the courts".
He made the comments in September 2020 on the CNews television channel, where he used to work as a pundit.
Answering a question about a recent knife attack by a young radicalised Pakistani immigrant, he said: "They have nothing to do here. They are thieves, they are murderers, they are rapists, that's all they are. They must be sent back and they must not even come."
At his trial in November last year, which Zemmour did not attend, prosecutors argued that his comments were "contemptuous" and "outrageous", and that "the limits of freedom of expression have been crossed".
Zemmour has two previous convictions for hate speech.
For several weeks last year, polls suggested that he could come second in April's presidential election in France, facing a run-off with current President Emmanuel Macron. However, his support has since slipped.
Polls now suggest he could get around 11% of the first-round vote.
Although Zemmour has announced his intention to run for president, it is not yet clear if his name will be on the ballot paper.
Like all candidates, he needs to gather 500 endorsements from elected officials around France by the middle of March. He has admitted that he could struggle to get enough backing, complaining that the system is biased against political outsiders.
This conviction changes nothing for Zemmour. Over the years he's had a dozen run-ins with the law - some of which he's won, some lost - and his argument about being persecuted by a left-wing justice system is by now well oiled.
Essentially he says that publicly funded anti-racist groups help to frame "hate speech" laws, and then trigger criminal investigations against people they believe to have breached them. In other words, that pressure groups have become both legislator and prosecutor.
So for Zemmour, being convicted is merely more proof of his original point, that people who speak inconvenient truths about crime are silenced.
Do voters agree? Presumably the 11% who say they'll vote for him do.
But in the last few weeks, Zemmour's star, which shone so brightly in the autumn, has shown distinct signs of fading. This verdict will entrench some in their support for the man. But it may also convince others that he is indeed beyond the pale.
Eric Zemmour was grabbed round the neck at his first campaign rally last month. Security officers intervened.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Eric Zemmour was grabbed at his first political rally
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60022996
|
news_world-europe-60022996
|
|
Prince Andrew: Emily Maitlis says duke's interview answers are critical to sex assault case - BBC News
|
2022-01-13
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The BBC Newsnight presenter says details of the 2019 interview are being pored over by both sides.
|
UK
|
Prince Andrew was interviewed by BBC Newsnight's Emily Maitlis in 2019
It is more than two years since I sat down with Prince Andrew in a Buckingham Palace ballroom and posed questions that seemed almost too surreal to ask.
It is two years since the world heard his defence - about a birthday party in Woking, a trip to Pizza Express, and his inability to sweat - and shook a collective head, trying to work out what any of it meant. At the time, the specifics seemed almost comical. They spawned memes and riffs, quiz-show questions and stand-up routines. But now, suddenly, they feel deadly serious.
Right now a New York judge is deciding whether to allow Virginia Giuffre, the Jeffrey Epstein trafficking victim, to pursue her civil case against the prince. The answers the duke gave Newsnight in 2019, and the rest of his testimony to me that day, form a critical part of this landmark legal case. Ms Giuffre is suing the prince, claiming he sexually assaulted her when she was 17 - and a minor under US law. The duke denies the allegations.
In a hearing by teleconference on Tuesday, Prince Andrew's lawyer argued a 2009 settlement - between Virginia Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein - made it impossible for Ms Giuffre to take the case against the duke any further. Her lawyers argued the allegations against the prince were not covered by the 2009 deal. The judge, who said he appreciated the "arguments and passion" over the settlement - whatever that means - did not deliver his decision on whether the case should be thrown out or proceed, promising only to give that "pretty soon".
Prince Andrew came to Newsnight that day because he wanted to clear his name. He believed things had been said about him that he could disprove. And he had his defence ready.
The answers he gave me on camera may have seemed astonishing, jaw-dropping, even, in places. But bizarrely, I had been expecting them. We had talked through the things he wanted to say earlier, so part of my job that day was just to let him speak. To let him explain to the world his own version of events.
We went into that interview knowing that we would have one chance to get it right. One chance to provide a record of testimony, one chance to offer up a first-person account
We met the duke in the days before the interview took place. We were invited right into the heart of Buckingham Palace - his office rooms in what felt like the eaves of the palace. It was there - under a sloping roof, around a mahogany table - that we were treated to tea in dainty bone-china cups with the royal crest on them.
It was there the duke shook my hand, sat down, and explained he was going to tell us why he believed the photograph of him and Ms Giuffre - showing Prince Andrew with his arm around her - was likely a doctored fake.
It was Prince Andrew who volunteered the information to me in that early meeting that he was "unable to sweat". His Falkland Islands wartime experiences, he claimed, had produced a glut of adrenalin that meant he hadn't been able to sweat properly since being shot at.
I remember him asking me very directly if we thought that would be interesting to hear. And I said yes - I was fascinated by adrenalin - and that we wanted to hear as much detail of his account as we could.
There were phone calls between the palace and several of my producers. We had asked him to explain his whereabouts on the night Ms Giuffre alleged he had danced with her in Tramp nightclub, in London. His office had checked the date, and told us he couldn't have been with her because he had been at a children's birthday party that same evening.
I'm not sure we knew about Woking, but we did know about Pizza Express. The prince, in other words, had his alibi ready. He wanted to get that across in the interview. Of course, a children's birthday tea party and a late night in a club are not chronologically incompatible: it would have been more than possible to do both.
But the point of the interview was not to catch him out - I can't stress this enough. The point of the interview was just to have a record of Prince Andrew's own version of events. He wanted to set his own record straight. He offered minutiae and anecdote, detail and description, and we were ready to hear it all.
Prince Andrew, Virginia Roberts (now Giuffre) and Ghislaine Maxwell in 2001
We went into that interview knowing that we would have one chance to get it right. One chance to provide a record of testimony, one chance to offer up a first-person account if the case ever went to court. One chance to let a senior royal face questions of the utmost seriousness and give us what he assured us were straight answers.
When I listen back to the questions I posed that day there is a directness to them that even now makes me catch my breath. I can't quite believe that the words came out in the order I intended. But they had to. Because we had just one chance.
And we had to be very, very sure - not of the answers - but of the things we needed to find out. Virginia Giuffre alleged she had dined and danced with a sweating Prince Andrew in that London club. And that afterwards she was made to have sex with him in Ghislaine Maxwell's house.
I was already prepared for much of what he was going to say - although never the exact manner in which he said it. But I had to ask those questions in the way I did - to hear and to capture those answers on tape - for wherever the story would take us next.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59874170
|
https://c.files.bbci.co.uk/assets/b0ea2e7e-e9e9-48fa-865f-7b55d977991f
|
news_uk-59874170
|
What next for Boris Johnson after his party apology? - BBC News
|
2022-01-13
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The PM's departure is far from inevitable - but growing numbers of Conservative MPs want him out.
|
UK Politics
|
The prime minister's admission and apology in the Commons likely bought him a little time.
A pause until the official inquiry into what parties did or didn't take place in Downing Street is published, in perhaps a week or so.
But for many on his own side, Boris Johnson has already lost the benefit of the doubt.
Growing numbers of his own MPs want him out, discussing frantically how and when his exit could take place.
One minister told me, "it's over".
Another long-term backer of the prime minister, and former cabinet minister, said they can't see a way out.
And another former cabinet minister predicted a vote of confidence this month.
MPs are also suggesting that Sue Gray's report, or a further vote on Covid restrictions when they expire at the end of this month in England, could provoke a flurry of demands for him to quit.
In truth, there is no fixed plan among Boris Johnson's opponents.
There is a long list of MPs who may put themselves forward for the leadership, many more than the commonly-cited two frontrunners, the chancellor and foreign secretary.
There is no certainty that there will be enough letters to Tory party grandees to trigger a contest this year.
There is no central coordination between the different Tory tribes.
But many conversations in the Commons are about the manner and timing of Boris Johnson's departure, not really the question about whether or not he can survive.
And the fiasco over Downing Street events during lockdown has become a proxy for a years' long Tory argument: does Boris Johnson really have the character and integrity to lead the country from No 10?
More and more Conservatives are saying the answer to that must be no.
Mr Johnson has survived intense storms before, and his departure is far from inevitable.
Some of his allies suggest the Sue Gray report could end up providing ballast to his public explanations to the country today.
Politics in this era is deeply unpredictable. But it's no longer impossible to imagine that Boris Johnson will be gone before too long.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59974572
|
news_uk-politics-59974572
|
|
US Supreme Court scrutinises Biden vaccine mandates - BBC News
|
2022-01-07
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The eventual ruling by the court could have an impact on some 80 million workers.
|
US & Canada
|
The US Supreme Court appears doubtful as to whether the Biden administration can enforce a vaccine-or-testing mandate for large private employers.
The rules apply to companies with more than 100 employees, requiring workers to get fully vaccinated against Covid or be tested weekly.
The court held a special session on Friday to consider the mandate.
The nine justices' decision could have an impact on as many as 80 million US workers.
Some justices on the conservative-dominated court signalled support for the mandate on Friday, including Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal, who suggested the rule was not a vaccine mandate but a mandate for the unvaccinated to mask and get tested.
But conservative-leaning Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch questioned whether the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) had the broad authority to implement the mandate without instructions from Congress.
"This is something the federal government has never done before," said Republican-appointed Chief Justice John Roberts, who is often viewed as a swing vote on the court.
The case pits a number of Republican-led states and a coalition of business groups against the US Department of Labor.
Critics of the vaccine mandate from the department's Osha argued in court on Friday that the federal government had overstepped its authority by issuing the sweeping mandate, which covers more than two-thirds of all US private sector employees.
Additionally, lawyers for the coalition argued that it would be expensive for businesses, particularly the cost to test workers who refuse the vaccine.
They have also warned that many workers may quit rather than comply - an argument that the government has contested.
The federal government says the mandate is needed to prevent the spread of Covid-19 and to protect workers, arguing the policies could prevent 250,000 hospitalisations and over 6,000 deaths in six months. The government plans to begin enforcing the mandate 10 January.
The rules were blocked by a federal appeals court in November, only to be reinstated by another court in mid-December.
A second case, also being heard by the Supreme Court, concerns a vaccine policy announced in November for healthcare facilities receiving Medicaid and Medicare funding. The legal challenges come as the country struggles with a spike in infections driven by the Omicron variant.
A November survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation, for example, found that 52% of Americans supported a federal vaccine-or-testing mandate, and 45% who were opposed.
According to Johns Hopkins University, the US is now averaging more than 600,000 new Covid-19 cases and over 1,250 deaths from the virus each day.
Currently, about 207 million Americans - some 62% of the population - are fully vaccinated.
Although much of the public debate on vaccine mandates in recent months has been one of individual rights versus public health, for this conservative-dominated Supreme Court the legality of Joe Biden's policies will probably turn on questions about the power of the federal bureaucracy.
This court has proven time and again to be sceptical of any attempts to broadly interpret the powers of the federal bureaucracy - an attitude again on display in this case.
At one point, Justice Neil Gorsuch - a Donald Trump appointee - noted that Congress has had a year to legislate a vaccine mandate if it wanted. "Now the federal government is going agency-to-agency as a workaround to its inability to get Congress to act," he said.
Biden is trying to enforce his employer vaccinate-or-test mandate under a 1970 workplace safety law. He's justifying his healthcare worker mandate through the role the government plays in insuring the poor and the elderly.
The court's conservative justices appeared highly doubtful about the former and only slightly more open to the latter. In just a few days, they could tell Biden to go back to the drawing board to find ways to get more Americans vaccinated.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59916467
|
news_world-us-canada-59916467
|
|
George Floyd: Three ex-officers face civil rights trial - BBC News
|
2022-01-25
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Federal prosecutors allege the former officers "wilfully deprived" George Floyd of his civil rights.
|
US & Canada
|
One of three ex-Minneapolis policemen present at the death of George Floyd will testify in his own defence in a federal civil case against him and his colleagues.
The charge that Thomas Lane deprived Mr Floyd of his civil rights is "a perversion of justice", his lawyer said.
Mr Lane, 38, and ex-officers J Alexander Kueng and Tou Thao are also facing state criminal charges.
In her opening argument, Samantha Trepel, the government prosecutor, said that the three men should be held accountable for failing to act as Mr Floyd had his neck pinned to the ground by senior officer Derek Chauvin.
"These three CPR-trained defendants stood or knelt next to Officer Chauvin as he slowly killed George Floyd right in front of them," she said.
The government is seeking to prove that the ex-officers showed "deliberate indifference to [Mr Floyd's] serious medical needs" during the attempted arrest, thus depriving him of his right against illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution.
But Eric Gray, Mr Lane's lawyer, described him on Monday as a "gentle giant" who "did everything possible to help George Floyd".
Robert Paule, a lawyer representing Mr Thao, told the court: "The death of George Floyd is indeed a tragedy. However, a tragedy is not a crime."
It is rare for US police officers to be charged under civil rights statutes, and the trial could ultimately expand how officers are held liable for excessive use of force.
Twelve jurors and six alternates were selected for the trial last week.
Video evidence shows that, as Chauvin pressed his knee into Mr Floyd's neck, Mr Lane restrained his legs, Mr Kueng, 27, held his torso, and Mr Thao, 35, warned bystanders to keep away from them.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Mr Lane and Mr Kueng's defence teams are expected to argue that fault lies with Chauvin, the senior officer. Their lawyers have pointed out that the two men were rookies in their first week on the job, with Chauvin as their training officer.
A criminal complaint against Mr Lane mentions he twice asked Chauvin whether they should turn Mr Floyd over into a side recovery position and was rebuffed both times.
The trial is expected to last about four weeks. None of the members of the jury are African American.
The judge overseeing the case, US District Judge Paul Magnuson, told potential jurors last week that the case had "absolutely nothing" to do with race and would only rely on the facts.
Legal experts say prosecutors could also ask Chauvin to take the stand against his colleagues.
Convicted of murder and manslaughter last June, Chauvin is serving 22 1/2 years in state prison.
He is also awaiting federal sentencing for his own civil rights charges, after accepting a plea deal in December in order to avert a second trial.
Lawyers for the Floyd family said the trial would be "another painful experience" but "another milestone in the long, slow journey to justice for George Floyd and his family".
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60117763
|
news_world-us-canada-60117763
|
|
IMF expert: Families may need help with energy bills - BBC News
|
2022-01-25
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The IMF says the global economy is entering 2022 in a weaker position than previously expected.
|
Business
|
Struggling UK families may need help with energy bills as inflation soars, an International Monetary Fund expert has said.
It comes as the IMF predicted that the UK economy will grow more slowly than expected this year as it recovers from the Covid pandemic.
The forecast for UK growth in 2022 was cut to 4.7% from 5% in the IMF's latest world economic outlook.
However, this will be the fastest in the G7 industrialised nations.
It partly reflects a rebound from sharp falls the UK suffered during initial pandemic lockdowns two years ago.
The International Monetary Fund is an organisation of 190 countries that works to secure financial stability.
Its first deputy managing director, Gita Gopinath, told the BBC that targeted help might be needed to help vulnerable households deal with higher energy bills as they face a cost-of-living squeeze.
She said: "The UK has done very well on the vaccination front, on testing and tracing and so on.
"All that has to be continued. An argument can be made that, especially for instance, in April, as more of the energy price pass-through happens, then that could be a big, sharp increase in the cost of living.
"And one could see a case for very, very targeted help to highly vulnerable households for a short space of time."
Surging food and energy prices drove inflation to 5.4% in the 12 months to December, up from 5.1% the month before, in a blow to struggling families.
The International Monetary Fund expressed concern that a Russian invasion of Ukraine could see energy prices go even higher and stay there for longer.
Its first deputy managing director, Gita Gopinath, backed the idea of help with spiralling energy bills in the UK.
That intervention could be helpful to the Treasury, which is currently deciding what type of help could be given to mitigate a £50-a-month rise in bills.
Some MPs want the government to delay its announced rise in National Insurance, especially after lower-than-expected public borrowing figures.
The Treasury is believed to be looking instead at focusing support on those most in need.
On Tuesday, the IMF sharply downgraded its forecasts for the two biggest global economies - the US and China - citing high energy prices and new Covid curbs among its reasons.
Overall, the IMF now expects global growth to go from 5.9% in 2021 to 4.4% in 2022, half a percentage point lower for this year than in its last prediction in October 2021.
"The global economy enters 2022 in a weaker position than previously expected," said the IMF report.
As the new Omicron Covid-19 variant spread, countries had reimposed restrictions, it added.
"Rising energy prices and supply disruptions have resulted in higher and more broad-based inflation than anticipated, notably in the US and many emerging market and developing economies.
"And the ongoing retrenchment of China's real estate sector and slower-than-expected recovery of private consumption have limited growth prospects."
The IMF predicted that the higher levels of inflation currently seen in the global economy would go on for longer than it anticipated in its last forecast, persisting for most of 2022.
It said supply chain disruptions, energy price volatility and localised wage pressures meant that "uncertainty around inflation and policy paths" was high.
US economic growth for this year was downgraded by the IMF from 5.2% to 4% after it removed the effects of President Joe Biden's Build Back Better fiscal policy package from its calculations.
The legislation is currently stalled in Congress and is unlikely to be enacted in its present form.
China's forecast for 2022 was cut from 5.6% to 4.8%.
"In China, disruption in the housing sector has served as a prelude to a broader slowdown," the IMF report said.
"With a strict zero-Covid strategy leading to recurrent mobility restrictions and deteriorating prospects for construction sector employment, private consumption is likely to be lower than anticipated."
The IMF said the cut in expectations for global growth also reflected revisions among some other large emerging markets.
In particular, the two biggest Latin American economies, Brazil and Mexico, suffered the largest growth downgrades.
Brazil, where far-right President Jair Bolsonaro is seeking re-election later this year, is now expected to grow by just 0.3% in 2022, down from the previous forecast of 1.5%.
Mexico also saw a downgrade of 1.2 percentage points and is now predicted to see growth of 2.8%.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60128099
|
news_business-60128099
|
|
Prince Andrew: Emily Maitlis says duke's interview answers are critical to sex assault case - BBC News
|
2022-01-14
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The BBC Newsnight presenter says details of the 2019 interview are being pored over by both sides.
|
UK
|
Prince Andrew was interviewed by BBC Newsnight's Emily Maitlis in 2019
It is more than two years since I sat down with Prince Andrew in a Buckingham Palace ballroom and posed questions that seemed almost too surreal to ask.
It is two years since the world heard his defence - about a birthday party in Woking, a trip to Pizza Express, and his inability to sweat - and shook a collective head, trying to work out what any of it meant. At the time, the specifics seemed almost comical. They spawned memes and riffs, quiz-show questions and stand-up routines. But now, suddenly, they feel deadly serious.
Right now a New York judge is deciding whether to allow Virginia Giuffre, the Jeffrey Epstein trafficking victim, to pursue her civil case against the prince. The answers the duke gave Newsnight in 2019, and the rest of his testimony to me that day, form a critical part of this landmark legal case. Ms Giuffre is suing the prince, claiming he sexually assaulted her when she was 17 - and a minor under US law. The duke denies the allegations.
In a hearing by teleconference on Tuesday, Prince Andrew's lawyer argued a 2009 settlement - between Virginia Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein - made it impossible for Ms Giuffre to take the case against the duke any further. Her lawyers argued the allegations against the prince were not covered by the 2009 deal. The judge, who said he appreciated the "arguments and passion" over the settlement - whatever that means - did not deliver his decision on whether the case should be thrown out or proceed, promising only to give that "pretty soon".
Prince Andrew came to Newsnight that day because he wanted to clear his name. He believed things had been said about him that he could disprove. And he had his defence ready.
The answers he gave me on camera may have seemed astonishing, jaw-dropping, even, in places. But bizarrely, I had been expecting them. We had talked through the things he wanted to say earlier, so part of my job that day was just to let him speak. To let him explain to the world his own version of events.
We went into that interview knowing that we would have one chance to get it right. One chance to provide a record of testimony, one chance to offer up a first-person account
We met the duke in the days before the interview took place. We were invited right into the heart of Buckingham Palace - his office rooms in what felt like the eaves of the palace. It was there - under a sloping roof, around a mahogany table - that we were treated to tea in dainty bone-china cups with the royal crest on them.
It was there the duke shook my hand, sat down, and explained he was going to tell us why he believed the photograph of him and Ms Giuffre - showing Prince Andrew with his arm around her - was likely a doctored fake.
It was Prince Andrew who volunteered the information to me in that early meeting that he was "unable to sweat". His Falkland Islands wartime experiences, he claimed, had produced a glut of adrenalin that meant he hadn't been able to sweat properly since being shot at.
I remember him asking me very directly if we thought that would be interesting to hear. And I said yes - I was fascinated by adrenalin - and that we wanted to hear as much detail of his account as we could.
There were phone calls between the palace and several of my producers. We had asked him to explain his whereabouts on the night Ms Giuffre alleged he had danced with her in Tramp nightclub, in London. His office had checked the date, and told us he couldn't have been with her because he had been at a children's birthday party that same evening.
I'm not sure we knew about Woking, but we did know about Pizza Express. The prince, in other words, had his alibi ready. He wanted to get that across in the interview. Of course, a children's birthday tea party and a late night in a club are not chronologically incompatible: it would have been more than possible to do both.
But the point of the interview was not to catch him out - I can't stress this enough. The point of the interview was just to have a record of Prince Andrew's own version of events. He wanted to set his own record straight. He offered minutiae and anecdote, detail and description, and we were ready to hear it all.
Prince Andrew, Virginia Roberts (now Giuffre) and Ghislaine Maxwell in 2001
We went into that interview knowing that we would have one chance to get it right. One chance to provide a record of testimony, one chance to offer up a first-person account if the case ever went to court. One chance to let a senior royal face questions of the utmost seriousness and give us what he assured us were straight answers.
When I listen back to the questions I posed that day there is a directness to them that even now makes me catch my breath. I can't quite believe that the words came out in the order I intended. But they had to. Because we had just one chance.
And we had to be very, very sure - not of the answers - but of the things we needed to find out. Virginia Giuffre alleged she had dined and danced with a sweating Prince Andrew in that London club. And that afterwards she was made to have sex with him in Ghislaine Maxwell's house.
I was already prepared for much of what he was going to say - although never the exact manner in which he said it. But I had to ask those questions in the way I did - to hear and to capture those answers on tape - for wherever the story would take us next.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59874170
|
https://c.files.bbci.co.uk/assets/b0ea2e7e-e9e9-48fa-865f-7b55d977991f
|
news_uk-59874170
|
Covid: We'll look at science of cutting isolation period - PM - BBC News
|
2022-01-10
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Boris Johnson says we have to ensure we "see off" the Omicron wave and adds testing remains vital.
|
UK
|
A Whitehall source has denied the government is working on a plan for living with Covid in the long term. But there's speculation about what changes that might eventually entail.
The government has already said in its Autumn and Winter Covid plan for this year that one day lateral flow tests will have to be paid for by businesses and individuals that benefit from them, rather than by the taxpayer. But the source said ministers had not even made a decision about when such a decision might be needed.
Then there's the period you must isolate for if you have Covid. That's already come down from an automatic 10 days to seven if you test negative on the final two, after ministers asked the UK Health Security Agency to review the rule. But the UKHSA estimates there's a 10-30% chance than an individual could still be infectious on day six, so it's not coming down any further for now. That's why ministers who are enthusiastic about people being stuck home for less time say they would support a change if the science changed.
There are other questions, such as when does the government stop financial support for people who are isolating? You don't get a cheque if you've got a cold, the argument goes.
The PM's adviser-turned-enemy Dominic Cummings wrote in a blog post last week that the government had also failed to plan ahead for future variants.
These issues will come to a head in the build-up to 26 January when the measures implementing Plan B in England are due to expire. And again at the end of March when the legislation that underpins much of the response to Covid lapses, too.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-59934070
|
news_live_uk-59934070
|
|
Novak Djokovic: Judge orders immediate release of tennis star - BBC News
|
2022-01-10
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Anthony Kelly quashes the decision to cancel the player's Australian visa on Covid vaccination grounds.
|
Australia
|
Supporters of Novak Djokovic have been protesting outside the courthouse throughout proceedings
The judge hearing Novak Djokovic's challenge to an order by the Australian government revoking his entry visa has dramatically overturned the decision.
Judge Anthony Kelly ordered the release of the tennis star from detention.
However, there has been no sign of the Serbian player since the verdict. And Immigration Minister Alex Hawke can still cancel his visa on new grounds.
The 34-year-old flew into Melbourne last week, hoping to defend his Australian Open title.
The government acknowledged in court that Djokovic was not given enough time to respond following the notification to cancel his visa.
The player was told he would have until 08:30 local time last Thursday to make comments about the visa cancellation under section 116 of the Australian Migration Act, but the Border Force made the final decision shortly after 07:40.
The Judge said Djokovic could have had more time to make a submission about why his visa should not be withdrawn if authorities had stuck to the original time.
"We all play by the same rules," Judge Kelly said. "Stated in other terms: those rules were not observed."
The trial began on Monday morning after delays caused by technical issues with a live stream of proceedings.
Lawyers for Djokovic argued that the 20-time Grand Slam winner entered the country on the understanding that his exemption from restrictions requiring travellers to be fully vaccinated against Covid-19 was valid.
Nick Wood told the court that the exemption had been granted to the player by two separate medical boards following a recent coronavirus infection and that he had presented all the necessary medical evidence to officials.
"He had done absolutely everything. He had engaged with everything that was required of him by Tennis Australia," Mr Wood said.
Judge Kelly appeared to agree with Mr Wood's argument and told government lawyers that he felt "agitated" by what he had heard so far.
"What more could this man have done?" he asked.
It is not clear. The judge's order specified that the tennis star should be released from immigration detention within 30 minutes of the ruling.
Djokovic's family and Serbian officials have said their hero has been arrested, but there is no evidence of that having happened.
Djokovic's lawyers have also argued that his treatment by Australian Border Force officers after his arrival was "manifestly unjust".
After being approached by officials at the airport, he asked to wait until the morning to hear from his team before deciding whether to leave the country. This was initially agreed to by officials.
He then went to sleep, but was woken up around 06:00 by officers who allegedly pressured him to respond "because it was better for him if they made the decision right away".
Government lawyer Christopher Tran argued that Djokovic's recent Covid infection did not qualify him for an exemption from travel rules, and denied there was any unfairness or unreasonableness in the decision.
Though Djokovic has not spoken publicly about his vaccination status, in his interview with border officials he confirms he is not vaccinated.
He told the interviewer that he tested positive for Covid twice - in June 2020 and on 16 December 2021. Copies of his positive PCR tests were provided to the interviewer - one was issued on the 16 December 2021, a day before Djokovic appeared at public events without a mask.
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 Novak Djokovic 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.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-59932430
|
news_world-australia-59932430
|
|
Silicon Valley's trial of the century - BBC News
|
2022-01-04
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
A look at the Theranos trial and the evidence that led to Elizabeth Holmes being found guilty of fraud.
|
Technology
|
Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes has been found guilty of fraud
It was a verdict that reflected the often painful complexities and contradictions of blood testing company Theranos.
Four guilty verdicts, four acquittals and three charges on which the jury couldn't agree.
For many who have followed the Theranos saga, the podcasts, the documentaries, the books, you might have thought that Elizabeth Holmes's conviction was nailed down.
After all, she had claimed her diagnostics machines could test hundreds of diseases, when they couldn't. And she was the founder and chief executive of Theranos, so surely the buck would stop with her in court?
But underestimate Holmes at your peril. This is a woman who created a $9bn (£6.6bn) company she set up when she was 19. A woman who at one point had the world at her feet - who Bill Clinton and Joe Biden both praised.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. The rise and fall of Elizabeth Holmes
There was another reason to think Holmes might be acquitted. These fraud cases are extremely difficult to prosecute. Jurors were asked to consider hundreds of technical documents and sit through evidence from dozens of witnesses.
Holmes has just had a baby too, and some commentators believed she would strike a sympathetic character.
Holmes also personally gave evidence in court, an unusual thing to do in a fraud trial. She described a relationship she had with Theranos's chief operating officer, Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani, who she claimed exercised coercive control over her. She also said she had been sexually abused. Mr Balwani categorically denies the allegations.
Some onlookers have remarked that this part of Holmes's evidence was particularly effective. The jury was listening.
Holmes's defence also believe they had one killer argument - that Holmes never sold her shares. Even when the company was worth nearly $10bn (and Holmes nearly $5bn) all wrapped up in shares, she didn't cash out. Those shares are now worthless.
Her defence argued that if she was a genuine fraud she would have taken the money and run. Instead, they said, she believed in what she was doing.
During the trial, Holmes admitted mistakes but said she had never knowingly defrauded patients or investors
Yet both things can be true. You can have a vision, a goal, a mission as Holmes would call it, and still commit fraud.
At times Holmes was shown evidence that she herself admitted didn't look good. She said on more than one occasion that there were things she would have done differently in hindsight.
One particular example that sticks out is when the logos of Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline were used to suggest the two pharmaceutical companies had endorsed Theranos. They had done no such thing. The prosecution made this a major plank of their argument - as close as they could get to a smoking gun.
Holmes's defence also had a major hole in it. Almost everyone you speak to about Theranos says that Holmes ran the company like an obsessive autocrat. She knew everything about what was going on.
Yet part of her defence was that she didn't know what was happening in her company - or the major problems with the tech. All too often she said she wasn't aware of information put to her by the prosecution, or that she didn't remember key events. It didn't ring true.
Holmes always wanted to be in control. And some have speculated that's why she decided to testify, to be in the driving seat of her own defence. It didn't work.
In 2015, questions were raised about the tech behind Holmes's blood testing ideas and the firm collapsed in 2018
Silicon Valley is full of crooks, frauds and charlatans. "Fake it until you make it" is the brash term often used. Holmes certainly talked a good game. Yet the confidence, the certainty of success she conveyed was bluster.
However, some have noted it's telling that one of the very few high-profile female tech chief executives has been found guilty of fraud - when other high-profile (men) have not.
The verdict will, in theory, make founders sit up and take note - that there are consequences to not telling investors the truth.
But others wonder whether it will change anything much. In Silicon Valley there are still major rewards for selling dreams - for telling investors what they want to hear - rather than the truth.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-59867772
|
news_technology-59867772
|
|
Nirvana's Nevermind cover art lawsuit dismissed - BBC News
|
2022-01-04
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Spencer Elden, who was pictured as a baby on the album cover, had alleged child pornography.
|
Entertainment & Arts
|
More than 30 million copies of Nevermind have been sold worldwide
A judge in California has dismissed a lawsuit against Nirvana made by Spencer Elden, who appeared as a naked baby on the cover of their album Nevermind.
Elden sued the band last year, alleging sexual exploitation, and that the artwork constituted child sexual abuse.
Now 30, he said the infamous image had caused him "extreme and permanent emotional distress" as well as loss of wages and "enjoyment of life".
Nirvana filed to dismiss last month, saying Elden's arguments lacked merit.
"Elden's claim that the photograph on the Nevermind album cover is 'child pornography' is, on its face, not serious," their lawyers said, noting that anyone who owned a copy of the record would "on Elden's theory [be] guilty of felony possession of child pornography".
They continued by noting that, until recently, Elden had seemed to enjoy the notoriety of being the "Nirvana baby".
"He has re-enacted the photograph in exchange for a fee, many times; he has had the album title... tattooed across his chest; he has appeared on a talk show wearing a self-parodying, nude-colored onesie; he has autographed copies of the album cover for sale on eBay; and he has used the connection to try to pick up women."
Elden has re-created the photo several times
The motion was filed by lawyers representing surviving Nirvana members Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic; Kurt Cobain's widow Courtney Love; and Kirk Weddle, the photographer of the cover image.
Regardless of the merits of Elden's case, they argued, the statute of limitations on his claims had expired in 2011, meaning he was too late to sue.
His lawyers have argued that the statute of limitations does not apply, as long as Nevermind continues to be sold in its current form.
"Child pornography is a forever crime," Marsh Law told Variety in a statement last year. "Any distribution of or profits earned from any sexually explicit image of a child not only creates longstanding liability but it also breeds lifelong trauma. This is common for all of our clients who are victims of actively traded child pornography, regardless of how long ago the image was created."
Elden's team had until 30 December to respond to Nirvana's motion to dismiss, but missed the deadline.
As a result, Judge Fernando M Olguin dismissed the case "with leave to amend" - meaning his team have until 13 January to refile the case with appropriate changes.
In a statement to AFP on Tuesday, Elden's lawyer Robert Lewis said they would do so "very soon."
"We are confident that Spencer will be allowed to move forward with his case," Lewis said.
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-59867369
|
news_entertainment-arts-59867369
|
|
Elizabeth Holmes: Theranos founder convicted of fraud - BBC News
|
2022-01-04
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The Silicon Valley ex-CEO faces a lengthy term in prison for defrauding investors.
|
US & Canada
|
Holmes (centre) remains on bail before sentencing at a later date
Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes has been convicted of defrauding investors after a months-long landmark trial in California.
Prosecutors said Holmes knowingly lied about technology she said could detect diseases with a few drops of blood.
Jurors found Holmes guilty of conspiracy to commit fraud against investors and three charges of wire fraud.
She denied the charges, which carry a maximum prison term of 20 years each.
Holmes was not taken into custody, with no date confirmed yet for sentencing and a further hearing scheduled next week.
Journalists inside the courtroom said the 37-year-old, who gave birth to her first child last year, showed little emotion when the verdicts were read out, and hugged her husband, Billy Evans, and her parents before leaving the courtroom.
Holmes faced 11 charges in total and was found not guilty of four charges relating to defrauding the public.
The split verdict came after the judge said the jury, having deliberated for seven days, could deliver a partial verdict after being unable to reach consensus on another three counts.
The three wire fraud charges she was found guilty of are tied to specific investors in her failed company. Wire fraud is a relatively wide-ranging federal crime in the US, which involves using electronic communications, such as emails, to make false statements to get something from another person - usually money.
Theranos, at one point valued at $9bn (£6.5bn), was once the darling of biotech and Silicon Valley.
Holmes was able to raise more than $900m from billionaires such as media magnate Rupert Murdoch and tech mogul Larry Ellison.
The firm promised it would revolutionise the healthcare industry with a test that could detect conditions such as cancer and diabetes with only a few drops of blood.
But these claims began to unravel in 2015 after a Wall Street Journal investigation reported that its core blood-testing technology did not work.
For nearly four months at trial, the jury of eight men and four women were presented with two starkly different accounts of the former self-made billionaire, whose downfall shook Silicon Valley.
Calling some 30 witnesses, the prosecution sought to prove that Holmes knew the product she was selling to investors - a machine called the Edison - was a sham, but remained hell-bent on the firm's success.
Her company secretly relied on commercially available machines to run the tests, prosecutors said.
At trial, multiple lab directors testified to telling Holmes about the flaws in Theranos' technology but being instructed to downplay their concerns. At the same time, they added , Holmes told investors the technology was operating as planned.
Holmes "chose fraud over business failure. She chose to be dishonest with investors and patients", said prosecutor Jeff Schenk in closing arguments. "That choice was not only callous, it was criminal."
The defence countered with descriptions of a dedicated and driven businesswoman, making waves in a male-dominated industry.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. The rise and fall of Elizabeth Holmes
Testifying in her own defence, Holmes acknowledged mistakes in Theranos' operation, but maintained she never knowingly defrauded patients or investors.
The defence also laid blame on Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani, her former business partner and ex-boyfriend.
At trial Holmes accused Mr Balwani, 19 years her senior, of emotional and sexual abuse - allegations he denies.
Elizabeth Holmes claimed her diagnostics machines could test hundreds of diseases. They couldn't.
Considering she was the founder and CEO of Theranos you might think the case would be an easy win for the prosecution. But for a number of reasons the guilty verdicts were by no means assured.
These technical fraud cases are extremely difficult to prosecute. Jurors were asked to consider hundreds of documents and sit through evidence from dozens of witnesses.
Holmes has just had a baby and some commentators believed she would strike a sympathetic character.
The difficulty in successfully prosecuting Holmes is reflected in the verdicts - a real mixed bag of decisions from the jury.
But considering how difficult white-collar fraud cases are to prosecute, the government will be happy with what stuck.
Her former partner, Sunny Balwani, will now face trial next month in the same court for similar charges. It's likely Holmes will not be sentenced until after that case has concluded.
The verdict sends a clear and frank message to Silicon Valley founders - there are consequences when you say things to investors that aren't true.
US Attorney Stephanie Hinds thanked the jurors who, she said, had navigated a "complex case" over 15 weeks to reach their verdict.
"The guilty verdicts, in this case, reflect Ms Holmes' culpability in this large-scale investor fraud and she must now face sentencing for her crimes," the prosecutor said in a statement read out by an assistant.
Holmes was dubbed the "next Steve Jobs" by Inc. magazine, trumpeted by Forbes as being "the world's youngest self-made female billionaire", and featured in Time magazine's coveted list of the most influential people in 2015.
She founded Theranos as a teenager, shortly after dropping out of chemical engineering at Stanford University.
The firm officially ceased operations in 2018 following the scandal.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59734254
|
news_world-us-canada-59734254
|
|
Prince Andrew accuser’s 2009 deal with Jeffrey Epstein made public - BBC News
|
2022-01-04
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
It shows Virginia Giuffre agreed not to sue anyone who could be described as a "potential defendant".
|
UK
|
Virginia Giuffre agreed not to sue anyone connected to Jeffrey Epstein who could be described as a "potential defendant", a 2009 damages settlement against the sex offender shows.
The document, disclosed by a New York court, reveals the financier paid her $500,000 (£371,000) to end her claim.
Ms Giuffre is suing the Duke of York in a civil case for allegedly sexually assaulting her 20 years ago, when she was a teenager.
He has consistently denied the claims.
The document was released ahead of a critical hearing on Tuesday in the civil case involving Prince Andrew - and the interpretation of the settlement will form a central plank of the argument between the two sides.
Ms Giuffre alleges she was trafficked to the prince by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
Although the settlement does not mention the prince by name, his lawyers say this 2009 deal means she cannot sue him - because she agreed to end all legal action against anyone connected to the offender who could be described as a "potential defendant".
Epstein died in prison in 2019, while Maxwell was last week convicted of recruiting and trafficking young girls to be abused by the late financier.
Ms Giuffre's legal team say the terms of the Florida settlement are irrelevant to her case against the prince - which alleges sexual abuse by the royal in New York, London and the US Virgin Islands.
In her 2009 claim against Epstein, lawyers for Ms Giuffre said she was lured into a world of sexual abuse at his Florida home when she was a teenager.
They added: "In addition to being continually exploited to satisfy defendant's [Epstein] every sexual whim, [Ms Giuffre] was also required to be sexually exploited by defendant's adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen and or other professional and personal acquaintances."
That case never went to trial because on 17 November 2009 Jeffrey Epstein agreed to pay her $500,000 to stop it in its tracks. That deal was confidential until now - but has been made public because of its potential importance to the Prince Andrew case.
In the document, Ms Giuffre, also referred to by her unmarried name Roberts, agreed to "release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge" Epstein and "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant".
The settlement's wording says she discharges "potential defendants" from any US legal action, including damages claims dating "from the beginning of the world".
The precise meaning of that wording is expected to be the subject of intense legal arguments in New York on Tuesday.
Epstein and Maxwell have been pictured at the Queen's private Scottish estate, Balmoral
In filings to the New York court last month, Andrew B. Brettler, the duke's lead lawyer, said the Epstein settlement's plain language would be clear once it was released to the public.
"Epstein negotiated for this broad release, insisting that it cover any and all persons who Giuffre identified as potential targets of future lawsuits, regardless of the merit— or lack thereof —to any such claims," he said.
"Giuffre's baseless claims against Prince Andrew... must be dismissed at this stage."
In a statement, one of Ms Giuffre's lawyers, David Boies, said the settlement was not relevant to her claim and "does not mention Prince Andrew".
"He did not even know about it," he said.
In a previous court filing her lawyers said that the Epstein deal was "outside the four corners" of her action against Prince Andrew because it does not cover her claims against him.
Lisa Bloom, a lawyer for alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein, described the settlement as "one of the most bizarre" she had ever seen, telling BBC News she thought it was "incomprehensibly vague".
"We want contracts to clearly specify who is released from a lawsuit and who is not," she said, adding that she could not see a judge releasing Prince Andrew from a lawsuit because he was not named specifically.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59861831
|
news_uk-59861831
|
|
Prince Andrew: Decision soon on dismissing case - judge - BBC News
|
2022-01-04
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
A US court hears arguments about a deal the prince's accuser Virginia Giuffre agreed with Jeffrey Epstein.
|
UK
|
Prince Andrew, Virginia Roberts (now Giuffre) and Ghislaine Maxwell in 2001
A US judge will decide "soon" whether a civil sex assault case against the Duke of York will be dismissed, following the latest hearing in New York.
Prince Andrew's lawyer told Judge Lewis A Kaplan that the duke could be covered by a 2009 deal his accuser, Virginia Giuffre, made with Jeffrey Epstein.
Ms Giuffre is suing the prince claiming he sexually assaulted her - when she was 17 and a minor in some US states.
At a virtual hearing in Manhattan on Tuesday, Judge Kaplan said he appreciated the "arguments and the passion" over the 2009 agreement.
He said he would give a decision on the case "pretty soon" but declined to say exactly when.
Ms Giuffre's central allegation is that Epstein, and the now-convicted Ghislaine Maxwell, trafficked her into sexual abuse and exploitation - including incidents in which she said she was expected to engage in sexual activity with Prince Andrew in London, New York and the US Virgin Islands.
The 2009 settlement agreement, released yesterday, revealed that now-dead financier Epstein paid Ms Giuffre $500,000 to end a claim for damages - and she agreed not to bring any future cases against other "potential defendants".
It does not mention Prince Andrew, now 61, by name, and his lawyers argue the deal means Ms Giuffre, now 38, cannot sue him. Her lawyers contest that.
Judge Kaplan used Tuesday's hearing to closely question lawyers for both sides as to whether the Epstein-Giuffre damages settlement could be used at all by Prince Andrew to stop the case.
The 2009 deal shows both Epstein and Virginia Giuffre agreed that neither of them would disclose the deal to other parties - unless ordered to do so by a court.
Secondly, both of them accepted that the agreement could not be used in any other court case that was not directly related to enforcing its terms.
Judge Kaplan said that the wording could mean that both Epstein and Ms Giuffre had to jointly agree on whether or not the settlement could be used to release other potential defendants from facing court.
He said: "If someone got sued and Jeffrey Epstein said this person was within the release, and it was okay with Ms Giuffre, then [the deal] could be made available and Epstein could enforce it - but not otherwise."
Prince Andrew's lawyer, Andrew B Brettler, objected, - saying that US law made clear that a third party - such as his client - had rights to rely on the settlement to prevent them being unfairly taken to court.
If Judge Lewis Kaplan had been minded to rule swiftly in Prince Andrew's favour to stop the case, he could have done two things immediately today.
First, he could have indicated in court his direction of travel - and secondly he could have torn up the currently tight timetable he has set for the duke to meet Ms Giuffre's requests for documentary evidence - the next important stage in a damages case that's heading for trial.
He did neither. But what he did do, in the dying minutes, is closely question both sides over part of the Epstein deal that had gone unnoticed in the hours since its publication.
Even if Prince Andrew could be properly classed as a "potential defendant" to Ms Giuffre's 2009 Florida claims, her settlement with Epstein says that third parties - meaning someone whose signature was not on the agreement - could not use that agreement in another court without their permission.
Given that Epstein is dead and Ms Giuffre doesn't want the prince to benefit from the agreement's terms, a strict reading of that paragraph would mean the agreement is irrelevant to her damages case.
The duke's lawyer disputed this - but when Judge Kaplan soon rules on the future of the case, this might just be the most important part of today's hearing.
Earlier in the virtual hearing, Mr Brettler told Judge Kaplan that a potential defendant was "someone who was not named as a defendant but could have been".
He said that a potential defendant would be someone Ms Giuffre knew that she had "claims against at the time that she filed the lawsuit" in 2009.
Judge Kaplan said "potential" was a phrase that neither he nor Mr Brettler could "find any meaning at all" in.
Mr Brettler told Judge Kaplan that Prince Andrew "could have been sued" at the time but was not, and added that he wanted Ms Giuffre to "lock herself into a story now" and provide further and more precise details of her allegations.
"She does not articulate what supposedly happened to her at the hands of Prince Andrew," he said.
But Judge Kaplan replied: "That's not a dog that is going to hunt here. It's not going to happen." That information was not required at this stage of proceedings, he added.
Mr Brettler concluded by saying the case should "absolutely be dismissed".
David Boies, acting for Ms Giuffre, told Tuesday's hearing the prince would not be a "potential defendant" as referred to in the civil case documents released on Monday.
"The only claim that is asserted that was made in Florida in the 2009 action that covered Prince Andrew was the third count, which was to transport somebody for the purpose of illegal sexual activity," he said.
"There is no allegation that Prince Andrew was the person transporting. There is no allegation that Prince Andrew fell into the category of people who were doing the trafficking.
"He was somebody to whom the girls were trafficked."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Prince Andrew tells BBC Newsnight in 2019 he cannot recall any incident involving Virginia Giuffre
The prince has consistently denied Ms Giuffre's allegations, telling BBC Newsnight in 2019: "It didn't happen. I can absolutely categorically tell you it never happened. I have no recollection of ever meeting this lady, none whatsoever."
In her 2009 claim against Epstein, lawyers for Ms Giuffre said that as well as being exploited by Epstein, Ms Giuffre "was also required to be sexually exploited by defendant's adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, academics, businessmen and or other professional and personal acquaintances".
That case never went to trial because on 17 November 2009, Epstein agreed to pay her $500,000 to stop it in its tracks. That deal had been confidential but has now been made public because of its potential importance to the Andrew case.
Epstein died in prison in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59865102
|
news_uk-59865102
|
|
Novak Djokovic will compete at Australian Open with medical exemption - BBC Sport
|
2022-01-04
|
[]
|
Novak Djokovic will defend his Australian Open title after receiving a medical exemption from having a Covid-19 vaccination.
| null |
Last updated on .From the section Tennis
World number one Novak Djokovic will defend his Australian Open title later this month after receiving a medical exemption from having a Covid-19 vaccination.
All players and staff at the tournament must be vaccinated or have an exemption granted by an expert independent panel.
Serb Djokovic, 34, has not spoken publicly about his vaccination status.
But Australian Open chief Craig Tiley said "no special favour" had been given to the nine-time champion.
Speaking to Channel Nine's The Today Show, Tiley added: "We made it extra difficult for anyone applying for an application to ensure it was the right process and to make sure the medical experts deal with it independently. There were 26 athletes that made applications and a handful have been granted.
"There has been no special favour or special opportunity granted to Novak Djokovic or any tennis player. There's been a process that goes above and beyond the normal process for everyone."
The tournament begins in Melbourne on 17 January and Djokovic said on Instagram on Tuesday: "I've spent fantastic quality time with my loved ones over the break and today I'm heading down under with an exemption permission.
"Let's go 2022. I am ready to live and breathe tennis in the next few weeks of competition."
The news was confirmed by tournament organisers Tennis Australia, who said: "Novak Djokovic will compete at the Australian Open and is on his way to Australia."
Earlier this week, Tiley said some unvaccinated players had been granted exemptions to play in the year's first Grand Slam.
On Wednesday, he added: "For tennis players it was a process that goes above and beyond what anyone coming to Australia would experience simply because we had an extra panel of experts who, through a blind review, granted exemptions where appropriate."
Applications for medical exemptions were assessed anonymously by two separate panels, with inflammatory cardiac illness or another acute condition listed as valid reasons, or evidence of a recent Covid infection.
Tennis Australia said Djokovic was granted an exemption after a "a rigorous review process involving two separate independent panels of medical experts".
"Fair and independent protocols were established for assessing medical exemption applications that will enable us to ensure Australian Open 2022 is safe and enjoyable for everyone," said Tiley in a statement on Tuesday.
"Central to this process was that the decisions were made by independent medical experts and that every applicant was given due consideration."
Djokovic had pulled out of the Serbia team for the ATP Cup in Sydney, which had raised doubts over his participation at Melbourne Park.
BBC tennis commentator Andrew Castle said, while he was "not surprised" by the reaction to the exemption, the decision was "not unfair".
"We don't know what Djokovic's medical exemption is and we'll never know because it's private," Castle told BBC Radio 5 Live.
"But he must have one. We knew this would happen when exemptions were announced. I'm not surprised [by the reaction] but what I will say is, it's not unfair because he satisfied two independent panels.
"Is he giving the world of tennis the correct lead? It's arguable. It doesn't look like he's broken any rules, he's satisfied the independent panels so we're once again left arguing over another Covid-related matter.
"I can understand the Australian public being furious. They've been to hell and back and if the crowd boo him - which I think they will - he will put it aside and become the favourite to win. No-one is arguing about his tennis, the concern here is leadership and the example he is setting, but it's not mandatory to have the vaccination."
Djokovic has won the past three Australian Opens and is in a three-way tie on 20 majors with Roger Federer, who misses the tournament through injury, and Rafael Nadal in the all-time list.
"He has a chance to break this record," added Castle. "The tournament would be worse off without him from a tennis point of view, of course. But he's never been quite as loved as Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal and this won't do anything to endear him to this part of the world.
"It's another big Covid argument and I want this whole thing to go away."
• None Alerts: Get tennis news sent to your phone
• None Shake off festive fatigue with a playlist that will help you relax and reset
• None Can formulas really pick better teams?
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/59865959
|
rt_tennis_59865959
|
|
Prince Andrew denies close friendship with Ghislaine Maxwell in US court files - BBC News
|
2022-01-26
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
In US court files, the prince, who denies assault claims, also asks for a jury trial in his accuser's lawsuit.
|
US & Canada
|
Prince Andrew has denied being a close friend of convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, in a legal response to the woman who is suing him in the US for sexual assault.
Lawyers for the prince also say he wants to go before a jury to contest the claim brought by Virginia Giuffre.
The Duke of York has consistently denied all the allegations against him.
Ms Giuffre alleges he assaulted her when she was 17 at homes owned by Maxwell and paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
But in the 11-page court document, filed on Wednesday, Prince Andrew's legal team list a number of reasons why they believe her civil lawsuit should be dismissed.
One factor they ask the court to consider is the issue of consent.
The document says: "Assuming, without admitting, that Giuffre has suffered any injury or damage alleged in the complaint, Giuffre's claims are barred by the doctrine of consent."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. From November 2019: Prince Andrew said he was "not aware" of the arrest warrant for Jeffrey Epstein when he was invited to Princess Beatrice's birthday party
The document also states that Prince Andrew "admits that he met Epstein in or around 1999", but denies that he participated in any abuse with the late financier.
On the matter of a photograph of the prince with his arm around Ms Giuffre, with Maxwell in the background, his lawyers say they do not have enough information to admit or deny its existence.
Elsewhere, the document "denies" Ms Guiffre's claim that Prince Andrew was a close friend of Maxwell.
Writing to a US judge, his lawyers state: "Prince Andrew hereby demands a trial by jury on all causes of action asserted in the complaint."
US lawyer Lisa Bloom, who represents a number of Maxwell's and Epstein's accusers, called this demand a "PR move", saying Ms Giuffre had already asked for a jury trial.
She said Prince Andrew's request was "meaningless" as it was Ms Giuffre's constitutional right to have a jury trial if she asked for one.
This is a wide-ranging set of denials which is specific about the denial of the sexual abuse.
Prince Andrew is denying even that he was a close friend of Ghislaine Maxwell and frequent visitor of Jeffrey Epstein.
I think Buckingham Palace, which has pushed Prince Andrew and this whole case as far away as it possibly can, will be viewing this with suppressed horror.
They will realise the capacity this story has to dominate headlines and we are just 10 days away from the start of the Platinum Jubilee.
In terms of the strategy, I think Prince Andrew's lawyers are trying to give the impression that Virginia Giuffre's reputation will be damaged if this does come to court.
They will attempt to assert that her conduct was sufficiently wrong in itself that she has forfeited the right to benefit in any way from this situation..
Though one has to wonder how that argument will play in front of a New York jury - a British prince trying to blame Virginia Giuffre.
It's a great final line in this document that Prince Andrew demands the right to be tried by a jury. But as I understand it he gets a jury trial anyway.
Could this all be part of a softening up process in the hope that, as the other side recognises the sort of defence that will be mounted, perhaps they will be more inclined to consider an out of court settlement?
Though at the moment, everything that Virginia Giuffre and her lawyers are saying is indicating that they do want to push this to a trial and they do want their day in court.
In the papers, Prince Andrew's lawyers further argue that Ms Giuffre has no legal basis to bring the case since she is a permanent resident of Australia.
They also refer to a 2009 settlement agreement between Ms Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein, a long-time associate of Prince Andrew.
Epstein, a convicted sex offender, killed himself in prison in 2019 while awaiting a sex trafficking trial. British socialite Maxwell was found guilty last month of grooming underage girls to be abused by him.
Ms Giuffre is suing the Queen's son for allegedly sexually assaulting her in London, New York and the Virgin Islands when she was a teenager.
She is seeking unspecified damages, but there is speculation the sum could be in the millions of dollars.
Earlier in the month, a judge ruled that the case could proceed.
Buckingham Palace later stripped Prince Andrew of his military titles and patronages, and said he would contest the case as a private individual.
The new court documents describe the Queen's second son as "Prince Andrew, Duke of York aka Andrew Albert Christian Edward, in his personal capacity".
In a statement, David Boies - who is representing Ms Giuffre - said his client and legal team "look forward to confronting Prince Andrew with his denials and attempts to blame Ms Giuffre for her own abuse at his deposition and at trial".
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60149024
|
news_world-us-canada-60149024
|
|
Eric Zemmour: Far-right candidate found guilty of hate speech - BBC News
|
2022-01-18
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Eric Zemmour called unaccompanied migrant children coming to France "thieves" and "murderers".
|
Europe
|
Far-right French presidential candidate Eric Zemmour has been fined €10,000 (£8,350) by a Paris court for hate speech.
The case was launched over a TV appearance, where he described unaccompanied migrant children as "thieves", "rapists" and "murderers".
Former broadcaster Zemmour is known for his anti-Islam and anti-immigration views.
His lawyer said he would appeal against the court's decision.
Reacting to the verdict on social media, Zemmour complained that his freedom of speech was being restricted, and said there was an "urgent need to drive ideology out of the courts".
He made the comments in September 2020 on the CNews television channel, where he used to work as a pundit.
Answering a question about a recent knife attack by a young radicalised Pakistani immigrant, he said: "They have nothing to do here. They are thieves, they are murderers, they are rapists, that's all they are. They must be sent back and they must not even come."
At his trial in November last year, which Zemmour did not attend, prosecutors argued that his comments were "contemptuous" and "outrageous", and that "the limits of freedom of expression have been crossed".
Zemmour has two previous convictions for hate speech.
For several weeks last year, polls suggested that he could come second in April's presidential election in France, facing a run-off with current President Emmanuel Macron. However, his support has since slipped.
Polls now suggest he could get around 11% of the first-round vote.
Although Zemmour has announced his intention to run for president, it is not yet clear if his name will be on the ballot paper.
Like all candidates, he needs to gather 500 endorsements from elected officials around France by the middle of March. He has admitted that he could struggle to get enough backing, complaining that the system is biased against political outsiders.
This conviction changes nothing for Zemmour. Over the years he's had a dozen run-ins with the law - some of which he's won, some lost - and his argument about being persecuted by a left-wing justice system is by now well oiled.
Essentially he says that publicly funded anti-racist groups help to frame "hate speech" laws, and then trigger criminal investigations against people they believe to have breached them. In other words, that pressure groups have become both legislator and prosecutor.
So for Zemmour, being convicted is merely more proof of his original point, that people who speak inconvenient truths about crime are silenced.
Do voters agree? Presumably the 11% who say they'll vote for him do.
But in the last few weeks, Zemmour's star, which shone so brightly in the autumn, has shown distinct signs of fading. This verdict will entrench some in their support for the man. But it may also convince others that he is indeed beyond the pale.
Eric Zemmour was grabbed round the neck at his first campaign rally last month. Security officers intervened.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Eric Zemmour was grabbed at his first political rally
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60022996
|
news_world-europe-60022996
|
|
Meghan to receive £1 in damages after privacy case - BBC News
|
2022-01-05
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The Mail on Sunday was found to have invaded her privacy by publishing a letter to her father.
|
Entertainment & Arts
|
The Mail on Sunday published a letter the duchess sent to her father Thomas Markle in 2018
The Duchess of Sussex will receive £1 in damages from Associated Newspapers after the Mail on Sunday was found to have invaded her privacy.
The nominal sum was set out in court documents which formally confirm the newspaper has accepted defeat.
The Mail on Sunday published a handwritten letter that Meghan sent to her father Thomas Markle in 2018.
The media company will also pay an unspecified sum for a separate case of infringing her copyright.
Associated Newspapers previously indicated it was considering a further appeal to the Supreme Court, but the company has now accepted defeat in the long-running case.
Last February, the High Court had ruled against the newspaper group on the issue of privacy and copyright - saying the issues in the case were so clear cut that there was no need for a full hearing.
Associated Newspapers was refused permission to appeal against the decision but went to the Court of Appeal in an attempt to get the original ruling overturned.
You may also be interested in:
However, in December, the Court of Appeal rejected Associated Newspapers' attempt to have a trial.
Judges at the appeal said it was hard to see what evidence at a trial would have altered the situation.
They added: "The judge had correctly decided that, whilst it might have been proportionate to publish a very small part of the letter... it was not necessary to publish half the contents of the letter."
A spokesman for Associated Newspapers said at the time: "It is our strong view that judgment should be given only on the basis of evidence tested at trial, and not on a summary basis in a heavily contested case."
In her own statement issued after the ruling, the duchess urged people to be "brave enough to reshape a tabloid industry that... profits from the lies and pain that they create".
Associated Newspapers will also pay a confidential sum for copyright infringement, while the Mail on Sunday also faces having to cover a substantial part of Meghan's legal costs, which could be more than £1m.
The £1 might sound like small change, but Meghan's big ambition was about the principle rather than the pay-off.
Her lawyers had already signalled, before the Mail on Sunday's appeal was heard, that they only sought nominal damages over the privacy breach.
There had been legal exchanges about whether it should be £1 or £5, so maybe the paper got one bargain out of it.
Because if those amounts seem rather frugal, it was alongside a wrangle over a hefty £1.5m in legal costs.
And the token privacy payment was balanced by a much higher confidential amount over the copyright claim.
Plus the newspaper had to publish a front page statement about her courtroom success.
It was much further reaching than a poundshop win.
Media lawyer Mark Stephens told the Guardian the nominal £1 settlement suggested a weakness in the privacy aspect of the duchess's case.
"Normally for that kind of invasion of privacy you would expect £75,000 to £125,000," he said. "It does show that the curation of her reputation was an area where she had effectively invaded her own privacy."
However, libel lawyer David Hooper told The Daily Beast: "Accepting the £1 will likely have avoided a tremendous argument about the extent of the damage she suffered.
"She just wanted to establish a principle and get her legal costs paid, although she may well still be a half a million pounds out of pocket as a result of this process."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59879079
|
news_entertainment-arts-59879079
|
|
Nirvana's Nevermind cover art lawsuit dismissed - BBC News
|
2022-01-05
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Spencer Elden, who was pictured as a baby on the album cover, had alleged child pornography.
|
Entertainment & Arts
|
More than 30 million copies of Nevermind have been sold worldwide
A judge in California has dismissed a lawsuit against Nirvana made by Spencer Elden, who appeared as a naked baby on the cover of their album Nevermind.
Elden sued the band last year, alleging sexual exploitation, and that the artwork constituted child sexual abuse.
Now 30, he said the infamous image had caused him "extreme and permanent emotional distress" as well as loss of wages and "enjoyment of life".
Nirvana filed to dismiss last month, saying Elden's arguments lacked merit.
"Elden's claim that the photograph on the Nevermind album cover is 'child pornography' is, on its face, not serious," their lawyers said, noting that anyone who owned a copy of the record would "on Elden's theory [be] guilty of felony possession of child pornography".
They continued by noting that, until recently, Elden had seemed to enjoy the notoriety of being the "Nirvana baby".
"He has re-enacted the photograph in exchange for a fee, many times; he has had the album title... tattooed across his chest; he has appeared on a talk show wearing a self-parodying, nude-colored onesie; he has autographed copies of the album cover for sale on eBay; and he has used the connection to try to pick up women."
Elden has re-created the photo several times
The motion was filed by lawyers representing surviving Nirvana members Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic; Kurt Cobain's widow Courtney Love; and Kirk Weddle, the photographer of the cover image.
Regardless of the merits of Elden's case, they argued, the statute of limitations on his claims had expired in 2011, meaning he was too late to sue.
His lawyers have argued that the statute of limitations does not apply, as long as Nevermind continues to be sold in its current form.
"Child pornography is a forever crime," Marsh Law told Variety in a statement last year. "Any distribution of or profits earned from any sexually explicit image of a child not only creates longstanding liability but it also breeds lifelong trauma. This is common for all of our clients who are victims of actively traded child pornography, regardless of how long ago the image was created."
Elden's team had until 30 December to respond to Nirvana's motion to dismiss, but missed the deadline.
As a result, Judge Fernando M Olguin dismissed the case "with leave to amend" - meaning his team have until 13 January to refile the case with appropriate changes.
In a statement to AFP on Tuesday, Elden's lawyer Robert Lewis said they would do so "very soon."
"We are confident that Spencer will be allowed to move forward with his case," Lewis said.
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-59867369
|
news_entertainment-arts-59867369
|
|
Prince Andrew: Emily Maitlis says duke's interview answers are critical to sex assault case - BBC News
|
2022-01-05
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The BBC Newsnight presenter says details of the 2019 interview are being pored over by both sides.
|
UK
|
Prince Andrew was interviewed by BBC Newsnight's Emily Maitlis in 2019
It is more than two years since I sat down with Prince Andrew in a Buckingham Palace ballroom and posed questions that seemed almost too surreal to ask.
It is two years since the world heard his defence - about a birthday party in Woking, a trip to Pizza Express, and his inability to sweat - and shook a collective head, trying to work out what any of it meant. At the time, the specifics seemed almost comical. They spawned memes and riffs, quiz-show questions and stand-up routines. But now, suddenly, they feel deadly serious.
Right now a New York judge is deciding whether to allow Virginia Giuffre, the Jeffrey Epstein trafficking victim, to pursue her civil case against the prince. The answers the duke gave Newsnight in 2019, and the rest of his testimony to me that day, form a critical part of this landmark legal case. Ms Giuffre is suing the prince, claiming he sexually assaulted her when she was 17 - and a minor under US law. The duke denies the allegations.
In a hearing by teleconference on Tuesday, Prince Andrew's lawyer argued a 2009 settlement - between Virginia Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein - made it impossible for Ms Giuffre to take the case against the duke any further. Her lawyers argued the allegations against the prince were not covered by the 2009 deal. The judge, who said he appreciated the "arguments and passion" over the settlement - whatever that means - did not deliver his decision on whether the case should be thrown out or proceed, promising only to give that "pretty soon".
Prince Andrew came to Newsnight that day because he wanted to clear his name. He believed things had been said about him that he could disprove. And he had his defence ready.
The answers he gave me on camera may have seemed astonishing, jaw-dropping, even, in places. But bizarrely, I had been expecting them. We had talked through the things he wanted to say earlier, so part of my job that day was just to let him speak. To let him explain to the world his own version of events.
We went into that interview knowing that we would have one chance to get it right. One chance to provide a record of testimony, one chance to offer up a first-person account
We met the duke in the days before the interview took place. We were invited right into the heart of Buckingham Palace - his office rooms in what felt like the eaves of the palace. It was there - under a sloping roof, around a mahogany table - that we were treated to tea in dainty bone-china cups with the royal crest on them.
It was there the duke shook my hand, sat down, and explained he was going to tell us why he believed the photograph of him and Ms Giuffre - showing Prince Andrew with his arm around her - was likely a doctored fake.
It was Prince Andrew who volunteered the information to me in that early meeting that he was "unable to sweat". His Falkland Islands wartime experiences, he claimed, had produced a glut of adrenalin that meant he hadn't been able to sweat properly since being shot at.
I remember him asking me very directly if we thought that would be interesting to hear. And I said yes - I was fascinated by adrenalin - and that we wanted to hear as much detail of his account as we could.
There were phone calls between the palace and several of my producers. We had asked him to explain his whereabouts on the night Ms Giuffre alleged he had danced with her in Tramp nightclub, in London. His office had checked the date, and told us he couldn't have been with her because he had been at a children's birthday party that same evening.
I'm not sure we knew about Woking, but we did know about Pizza Express. The prince, in other words, had his alibi ready. He wanted to get that across in the interview. Of course, a children's birthday tea party and a late night in a club are not chronologically incompatible: it would have been more than possible to do both.
But the point of the interview was not to catch him out - I can't stress this enough. The point of the interview was just to have a record of Prince Andrew's own version of events. He wanted to set his own record straight. He offered minutiae and anecdote, detail and description, and we were ready to hear it all.
Prince Andrew, Virginia Roberts (now Giuffre) and Ghislaine Maxwell in 2001
We went into that interview knowing that we would have one chance to get it right. One chance to provide a record of testimony, one chance to offer up a first-person account if the case ever went to court. One chance to let a senior royal face questions of the utmost seriousness and give us what he assured us were straight answers.
When I listen back to the questions I posed that day there is a directness to them that even now makes me catch my breath. I can't quite believe that the words came out in the order I intended. But they had to. Because we had just one chance.
And we had to be very, very sure - not of the answers - but of the things we needed to find out. Virginia Giuffre alleged she had dined and danced with a sweating Prince Andrew in that London club. And that afterwards she was made to have sex with him in Ghislaine Maxwell's house.
I was already prepared for much of what he was going to say - although never the exact manner in which he said it. But I had to ask those questions in the way I did - to hear and to capture those answers on tape - for wherever the story would take us next.
|
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59874170
|
https://c.files.bbci.co.uk/assets/b0ea2e7e-e9e9-48fa-865f-7b55d977991f
|
news_uk-59874170
|
Prince Andrew: Decision soon on dismissing case - judge - BBC News
|
2022-01-05
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
A US court hears arguments about a deal the prince's accuser Virginia Giuffre agreed with Jeffrey Epstein.
|
UK
|
Prince Andrew, Virginia Roberts (now Giuffre) and Ghislaine Maxwell in 2001
A US judge will decide "soon" whether a civil sex assault case against the Duke of York will be dismissed, following the latest hearing in New York.
Prince Andrew's lawyer told Judge Lewis A Kaplan that the duke could be covered by a 2009 deal his accuser, Virginia Giuffre, made with Jeffrey Epstein.
Ms Giuffre is suing the prince claiming he sexually assaulted her - when she was 17 and a minor in some US states.
At a virtual hearing in Manhattan on Tuesday, Judge Kaplan said he appreciated the "arguments and the passion" over the 2009 agreement.
He said he would give a decision on the case "pretty soon" but declined to say exactly when.
Ms Giuffre's central allegation is that Epstein, and the now-convicted Ghislaine Maxwell, trafficked her into sexual abuse and exploitation - including incidents in which she said she was expected to engage in sexual activity with Prince Andrew in London, New York and the US Virgin Islands.
The 2009 settlement agreement, released yesterday, revealed that now-dead financier Epstein paid Ms Giuffre $500,000 to end a claim for damages - and she agreed not to bring any future cases against other "potential defendants".
It does not mention Prince Andrew, now 61, by name, and his lawyers argue the deal means Ms Giuffre, now 38, cannot sue him. Her lawyers contest that.
Judge Kaplan used Tuesday's hearing to closely question lawyers for both sides as to whether the Epstein-Giuffre damages settlement could be used at all by Prince Andrew to stop the case.
The 2009 deal shows both Epstein and Virginia Giuffre agreed that neither of them would disclose the deal to other parties - unless ordered to do so by a court.
Secondly, both of them accepted that the agreement could not be used in any other court case that was not directly related to enforcing its terms.
Judge Kaplan said that the wording could mean that both Epstein and Ms Giuffre had to jointly agree on whether or not the settlement could be used to release other potential defendants from facing court.
He said: "If someone got sued and Jeffrey Epstein said this person was within the release, and it was okay with Ms Giuffre, then [the deal] could be made available and Epstein could enforce it - but not otherwise."
Prince Andrew's lawyer, Andrew B Brettler, objected, - saying that US law made clear that a third party - such as his client - had rights to rely on the settlement to prevent them being unfairly taken to court.
If Judge Lewis Kaplan had been minded to rule swiftly in Prince Andrew's favour to stop the case, he could have done two things immediately today.
First, he could have indicated in court his direction of travel - and secondly he could have torn up the currently tight timetable he has set for the duke to meet Ms Giuffre's requests for documentary evidence - the next important stage in a damages case that's heading for trial.
He did neither. But what he did do, in the dying minutes, is closely question both sides over part of the Epstein deal that had gone unnoticed in the hours since its publication.
Even if Prince Andrew could be properly classed as a "potential defendant" to Ms Giuffre's 2009 Florida claims, her settlement with Epstein says that third parties - meaning someone whose signature was not on the agreement - could not use that agreement in another court without their permission.
Given that Epstein is dead and Ms Giuffre doesn't want the prince to benefit from the agreement's terms, a strict reading of that paragraph would mean the agreement is irrelevant to her damages case.
The duke's lawyer disputed this - but when Judge Kaplan soon rules on the future of the case, this might just be the most important part of today's hearing.
Earlier in the virtual hearing, Mr Brettler told Judge Kaplan that a potential defendant was "someone who was not named as a defendant but could have been".
He said that a potential defendant would be someone Ms Giuffre knew that she had "claims against at the time that she filed the lawsuit" in 2009.
Judge Kaplan said "potential" was a phrase that neither he nor Mr Brettler could "find any meaning at all" in.
Mr Brettler told Judge Kaplan that Prince Andrew "could have been sued" at the time but was not, and added that he wanted Ms Giuffre to "lock herself into a story now" and provide further and more precise details of her allegations.
"She does not articulate what supposedly happened to her at the hands of Prince Andrew," he said.
But Judge Kaplan replied: "That's not a dog that is going to hunt here. It's not going to happen." That information was not required at this stage of proceedings, he added.
Mr Brettler concluded by saying the case should "absolutely be dismissed".
David Boies, acting for Ms Giuffre, told Tuesday's hearing the prince would not be a "potential defendant" as referred to in the civil case documents released on Monday.
"The only claim that is asserted that was made in Florida in the 2009 action that covered Prince Andrew was the third count, which was to transport somebody for the purpose of illegal sexual activity," he said.
"There is no allegation that Prince Andrew was the person transporting. There is no allegation that Prince Andrew fell into the category of people who were doing the trafficking.
"He was somebody to whom the girls were trafficked."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Prince Andrew tells BBC Newsnight in 2019 he cannot recall any incident involving Virginia Giuffre
The prince has consistently denied Ms Giuffre's allegations, telling BBC Newsnight in 2019: "It didn't happen. I can absolutely categorically tell you it never happened. I have no recollection of ever meeting this lady, none whatsoever."
In her 2009 claim against Epstein, lawyers for Ms Giuffre said that as well as being exploited by Epstein, Ms Giuffre "was also required to be sexually exploited by defendant's adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, academics, businessmen and or other professional and personal acquaintances".
That case never went to trial because on 17 November 2009, Epstein agreed to pay her $500,000 to stop it in its tracks. That deal had been confidential but has now been made public because of its potential importance to the Andrew case.
Epstein died in prison in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59865102
|
news_uk-59865102
|
|
Covid vaccines: The unvaccinated NHS workers facing the sack - BBC News
|
2022-01-27
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
NHS staff explain why they have chosen not to have a Covid vaccine as the mandatory deadline looms.
|
UK
|
Paramedic Matt Taylor says he is prepared to lose his job because he has not had a coronavirus vaccine
Matt Taylor is a specialist paramedic who has worked through the pandemic treating elderly and vulnerable people in their homes. He hasn't had a Covid-19 vaccination and says he's prepared to lose his job over it.
He's one of around 80,000 unvaccinated NHS staff in England being told if they work with patients and don't get a jab by next week they could be moved to a different role or even sacked.
"There's nothing that says 'thank you' more than an email three days before Christmas telling you that if you don't do what they tell you to do you're not going to have a job," he says.
Under the government's current rules, NHS England staff must have a first jab by 3 February to allow time to be fully vaccinated by 1 April to continue in frontline roles.
Health Secretary Sajid Javid has said the policy is "under review". Pressed on whether that meant the government was considering scrapping the plan he added: "We're reflecting on it because we do have to accept that the virus has changed."
But he said it was still "absolutely right" that health and social care staff "carry out their professional duty, which is to do all that they can to put patient safety first, and that means getting vaccinated."
Mr Taylor, 42, works in primary care in Cumbria and says he feels like NHS staff are being used as political pawns.
"The government says as healthcare workers we should want to protect our patients by getting vaccinated.
"But you can argue that it won't protect them any more whether I have it or not. We all know people who are triple jabbed and they've still got Covid or they've not been jabbed and they haven't got it.
"It's not like the vaccine has eradicated Covid like some vaccines have done in the past so I find the argument for the science a bit weak."
The UK Health Security Agency says vaccines significantly reduce the risk of getting seriously ill or dying from Covid-19, and help cut the risk of catching or spreading the virus.
Dr Nikki Kanani, medical director of primary care for NHS England, says health care professionals have "a duty" to make sure they are protected.
The Department for Health and Social Care said there were no plans to delay the deadline and it was "the right thing to do to protect patients".
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 BBC Breakfast 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.
Anne-Marie Chappell is an NHS administrator working with school nurses and health visitors in Lancashire.
"I am not patient facing, but if I were, I would be willing to lose my job on principle," she says.
"Nursing staff and doctors have been taught throughout their careers not to force medical treatments on patients who don't want them," she adds, but she feels "the government is now trying to shame them into accepting" a jab she believes is still experimental.
Ms Chappell says she is concerned about the impact the mandate could have on workers' mental health and the way they feel about working for the NHS.
"There will be people who don't want to have the vaccine but their partner might want them to because they are worried about how they will manage if they lose their job," she says. "It's putting relationships, families, homes under pressure - there will be people whose families are split up over this."
NHS England staff must have their first dose by 3 February and their second by 1 April under government rules
Psychotherapist Anna says she feels stressed and pressured by NHS emails, meetings and webinars encouraging her to get a Covid jab.
"I feel like I don't even get a moment to breathe without being softly interrogated, by staff I may or may not even know," she says. "I am thinking about taking it. I have no intention to resign or change my job. I just want to do it in my own time."
She is the only unvaccinated member of her team, but Anna says she does not consider herself to be "an anti-vaxxer" as she has had other jabs.
The NHS worker from London has had several meetings with her boss about the mandatory vaccination deadline.
"I was asked if I'd had a conversation with my family yet, had I booked an appointment yet. It felt like incessant coaching or surveillance on whether or not I'll be vaccinated.
"I feel they [the NHS] want me to say as soon as possible that I'm not getting it, so they can start thinking of how to fire me."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Some 5.1% of staff had not received any vaccine as of 23 January - the equivalent of 77,591 people, although not all will be in frontline jobs.
The DHSC's impact assessment warns 73,000 NHS staff in England could be lost due to the government's mandatory vaccination policy.
Pat Cullen, chief executive of the Royal College of Nursing, is calling for a delay to the 3 February deadline. She said: "To dismiss valued nursing staff during this crisis would be an act of self-sabotage."
Scotland and Wales have not made any proposals to make Covid jabs compulsory for NHS workers or care home staff. Northern Ireland will hold a public consultation.
Asa Granger says six to 10 colleagues are unvaccinated and face losing their jobs
Asa Granger is a paramedic for South East Coast Ambulance Service who says he has also received an email about the mandatory vaccination deadline.
"They've put unless you're exempt for clinical reasons if you haven't had your first jab by 3 February you'll be redeployed or lose your job."
Mr Granger says there are six to 10 staff at his ambulance station in the same situation. "I cannot treat any one of my patients without their consent, yet they're asking me to get vaccinated against my will," he says.
"Back in 2020 we were all being clapped and come 2022 they're saying we are sacking you, it's an absolute disgrace."
The 35-year-old says: "I'm relatively young, fit and well. There have been lots of adverse effects linked to the vaccine. If I don't take the vaccine I'm 100% safe from the side-effects. I'm pretty happy with those odds."
Research has found side-effects from the vaccines are rare. Last year, feedback from about 40,000 people found about one in three reported some side-effects. None were serious and a common one was some soreness around the injection site.
Dr June Raine, the chief executive of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), says the benefits of vaccination continue to outweigh the risks for the "vast majority of people".
Mr Granger says he is holding out hope that the government will scrap the mandatory vaccination policy but does not know what he will do if it doesn't.
"I have a wife and young baby," he says. "A colleague has said he's done it under duress because he has a family to support. I'm not judging people who have a vaccine, it's their choice but I'm not being given a choice."
Are you unvaccinated against Covid-19 and an NHS employee? Share your views and 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-60104140
|
news_uk-60104140
|
|
Prince Andrew denies close friendship with Ghislaine Maxwell in US court files - BBC News
|
2022-01-27
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
In US court files, the prince, who denies assault claims, also asks for a jury trial in his accuser's lawsuit.
|
US & Canada
|
Prince Andrew has denied being a close friend of convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, in a legal response to the woman who is suing him in the US for sexual assault.
Lawyers for the prince also say he wants to go before a jury to contest the claim brought by Virginia Giuffre.
The Duke of York has consistently denied all the allegations against him.
Ms Giuffre alleges he assaulted her when she was 17 at homes owned by Maxwell and paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
But in the 11-page court document, filed on Wednesday, Prince Andrew's legal team list a number of reasons why they believe her civil lawsuit should be dismissed.
One factor they ask the court to consider is the issue of consent.
The document says: "Assuming, without admitting, that Giuffre has suffered any injury or damage alleged in the complaint, Giuffre's claims are barred by the doctrine of consent."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. From November 2019: Prince Andrew said he was "not aware" of the arrest warrant for Jeffrey Epstein when he was invited to Princess Beatrice's birthday party
The document also states that Prince Andrew "admits that he met Epstein in or around 1999", but denies that he participated in any abuse with the late financier.
On the matter of a photograph of the prince with his arm around Ms Giuffre, with Maxwell in the background, his lawyers say they do not have enough information to admit or deny its existence.
Elsewhere, the document "denies" Ms Guiffre's claim that Prince Andrew was a close friend of Maxwell.
Writing to a US judge, his lawyers state: "Prince Andrew hereby demands a trial by jury on all causes of action asserted in the complaint."
US lawyer Lisa Bloom, who represents a number of Maxwell's and Epstein's accusers, called this demand a "PR move", saying Ms Giuffre had already asked for a jury trial.
She said Prince Andrew's request was "meaningless" as it was Ms Giuffre's constitutional right to have a jury trial if she asked for one.
This is a wide-ranging set of denials which is specific about the denial of the sexual abuse.
Prince Andrew is denying even that he was a close friend of Ghislaine Maxwell and frequent visitor of Jeffrey Epstein.
I think Buckingham Palace, which has pushed Prince Andrew and this whole case as far away as it possibly can, will be viewing this with suppressed horror.
They will realise the capacity this story has to dominate headlines and we are just 10 days away from the start of the Platinum Jubilee.
In terms of the strategy, I think Prince Andrew's lawyers are trying to give the impression that Virginia Giuffre's reputation will be damaged if this does come to court.
They will attempt to assert that her conduct was sufficiently wrong in itself that she has forfeited the right to benefit in any way from this situation..
Though one has to wonder how that argument will play in front of a New York jury - a British prince trying to blame Virginia Giuffre.
It's a great final line in this document that Prince Andrew demands the right to be tried by a jury. But as I understand it he gets a jury trial anyway.
Could this all be part of a softening up process in the hope that, as the other side recognises the sort of defence that will be mounted, perhaps they will be more inclined to consider an out of court settlement?
Though at the moment, everything that Virginia Giuffre and her lawyers are saying is indicating that they do want to push this to a trial and they do want their day in court.
In the papers, Prince Andrew's lawyers further argue that Ms Giuffre has no legal basis to bring the case since she is a permanent resident of Australia.
They also refer to a 2009 settlement agreement between Ms Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein, a long-time associate of Prince Andrew.
Epstein, a convicted sex offender, killed himself in prison in 2019 while awaiting a sex trafficking trial. British socialite Maxwell was found guilty last month of grooming underage girls to be abused by him.
Ms Giuffre is suing the Queen's son for allegedly sexually assaulting her in London, New York and the Virgin Islands when she was a teenager.
She is seeking unspecified damages, but there is speculation the sum could be in the millions of dollars.
Earlier in the month, a judge ruled that the case could proceed.
Buckingham Palace later stripped Prince Andrew of his military titles and patronages, and said he would contest the case as a private individual.
The new court documents describe the Queen's second son as "Prince Andrew, Duke of York aka Andrew Albert Christian Edward, in his personal capacity".
In a statement, David Boies - who is representing Ms Giuffre - said his client and legal team "look forward to confronting Prince Andrew with his denials and attempts to blame Ms Giuffre for her own abuse at his deposition and at trial".
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60149024
|
news_world-us-canada-60149024
|
|
Boris Johnson faces PMQs showdown as Tory mood darkens - BBC News
|
2022-01-11
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
In the absence of clarity from Downing Street, is a sense of panic growing in Conservative ranks?
|
UK Politics
|
"We should get rid of him…. We should own the situation. We are the Tory party. We are not delivering good governance."
That stinging verdict from a Conservative MP does not, at least not yet, seem to represent the consensus among the party's ranks on what to do about the current situation in Downing Street.
But the goodwill-to-all-men moment the Christmas holidays promised is very much over.
The subject of conversation among Tories on Tuesday was not the government's planned menu of policy fare for the week, but whether or not the moment had arrived when Boris Johnson, election-winner, had become Boris Johnson, discredited liability.
Whether or not, in the words of that senior MP, the party should "get rid of him".
The party has not reached that conclusion. The government has an enormous majority. Administrations go through rocky times.
But the latest, and continuing, stream of revelations, has made the question of the prime minister's survival the central one again.
And the frustration burns because the problems seem to many MPs to be self-inflicted.
It's not that Downing Street and Mr Johnson have reacted badly to a chain of events outside their control.
In contrast, it's what happened under the prime minister's roof (and in his garden), and how he has responded to the allegations, that have become a fiasco.
Downing Street has chosen to stay silent rather than offer any new information or clarity since the story blew up again on Monday.
There is no confirmation, therefore, of suggestions from insiders that the prime minister's mood is dark, the atmosphere inside the building terrible.
It's said that Mr Johnson is still adamant that he personally did nothing wrong. I'm told discussions in No 10 on Tuesday morning still centred around the argument that the drinks on 20 May 2020, which eyewitnesses say the PM attended, can be justified as an office event to thank staff for their hard work during the pandemic.
Yet in the absence of additional information or clarity from Downing Street, Tory anger has been on the rise, and the sense of panic has been growing.
No one raised the issue at Tuesday's cabinet, which tells you how much of an active forum it really is. But MPs privately have been spitting chips, accusing the PM of dishonesty, of tarring the whole party, of failing to get a grip, of - frankly - some things that are too rude to be written down.
Former ministers have been warning that he has "one last shot" at sorting things out.
Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross, who of course has his own political need to carve out an identity distinct from No 10, says the PM can't stay if he was at a lockdown party.
And a Tory donor has warned the PM to sort it out or step aside.
On Wednesday, at Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Johnson will have to respond to the claims in person.
It's not in his political DNA to admit mistakes unless it is entirely unavoidable. Yet his attempt to point merely to the investigation into gatherings in No 10 is getting less persuasive by the hour.
As Labour and some Conservatives are asking - should the country have to wait for an official inquiry to tell him and us, if he attended a gathering in his own garden?
On previous form, Mr Johnson is unlikely to turn up at the despatch box on Wednesday armed with a mea culpa. There are hints that the PM may give some kind of statement at the beginning of the session - but the full story?
There will rarely have been a moment when the strength of his answers at the weekly bout of PMQs will have mattered as much.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59959912
|
news_uk-politics-59959912
|
|
Kuenssberg: What's a PM to do when even kids joke about his future? - BBC News
|
2022-01-15
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The prime minister is fighting to stay in No 10 - and the next few days could prove decisive.
|
UK Politics
|
The prime minister is fighting to stay in No 10 - and the next few days could prove decisive.
MPs can't skulk, plotting, in Westminster's corridors at weekends. But for Boris Johnson, the time his colleagues spend back in their constituencies could prove even worse.
One senior MP described how on Friday, during a standard school visit, he was asked by a group of nine-year-olds whether or not the prime minister was going to resign, and then was catcalled by teenage pupils about Boris Johnson's behaviour.
As much as the prime minister's seemingly dwindling number of backers may wish this saga was merely a preoccupation of his many enemies or the press, the question of whether he stays or goes has become a national conversation.
Boris Johnson is driven away from Parliament on Wednesday
On Wednesday, presenters on cosy daytime TV sofas crossed live to the Commons for PMQs. Music radio presenters challenged each other to race to the Co-op on London's Strand to fill a carry-on case with a carry-out, after the latest claims about No 10 staff filling a suitcase with booze.
One minister admits there is a "lot of discontent" among local party associations - which MPs will hear in person this weekend. And many report their email inboxes have been filling up with party members and constituents seething about what's been going on.
The prime minister's future is now the subject of playground teasing. As the MP who had that awkward conversation with the nine-year-olds suggested, if many of his colleagues have similar experiences, "Monday morning could be a very difficult moment".
Another senior MP, who has already been told by their local party chairman that the prime minister should quit, predicted that MPs will hear so much concern this weekend, "it could all be over on Monday".
But hang on. There is nothing automatic about what happens next.
The consensus among MPs right now seems to be at least to wait until the conclusions of Sue Gray's report are made public.
One cabinet minister who says "there is no getting away from the situation - it is very bad", also cautions: "It is very hard to get rid of a leader who doesn't want to go." The minister says Johnson will "want to go on and on and on" - whatever the findings of the report.
Another senior cabinet minister believes that while MPs are angry, "they are not at the stage when they want to get rid of him". Importantly, too, the cabinet itself does not seem to be taking a collective view about what to do.
The mood among ministers is that the situation is pretty desperate. But they don't seem to be trying to take concerted action together, either, to find a way out.
For one member of the cabinet, that's in contrast with memories they have of regular discussions about how to manage the political horror during the worst days of Theresa May's premiership. This may be in part down to the fact we are now in very different political times.
There aren't bonds between groups at the most influential table in the land in the same way - no Brexiteer band determined to get their way whatever the cost, and no group like the one that was determined to protect Mrs May.
There is, however, an acceptance that Boris Johnson faces a moment of real peril and has to change. One says: "A lot of people say he has three months to significantly raise his game."
The question of whether the prime minister himself believes he has to change, or can, is an argument for another day.
The precise wording of the Sue Gray report will be vital in all of this. Will she criticise the overall culture in No 10, or point to individuals or blame the prime minister himself?
Remember, the report is official and Sue Gray's reputation is fearsome, but that's not the same as being an outsider. She is a senior government employee, not an independent arbiter. That's not to suggest that she will pull any punches, but it would be quite something if she were to suggest that Boris Johnson himself had directly broken the rules.
Whatever the specifics of her conclusions, the position will still be difficult. And some of the rising generation of ministers not yet in cabinet may take a harsher view than those already at the top table.
Sources suggest there are conversations taking place among the lower ranks, those who see themselves as the future of the party, about the possibility of taking action. The idea has been mooted that some of them may go to the prime minister once the report is out and say that either he goes, or they do instead.
This doesn't seem to be a concrete plan, but an apparent lack of organisation in cabinet doesn't mean that there's no threat from others on the payroll. Johnson's ministers may not all be prepared to tolerate many more weeks like this.
It's on the backbenches where MPs are far more open about the action they may take. One former minister, not a usual troublemaker, predicted confidently there will be enough letters calling for a vote of no confidence to bring about a contest next month.
Another, who backed Boris Johnson originally, told me they will call for him to resign when the Gray report is published and expect enough others will agree to trigger a fight for him to stay in the job.
But it is one thing threatening all of this privately right now. It's another to follow through.
Another backbencher told me they were pleading with colleagues to remember the turmoil that changing a leader creates, saying: "We might not be that far from an election - I just wish everyone would remember that."
Another told the BBC "I can see no scenario where he's the PM going into the next election" but "it's not the right time" to act.
The pandemic is still with us. There is growing pressure on family finances. Yet the levels of frustration with No 10 are sky-high, in part because the fiasco is seen as being entirely self-inflicted.
The behaviour itself, behind closed doors, is almost unbelievable to many. The handling of it a product of what's often seen as Johnson's credo - never apologise, never explain - which means rather than confronting the claims at the start and coming clean, allegations have been left to fester and grow, resulting yesterday in the most extraordinary apology, even, to the Queen.
It's not at all clear how No 10 believes they can get through this crisis.
Regular briefings to the press this week have been surreal and unproductive. I'm told the mood inside the building is terrible, one source telling me staff are unsure if colleagues are telling each other the truth.
Some, it's said, are still holding on to the conviction that what happened can be explained away that the gatherings were "events" not parties, and that the technicalities of the rules may somehow see them through.
The mood outside Downing Street is rather different, with disbelief that, as one cabinet minister suggested, "Boris has persuaded himself he's the victim here".
There was "consternation" when the prime minister went to talk to MPs moments after his Commons apology and - as one of them described to me - told them "he was bravely taking the blame for other people's mistakes".
The fate of Boris Johnson is certainly not yet sealed. The details of the Gray report matter. The bravado of MPs can melt away. The absence of an obvious, ready-to-go rival may protect him (although there are plenty who are lining up to have a go).
The prime minister may be able to rediscover what one of his colleagues describes as "his magic". It could prove in time that this was simply an appalling bout of the mid-term blues. And those who know him well think the chance of Boris Johnson concluding it's best to step away are extremely slim.
But with each new day of allegations and embarrassment it's more likely that the decision could be taken out of his hands.
|
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60003805
|
news_uk-politics-60003805
|
|
Covid: More restrictions a last resort, Sajid Javid says - BBC News
|
2022-01-01
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The health secretary believes the country must look to "live alongside" coronavirus in 2022.
|
UK
|
Further Covid restrictions in England must be an "absolute last resort", Health Secretary Sajid Javid has said, despite rising case numbers in the UK.
Writing in the Daily Mail, Mr Javid said the UK must look to "live alongside" coronavirus in 2022.
The number of people in intensive care was not following the same trajectory as this time last year, he said.
But he warned there would be a big increase in the number of people needing NHS care in the next month.
This is "likely to test the limits" of NHS capacity more than a typical winter, he said.
Meanwhile, Chris Hopson, the chief executive of NHS Providers which represents NHS trusts, said hospitalisations with Covid-19 were now increasing across the country, following the pattern seen in London.
He said people still did not know what would happen next and there were some worries about the impact of intergenerational mixing over the Christmas period.
Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, which represents health service organisations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, said the next few weeks would be "very tough".
On Friday UK daily Covid cases reached another record high of 189,846.
New Year's Eve celebrations were scaled back across much of the UK as the more infectious Omicron variant continues to drive up cases.
England is currently under the government's Plan B restrictions which mean face coverings are compulsory in most indoor venues and on public transport, while people should work from home if they can.
The government resisted calls to impose new regulations in England in the run-up to the new year, diverging from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where tighter rules are now in place for pubs, bars and restaurants.
Mr Javid said England had "welcomed in 2022 with some of the least restrictive measures in Europe".
He said: "Curbs on our freedom must be an absolute last resort and the British people rightly expect us to do everything in our power to avert them.
"Since I came into this role six months ago, I've also been acutely conscious of the enormous health, social and economic costs of lockdowns.
"So I've been determined that we must give ourselves the best chance of living alongside the virus and avoiding strict measures in the future."
There have been shortages of lateral flow tests across the country
But Mr Javid said the pandemic was "far from over".
It was inevitable there would be a big increase in Covid patients requiring NHS treatment over the next month, he said, because of the lag between infections and hospital admissions.
Friday's coronavirus figures showed daily hospital admissions were up to 1,915, as of 27 December, compared with 1,506 the previous day.
There was also a further 203 deaths within 28 days of a positive test.
The problem facing the government is that the window to suppress the peak with restrictions may already have passed.
Modelling produced for government by Warwick University suggests even a return to lockdown with only schools open has virtually no impact on hospitalisations now.
To have had a significant impact, measures would need to have been introduced on Boxing Day or a week earlier.
But even then the argument for them was unclear - in both scenarios infections and hospitalisations rebound once restrictions are lifted. Largely all it achieves is delaying and spreading out illness.
That could have been of benefit by evening out the pressure on the NHS.
But there is, of course, the wider costs of restrictions to society, the economy and mental health to factor in.
Some say it would also have bought you time to carry out more vaccinations, but with nine in 10 of the most vulnerable boosted and evidence protection wanes over time this may actually be the point in time when we have the most immunity across the population.
There are no simple solutions to this Omicron wave - and the options that the government did have may well have gone.
Mr Hopson said at the beginning of last week there had been concern from London trusts about the daily growth in hospitalisations, which was around 8%, but that had come down to 4% to 5% on Friday and Saturday.
"We are still not seeing the large numbers of severely ill older people that we have seen in previous peaks", he said, adding that intensive care occupancy was broadly stable.
The sheer volume of patients, combined with Covid-related staff absences across the health sector, would become the "biggest concern" if sustained, Mr Hopson said.
Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, said that he hoped people had "a great time" on New Year's Eve but said it was important not to be complacent.
"I understand how much people want things to return to normal and I'm confident that, as this year progresses, we will be able to do that.
"We all hope that 2022 is the year in which coronavirus just becomes an illness that we live with, not an illness that dominates our lives.
"But you can have the optimism but still recognise that the next few weeks are going to be very tough, and we need to do whatever is necessary to get us through these next few weeks," he said.
The country had to press on with the booster programme, he said, but warned that NHS leaders may have to make tough decisions - which could include stopping visitors to hospitals.
A leading statistician who advises the government said the UK's daily Covid-19 cases could be closer to 500,000 due to the testing system being overstretched and reinfections not being counted in the government data.
Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter of the University of Cambridge told the BBC: "This is a huge, unprecedented wave of infection and very daunting."
But he added that deaths were "not yet going up" and that the country could be "fairly optimistic" about avoiding the kind of pressures seen during the last winter wave.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59844761
|
news_uk-59844761
|
|
Covid: Next few days crucial for the NHS, says health boss - BBC News
|
2022-01-01
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Covid admissions are rising but what could happen next is unclear, the head of NHS Providers says.
|
UK
|
The next few days are crucial in understanding the impact of Omicron on the NHS, a health boss has said.
Chris Hopson, chief executive of NHS Providers, which represents health trusts, said hospital admissions are rising across the country but what could happen next is unclear.
He warned ministers "must be ready to introduce new restrictions at pace if they're needed".
But the health secretary said any extra measures must be a "last resort".
Writing on Twitter, Mr Hopson said staff were working "flat out" and the NHS was now under "different, arguably more" pressure compared to last January because more planned treatments were being carried out, the booster vaccination campaign was using up significant resources and staff absences were having a greater impact.
England has reported 162,572 new cases - a record number for the fifth day in a row - as well as 154 deaths within 28 days of a positive test.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland did not report figures on Saturday.
The number of hospital admissions in England are at their highest level since January 2021, according to the latest figures, while NHS hospital staff absences due to Covid have nearly doubled in a month.
Mr Hopson said there was evidence infections peaked in London before Christmas and had plateaued since but the future trajectory "remains very unclear", ranging from hospital admissions plateauing and then dropping to numbers rapidly increasing.
"If the evidence shows that we are getting very significant numbers of people coming into hospital with Covid, then the government needs to be ready to introduce further restrictions at pace," he told the BBC.
He said there were currently not the large numbers of severely ill older people that were seen in previous peaks and intensive care occupancy was broadly stable.
However, he said there were worries about the possible impact of intergenerational mixing over Christmas.
University Hospital of North Tees in Stockton has become the latest of more than a dozen hospitals to temporarily suspend routine visits because of rising infections.
The doctors' union, the British Medical Association, has said further public health measures should be introduced as a matter or urgency.
The association's council chairman, Dr Chaand Nagpaul, said it was "wholly erroneous to talk about the risk of the NHS becoming overwhelmed".
The new year began with the health service "already overwhelmed, in a parlous state, and with patient care suffering", he said.
Writing in the Daily Mail, Sajid Javid warned it was "inevitable" there would be a big increase in people needing NHS care over the next month due to the time lag between infections and hospital admissions.
"This will likely test the limits of finite NHS capacity even more than a typical winter," he added.
The problem facing the government is that the window to suppress the peak with restrictions may already have passed.
Modelling produced for government by Warwick University suggests even a return to lockdown with only schools open has virtually no impact on hospital admissions now.
To have had a significant impact, measures would need to have been introduced on Boxing Day or a week earlier.
But even then the argument for them was unclear - in both scenarios infections and hospital admissions rebound once restrictions are lifted. Largely all it achieves is delaying and spreading out illness.
That could have been of benefit by evening out the pressure on the NHS.
But there is, of course, the wider costs of restrictions to society, the economy and mental health to factor in.
Some say it would also have bought you time to carry out more vaccinations, but with nine in 10 of the most vulnerable boosted and evidence protection wanes over time this may actually be the point in time when we have the most immunity across the population.
There are no simple solutions to this Omicron wave - and the options that the government did have may well have gone.
England is currently under Plan B restrictions, which includes mandatory masks in most indoor public places, Covid passes for nightclubs and other large venues and guidance to work from home if possible.
The measures are set to expire six weeks after implementation, with a review after three weeks, which is expected on or close to 4 January.
There are already tougher restrictions for hospitality venues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59848634
|
news_uk-59848634
|
|
Meghan to receive £1 in damages after privacy case - BBC News
|
2022-01-06
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The Mail on Sunday was found to have invaded her privacy by publishing a letter to her father.
|
Entertainment & Arts
|
The Mail on Sunday published a letter the duchess sent to her father Thomas Markle in 2018
The Duchess of Sussex will receive £1 in damages from Associated Newspapers after the Mail on Sunday was found to have invaded her privacy.
The nominal sum was set out in court documents which formally confirm the newspaper has accepted defeat.
The Mail on Sunday published a handwritten letter that Meghan sent to her father Thomas Markle in 2018.
The media company will also pay an unspecified sum for a separate case of infringing her copyright.
Associated Newspapers previously indicated it was considering a further appeal to the Supreme Court, but the company has now accepted defeat in the long-running case.
Last February, the High Court had ruled against the newspaper group on the issue of privacy and copyright - saying the issues in the case were so clear cut that there was no need for a full hearing.
Associated Newspapers was refused permission to appeal against the decision but went to the Court of Appeal in an attempt to get the original ruling overturned.
You may also be interested in:
However, in December, the Court of Appeal rejected Associated Newspapers' attempt to have a trial.
Judges at the appeal said it was hard to see what evidence at a trial would have altered the situation.
They added: "The judge had correctly decided that, whilst it might have been proportionate to publish a very small part of the letter... it was not necessary to publish half the contents of the letter."
A spokesman for Associated Newspapers said at the time: "It is our strong view that judgment should be given only on the basis of evidence tested at trial, and not on a summary basis in a heavily contested case."
In her own statement issued after the ruling, the duchess urged people to be "brave enough to reshape a tabloid industry that... profits from the lies and pain that they create".
Associated Newspapers will also pay a confidential sum for copyright infringement, while the Mail on Sunday also faces having to cover a substantial part of Meghan's legal costs, which could be more than £1m.
The £1 might sound like small change, but Meghan's big ambition was about the principle rather than the pay-off.
Her lawyers had already signalled, before the Mail on Sunday's appeal was heard, that they only sought nominal damages over the privacy breach.
There had been legal exchanges about whether it should be £1 or £5, so maybe the paper got one bargain out of it.
Because if those amounts seem rather frugal, it was alongside a wrangle over a hefty £1.5m in legal costs.
And the token privacy payment was balanced by a much higher confidential amount over the copyright claim.
Plus the newspaper had to publish a front page statement about her courtroom success.
It was much further reaching than a poundshop win.
Media lawyer Mark Stephens told the Guardian the nominal £1 settlement suggested a weakness in the privacy aspect of the duchess's case.
"Normally for that kind of invasion of privacy you would expect £75,000 to £125,000," he said. "It does show that the curation of her reputation was an area where she had effectively invaded her own privacy."
However, libel lawyer David Hooper told The Daily Beast: "Accepting the £1 will likely have avoided a tremendous argument about the extent of the damage she suffered.
"She just wanted to establish a principle and get her legal costs paid, although she may well still be a half a million pounds out of pocket as a result of this process."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59879079
|
news_entertainment-arts-59879079
|
|
George Floyd: Three ex-officers face civil rights trial - BBC News
|
2022-01-24
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Federal prosecutors allege the former officers "wilfully deprived" George Floyd of his civil rights.
|
US & Canada
|
One of three ex-Minneapolis policemen present at the death of George Floyd will testify in his own defence in a federal civil case against him and his colleagues.
The charge that Thomas Lane deprived Mr Floyd of his civil rights is "a perversion of justice", his lawyer said.
Mr Lane, 38, and ex-officers J Alexander Kueng and Tou Thao are also facing state criminal charges.
In her opening argument, Samantha Trepel, the government prosecutor, said that the three men should be held accountable for failing to act as Mr Floyd had his neck pinned to the ground by senior officer Derek Chauvin.
"These three CPR-trained defendants stood or knelt next to Officer Chauvin as he slowly killed George Floyd right in front of them," she said.
The government is seeking to prove that the ex-officers showed "deliberate indifference to [Mr Floyd's] serious medical needs" during the attempted arrest, thus depriving him of his right against illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution.
But Eric Gray, Mr Lane's lawyer, described him on Monday as a "gentle giant" who "did everything possible to help George Floyd".
Robert Paule, a lawyer representing Mr Thao, told the court: "The death of George Floyd is indeed a tragedy. However, a tragedy is not a crime."
It is rare for US police officers to be charged under civil rights statutes, and the trial could ultimately expand how officers are held liable for excessive use of force.
Twelve jurors and six alternates were selected for the trial last week.
Video evidence shows that, as Chauvin pressed his knee into Mr Floyd's neck, Mr Lane restrained his legs, Mr Kueng, 27, held his torso, and Mr Thao, 35, warned bystanders to keep away from them.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Mr Lane and Mr Kueng's defence teams are expected to argue that fault lies with Chauvin, the senior officer. Their lawyers have pointed out that the two men were rookies in their first week on the job, with Chauvin as their training officer.
A criminal complaint against Mr Lane mentions he twice asked Chauvin whether they should turn Mr Floyd over into a side recovery position and was rebuffed both times.
The trial is expected to last about four weeks. None of the members of the jury are African American.
The judge overseeing the case, US District Judge Paul Magnuson, told potential jurors last week that the case had "absolutely nothing" to do with race and would only rely on the facts.
Legal experts say prosecutors could also ask Chauvin to take the stand against his colleagues.
Convicted of murder and manslaughter last June, Chauvin is serving 22 1/2 years in state prison.
He is also awaiting federal sentencing for his own civil rights charges, after accepting a plea deal in December in order to avert a second trial.
Lawyers for the Floyd family said the trial would be "another painful experience" but "another milestone in the long, slow journey to justice for George Floyd and his family".
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60117763
|
news_world-us-canada-60117763
|
|
Is anti-social behaviour still seen 'as a bit of bother'? - BBC News
|
2022-01-24
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
BBC Panorama has found an important tool to help victims of anti-social behaviour is rarely used.
|
UK
|
The victims' commissioner, Dame Vera Baird, says anti-social behaviour is often seen as "a sort of sub-crime"
Anti-social behaviour can devastate lives. Yet BBC Panorama has found an important tool to help repeat victims is rarely being used.
What starts as nuisance can quickly escalate to a more serious crime.
"I heard noises at the front of the house," says Paul, who has asked us to conceal his real identity. He saw more than 20 youths outside his house, some as young as nine. "[They] began to throw big pieces of concrete at my house and myself."
Paul's ordeal started last August after challenging a group who had climbed on a nearby roof. After that, he became a target.
Last November, he saw a group of youths coming towards the back of his house one night. "They had a long metal pole that looked like a spike," he says, "they put it through the window and all the glass shattered and went across the room."
He didn't know where to move. Paul then heard a noise at his front door and realised he was surrounded. He called the police, who sent a patrol car, but the group had gone by the time it arrived.
In the past five months almost every window in Paul's house has been broken. He has made calls to the police on 11 different days - sometimes twice a day. Cleveland Police has assigned a community support officer and increased patrols. Paul's housing association have helped install CCTV.
It's been quiet since December, but he's still nervous.
Accusations of anti-social behaviour can sometimes begin with disputes between neighbours. If they get out of hand, the impact can be extremely serious, particularly on people's mental health.
In March last year, John Grocott discovered his twin sister Amanda Dunn's body slumped on her kitchen floor at her home in Staffordshire. She had taken her own life.
John believes the decline in her mental health dates back three years, to a minor dispute with a neighbour over bird feed. The dispute escalated, with accusations on both sides. He believes the stress was the "trigger of her downfall".
Amanda had called Staffordshire Police twice about the dispute and had contact with a neighbourhood police officer before her death. She had told police she was "at the end of her tether".
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Sean Ivey's home was damaged by fire just days after he posted a video on social media of youths careering around on motorbikes
At an inquest, South Staffordshire's coroner didn't hear from Amanda's neighbours, but said a "major reason for her fatal actions was an ongoing problem" with them.
In a later report to Staffordshire Police, the coroner said while he had only heard one side of the story, there was a real concern police were "seeking to brush such incidents under the carpet and not taking them sufficiently seriously".
Staffordshire Police said it had apologised to Mrs Dunn's family for its response. "We have taken on board the concerns identified by the coroner and have put in place actions to improve our response to cases like this."
The neighbours involved in the dispute said what happened to Mrs Dunn was "very, very sad" and pointed out "there are always two sides to arguments such as this".
But John Grocott is calling for the police to be "more alert" in these cases.
Panorama's research has identified four more deaths in the last 12 months in which anti-social behaviour is alleged to have played a part.
The victims' commissioner, Dame Vera Baird, says such deaths are shocking and should be seen as a "failure to protect" by police and local authorities. "It is a serious responsibility," she added.
Deputy Chief Constable Andy Prophet, the National Police Chiefs' Council lead for anti-social behaviour, says authorities need to do better at "early understanding of the problem". He said: "Early engagement is seldom a single agency. Getting the response right together is the best way to prevent those small number of horrific tragedies that can happen."
But there are concerns about how anti-social behaviour is being dealt with.
Dame Vera Baird says victims of anti-social behaviour are still not being made a high enough priority
It's hard to know the full scale of anti-social behaviour because police statistics don't reflect reports to local authorities and housing associations.
In the 12 months up to June 2021, the police recorded 1.8 million incidents of anti-social behaviour in England and Wales.
In Northern Ireland, police recorded more than 71,000 incidents of anti-social behaviour in the same period. Part of these two figures reflects breaches of Covid restrictions.
In Scotland, there were around 372,000 incidents of anti-social behaviour reported to the police in the year to the end of September 2021, according to a Freedom of Information request.
Police and local councils use a broad range of powers to crack down on anti-social behaviour.
In England and Wales, if a victim feels authorities aren't doing enough, they can use something called an Anti-Social Behaviour Case Review, also known as the "community trigger".
It was introduced in 2014 and victims of anti-social behaviour who have complained a number of times can ask agencies - including their police force and local council - to meet and take a fresh look at the problem.
Dame Vera says it's an "excellent" tool for victims, because it gives them the power to say "put this right" and it is the responsibility of the local authorities, police and crime commissioners to promote it.
Panorama wrote to all 331 council districts in England and Wales with responsibility for anti-social behaviour to find out how many community triggers had been run.
Because the collection of data is inconsistent, it is impossible to be precise about how often it had been used. However, data from the 191 authorities that replied suggests about 300 were held in 2021.
Of those to respond, 37 local authorities - around one in five - said they had never run a community trigger.
Dame Vera says victims of anti-social behaviour are still not being made a high enough priority. She says part of the reason is police regarding it as "a sort of sub-crime - a bit of bother".
Mr Prophet said the police don't see anti-social behaviour as a low-level crime. He said: "We are incredibly focused on helping officers see and understand those cases that are potentially looking really concerning."
The government says it "is committed to tackling anti-social behaviour and ensuring that victims get the support they deserve." It says all local councils were written to last year "to remind them of their duties around community triggers" and police involvement in them will be monitored.
You can watch Panorama's Anti-Social Behaviour: Afraid in My Own Home on BBC1 on Monday 24 January at 19:30 GMT and on iPlayer.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60102528
|
news_uk-60102528
|
|
Boris Johnson faces PMQs showdown as Tory mood darkens - BBC News
|
2022-01-12
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
In the absence of clarity from Downing Street, is a sense of panic growing in Conservative ranks?
|
UK Politics
|
"We should get rid of him…. We should own the situation. We are the Tory party. We are not delivering good governance."
That stinging verdict from a Conservative MP does not, at least not yet, seem to represent the consensus among the party's ranks on what to do about the current situation in Downing Street.
But the goodwill-to-all-men moment the Christmas holidays promised is very much over.
The subject of conversation among Tories on Tuesday was not the government's planned menu of policy fare for the week, but whether or not the moment had arrived when Boris Johnson, election-winner, had become Boris Johnson, discredited liability.
Whether or not, in the words of that senior MP, the party should "get rid of him".
The party has not reached that conclusion. The government has an enormous majority. Administrations go through rocky times.
But the latest, and continuing, stream of revelations, has made the question of the prime minister's survival the central one again.
And the frustration burns because the problems seem to many MPs to be self-inflicted.
It's not that Downing Street and Mr Johnson have reacted badly to a chain of events outside their control.
In contrast, it's what happened under the prime minister's roof (and in his garden), and how he has responded to the allegations, that have become a fiasco.
Downing Street has chosen to stay silent rather than offer any new information or clarity since the story blew up again on Monday.
There is no confirmation, therefore, of suggestions from insiders that the prime minister's mood is dark, the atmosphere inside the building terrible.
It's said that Mr Johnson is still adamant that he personally did nothing wrong. I'm told discussions in No 10 on Tuesday morning still centred around the argument that the drinks on 20 May 2020, which eyewitnesses say the PM attended, can be justified as an office event to thank staff for their hard work during the pandemic.
Yet in the absence of additional information or clarity from Downing Street, Tory anger has been on the rise, and the sense of panic has been growing.
No one raised the issue at Tuesday's cabinet, which tells you how much of an active forum it really is. But MPs privately have been spitting chips, accusing the PM of dishonesty, of tarring the whole party, of failing to get a grip, of - frankly - some things that are too rude to be written down.
Former ministers have been warning that he has "one last shot" at sorting things out.
Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross, who of course has his own political need to carve out an identity distinct from No 10, says the PM can't stay if he was at a lockdown party.
And a Tory donor has warned the PM to sort it out or step aside.
On Wednesday, at Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Johnson will have to respond to the claims in person.
It's not in his political DNA to admit mistakes unless it is entirely unavoidable. Yet his attempt to point merely to the investigation into gatherings in No 10 is getting less persuasive by the hour.
As Labour and some Conservatives are asking - should the country have to wait for an official inquiry to tell him and us, if he attended a gathering in his own garden?
On previous form, Mr Johnson is unlikely to turn up at the despatch box on Wednesday armed with a mea culpa. There are hints that the PM may give some kind of statement at the beginning of the session - but the full story?
There will rarely have been a moment when the strength of his answers at the weekly bout of PMQs will have mattered as much.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59959912
|
news_uk-politics-59959912
|
|
What next for Boris Johnson after his party apology? - BBC News
|
2022-01-12
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The PM's departure is far from inevitable - but growing numbers of Conservative MPs want him out.
|
UK Politics
|
The prime minister's admission and apology in the Commons likely bought him a little time.
A pause until the official inquiry into what parties did or didn't take place in Downing Street is published, in perhaps a week or so.
But for many on his own side, Boris Johnson has already lost the benefit of the doubt.
Growing numbers of his own MPs want him out, discussing frantically how and when his exit could take place.
One minister told me, "it's over".
Another long-term backer of the prime minister, and former cabinet minister, said they can't see a way out.
And another former cabinet minister predicted a vote of confidence this month.
MPs are also suggesting that Sue Gray's report, or a further vote on Covid restrictions when they expire at the end of this month in England, could provoke a flurry of demands for him to quit.
In truth, there is no fixed plan among Boris Johnson's opponents.
There is a long list of MPs who may put themselves forward for the leadership, many more than the commonly-cited two frontrunners, the chancellor and foreign secretary.
There is no certainty that there will be enough letters to Tory party grandees to trigger a contest this year.
There is no central coordination between the different Tory tribes.
But many conversations in the Commons are about the manner and timing of Boris Johnson's departure, not really the question about whether or not he can survive.
And the fiasco over Downing Street events during lockdown has become a proxy for a years' long Tory argument: does Boris Johnson really have the character and integrity to lead the country from No 10?
More and more Conservatives are saying the answer to that must be no.
Mr Johnson has survived intense storms before, and his departure is far from inevitable.
Some of his allies suggest the Sue Gray report could end up providing ballast to his public explanations to the country today.
Politics in this era is deeply unpredictable. But it's no longer impossible to imagine that Boris Johnson will be gone before too long.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59974572
|
news_uk-politics-59974572
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.