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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Murder arrests as Bury man found dead after dog theft - BBC News
|
2023-08-25
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Donald Patience was found dead at a house by police responding to reports of a dog being stolen.
|
Manchester
|
Donald Patience was found at a house in Radcliffe by police responding to reports of a dog being stolen
A murder investigation has been launched after a man was found dead when police were called to reports of a dog being stolen in a burglary.
Donald Patience, 45, was found at a house on Ainsworth Road in Radcliffe, Bury, at about 10:30 BST on Tuesday. He was declared dead at the scene.
Three men have been arrested on suspicion of murder.
Two men, aged 27 and 41, have been bailed pending further inquires and a 39-year-old man is in police custody.
Mr Patience's family said he was "a much-loved son, brother and father" who will be "sorely missed by many" and was "affectionately known as Prentice".
The back window of the house was smashed while neighbours said police had been outside the home since Tuesday.
Officers have appealed to the public who may have seen or heard anything "unusual" earlier in the week in and around the area.
Det Ch Insp Rachel Smith said: "I would like to reassure the local public, as I understand there will be alarm when finding out about this, but we are confident it is a targeted attack.
"We are also looking for people who may know Donald, have seen him walking his beloved white labradoodle in the local area or have any knowledge of any activity at or near his address."
The force added the dog was being looked after.
A man from a nearby street, who did not want to be named, said: "I was coming out of my house in the morning and there were police all over the road.
"There was a man, about 6ft in a grey jacket, who had been arrested, and a curly dog.
"They were in the back of a police van.
"I just thought there had been a bit of an argument or something but then the next thing there were forensics everywhere so I knew it must be serious."
Why not follow BBC North West on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram? You can also send story ideas to northwest.newsonline@bbc.co.uk
Sign up for our morning newsletter and get BBC News in your inbox.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-66607053
|
news_uk-england-manchester-66607053
|
|
Ukraine war: Three-week-old baby and family among seven killed in Russian shelling - BBC News
|
2023-08-14
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Russian shelling in Ukraine's southern Kherson region leaves seven civilians dead.
|
Europe
|
Photos of the aftermath showed a plume of smoke rising from the family's home
A baby aged just 22 days, her 12-year-old brother and their parents were among seven people killed by Russian shells in southern Ukraine on Sunday.
Bombs hit their family home in the village of Shyroka Balka in Kherson, Interior Minister Igor Klymenko said.
The dead also included another village resident and two men in neighbouring Stanislav.
"Terrorists must be stopped. They must be stopped by force," said Mr Klymenko. "They don't understand anything else."
The minister shared photographs of the aftermath of the attack on Shyroka Balka, showing black columns of smoke rising from buildings, and the digitally obscured bodies of some of the dead.
Thirteen others were injured in the shelling, he added.
Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky used his daily address to the nation to condemn the "brutal" attack in Shyrokа Balka.
"Five people were killed," he said. "Among them was a baby girl, only 22 days old. Her brother, just 12 years old. The mother Olesia... only 39, also perished."
He added there had been 17 reports of Russian shelling in Kherson alone, and many more beyond.
"There is no day when Russian evil does not receive our entirely just response," he said.
"We will not leave any of Russia's crimes unanswered."
Kherson was one of four regions in Ukraine that Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed to have annexed last year.
Ukraine's military reclaimed the western part of the region in November. Russian troops have continued to shell the area from across the Dnipro river.
The shelling came a day after Moscow accused Kyiv of "terrorism" for what it said was an attempted missile strike on the Crimean Bridge linking the peninsula to Russia.
Ukraine has not confirmed the attack, although Mr Zelensky has previously said the bridge is used as a military supply route and is a legitimate target.
Crimea has been under Moscow's control since Russian forces annexed the peninsula in 2014 - a move condemned internationally.
In another development, Moscow said it had fired warning shots at a cargo ship in the southwestern Black Sea to halt it for an inspection as it made its way to the Ukrainian port of Izmail on the Danube river.
The Russian claim has not been independently verified. If confirmed, it would be the first time Russia has fired on merchant shipping beyond Ukraine since exiting a landmark UN-brokered grain deal last month.
Russia said that its Vasily Bykov patrol ship had fired automatic weapons toward the Palau-flagged Sukru Okan when it refused to halt, then boarded for an inspection.
Meanwhile, an aide to the exiled Ukrainian mayor of Mariupol reported that several Ukrainian civilians were killed as Russian soldiers fought among themselves on Sunday.
Two teenage girls, four young men and a woman were among the dead in the "shoot-out" in the village of Urzuf, Petro Andryshchenko said in a Telegram post.
He said the gun battle followed an argument between Chechen troops and personnel from the local commandant's office.
Mariupol, a major port on the Sea of Azov, was captured by Russia after months of fierce fighting last year.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66492621
|
news_world-europe-66492621
|
|
Minister defends safety law on messaging apps - BBC News
|
2023-08-10
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Tech Secretary insists technology is in development to access illegal content without breaking encryption.
|
Technology
|
Michelle Donelan MP, Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology
The technology secretary has defended a controversial section of the Online Safety Bill which would force messaging apps to access the content of private messages if requested by the regulator Ofcom.
She said it was a sensible approach in order to protect children from abuse.
But some tech firms, including WhatsApp and Signal, have threatened to leave the UK if forced to weaken their messaging security.
The Bill is due to be passed in autumn.
Michelle Donelan was speaking to the BBC on a visit to University College London where she announced £13m in funding for Artificial Intelligence projects in healthcare.
Both the tech sector and the cyber security community have criticised the government's proposal that the content of encrypted messages should be made accessible if there is deemed to be a risk to children within them.
Currently messages sent in this way can only be read by the sender and the recipient, and not by the tech firms themselves.
Several popular messaging services including Meta's Whatsapp and Apple's iMessage use this popular security feature by default.
But once there's a way in, it's not only the good guys who will use it, is the argument, and some firms are saying they will pull their services from the UK altogether rather than compromise on security.
Ms Donelan claimed the government was not anti-encryption and access would only be requested as a last resort.
"I, like you, want my privacy because I don't want people reading my private messages. They'd be very bored but I don't want them to do it," she said.
"However we do know that on some of these platforms, they are hotbeds sometimes for child abuse and sexual exploitation.
"And we have to be able access that information should that problem occur."
She also said the onus would be on tech companies to invest in technology to solve this issue.
"Technology is in development to enable you to have encryption as well as to be able to access this particular information and the safety mechanism that we have is very explicit that this can only be used for child exploitation and abuse".
The current frontrunner for this is known as Client Side Scanning - it involves installing software onto devices themselves which can scan content and send alerts if triggered. But it has not proved popular: Apple halted a trial of it following a backlash, and it has been dubbed "the spy in your pocket".
Children's charity the NSPCC says its research suggests the public is "overwhelmingly supportive" of efforts to tackle child abuse in encrypted platforms.
"Tech firms should be showing industry leadership by listening to the public and investing in technology that protects both the safety and privacy rights of all users," said Richard Collard, head of child safety online policy at the NSPCC
But Ryan Polk, Director of Internet Policy at the Internet Society, a global charitable non profit focused on Internet policy, technology, and development, is sceptical that this technology is ready.
"The government's own Safety Tech Challenge Fund, which was supposed to find a magical technical solution to this problem, failed to do so," he said.
Mr Polk said scientists from the UK's National Research Centre on Privacy, Harm Reduction and Adversarial Influence Online found severe problems with the proposed technologies, "including that they undermine the end-to-end security and privacy necessary for protecting the security and privacy of UK citizens."If the UK government can't see that the Online Safety Bill will in effect ban encryption, then they are wilfully blinding themselves to the dangers ahead."
The legislation is expected back in the House of Commons in September.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66455616
|
news_technology-66455616
|
|
Rust armourer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed pleads not guilty over on-set death of Halyna Hutchins - BBC News
|
2023-08-10
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Ms Gutierrez-Reed pleads not guilty to involuntary manslaughter and evidence tampering charges.
|
Entertainment & Arts
|
Cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was killed on the set of the film
Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the armourer and weapons supervisor on the set of the Alec Baldwin film Rust, has pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter and evidence tampering charges.
Her plea comes ahead of a jury trial on 6 December looking into the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins.
Ms Hutchins was killed, aged 42, after a gun Mr Baldwin had been rehearsing with went off on set in 2021.
Prosecutors say Ms Gutierrez-Reed acted recklessly when loading the gun.
They said she failed to ensure that dummy bullets were loaded into the weapon that killed Ms Hutchins, and that the armourer handed the gun to Baldwin, having not checked that all the bullets were dummies.
Charges relating to the case against actor and producer Alec Baldwin were dropped in April
In June, prosecutors alleged she was likely to have been hungover on the day of the fatal shooting, accusing her of drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana in the evenings during filming.
In response, her lawyer said prosecutors had mishandled the case and resorted to "character assassination".
Ms Gutierrez-Reed submitted her not guilty plea on Wednesday, waiving her right to an arraignment and preliminary hearing which would have decided if there was cause for the case to go to trial.
Judge Mary Sommer last week declined to dismiss the case, rejecting arguments from Ms Gutierrez-Reed's team that prosecutors had tainted the investigation so a fair trial - set to run 6-15 December - was no longer possible and that her due process rights had been violated.
Baldwin, the star and producer of the western, was charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter over the incident, but the charges were dropped in April. Filming resumed later that month.
He can still be charged, however, with prosecutors investigating whether the revolver he was holding was modified to fire without a pull of the trigger.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66458928
|
news_entertainment-arts-66458928
|
|
How big are Donald Trump's legal problems? - BBC News
|
2023-08-04
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
He has been criminally indicted four times and will have a series of trials to attend in 2024.
|
US & Canada
|
Donald Trump has been criminally indicted four times, and will have a series of trials to attend in 2024 as he runs again for the White House.
His candidacy now also faces a challenge from the Colorado Supreme Court, which has ruled Mr Trump cannot run for president because he engaged in an insurrection with his actions in the days leading to the US Capitol riot on 6 January 2021.
Here's a guide to the five cases and what they could mean for the former president and current frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination.
The Colorado Supreme Court declared Mr Trump ineligible for the presidency under the US Constitution's insurrection clause - Section 3 of the 14th Amendment - which disqualifies anyone who engages in insurrection from holding office.
Voting 4-3, the state's top court found Mr Trump had incited an insurrection in his role in the 6 January 2021 storming of the Capitol by his supporters. Mr Trump has repeatedly denied responsibility for the riot.
The bombshell ruling directs the Colorado secretary of state to exclude Mr Trump from the state's Republican primary on 5 March, where registered party members vote on their preferred candidate for president. But it could also affect the general election in Colorado next November.
It does not stop Mr Trump running in other states.
Similar lawsuits to to remove the Republican from the ballot in Minnesota, New Hampshire and Michigan have failed.
What will his defence be?
During a one-week trial in Colorado in November, the former president's lawyers argued Mr Trump should not be disqualified because he did not bear responsibility for the riot.
Following the Colorado Supreme Court's decision Mr Trump's campaign said immediately it would appeal the decision to the US Supreme Court, where it's likely a similar argument would be made.
His legal spokeswoman Alina Habba said the ruling "attacks the very heart of this nation's democracy."
"It will not stand, and we trust that the Supreme Court will reverse this unconstitutional order," she said.
The Colorado Supreme Court put its ruling on hold until at least 4 January. If Mr Trump appeals, that pause will continue until the country's top court weighs in.
If the Supreme Court does take up the case, which experts say is likely, it could be forced to decide Mr Trump's eligibility beyond Colorado to all 50 states.
That court has a 6-3 conservative majority with three justices appointed by the former president himself.
What are the charges in Georgia 2020 election investigation?
This is the most recent indictment, the one that saw the first ever mugshot of a former US president after Donald Trump turned himself in at the Fulton County Jail on 24 August. The charges for Mr Trump - listed now as inmate no. P01135809 on Fulton County Jail records - were unsealed last month.
Mr Trump and 18 others are named in a 41-count indictment for alleged attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss in the state.
The investigation was sparked in part by a leaked phone call in which the former president asked Georgia's top election official to "find 11,780 votes".
Mr Trump was hit with 13 criminal counts including an alleged violation of Georgia's Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (Rico).
His other charges include solicitation of violation of oath by a public officer, conspiring to commit impersonating a public officer, conspiring to commit forgery, conspiring to commit false statements, and writing and conspiring to file false documents.
What are the potential penalties?
The racketeering charge, which is mostly used in organised crime cases, carries a maximum 20-year jail sentence.
Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis would need to prove that there was a pattern of corruption from Mr Trump and his allies aimed at overturning the election result in order to bring a conviction.
As for making false statements, that carries a penalty of between one to five years in prison or a fine.
And a person convicted of first-degree criminal solicitation to commit election fraud will face between one to three years in jail.
What will his defence be?
Mr Trump has repeatedly denied wrongdoing in the case and has entered a plea of not guilty.
He has defended the phone call in question as "perfect" and accused Ms Willis of launching a politically motivated inquiry.
There is no confirmed date for the trial yet.
What are the charges in 2020 election investigation?
Donald Trump has been criminally charged in a separate federal investigation into efforts to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election.
The 45-page indictment contains four counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.
They stem from the former president's actions in the wake of the 2020 election, including around the 6 January Capitol riot, which occurred while Congress was meeting to certify Joe Biden's victory.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch the moment Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol building
What are the potential penalties?
But there are logistical, security and political questions around whether Mr Trump would serve time even if charged and convicted.
What will his defence be?
Mr Trump was formally charged in court in Washington DC on 3 August. A tentative trial date is scheduled for 4 March 2024.
He argues that the charges are an attempt to prevent him from winning the 2024 presidential election. Before leaving Washington after his arraignment hearing, he told journalists the case "is a persecution of a political opponent".
Mr Trump has repeatedly denied responsibility for the riot on 6 January 2021.
His legal team is also likely to argue that the former president is not directly responsible for the violence that unfolded that day because he told supporters to march "peacefully" on the Capitol and is protected by First Amendment free speech rights.
What are the charges in classified documents case?
Mr Trump is facing 40 criminal charges over his alleged mishandling of classified material after he left the White House.
Thousands of documents were seized in an FBI search at his Florida estate Mar-a-Lago last year, including about 100 that were marked as classified.
The charges are related to both his handling of the documents and his alleged efforts to obstruct the FBI's attempts to retrieve them.
The majority of the counts, are for the wilful retention of national defence information, which falls under the Espionage Act.
There are then eight individual counts which include conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding a document or record and making false statements.
Will Donald Trump go to jail?
These charges could - in theory - lead to substantial prison time if Mr Trump is convicted.
But the logistics, security and politics of jailing a former president mean a conventional prison sentence is seen as unlikely by many experts.
Looking at the letter of the law, the counts under the Espionage Act, for example, each carry a maximum sentence of 10 years.
Other counts, related to conspiracy and withholding or concealing documents, each carry maximum sentences of 20 years.
Counts relating to a scheme to conceal, and false statements and representations carry sentences of five years each.
But while there is no doubt the charges are serious, many questions remain unanswered about the potential penalties should he be convicted.
What will his defence be?
Mr Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges and the trial is set to begin on 20 May 2024.
The former president has offered shifting defences for the material found at his property, mostly arguing that he declassified it. No evidence has been provided that this was possible or is true.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Trump supporters outside court: 'They're afraid of him'
His lawyers may argue in court that Mr Trump was unfairly targeted and that other politicians, namely Hillary Clinton, Mike Pence and current President Joe Biden, were never charged for their handling of classified documents.
But experts say the former president's case is different in a number of ways. For one, other politicians were willing to return whatever documents they had, while prosecutors allege Mr Trump resisted.
What are the charges in New York hush money case?
Mr Trump is facing 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.
The charges stem from a hush-money payment made before the 2016 election to the adult film star Stormy Daniels, who says she had an adulterous affair with Mr Trump.
While such a payment is not illegal, spending money to help a presidential campaign but not disclosing it violates federal campaign finance law.
What are the potential penalties?
Each of the charges carries a maximum of four years in prison, although a judge could sentence Mr Trump to probation if he is convicted.
Legal experts have told BBC News they think it is unlikely Mr Trump will be jailed if convicted in this case and a fine is the more likely outcome.
What will his defence be?
Mr Trump has pleaded not guilty and is due to stand trial in the case on 25 March 2024.
He denies ever having sexual relations with Ms Daniels and says the payment was made to protect his family from false allegations, not to sway the election.
Do you have any questions relating to Donald Trump's legal cases?
In some cases your question will be published, displaying your name, age and location as you provide it, unless you state otherwise. Your contact details will never be published. Please ensure you have read our terms & conditions and privacy policy.
Use this form to ask your question:
If you are reading this page and can't see the form you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question or send them via email to YourQuestions@bbc.co.uk. Please include your name, age and location with any question you send in.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61084161
|
news_world-us-canada-61084161
|
|
Is Trump running for president mostly to avoid prison? - BBC News
|
2023-08-04
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
A Trump rival was booed for suggesting he is only campaigning to keep himself out of jail. But is he completely wrong?
|
US & Canada
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
It's impossible to know how genuinely worried Donald Trump may be about the prospect of going to jail for any of the criminal offences he has been charged with.
He claims he could be facing a combined 561 years in prison thanks to the "Left's witch hunts". That may be an exaggeration, but if he is convicted in any of the three court cases he faces, a jail sentence may well follow.
So whilst Mr Trump says almost nothing during his court appearances, he is voluble outside when he is appealing to the court of public opinion. Looking for a verdict that will come from tens of millions of voters, not a jury of 12. Delivered at the ballot box, not in a courtroom.
The lesser-known former congressman Will Hurd was booed off stage at a Republican dinner in Iowa last week when he said the only reason Mr Trump is running for the White House is to stay out of jail. But is he completely wrong?
The former president has already woven his election campaign and legal problems tightly together.
He uses the charges against him as a major plank of his campaign. In speeches he tells his supporters that he is being prosecuted because the establishment - or the "deep state"- fear him being re-elected as president.
He sends out fundraising emails that say: "If these illegal persecutions succeed, if they're allowed to set fire to the law, then it will not stop with me. Their grip will close even tighter around YOU."
And he has already used at least $40m (£31m) in campaign donations to pay his legal fees.
Mr Trump has made clear that no verdict or sentence will halt his campaign. That he will carry on running for president from behind bars if he has to.
And that if elected he will use the power of his office to either quash any ongoing prosecutions or pardon himself for any convictions.
But trying to escape his legal difficulties by running for president will soon become a scheduling nightmare.
Mr Trump has already announced a campaign event in New Hampshire next week, a long way from the court hearing that takes place in Florida two days later.
He doesn't have to appear on that date to hear the additional charges that have been filed against him in the case of the classified documents he took from the White House.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
But when the trials get started, in New York in March, in Florida in May and in Washington at a date yet to be determined, he will be required to sit through the proceedings in person.
Even for someone with a private plane at his disposal that will make it hard to be hitting the campaign trail whilst on trial.
So far each indictment against Mr Trump has increased his poll ratings and tightened his grip on the Republican Party.
It may be a different story when we are in a general election and Mr Trump is running against Joe Biden rather than his rivals for the Republican nomination.
And when evidence against Mr Trump is being aired in court daily.
Yet it is once again Mr Trump who is defining the terms of the debate.
And making it all about him.
Who's listening to arguments about economic policy when the Trump trial cavalcade is in town?
You can hear more of Sarah's analysis by tuning into Americast, the BBC's US politics and culture podcast, on BBC Sounds or wherever you get your podcasts
And you can follow Sarah on Twitter
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66402180
|
news_world-us-canada-66402180
|
|
As it happened: Tory Lanez jailed for 10 years for shooting Megan Thee Stallion - live updates - BBC News
|
2023-08-08
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The Canadian rapper will spend 10 years in prison for shooting and injuring hip-hop star Megan Thee Stallion.
|
US & Canada
|
During the trial, the jury heard that during the drive home from Kylie Jenner’s pool party on the night of July 11, 2020, Megan Thee Stallion insulted Tory Lanez‘s musical talent.
As the argument escalated, she demanded to be let out of the car. Megan testified that she heard Lanez shout “dance" before he fired five rounds at her.
The court heard she left a trail of blood at the scene, before getting back into the vehicle, which was stopped minutes later by police.
A gun that was still warm to the touch was found near where Lanez had been sitting.
Megan testified Lanez had offered her $1m (£780,000) to keep quiet about the attack because he claimed to be on probation for a weapons offence.
Minutes after the shooting, another passenger texted Megan Thee Stallion's security detail, saying: "Help... Tory shot meg."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-66431305
|
news_live_world-us-canada-66431305
|
|
Megan Thee Stallion 'will never be the same' after being shot by Tory Lanez - BBC News
|
2023-08-08
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Tory Lanez is set to be sentenced for shooting fellow hip-hop star Megan Thee Stallion in the feet.
|
Entertainment & Arts
|
Megan Thee Stallion said she had been "tormented and terrorised"
Megan Thee Stallion has said she will "never be the same" after being shot in the feet by fellow rap star Tory Lanez, as a judge prepares to sentence him.
Megan, a triple Grammy Award winner, wrote a victim impact statement that was read in court on the first day of the sentencing hearing on Monday.
She told his trial last year that Lanez shot her in an argument while leaving a party at Kylie Jenner's home in 2020.
Prosecutors have asked the judge to give Lanez a 13-year jail sentence.
His lawyers argued he should just get probation and a drug treatment programme. He is expected to be sentenced later on Tuesday.
On Monday, Megan's statement was read in court by Los Angeles County's deputy district attorney. "Since I was viciously shot by the defendant, I have not experienced a single day of peace," it said, according to US media.
"Slowly but surely, I'm healing and coming back, but I will never be the same."
The star said she struggled with whether to give the statement in person, but "simply could not bring myself to be in a room with Tory again".
Tory Lanez's lawyers plan to appeal against his conviction
Megan, 28, said she had been "tormented and terrorised", adding that she "spiralled to a dark, angry place" when Lanez mocked her trauma. "His crime warrants the full weight of the law," she said.
Lanez, real name Daystar Peterson, has had seven US top 10 albums in the past seven years. Megan told the trial that Lanez opened fire after she mocked his musical talents.
Other witnesses who spoke on Monday included Lanez's father, who talked emotionally about the effect on his son of the death of his mother when he was 11, and a prison chaplain, who said Lanez had been leading daily prayer groups.
The 31-year-old has been in custody since being found guilty in December of assault with a semi-automatic firearm; having a loaded, unregistered firearm in a vehicle; and discharging a firearm with gross negligence.
The judge said he had received more than 70 letters in support of Lanez from his family and friends, including rapper Iggy Azalea, who called for a sentence that would be "transformative, not life-destroying".
The shooting happened when the pair left Jenner's home with his bodyguard and her friend and assistant Kelsey Harris in an SUV in the early hours of 12 July 2020.
Megan, real name Megan Pete, told the court she got into an argument with Lanez over their previous sexual relationship. The row escalated and led to the pair insulting each other's careers.
She said she demanded to be let out of the vehicle, at which point Lanez started shooting at the ground and shouted at her to "dance".
But Lanez has maintained his innocence, with his lawyers suggesting Ms Harris may have shot her friend after discovering the relationship because she had a "crush" on him and was jealous.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Ms Harris denied that. However, on the witness stand she backtracked on previous statements that Lanez was the shooter, instead telling the trial she did not see who shot Megan.
Megan initially told police she injured her feet by stepping on broken glass but later revealed she had been shot, and the dispute continued on social media and in the pair's songs.
Fans of the two stars - and some famous names in the hip-hop world - also took sides as they disagreed about who was telling the truth.
In Elle magazine in April, Megan called the guilty verdict "a victory for every woman who has ever been shamed, dismissed, and blamed for a violent crime committed against them".
"We can't control what others think, especially when the lies are juicier than the truth," she said.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66428109
|
news_entertainment-arts-66428109
|
|
Brighton Pride: Train cancellations and wind and rain - BBC News
|
2023-08-05
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
All rail services in and out of Brighton are cancelled, while Storm Antoni will bring wind and rain.
|
Sussex
|
Ali and Machaella braving the weather on the seafront in Brighton
Brighton's Pride event celebrates its 50th birthday this weekend, with revellers facing challenges from transport and the weather.
Govia Thameslink (GTR) has cancelled all trains to and from Brighton on Saturday.
The event, which attracts hundreds of thousands of people, is also set to be hit by wind and rain from Storm Antoni.
Organisers said the weather "wouldn't stop us from having a great celebration".
The parade went ahead from 11:00 BST despite forecasts of strong winds and rain across the UK, with amber warnings for gusts of up to 65mph (105km/h) in coastal areas.
Paul Kemp, managing director of Brighton Pride, said: "We've encouraged people to wear ponchos so it might be a little bit Glastonbury.
"That wouldn't stop us from having a great celebration and a great Pride in our city."
Revellers vowed the wet weather would not stop them celebrating
The annual celebration is the city's largest single event, expected to boost the economy by more than £20m over the weekend.
The headliners at this year's event are the Black Eyed Peas on Saturday and Steps on Sunday.
The theme of 2023 was Dare to be Different
Ali and Jo Hood-Green made the seven-hour drive from Bolton, Lancashire, to be in Brighton, but said: "It was worth it".
Connor Charles, 30, and Alex Fire drove down from London and stayed overnight.
Mr Charles refused to allow the murky conditions to dampen his spirits, saying: "It's good the weather, it hasn't been as bad as what the forecast said. It's been showering."
The parade was full of colourful floats
Jamie Sanders, 36, travelled from Hastings, East Sussex, as one of the organisers for Sainsbury's parade group.
While he was able to book a hotel overnight, out of 100 colleagues expecting to take part in the company's parade, only 60 were able to make it due to the travel disruption.
But he said the buses "were brilliant", picking people up across other locations to help them get there.
Leo Gonzales, 54, an NHS nurse, said despite getting "drenched" everybody was having fun.
Brighton Pride was hit by wet and windy weather from Storm Antoni
An overtime ban by the drivers union Aslef meant fewer trains could run, raising safety concerns because of the extra passengers expected.
GTR said it had previously relied on train drivers volunteering to run extra services to cope with the huge crowds travelling to and from Brighton on Pride weekend, which can total 85,000 extra passengers in a day, with up to 20,000 in the busiest hours of the evening.
This year marks half a century of Pride marches in Brighton
The company said, without extra drivers, there was "a clear risk of stranding tens of thousands of people overnight without accommodation".
Its statement added: "We have looked at every available option but ultimately the safety of customers and our colleagues must come first. This has been an exceptionally difficult decision to make."
The trains cancellation was condemned by the leader of Brighton and Hove City Council, Bella Sankey.
She said: "I think this is an appalling decision not to run any services at all."
Coach operator National Express has laid on extra services to Brighton for Saturday.
Enrico Dannunzio was taking the coach to get to Brighton Pride this year
Australian Enrico Dannunzio, who lives in South London, usually travels to Brighton Pride from London Bridge, but was able to book a coach from Victoria.
"We had to get up earlier," he said, "because it's three and a half hours compared to the hour and a bit.
"We booked the coach early but it's changed timings because there's more people, so we're arriving two hours later than planned. Hopefully we still get there in time for the parade."
Keiron Pearce travelled from Barcelona but nearly did not make it because of the train disruption
Keiron Pearce travelled from Barcelona for the event but nearly cancelled because of the industrial action.
"I almost didn't go, but because I knew a coach was available I booked a ticket," he said.
He believes train drivers should have run services this weekend.
"The public do understand, they've certainly made their point" Mr Pearce, who is originally from Maidenhead, said.
"But enough is enough, they're ruining people's lives. The argument's with the government, not with us."
Pride events are continuing despite wet and windy weather in Brighton
The trains cancellation have also created problems for Sussex Police.
"The big challenge for a big change like that is it introduces an unknown," said Ch Supt Jerry Westerman.
"We adapt and learn every year, and get better and better as we do it, now a significant change is going to change the dynamic of the event and that brings an element of risk to us."
This year's Pride, which has the theme of Dare to be Different. is celebrating 50 years since the first gay liberation protest march in the city in 1973.
Follow BBC South East on Facebook, on Twitter, and on Instagram. Send your story ideas to southeasttoday@bbc.co.uk.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-66415209
|
news_uk-england-sussex-66415209
|
|
How big are Donald Trump's legal problems? - BBC News
|
2023-08-15
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
He has been criminally indicted four times and will have a series of trials to attend in 2024.
|
US & Canada
|
Donald Trump has been criminally indicted four times, and will have a series of trials to attend in 2024 as he runs again for the White House.
His candidacy now also faces a challenge from the Colorado Supreme Court, which has ruled Mr Trump cannot run for president because he engaged in an insurrection with his actions in the days leading to the US Capitol riot on 6 January 2021.
Here's a guide to the five cases and what they could mean for the former president and current frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination.
The Colorado Supreme Court declared Mr Trump ineligible for the presidency under the US Constitution's insurrection clause - Section 3 of the 14th Amendment - which disqualifies anyone who engages in insurrection from holding office.
Voting 4-3, the state's top court found Mr Trump had incited an insurrection in his role in the 6 January 2021 storming of the Capitol by his supporters. Mr Trump has repeatedly denied responsibility for the riot.
The bombshell ruling directs the Colorado secretary of state to exclude Mr Trump from the state's Republican primary on 5 March, where registered party members vote on their preferred candidate for president. But it could also affect the general election in Colorado next November.
It does not stop Mr Trump running in other states.
Similar lawsuits to to remove the Republican from the ballot in Minnesota, New Hampshire and Michigan have failed.
What will his defence be?
During a one-week trial in Colorado in November, the former president's lawyers argued Mr Trump should not be disqualified because he did not bear responsibility for the riot.
Following the Colorado Supreme Court's decision Mr Trump's campaign said immediately it would appeal the decision to the US Supreme Court, where it's likely a similar argument would be made.
His legal spokeswoman Alina Habba said the ruling "attacks the very heart of this nation's democracy."
"It will not stand, and we trust that the Supreme Court will reverse this unconstitutional order," she said.
The Colorado Supreme Court put its ruling on hold until at least 4 January. If Mr Trump appeals, that pause will continue until the country's top court weighs in.
If the Supreme Court does take up the case, which experts say is likely, it could be forced to decide Mr Trump's eligibility beyond Colorado to all 50 states.
That court has a 6-3 conservative majority with three justices appointed by the former president himself.
What are the charges in Georgia 2020 election investigation?
This is the most recent indictment, the one that saw the first ever mugshot of a former US president after Donald Trump turned himself in at the Fulton County Jail on 24 August. The charges for Mr Trump - listed now as inmate no. P01135809 on Fulton County Jail records - were unsealed last month.
Mr Trump and 18 others are named in a 41-count indictment for alleged attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss in the state.
The investigation was sparked in part by a leaked phone call in which the former president asked Georgia's top election official to "find 11,780 votes".
Mr Trump was hit with 13 criminal counts including an alleged violation of Georgia's Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (Rico).
His other charges include solicitation of violation of oath by a public officer, conspiring to commit impersonating a public officer, conspiring to commit forgery, conspiring to commit false statements, and writing and conspiring to file false documents.
What are the potential penalties?
The racketeering charge, which is mostly used in organised crime cases, carries a maximum 20-year jail sentence.
Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis would need to prove that there was a pattern of corruption from Mr Trump and his allies aimed at overturning the election result in order to bring a conviction.
As for making false statements, that carries a penalty of between one to five years in prison or a fine.
And a person convicted of first-degree criminal solicitation to commit election fraud will face between one to three years in jail.
What will his defence be?
Mr Trump has repeatedly denied wrongdoing in the case and has entered a plea of not guilty.
He has defended the phone call in question as "perfect" and accused Ms Willis of launching a politically motivated inquiry.
There is no confirmed date for the trial yet.
What are the charges in 2020 election investigation?
Donald Trump has been criminally charged in a separate federal investigation into efforts to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election.
The 45-page indictment contains four counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.
They stem from the former president's actions in the wake of the 2020 election, including around the 6 January Capitol riot, which occurred while Congress was meeting to certify Joe Biden's victory.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch the moment Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol building
What are the potential penalties?
But there are logistical, security and political questions around whether Mr Trump would serve time even if charged and convicted.
What will his defence be?
Mr Trump was formally charged in court in Washington DC on 3 August. A tentative trial date is scheduled for 4 March 2024.
He argues that the charges are an attempt to prevent him from winning the 2024 presidential election. Before leaving Washington after his arraignment hearing, he told journalists the case "is a persecution of a political opponent".
Mr Trump has repeatedly denied responsibility for the riot on 6 January 2021.
His legal team is also likely to argue that the former president is not directly responsible for the violence that unfolded that day because he told supporters to march "peacefully" on the Capitol and is protected by First Amendment free speech rights.
What are the charges in classified documents case?
Mr Trump is facing 40 criminal charges over his alleged mishandling of classified material after he left the White House.
Thousands of documents were seized in an FBI search at his Florida estate Mar-a-Lago last year, including about 100 that were marked as classified.
The charges are related to both his handling of the documents and his alleged efforts to obstruct the FBI's attempts to retrieve them.
The majority of the counts, are for the wilful retention of national defence information, which falls under the Espionage Act.
There are then eight individual counts which include conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding a document or record and making false statements.
Will Donald Trump go to jail?
These charges could - in theory - lead to substantial prison time if Mr Trump is convicted.
But the logistics, security and politics of jailing a former president mean a conventional prison sentence is seen as unlikely by many experts.
Looking at the letter of the law, the counts under the Espionage Act, for example, each carry a maximum sentence of 10 years.
Other counts, related to conspiracy and withholding or concealing documents, each carry maximum sentences of 20 years.
Counts relating to a scheme to conceal, and false statements and representations carry sentences of five years each.
But while there is no doubt the charges are serious, many questions remain unanswered about the potential penalties should he be convicted.
What will his defence be?
Mr Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges and the trial is set to begin on 20 May 2024.
The former president has offered shifting defences for the material found at his property, mostly arguing that he declassified it. No evidence has been provided that this was possible or is true.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Trump supporters outside court: 'They're afraid of him'
His lawyers may argue in court that Mr Trump was unfairly targeted and that other politicians, namely Hillary Clinton, Mike Pence and current President Joe Biden, were never charged for their handling of classified documents.
But experts say the former president's case is different in a number of ways. For one, other politicians were willing to return whatever documents they had, while prosecutors allege Mr Trump resisted.
What are the charges in New York hush money case?
Mr Trump is facing 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.
The charges stem from a hush-money payment made before the 2016 election to the adult film star Stormy Daniels, who says she had an adulterous affair with Mr Trump.
While such a payment is not illegal, spending money to help a presidential campaign but not disclosing it violates federal campaign finance law.
What are the potential penalties?
Each of the charges carries a maximum of four years in prison, although a judge could sentence Mr Trump to probation if he is convicted.
Legal experts have told BBC News they think it is unlikely Mr Trump will be jailed if convicted in this case and a fine is the more likely outcome.
What will his defence be?
Mr Trump has pleaded not guilty and is due to stand trial in the case on 25 March 2024.
He denies ever having sexual relations with Ms Daniels and says the payment was made to protect his family from false allegations, not to sway the election.
Do you have any questions relating to Donald Trump's legal cases?
In some cases your question will be published, displaying your name, age and location as you provide it, unless you state otherwise. Your contact details will never be published. Please ensure you have read our terms & conditions and privacy policy.
Use this form to ask your question:
If you are reading this page and can't see the form you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question or send them via email to YourQuestions@bbc.co.uk. Please include your name, age and location with any question you send in.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61084161
|
news_world-us-canada-61084161
|
|
Niger coup: Why some people want Russia in and France out - BBC News
|
2023-08-01
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Supporters of the military which seized power in Niger have been showing their support for Russia.
|
Africa
|
In a sign of growing hostility towards the West since the coup in Niger, a businessman proudly shows off his outfit in the colours of the Russian flag in the traditional heartland of deposed President Mohamed Bazoum.
Since the coup, there has been a war of words between the military and the West.
Mr Bazoum was a staunch ally of the West in the fight against militant Islamists, and was a strong economic partner as well.
Niger hosts a French military base and is the world's seventh biggest producer of uranium. The fuel is vital for nuclear power with a quarter of it going to Europe, especially former colonial power France.
Since General Abdourahamane Tchiani overthrew the president in a coup on 26 July, Russian colours have suddenly appeared on the streets.
Thousands took part in a protest in the capital Niamey on Sunday, with some waving Russian flags and even attacking the French embassy.
It now seems this "movement" is spreading across the country.
The businessman, based 800km (500 miles) away in the central city of Zinder, didn't want to give his name for safety reasons and asked that we blur his face.
"I'm pro-Russian and I don't like France," he said. "Since childhood, I've been opposed to France.
"They've exploited all the riches of my country such as uranium, petrol and gold. The poorest Nigeriens are unable to eat three times a day because of France."
The businessman said thousands had taken part in Monday's protest in Zinder in support of the military takeover.
He said he had asked a local tailor to take material in the Russian colours of white, blue and red and make an outfit for him, denying that it had been paid for by pro-Russian groups.
Niger is home to 24.4 million people where two in every five live in extreme poverty, on less than $2.15 a day.
The demonstrations in favour of Niger's military takeover have often featured Russian flags
President Bazoum entered office in 2021 in Niger's first democratic and peaceful transition of power since independence in 1960.
But his government was a target for Islamist militants linked to the Islamic State group and al-Qaeda who roam across parts of the Sahara Desert and the semi-arid Sahel just to the south.
Under pressure from the Islamists, the armies in both neighbouring Mali and Burkina Faso, also former French colonies with considerable French interests, seized power in recent years, saying this would help in the fight against jihadists.
Like Niger, both these countries previously had significant numbers of French troops helping them but as the Islamist attacks continued, anti-French sentiment rose across the region, with people in all three countries starting to accuse the French of not doing enough to stop them.
Once in power, the junta in Mali welcomed Russia's mercenary Wagner Group as they first forced out French troops and then pushed for thousands of UN peacekeepers to leave.
Although Islamist attacks have continued in Mali, Burkina Faso's junta has also grown close to Russia and expelled hundreds of French forces.
In Niger, anti-French protests were frequently banned by Mr Bazoum's administration.
Several civil society groups began escalating anti-French protests in mid-2022, when Mr Bazoum's administration approved the redeployment of France's Barkhane forces to Niger after they had been ordered to leave Mali.
Key among them is the M62 movement, formed in August 2022 by a coalition of activists, civil society movements and trade unions. They led calls against the rising cost of living, poor governance and the presence of the French forces.
Russian colours are suddenly popular on the streets of Niger
Various planned protests by the group were banned or violently put down by Niger's authorities with its leader Abdoulaye Seydou jailed for nine months in April 2023 for "disrupting public order".
The M62 appears revitalised in the wake of President Bazoum's removal.
In an unusual move, its members were quoted by state TV mobilising mass protests in support of the junta, as well as denouncing sanctions by West African leaders over the coup.
It is unclear if the group is linked to the junta known as the National Council for Safeguarding the Homeland (CNSP) or to Russia.
But it was the umbrella group organising Sunday's protest, where smaller civil society groups such as the Coordination Committee for the Democratic Struggle (CCLD) Bukata and Youth Action for Niger were also present.
Back in Zinder, the pro-Russia businessman is positive about how Moscow can help his homeland.
"I want Russia to help with security and food," he said. "Russia can supply technology to improve our agriculture."
But Moutaka, a farmer who also lives in Zinder, rejects this argument and says the coup is bad news for everyone.
"I don't support the arrival of Russians in this country because they are all Europeans and nobody will help us," he said. "I love my country and hope we can live in peace."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-66365376
|
news_world-africa-66365376
|
|
How big are Donald Trump's legal problems? - BBC News
|
2023-08-01
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
He has been criminally indicted four times and will have a series of trials to attend in 2024.
|
US & Canada
|
Donald Trump has been criminally indicted four times, and will have a series of trials to attend in 2024 as he runs again for the White House.
His candidacy now also faces a challenge from the Colorado Supreme Court, which has ruled Mr Trump cannot run for president because he engaged in an insurrection with his actions in the days leading to the US Capitol riot on 6 January 2021.
Here's a guide to the five cases and what they could mean for the former president and current frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination.
The Colorado Supreme Court declared Mr Trump ineligible for the presidency under the US Constitution's insurrection clause - Section 3 of the 14th Amendment - which disqualifies anyone who engages in insurrection from holding office.
Voting 4-3, the state's top court found Mr Trump had incited an insurrection in his role in the 6 January 2021 storming of the Capitol by his supporters. Mr Trump has repeatedly denied responsibility for the riot.
The bombshell ruling directs the Colorado secretary of state to exclude Mr Trump from the state's Republican primary on 5 March, where registered party members vote on their preferred candidate for president. But it could also affect the general election in Colorado next November.
It does not stop Mr Trump running in other states.
Similar lawsuits to to remove the Republican from the ballot in Minnesota, New Hampshire and Michigan have failed.
What will his defence be?
During a one-week trial in Colorado in November, the former president's lawyers argued Mr Trump should not be disqualified because he did not bear responsibility for the riot.
Following the Colorado Supreme Court's decision Mr Trump's campaign said immediately it would appeal the decision to the US Supreme Court, where it's likely a similar argument would be made.
His legal spokeswoman Alina Habba said the ruling "attacks the very heart of this nation's democracy."
"It will not stand, and we trust that the Supreme Court will reverse this unconstitutional order," she said.
The Colorado Supreme Court put its ruling on hold until at least 4 January. If Mr Trump appeals, that pause will continue until the country's top court weighs in.
If the Supreme Court does take up the case, which experts say is likely, it could be forced to decide Mr Trump's eligibility beyond Colorado to all 50 states.
That court has a 6-3 conservative majority with three justices appointed by the former president himself.
What are the charges in Georgia 2020 election investigation?
This is the most recent indictment, the one that saw the first ever mugshot of a former US president after Donald Trump turned himself in at the Fulton County Jail on 24 August. The charges for Mr Trump - listed now as inmate no. P01135809 on Fulton County Jail records - were unsealed last month.
Mr Trump and 18 others are named in a 41-count indictment for alleged attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss in the state.
The investigation was sparked in part by a leaked phone call in which the former president asked Georgia's top election official to "find 11,780 votes".
Mr Trump was hit with 13 criminal counts including an alleged violation of Georgia's Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (Rico).
His other charges include solicitation of violation of oath by a public officer, conspiring to commit impersonating a public officer, conspiring to commit forgery, conspiring to commit false statements, and writing and conspiring to file false documents.
What are the potential penalties?
The racketeering charge, which is mostly used in organised crime cases, carries a maximum 20-year jail sentence.
Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis would need to prove that there was a pattern of corruption from Mr Trump and his allies aimed at overturning the election result in order to bring a conviction.
As for making false statements, that carries a penalty of between one to five years in prison or a fine.
And a person convicted of first-degree criminal solicitation to commit election fraud will face between one to three years in jail.
What will his defence be?
Mr Trump has repeatedly denied wrongdoing in the case and has entered a plea of not guilty.
He has defended the phone call in question as "perfect" and accused Ms Willis of launching a politically motivated inquiry.
There is no confirmed date for the trial yet.
What are the charges in 2020 election investigation?
Donald Trump has been criminally charged in a separate federal investigation into efforts to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election.
The 45-page indictment contains four counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.
They stem from the former president's actions in the wake of the 2020 election, including around the 6 January Capitol riot, which occurred while Congress was meeting to certify Joe Biden's victory.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch the moment Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol building
What are the potential penalties?
But there are logistical, security and political questions around whether Mr Trump would serve time even if charged and convicted.
What will his defence be?
Mr Trump was formally charged in court in Washington DC on 3 August. A tentative trial date is scheduled for 4 March 2024.
He argues that the charges are an attempt to prevent him from winning the 2024 presidential election. Before leaving Washington after his arraignment hearing, he told journalists the case "is a persecution of a political opponent".
Mr Trump has repeatedly denied responsibility for the riot on 6 January 2021.
His legal team is also likely to argue that the former president is not directly responsible for the violence that unfolded that day because he told supporters to march "peacefully" on the Capitol and is protected by First Amendment free speech rights.
What are the charges in classified documents case?
Mr Trump is facing 40 criminal charges over his alleged mishandling of classified material after he left the White House.
Thousands of documents were seized in an FBI search at his Florida estate Mar-a-Lago last year, including about 100 that were marked as classified.
The charges are related to both his handling of the documents and his alleged efforts to obstruct the FBI's attempts to retrieve them.
The majority of the counts, are for the wilful retention of national defence information, which falls under the Espionage Act.
There are then eight individual counts which include conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding a document or record and making false statements.
Will Donald Trump go to jail?
These charges could - in theory - lead to substantial prison time if Mr Trump is convicted.
But the logistics, security and politics of jailing a former president mean a conventional prison sentence is seen as unlikely by many experts.
Looking at the letter of the law, the counts under the Espionage Act, for example, each carry a maximum sentence of 10 years.
Other counts, related to conspiracy and withholding or concealing documents, each carry maximum sentences of 20 years.
Counts relating to a scheme to conceal, and false statements and representations carry sentences of five years each.
But while there is no doubt the charges are serious, many questions remain unanswered about the potential penalties should he be convicted.
What will his defence be?
Mr Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges and the trial is set to begin on 20 May 2024.
The former president has offered shifting defences for the material found at his property, mostly arguing that he declassified it. No evidence has been provided that this was possible or is true.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Trump supporters outside court: 'They're afraid of him'
His lawyers may argue in court that Mr Trump was unfairly targeted and that other politicians, namely Hillary Clinton, Mike Pence and current President Joe Biden, were never charged for their handling of classified documents.
But experts say the former president's case is different in a number of ways. For one, other politicians were willing to return whatever documents they had, while prosecutors allege Mr Trump resisted.
What are the charges in New York hush money case?
Mr Trump is facing 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.
The charges stem from a hush-money payment made before the 2016 election to the adult film star Stormy Daniels, who says she had an adulterous affair with Mr Trump.
While such a payment is not illegal, spending money to help a presidential campaign but not disclosing it violates federal campaign finance law.
What are the potential penalties?
Each of the charges carries a maximum of four years in prison, although a judge could sentence Mr Trump to probation if he is convicted.
Legal experts have told BBC News they think it is unlikely Mr Trump will be jailed if convicted in this case and a fine is the more likely outcome.
What will his defence be?
Mr Trump has pleaded not guilty and is due to stand trial in the case on 25 March 2024.
He denies ever having sexual relations with Ms Daniels and says the payment was made to protect his family from false allegations, not to sway the election.
Do you have any questions relating to Donald Trump's legal cases?
In some cases your question will be published, displaying your name, age and location as you provide it, unless you state otherwise. Your contact details will never be published. Please ensure you have read our terms & conditions and privacy policy.
Use this form to ask your question:
If you are reading this page and can't see the form you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question or send them via email to YourQuestions@bbc.co.uk. Please include your name, age and location with any question you send in.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61084161
|
news_world-us-canada-61084161
|
|
As it happened: Tory Lanez jailed for 10 years for shooting Megan Thee Stallion - live updates - BBC News
|
2023-08-09
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The Canadian rapper will spend 10 years in prison for shooting and injuring hip-hop star Megan Thee Stallion.
|
US & Canada
|
During the trial, the jury heard that during the drive home from Kylie Jenner’s pool party on the night of July 11, 2020, Megan Thee Stallion insulted Tory Lanez‘s musical talent.
As the argument escalated, she demanded to be let out of the car. Megan testified that she heard Lanez shout “dance" before he fired five rounds at her.
The court heard she left a trail of blood at the scene, before getting back into the vehicle, which was stopped minutes later by police.
A gun that was still warm to the touch was found near where Lanez had been sitting.
Megan testified Lanez had offered her $1m (£780,000) to keep quiet about the attack because he claimed to be on probation for a weapons offence.
Minutes after the shooting, another passenger texted Megan Thee Stallion's security detail, saying: "Help... Tory shot meg."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-66431305
|
news_live_world-us-canada-66431305
|
|
S4C 'won't apologise' for more English on Welsh channel - BBC News
|
2023-08-09
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
S4C "wants to encourage Welsh learners and reflect reality", but a campaigner calls it dangerous.
|
Wales
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. What do people make of S4C including more English content?
There will be no apology from S4C for introducing some English on the Welsh-language channel, its bosses have said.
S4C's Sara Peacock said it wanted to encourage learners to speak it more and reflect how the language is spoken throughout the country.
But Ieuan Wyn of campaign group Cylch yr Iaith called the move "dangerous".
Former Love Island contestant Connagh Howard, who has had some criticism for using English on an S4C show, said he could see both sides.
Bilingual rapper Sage Todz is not appearing at this year's National Eisteddfod in Boduan, Gwynedd, because his songs contain lyrics in Welsh and English.
S4C has been very conscious of how much English it uses in its programming, trying to reflect how Welsh is spoken around the country
While he said his "songs are finished products, not subject to change", organisers said the rule about the Welsh language was "fundamental" to the festival.
Connagh Howard, from Cardiff, said he faced a "backlash, nothing too bad" after appearing on the S4C show Hansh in 2020.
The 2020 Love Island contestant said he had not spoken Welsh too much immediately before appearing and admitted his skills were "rusty" and he used a few English words.
The former pupil of Ysgol Gyfun Gymraeg Glantaf in Cardiff said he sees both sides of the debate, adding: "A lot of Welsh speakers are very proud, very patriotic and want to protect that heritage. It's very admirable and I can definitely see why they are protective.
"But then I can also see the potential benefits of introducing a little bit of English, just to raise awareness. I've experienced a lot of people, especially since Love Island, people who may not even have known we have our own language.
"If there's one character on the show (Pobol y Cwm) that people can understand, so be it, it can only be a good thing if it grows interest and gets more people speaking."
Connagh Howard has appeared in a number of Welsh-language shows with his dad Wayne, who learnt the language to support him through school
He said there were many positive things happening to grow the language and give learners and people in south Wales chance to use it more - such as social media influencers using it.
S4C has now joined the debate on how much English can and should be used while speaking in Welsh.
The channel was set up in 1982 after a long-running campaign by activists, and as well as being the birthplace of Fireman Sam and SuperTed, it gave stars such as Rhys Ifans, Duffy, Ioan Gruffudd and Gethin Jones their first exposure to the limelight.
Ms Peacock, S4C's lead on Welsh language strategy and speaking at the Eisteddfod, said the channel "won't apologise" for introducing some English on the channel, and its heads are starting a discussion on English usage.
There was some criticism of an English-speaking character on soap Pobol y Cwm, with Ms Peacock adding: "It is important to us that the whole of Wales is seen and heard on S4C.
"We try hard to ensure that every form of Welsh spoken in the country is reflected on our programmes in one way or the other.
"We also try to help our communities and encourage people to learn Welsh and go out and speak Welsh in our communities."
Ms Peacock said S4C will not apologise for using more English in its shows
Ms Peacock admitted that the introduction of a non Welsh-speaking character in Cwmderi - the fictional village in Pobol y Cwm - had "created a bit of a stir".
She said the intention was for the character to learn Welsh, and they will use more and more as time goes on.
"It is important to see how we can support the learners among us," she added, saying the flagship soap opera was "a good place to do that".
Ms Peacock said this attitude extends to the channel in general, saying: "If someone comes to us and does an interview and they are perhaps not confident and use a little English in their Welsh, that is absolutely fine".
She said it was important for viewers to hear that "people on the street or in the shop" use a few English words sometimes in Welsh.
"Some people - in Cardiff for example - use a lot of English in their language, but it is Welsh," she added.
"It's a natural form of the language. We want to reflect all types of Welsh on S4C."
However Ieuan Wyn of Cylch yr Iaith is concerned about the implications of the move.
"The interference of the English language is the biggest threat to the Welsh language," said Mr Wyn.
"You have to protect the cultural integrity and Welsh life and culture," Mr Wyn told BBC Radio Cymru's Dros Frecwast.
"The argument that English must be used for the sake of what they call 'social reality', well, not only is it not logical, but it is dangerous," he said.
"If you base the strategy on that and then Welsh is still losing out in the community, and communities are becoming increasingly bilingual, then ultimately that would lead to the increase in the use of English to reflect that."
He said S4C should be "protecting the Welsh language", and "promoting its status as a natural medium for all aspects of our lives as Welsh speakers.
"That is, seeing Wales and the world through a Welsh language window."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-66447811
|
news_uk-wales-66447811
|
|
Facts are up against fear ahead of Fukushima water release - BBC News
|
2023-08-24
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Locals struggle to believe the plant's treated radioactive water is safe to pump into the Pacific Ocean.
|
Asia
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Shaimaa Khalil visits the treatment plant to see how it works
In a white coat and gloves, Ai Kimura is cutting up a fish sample at the Tarachine lab, about an hour's drive from the now-crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on Japan's eastern coast.
Four times a year, Ms Kimura and her team of volunteers collect samples of fish from the waters around the plant. They have been doing this since the lab was founded in 2011, just months after a devastating tsunami flooded the reactors, causing a radiation leak.
Except Ms Kimura is not a scientist - and neither are any of the women who run the non-profit lab, whose name Tarachine is derived from the term for "mother" in old Japanese. Shaken after the tsunami, Ms Kimura says locals started the lab to find out what was safe to feed their children because it was hard to come by information on the risks of radiation. So they asked technical experts to train them on how to test for radioactive substances and log the readings, raised funds and began educating themselves.
It was the decision of a shattered community that never thought an accident at the nuclear power plant was possible. Now, 12 years on, they again find themselves struggling to trust the Japanese government as it insists it's safe to release treated radioactive water from the plant into the Pacific Ocean.
Earlier this month, Japan received the green light to start pumping more than a million tonnes - about the same volume as 500 Olympic-size pools - of the treated water that has been used to cool the melted reactors. It has accumulated in more than a 1,000 tanks and now, as they reach capacity, it needs to go somewhere.
Japan's nuclear regulator has given Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings (Tepco), which runs the plant, the go-ahead. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi said the watchdog's two-year review found that the plan complies with international standards and the treated water will have "a negligible radiological impact on people and the environment". Neighbouring South Korea too delivered a similar assessment, despite sticking to a ban on some Japanese food imports. China and Hong Kong have announced similar bans.
But the people who live in and around Fukushima are not convinced.
Volunteers from Tarachine collect samples from the sea around the Fukushima plant
"We still don't know the extent to which the contaminated water has been treated. That's why we oppose the release," Ms Kimura says, adding that many local families are worried about the discharge of the treated water.
Tepco has been filtering the water to remove more than 60 radioactive substances, but the water will not be entirely radiation-free. It will have tritium and carbon-14, radioactive isotopes of hydrogen and carbon respectively that cannot be easily removed from water. But experts say they are not a danger unless consumed in large quantities because they emit very low levels of radiation. That's also why before the filtered water is released it will go through another phase of treatment where it's diluted with seawater to reduce the remaining substances' concentrations.
Japan's government has said that by the end of the filtration and testing process, the treated water will be no different than the water released by nuclear plants around the world.
But the facts are up against fear in Fukushima, where the reminders of the "invisible enemy" - as many here call radiation - are constant.
After the disaster the government declared a 30km (22 miles) exclusion area around the plant, evacuating more than 150,000 people. Although a lot has changed, whole neighbourhoods are still empty and greenery covers the roofs and windows of long-abandoned homes. Signs on storefronts have faded away but metal barriers and yellow tape warning people to keep out remain on the narrow, deserted streets.
Even the Tarachine lab is proof of how much the community fears the "invisible enemy", despite assurances to the contrary.
Ai Kimura tests samples for radiation at the Tarachine lab
In the main lab, one volunteer is chopping cabbage before taking it to be measured for gamma radiation, and another is treating water before the sample is tested. In the hallway there are bags of soil and dust from vacuum cleaners that have been used in homes nearby. At the back of the room, food samples are dried before they're tested for radiation. On the walls, there are charts and maps of the nuclear plant and the sea around it, with markings in various colours to show the degree of radiation and how far it has travelled.
The women collect samples but they also test material sent to them by local people. "Some families brought us acorns [to test]," Ms Kimura said. "In Japan we make spinning tops from acorns with toothpicks. The government wouldn't think to check that. We were asked by some mothers to measure the radiation levels at their local park."
The lab measures all sorts of samples for radioactive substances such as strontium-90, tritium and caesium-134 and 137, tracking their levels over the years.
"We upload all our findings on our website so anybody can find it," Ms Kimura says. "We have been able to confirm that radioactive substances have decreased gradually in the food we measure. If they release the water, it's ultimately undoing the power of nature that brought it to this level."
She sees the contentious plan as a big step backwards. She says there are still "lingering emotional wounds" from the 2011 disaster and this decision is reopening them.
The plan - in the works for two years now - is a necessary step in the lengthy and costly clean-up, experts say. For the plant to be decommissioned, the radioactive debris inside the melted reactors must be removed. And to do that, they must first discharge the water that has been used to cool the reactors since a tsunami crippled the plant in 2011.
The treated radioactive water is being stored in more than 1,000 tanks
In March, Tepco's boss Akira Ono told the Associated Press that they're only now beginning to fully comprehend the damage inside the reactors. The most pressing task, he said, was to safely start releasing the water to clear the area around the plant. They also need to make room for more water because the melted debris needs to be cooled throughout.
"The real problem is not the actual physical effect of the radiation. It's our fear of it," says molecular pathology expert Gerry Thomas, who worked with Japanese scientists on radiation research and advised the IAEA as well.
She says the science was lost among warring nuclear activists soon after the disaster, and to reassure a shocked and terrified population, the government went to great lengths to show they were taking all the necessary precautions.
"The politicians are trying to prove they're cautious and, you know, they're looking after everybody. But actually, the message that people receive is, well, this stuff must be really, really dangerous."
And now the fear - and the lack of trust - is proving hard to shake off.
Worse, it's also affecting livelihoods. Fishermen say that discharging the treated water will tarnish the reputation of their catch, driving prices and already struggling businesses down. They say the industry here never recovered fully since the disaster and is still dependent on government subsidies.
Inside the nuclear plant, Tepco official Kazuo Yamanaka points to two fish tanks - one where flatfish swim in regular sea water, and another where they are in water with the same radiation levels as that which will be pumped into the ocean. He says the fish are closely monitored - while there is a rise in tritium levels inside them at first, it plateaus and then the fish flush it out of their system once they're back in standard sea water.
"I am a radiation expert, so I know that tritium has very little effect on the human body and living organisms," he said. "We are all concerned about the same thing - radiation - and that is why we are so anxious. I hope that these data and images will help to reassure people a little.
Toru Takahashi, whose family has been fishing for three generations, is far from reassured: "We're against it. We're already seeing the negative effects. We've seen contractors who say they won't buy Fukushima products."
Toru Takahashi (left) says the the fear has already hurt business
For him, this is personal. Giving up the family business is not an option, he says, as he supervises port staff who unload buckets of fish to wash and make ready for auction and then the market.
He says it's a fraction of the business they had before the 2011 disaster: "We are still at 300 million yen [a year], including all the small boats. Before, we made around 700 million yen [£3.9m; $5.1m]."
He fears it might get worse once the water is released, given the import bans already announced by China and South Korea.
When asked if sound science is enough to overcome these concerns, Mr Yamanaka admitted that "we cannot control the reputation, no matter how nicely we dress it up", adding that "we believe our efforts will one day settle these arguments".
"I know we've lost the trust of the people - it'll take time to get it back."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-66173431
|
news_world-asia-66173431
|
|
Fake meat: As Beyond Meat sales fall, have we had our fill? - BBC News
|
2023-08-12
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Fast food supplier Beyond Meat has seen its sales fall - but is it cost, taste or nutrition that is putting people off?
|
Business
|
Beyond Meat is one of the UK's most well-known brands, supplying McDonald's (pictured) and KFC
When it comes to fake meat Tom Crawford-Clarke has "eaten everything available over the years". But he has fallen out of love with it now.
"We generally favoured Quorn products, Linda McCartney things, Beyond Burgers, Moving Mountains. I always thought they were relatively tasty," he said.
Fake meat is plant-based protein made to resemble burgers or sausages and often marketed as a healthier alternative to the real thing.
But dentist Tom said there was "always something" in the back of his mind about what was in them.
"You don't know what they are, you trust they've been investigated but when a burger oozes this red liquid which is meant to be blood, you wonder what it is," he said.
The 36-year-old from London is referring to the beetroot juice used in Beyond Burgers to mimic blood.
But Beyond Meat's quest for perfection has left shoppers cold. Despite counting actor Leonardo Di Caprio as one of its investors and being one of the UK's most prominent brands, supplying McDonald's and KFC, it has seen a 30% fall in sales.
Indeed a new global survey of 1,000 consumers for vegan firm Strong Roots found that despite 61% of consumers increasing their plant-based intake, 40% are reducing or cutting out fake meat from their diets.
Almost half (47%) said taste was behind the decision, followed by 36% who cited artificial additives and another 36% who stated it was the processed nature of the products which changed their habits.
The drop in demand, partly down to squeezed household budgets, has come at a difficult time for the meat substitute industry.
In June, Meatless Farm went under, making its 50-strong workforce redundant, although the business was bought out of administration in August and its products are back on sale.
In May sausage maker Heck shelved production on the majority of its vegan ranges. Consumers, co-founder Jamie Keeble said, still wanted "something that reminds them of meat".
Beyond Meat's sales may have dropped but This says its plant-based sales are still strong
The term "plant-based" was coined in the 1980s but did not seriously surface on the world stage until 2015, according to the market intelligence agency Mintel.
By that time fake meat products were hitting supermarkets shelves, joining Linda McCartney's ranges which had dominated the sector from the early 1990s. The market exploded - in 2019 almost a quarter of all new UK food products were labelled vegan and nearly two-thirds of Britons put meat substitutes in their shopping baskets.
The projections were for a stellar future - market and consumer data provider Statista suggested the meat-substitute market in the UK would grow annually by 17.5% over the next five years.
But perhaps as an indicator of what was to come, Beyond Meat suffered a slump in sales last year, blaming obstacles with consumers around taste, perceptions of health benefits and price.
The company that ended its first day trading up more than 160% after its New York stock market debut in 2019, saw its shares fall by almost 12% on Monday after it reported a plunge in sales of almost a third.
Certainly the market has cooled - the major UK supermarkets have culled the number of meat-free ranges by 10.9% during the six months to April and research company Kantar said there had been a 7% fall in volume sales over the year until July. But not all fake meat firms are failing.
Andy Shovel is the co-founder and co-CEO of THIS. The self-described "plant-based sausage salesman" presides over a company projected to turnover £20m this year, up from £13m last year. Stocked in most of the leading supermarkets it is ranked third for meat-free sales in the UK, behind Quorn and Richmond.
"We're really bucking the trend in terms of plant-based companies," he told the BBC. Compared with Beyond Meat, This products are cheaper - two of their burgers cost £3.50 in Tesco, whereas two Beyond Meat Burgers will set you back £4.30. In a cost-of-living crisis that is a significant difference.
"Consumers are more aware of the environmental and ethical impact of meat production now," Mr Shovel said from his Hammersmith base, where the company employs 60 people. "You can't put that back in its box."
What the industry was witnessing was a "kink in the graph rather than a catastrophic failure in the market" he said, comparing it to the craft beer sector when an over proliferation of brands went into consolidation. "I'd say that's where we're at," he added.
Food and drink analyst Hamish Renton, from HRA Global, said in the early days there had been too many marketing dollars chasing not a lot of sales. "Sales were always quite modest, they were fast growing but the expectations of shoppers were very high because of the hype."
Then came taste. "A burger is complicated," Mr Renton said. "It's quite tender but crispy, it's hard to replicate that and the first go at it was not so good. Normally you'd take two to three years to deliver a product and these were being done in months. It was a bit of a bunfight."
Many of the products were triumphs: "Getting a product to bleed, hats off. But just because we can, doesn't mean we should," he added.
The Vegan Society said fake meat products fall into the ultra processed food category which can be a good source of protein often lower in saturated fat.
But the society's nutritionist Andrea Rymer said although they can be a healthier option, consumers "must be mindful of nutritional variations between products".
"Added ingredients such as palm oil, coconut oil and salt will reduce its nutritional quality, increasing saturated fat and salt content," she said.
Mr Renton agreed nutrition was a big factor in putting people off fake meat. "Some serious chemistry needs to go on here - fillers, stabilisers, colourings. But the overall trend in food is for it to be clean. People don't want preservatives or things that alter the pH in what they eat."
Dentist Tom Crawford Clarke summarises the argument for many who have stopped eating meat: "For me, being vegetarian - it's about living from a sustainable point of view. Animal welfare is huge. When I shop I'm not trying to find a replacement for meat, I'm trying to find a different way of eating."
• None BBC Radio 4 - All Consuming - Just how healthy are plant-based meat alternatives-
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66438807
|
news_business-66438807
|
|
Jordan Peterson: Critics complain over 'misleading' book cover quotes - BBC News
|
2023-08-16
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Two journalists say quotes used on a Jordan Peterson book jacket misrepresented their reviews.
|
Entertainment & Arts
|
Jordan Peterson is a Canadian psychology professor who developed a following on YouTube
Two critics who reviewed a book by Jordan Peterson have said their articles were quoted on its cover in a misleading way.
Quotes from reviews published in the Times and the New Statesman were used on the cover of the paperback edition of Peterson's Beyond Order.
The book cover quoted a line from the Times saying the book was "a philosophy of the meaning of life".
But it didn't mention that the review described that philosophy as "bonkers".
Peterson and his publishers Penguin have not yet responded to the BBC's request for comment.
The Canadian psychology professor has gained a loyal following partly due to his opinions on so-called "culture war" issues such as white privilege, gender-neutral pronouns and gender roles.
But the 61-year-old is a controversial figure who is derided by others for his views.
Beyond Order: 12 More Rules For Life, which was published in paperback last May, quoted Johanna Thomas-Corr's review in the New Statesman on its cover.
She said the quote that was selected to market the book was a "gross misrepresentation" of her 2,500-word review.
Thomas-Corr, who is also literary editor of the Sunday Times, posted on X (formerly Twitter): "I don't have it in me to write some causally witty thing about how horrifying this is." She added that her quote "should be removed".
Thomas-Corr's review appeared in the New Statesman, a left-leaning current affairs magazine, in March 2021, when the original hardback edition of the book was published.
Her article referred to what she called the "inadvertent comedy" of the book, and said Peterson spent several pages "ranting".
Her lengthy review also said: "His unwillingness to address detail or confront counter-arguments feels cowardly.
"He repeatedly identifies masculinity with order and femininity with chaos and makes it clear which side he feels we should favour."
But Thomas-Corr's review did feature some praise, and it was these passages that were quoted on the paperback's cover.
One line quoted Thomas-Corr saying it was "genuinely enlightening and often poignant".
Another said: "Here is a father figure who takes his audience seriously. And here is a grander narrative about truth, being, order and chaos that stretches back to the dawn of human consciousness."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. WATCH: Jordan Peterson speaking to the BBC in 2019
Elsewhere, the book jacket featured a line from James Marriott's review in the Times, which said: "A philosophy of the meaning of life... the most lucid and touching prose Peterson has ever written."
However, Marriot has also also suggested his review had been quoted selectively to "disguise" the fact it was largely negative.
In a since-deleted post, Marriott jokingly praised the "incredible work from Jordan Peterson's publisher", adding: "My review of this mad book was probably the most negative thing I have ever written."
The full-length review described Peterson's prose as "repetitious, unvariegated, rhythmless, opaque and possessed of a suffocating sense of its own importance".
Only in a paragraph praising one particular chapter did Marriott say the text was the best prose Peterson had written.
Marriott's full review otherwise said the book "nails together shower thoughts, random prejudices and genuine insights into a decidedly rickety structure", and repeatedly used the word "bonkers" to describe Peterson's philosophy.
At the time of writing, Marriott's review still features on Penguin's online page for the book.
Beyond Order: 12 More Rules For Life was a follow-up to Peterson's 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos.
Another review by Suzanne Moore in the Telegraph said Peterson's book featured "hokey wisdom combined with good advice".
The book jacket cut out the word "hokey" so the quote read only: "Wisdom combined with good advice."
However, Moore gave a positive review to the book overall, awarding it four stars.
Although it is normal for publishers to use techniques to increase sales, the complaints could raise questions in the publishing industry about selective quoting.
The matter does not fall under the remit of the Advertising Standards Authority because the quotes feature on a book jacket rather than in an advertisement.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66520089
|
news_entertainment-arts-66520089
|
|
What can Rishi Sunak do to tackle inflation? - BBC News
|
2023-08-16
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
There are some short-term levers the government could pull but they all involve tough political choices.
|
UK Politics
|
"Halving inflation this year" is one of the prime minister's top five priorities.
It's currently stuck at 8.7%.
When Rishi Sunak is asked how he'll meet his goal, he points to raising interest rates.
Something the Bank of England, not the government, controls.
The truth is there are some short-term levers government could pull.
The problem is they - as well as interest rates - all involve unpalatable political choices.
The Bank of England and government's argument for hiking interest rates - which some economists dispute - is that it makes borrowing more expensive.
That means people and businesses have less disposable income, less ability and incentive to spend, which pushes down the demand for goods and services.
If there's less demand for something, or more of it, the price usually goes down.
The downside of raising interest rates is it inflicts financial pain on anyone with loans, mortgages or credit card debt.
It means government debt, which is paid off by our taxes, also becomes a lot more expensive.
Raising interest rates also doesn't impact everybody equally - and so the impact on inflation is staggered.
ONS data shows more households own their home outright (37%) than with a mortgage or loan (26%).
So that 37% won't have less cash to spend.
Any of the 26% who are on a fixed rate mortgage that isn't up for renewal won't be hit just yet either.
The rest of the population privately rent, or are in social rent, so could well end up spending less due to rising rents.
Another question around rising interest rates is what it means for Rishi Sunak's second priority: growing the economy?
The strategy to get inflation down relies on stopping people from spending as much.
What does that mean for businesses? If people spend less in businesses, what does that mean for jobs? If people end up out of work, what does that mean for the government's welfare bill? And, therefore, for that third priority of the prime minister's: reducing national debt.
The increased cost of borrowing from high interest rates can also disincentivise investment in business, which can also lead to lower economic growth.
The tricky balancing act between inflation and recession is getting worse.
So what is in the government's power?
One quick lever the government can pull is taxes.
Raising taxes is another way to stop groups of people from spending more.
But that's an unpalatable political choice too.
Mr Sunak has previously made it clear, and pledged in the past, that he wants to cut - not raise - taxes before the next election.
Some Tory MPs have been repeatedly calling for tax cuts.
While we do hear ministers talk about making "efficiencies", departments talking about making cuts is - again - an unpalatable narrative ahead of an election.
Mr Sunak has said, for now, that he wants to make sure government is "responsible" with borrowing.
Another quick lever would be price controls - the government setting limits on price increases.
Mr Sunak says ministers are "looking at" supermarkets to make sure they are behaving responsibly, for example.
But Number 10 have been clear they are not introducing price caps and any such schemes would be at retailers' discretion.
The governor of the Bank of England has suggested workers shouldn't ask for excessive pay rises.
The government has also been very reluctant to hike public sector wages, especially if funded by more borrowing.
Both argue giving people more money in their pockets could fuel inflation: if people's wages keep up with rising prices, they can buy the same things, so demand (and prices) remain similar.
In blunter terms - their strategy of reducing inflation by reducing demand means people need to be able to afford less.
This argument has led to strikes in multiple sectors, with unions arguing this is unfair for workers.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Sunak makes five pledges on the NHS, economy and migrants
This is also a tricky balancing act here for the economy.
If people can afford less: what does that mean for growing the economy? And jobs?
Potentially putting people out of work has a government price tag too.
So what about pushing supply up, rather than demand down, to lower prices?
Supply-side reforms are, in simple terms, decisions that could make industries more productive to increase the supply of goods and services - and grow the economy too.
Free-market examples include things like cutting business taxes, regulation, red tape, or even certain worker protections or welfare benefits. Or increasing migration for certain sectors.
State-intervention examples could be building more houses, investing in infrastructure, or investing in homegrown energy supplies like nuclear power or renewables.
Clearly, any of these involve political choices too.
But they also take time to come into effect.
The government - and Labour - have ruled out direct support to help people with mortgages, saying this would fuel inflation - and instead point to existing benefits for the most vulnerable.
Ministers are continuing to point to interest rates as the solution, though most are reluctant to admit that involves a lot of pain for it to work.
It's important to remember when the government says it can't do something that what they're usually referring to is a choice.
Each choice comes with its own shade of political thorniness, and potentially means trading the prime minister's priorities off against each other.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65990413
|
news_uk-politics-65990413
|
|
Rishi Sunak: I care about reaching net zero carbon emissions - BBC News
|
2023-08-02
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The PM says he listens to his daughters' concerns about climate change but they are not "eco-zealots".
|
UK Politics
|
Rishi Sunak has insisted he cares about reaching net zero but that the 2050 target needs to be achieved in "a proportionate and pragmatic way".
The prime minister has faced criticism from environmental groups and some of his own MPs that he is not committed to tackling climate change.
Mr Sunak told LBC he wanted to leave the environment in "a better state than we found it in" for his two daughters.
But he added that the UK would still need fossil fuels in the future.
Asked if he was confident he could win over his environmentally conscious daughters, Mr Sunak said they were not "eco-zealots" and like most people, were "open to sensible, practical arguments".
He has previously described his daughters as "passionate environmentalists", who have often asked him what he is doing about climate change.
Mr Sunak is facing pressure from some Conservative MPs to review the government's green policies, after the party's surprise win in the Uxbridge by-election, when it capitalised on anger over London's Ultra Low Emissions Zone (Ulez).
However, he has said the government is committed to reaching net zero by 2050 - which means no longer adding to the total amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which are increasing global temperatures.
Other leading climate campaigners in the Conservative Party have criticised Mr Sunak's commitment to environmental issues.
Lord Goldsmith recently resigned from the government, accusing the prime minister of "apathy" over climate change.
The prime minister has also attracted criticism for the number of domestic flights he has taken to travel for government business across the UK.
Earlier this week he defended flying to Scotland, to announce support for a carbon capture project, as "an efficient use of time for the person running the country".
"If your approach to climate change is to say that no one should go on holiday, no one should go on a plane, I think you are completely and utterly wrong," he told BBC's Good Morning Scotland.
In his interview with LBC he also revealed he was taking his family on a summer holiday to California this week, including a visit to Disneyland.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. The prime minister is due to head on a family holiday this Thursday
Mr Sunak has announced the government is granting 100 new North Sea oil and gas licences, as well as supporting a carbon capture project in the north east of Scotland.
The decision was criticised by environmental campaigners, who said it would "send a wrecking ball through the UK's climate commitments".
Conservative MP Chris Skidmore said the move was "the wrong decision at precisely the wrong time" and "on the wrong side of history".
However, Mr Sunak said: "I 100% believe that what I'm doing is right," adding that even after meeting the 2050 target the UK would still need fossil fuels.
He argued it was "sensible" to use "the energy we have here at home", as this would be better for jobs and avoid the environmental cost of shipping energy from abroad, as well as reducing the UK's reliance on other countries.
Meanwhile, Energy Security Secretary Grant Shapps is meeting oil and gas bosses in Downing Street to talk about the government's decision to invest in home-grown energy sources, including renewables and North Sea oil and gas.
Mr Sunak is also facing pressure over measures to move towards electric cars.
Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch is understood to have raised concerns about rules due to come into effect next year that require car manufacturers to sell a certain proportion of electric models.
From January, 22% of vehicles sold have to be zero emission, or car makers could be hit with fines.
Some manufacturers have been calling for a softening of the rules, and as first reported by the Politico website, Ms Badenoch has passed on their concerns to her cabinet colleagues.
But Labour said the sector was "crying out for certainty" and Ms Badenoch's reported comments were a "threat to investment".
Ministers have insisted the government remains committed to banning the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030, despite calls from some Tory MPs for a delay.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66382265
|
news_uk-politics-66382265
|
|
How big are Donald Trump's legal problems? - BBC News
|
2023-08-02
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
He has been criminally indicted four times and will have a series of trials to attend in 2024.
|
US & Canada
|
Donald Trump has been criminally indicted four times, and will have a series of trials to attend in 2024 as he runs again for the White House.
His candidacy now also faces a challenge from the Colorado Supreme Court, which has ruled Mr Trump cannot run for president because he engaged in an insurrection with his actions in the days leading to the US Capitol riot on 6 January 2021.
Here's a guide to the five cases and what they could mean for the former president and current frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination.
The Colorado Supreme Court declared Mr Trump ineligible for the presidency under the US Constitution's insurrection clause - Section 3 of the 14th Amendment - which disqualifies anyone who engages in insurrection from holding office.
Voting 4-3, the state's top court found Mr Trump had incited an insurrection in his role in the 6 January 2021 storming of the Capitol by his supporters. Mr Trump has repeatedly denied responsibility for the riot.
The bombshell ruling directs the Colorado secretary of state to exclude Mr Trump from the state's Republican primary on 5 March, where registered party members vote on their preferred candidate for president. But it could also affect the general election in Colorado next November.
It does not stop Mr Trump running in other states.
Similar lawsuits to to remove the Republican from the ballot in Minnesota, New Hampshire and Michigan have failed.
What will his defence be?
During a one-week trial in Colorado in November, the former president's lawyers argued Mr Trump should not be disqualified because he did not bear responsibility for the riot.
Following the Colorado Supreme Court's decision Mr Trump's campaign said immediately it would appeal the decision to the US Supreme Court, where it's likely a similar argument would be made.
His legal spokeswoman Alina Habba said the ruling "attacks the very heart of this nation's democracy."
"It will not stand, and we trust that the Supreme Court will reverse this unconstitutional order," she said.
The Colorado Supreme Court put its ruling on hold until at least 4 January. If Mr Trump appeals, that pause will continue until the country's top court weighs in.
If the Supreme Court does take up the case, which experts say is likely, it could be forced to decide Mr Trump's eligibility beyond Colorado to all 50 states.
That court has a 6-3 conservative majority with three justices appointed by the former president himself.
What are the charges in Georgia 2020 election investigation?
This is the most recent indictment, the one that saw the first ever mugshot of a former US president after Donald Trump turned himself in at the Fulton County Jail on 24 August. The charges for Mr Trump - listed now as inmate no. P01135809 on Fulton County Jail records - were unsealed last month.
Mr Trump and 18 others are named in a 41-count indictment for alleged attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss in the state.
The investigation was sparked in part by a leaked phone call in which the former president asked Georgia's top election official to "find 11,780 votes".
Mr Trump was hit with 13 criminal counts including an alleged violation of Georgia's Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (Rico).
His other charges include solicitation of violation of oath by a public officer, conspiring to commit impersonating a public officer, conspiring to commit forgery, conspiring to commit false statements, and writing and conspiring to file false documents.
What are the potential penalties?
The racketeering charge, which is mostly used in organised crime cases, carries a maximum 20-year jail sentence.
Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis would need to prove that there was a pattern of corruption from Mr Trump and his allies aimed at overturning the election result in order to bring a conviction.
As for making false statements, that carries a penalty of between one to five years in prison or a fine.
And a person convicted of first-degree criminal solicitation to commit election fraud will face between one to three years in jail.
What will his defence be?
Mr Trump has repeatedly denied wrongdoing in the case and has entered a plea of not guilty.
He has defended the phone call in question as "perfect" and accused Ms Willis of launching a politically motivated inquiry.
There is no confirmed date for the trial yet.
What are the charges in 2020 election investigation?
Donald Trump has been criminally charged in a separate federal investigation into efforts to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election.
The 45-page indictment contains four counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.
They stem from the former president's actions in the wake of the 2020 election, including around the 6 January Capitol riot, which occurred while Congress was meeting to certify Joe Biden's victory.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch the moment Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol building
What are the potential penalties?
But there are logistical, security and political questions around whether Mr Trump would serve time even if charged and convicted.
What will his defence be?
Mr Trump was formally charged in court in Washington DC on 3 August. A tentative trial date is scheduled for 4 March 2024.
He argues that the charges are an attempt to prevent him from winning the 2024 presidential election. Before leaving Washington after his arraignment hearing, he told journalists the case "is a persecution of a political opponent".
Mr Trump has repeatedly denied responsibility for the riot on 6 January 2021.
His legal team is also likely to argue that the former president is not directly responsible for the violence that unfolded that day because he told supporters to march "peacefully" on the Capitol and is protected by First Amendment free speech rights.
What are the charges in classified documents case?
Mr Trump is facing 40 criminal charges over his alleged mishandling of classified material after he left the White House.
Thousands of documents were seized in an FBI search at his Florida estate Mar-a-Lago last year, including about 100 that were marked as classified.
The charges are related to both his handling of the documents and his alleged efforts to obstruct the FBI's attempts to retrieve them.
The majority of the counts, are for the wilful retention of national defence information, which falls under the Espionage Act.
There are then eight individual counts which include conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding a document or record and making false statements.
Will Donald Trump go to jail?
These charges could - in theory - lead to substantial prison time if Mr Trump is convicted.
But the logistics, security and politics of jailing a former president mean a conventional prison sentence is seen as unlikely by many experts.
Looking at the letter of the law, the counts under the Espionage Act, for example, each carry a maximum sentence of 10 years.
Other counts, related to conspiracy and withholding or concealing documents, each carry maximum sentences of 20 years.
Counts relating to a scheme to conceal, and false statements and representations carry sentences of five years each.
But while there is no doubt the charges are serious, many questions remain unanswered about the potential penalties should he be convicted.
What will his defence be?
Mr Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges and the trial is set to begin on 20 May 2024.
The former president has offered shifting defences for the material found at his property, mostly arguing that he declassified it. No evidence has been provided that this was possible or is true.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Trump supporters outside court: 'They're afraid of him'
His lawyers may argue in court that Mr Trump was unfairly targeted and that other politicians, namely Hillary Clinton, Mike Pence and current President Joe Biden, were never charged for their handling of classified documents.
But experts say the former president's case is different in a number of ways. For one, other politicians were willing to return whatever documents they had, while prosecutors allege Mr Trump resisted.
What are the charges in New York hush money case?
Mr Trump is facing 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.
The charges stem from a hush-money payment made before the 2016 election to the adult film star Stormy Daniels, who says she had an adulterous affair with Mr Trump.
While such a payment is not illegal, spending money to help a presidential campaign but not disclosing it violates federal campaign finance law.
What are the potential penalties?
Each of the charges carries a maximum of four years in prison, although a judge could sentence Mr Trump to probation if he is convicted.
Legal experts have told BBC News they think it is unlikely Mr Trump will be jailed if convicted in this case and a fine is the more likely outcome.
What will his defence be?
Mr Trump has pleaded not guilty and is due to stand trial in the case on 25 March 2024.
He denies ever having sexual relations with Ms Daniels and says the payment was made to protect his family from false allegations, not to sway the election.
Do you have any questions relating to Donald Trump's legal cases?
In some cases your question will be published, displaying your name, age and location as you provide it, unless you state otherwise. Your contact details will never be published. Please ensure you have read our terms & conditions and privacy policy.
Use this form to ask your question:
If you are reading this page and can't see the form you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question or send them via email to YourQuestions@bbc.co.uk. Please include your name, age and location with any question you send in.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61084161
|
news_world-us-canada-61084161
|
|
Beyoncé pays tribute to dancer fatally stabbed while dancing to her music - BBC News
|
2023-08-02
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
New York Police are investigating the death of O'Shae Sibley, a gay man, as a possible hate crime.
|
US & Canada
|
This tribute to Mr Sibley was posted to Beyonce's website
Beyoncé has paid tribute to O'Shae Sibley, a professional dancer who was fatally stabbed in Brooklyn, New York while dancing to her music.
Mr Sibley, 28, was voguing while he and friends filled up at a petrol station when men approached and told them to stop, friends reported.
The men began using slurs and Mr Sibley, a gay man, confronted them, according to video of the altercation.
No arrests have yet been made, but police said on Tuesday that they were seeking a teenage boy in connection with the killing. The New York Police department has also said it is investigating Mr Sibley's death as a possible hate crime.
Mr Sibley's friends told US media that while some of their group filled up their car at a Mobil petrol station in Brooklyn on Saturday, the professional dancer and choreographer played Beyoncé's latest album, Renaissance, and danced to the music. Renaissance, is considered a celebration of black and queer dance culture, featuring artists like Big Freedia, Syd and Honey Dijon.
After a group of men approached Mr Sibley and his friends, surveillance video appears to show the two groups in a heated argument.
The confrontation escalated, and one man stabbed Mr Sibley, police said.
Otis Pena, one of Mr Sibley's friends, pressed on his wound to stop the bleeding before Mr Sibley was taken to Maimonides Medical Center, the New York Times reported, where he was pronounced dead.
"They murdered him because he's gay, because he stood up for his friends," Mr Pena said in a Facebook video. "They killed my brother right in front of me," he wrote in another post.
Mr Sibley's death has rocked the LGBTQ+ community in New York, where friends said he had moved to continue his dance career, and beyond.
Philadelphia dance organisation Philadanco, which said Mr Sibley had been involved with them since he was a teenager, released a statement calling his death "absolutely heartbreaking".
"We believe no one deserves to be targeted for simply being themselves and living in their truth," the statement said.
Mr Sibley was also recognised by New York's leaders, including Mayor Eric Adams and Governor Kathy Hochul, who wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, that "discrimination, hate, and violence" have no place in our state.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66388976
|
news_world-us-canada-66388976
|
|
Rishi Sunak gambles as he walks towards blizzard of criticism - BBC News
|
2023-09-21
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Rishi Sunak had avoided stoking Tory infighting, but has now done just that, says our political editor.
|
UK Politics
|
Behind his mild-mannered demeanour, Rishi Sunak's announcement was an excoriating demolition of the Conservative governments that came before his, some of which he was a member of.
Boris Johnson didn't get a name check as the prime minister outlined a major shift in green policies, but boy his ideas and instincts were shredded; painted as shallow and not thought through.
In the news conference room in No 9 Downing Street, Mr Sunak stood in front of a new slogan with - and I know this is niche - a new font.
"Long term decisions for a brighter future," it read - expect to see that rather prominently around the place at the Conservative party conference in Manchester in ten days' time.
Mr Sunak framed this announcement as a blunt, direct and pragmatic clearing up job that also illustrated his political creed - willing to embrace controversy to deliver what he believes is a hard-headed necessity.
He sought to walk towards the blizzard of criticism - an unlikely alliance taking in Ford and the National Trust among many others - rather than cower from it.
No 10 certainly hadn't planned for their ideas to get leaked, as they were to the BBC, and were mighty narked that they had.
But the rows about the substance of what they were saying were expected, and embraced.
This is the beginning of a wider political strategy.
Further speeches will follow this autumn on wider themes; expect more leaning in from the prime minister towards a more aggressive approach.
On these green themes, he and his advisers hope, beyond those with megaphones and PR departments condemning him today, many might quietly conclude he is on to something and being reasonable.
And when one of the big political parties makes a bit of a splash with a policy launch or change of direction, it is always instructive to closely observe how their opponents react.
Labour's response to this - beyond the predictable criticism of the Conservatives - was cautious. There wasn't an instant commitment to reversing all of the Conservative changes.
The party's position on the time to ban new petrol and diesel cars publicly shifted. There was an initial hesitancy about what they would do, before later committing to restoring the ban from 2030, rather than 2035.
In other words, Labour were forced to rapidly work out how to respond, and the space for a political argument is opening up; a wedge between them.
Now, the big question hovers. Will Mr Sunak's pitch be popular?
Folk in government are already pointing to a poll they claim suggests it is. Others point to polling which hints at the opposite.
In short, for Mr Sunak, this is a gamble.
Having assiduously avoided stoking public rows within the Conservative Party for the last year, he has now chosen to do just that.
Those rows extend to parliament, and to the country.
But a prime minister miles behind their opponents, with an election on the horizon, has no choice but to gamble.
Sign up for our morning newsletter and get BBC News in your inbox.
• None Starmer meets Macron for 'get to know you' talks
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66873471
|
news_uk-politics-66873471
|
|
Rishi Sunak delays petrol car ban in major shift on green policies - BBC News
|
2023-09-21
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The prime minister claims the changes will support "hard-pressed families" but opponents accuse him of "selling out".
|
UK Politics
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Rishi Sunak has delayed a ban on new petrol and diesel cars in a major change to the government's approach to achieving net zero by 2050.
The prime minister announced exemptions and delays to several key green policies, alongside a 50% increase in cash incentives to replace gas boilers.
The government could not impose "unacceptable costs" linked to reducing emissions on British families, he said.
It's prompted fierce criticism from the opposition and some industry bosses.
Mr Sunak also faced attacks from his own party, but many Conservative MPs came out in favour of the new direction, alongside some in the car industry.
The changes come as Mr Sunak seeks to create dividing lines with opposition parties ahead of a general election, expected next year.
Framing the changes as "pragmatic and proportionate", the prime minister has unpicked several of Boris Johnson's key policies, many of them launched when Mr Sunak was serving as chancellor.
In a speech from Downing Street on Wednesday, Mr Sunak said moving too fast on green policies "risks losing the consent of the British people".
Among the key changes announced were:
Mr Sunak ran the changes past a hastily organised cabinet meeting on Wednesday morning, after proposals were revealed by the BBC.
Responding to the statement, Labour unequivocally committed itself to keeping the 2030 ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars.
Shadow environment secretary Steve Reed said without the ban the UK would miss its target to hit net zero - this is the point at which a country is no longer adding to the overall amount of harmful greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Mr Reed said the prime minster had "sold out the biggest economic opportunity of the 21st Century" for Britain "to lead the world in transition to well-paid secured new jobs of the green economy".
Scottish First Minister Humza Yousaf told the BBC the move was "utterly unforgiveable" and "very firmly takes the UK out of the global consensus".
Speaking from a UN summit on climate action, which Mr Sunak had declined to attend, Mr Yousaf said: "The same day the whole world is gathered to talk about what more we can do, we have a UK prime minister rolling back on [the UK's] commitments."
The BBC's Chris Mason says Mr Sunak and his advisers will hope that beyond the criticism, many voters might quietly conclude he is onto something and being reasonable.
Mr Sunak's proposals are dividing his party, Parliament, and many in the country, but the PM will be looking at Labour's lead in the opinion polls and concluding he has no choice but to gamble.
And the political choices outlined in his speech preview more announcements later this autumn, as Mr Sunak promised he would set out "a series of long term decisions".
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Rishi Sunak's shift on green policies - what he said then and now
Billions of pounds has already been invested across multiple industries, including car makers and energy firms, in preparation of the previous deadlines.
Korean carmaker Kia, which has plans to launch nine new electric vehicles over the next few years, said the announcement was disappointing as it "alters complex supply chain negotiations and product planning, whilst potentially contributing to consumer and industry confusion".
The chief executive of energy company E.On, Chris Norbury, said it was a "misstep on many levels", adding that it was a "false argument" to suggest green policies can only come at a cost.
"We risk condemning people to many more years of living in cold and draughty homes that are expensive to heat, in cities clogged with dirty air from fossil fuels, missing out on the economic regeneration this ambition brings," Mr Norbury said.
Jaguar Land Rover, which announced hundreds of new jobs in the West Midlands a few days ago, welcomed the change, calling it "pragmatic" and adding that it brings the UK in line with other nations.
"Pragmatic" was also how Toyota described the changes.
Elsewhere, Mr Sunak also suggested he would be "scrapping" a range of proposals which had been "thrown up" by the debate, including hiking up air fares to discourage foreign holidays and taxes on meat consumption. Neither of these had been government policy.
Mr Sunak argued that without transparency and "honest debate" on the impact of green policies there would be a "backlash" against net zero.
But Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey accused Mr Sunak of being "selfish" and said the changes "epitomise his weakness".
"The prime minister's legacy will be the hobbling of our country's future economy as he ran scared from the right wing of his own party," he said.
The UK was now "at the back of the queue as the rest of the world races to embrace the industries of tomorrow", Sir Ed added.
Speaking to the BBC from the UN's Climate Action Summit, Sir Alok Sharma, a former Conservative minister who chaired the COP26 climate summit, said the response from international colleagues at the event had been one of "consternation".
"My concern is whether people now look to us and say, 'Well, if the UK is starting to row back on some of these policies, maybe we should do the same'," he said.
Also speaking from the summit, former US vice president and climate campaigner Al Gore said the announcement marked a "turn back in the wrong direction".
"At times in the past, the UK has been one of the impressive leaders on climate. And so for those who have come to expect that from the UK, it's a particular disappointment," he told the BBC.
Chris Stark, chief executive of the UK's independent Climate Change Committee, said the changes would make it harder for the government to meet legally binding climate goals.
Speaking to Radio 4's Today programme on Thursday, Mr Stark added that the committee had already advised the government in June that it "didn't look like we were on track" to meet 2030 emissions targets, before these changes were announced.
However, the shift in policy has gained support from some within Mr Sunak's party.
Former cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg backed the changes, telling the BBC: "The problem with net zero and having regulations coming in so quickly was that it was a scheme of the elite on the backs of the least well off."
Mr Sunak is instead "going with the grain of the nation and moving for 'intelligent net zero' by 2050 but not putting in costly bans in the next few years."
Sign up for our morning newsletter and get BBC News in your inbox.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66871457
|
news_uk-politics-66871457
|
|
Four sons set out on a perilous migration route. Only one came home - BBC News
|
2023-09-03
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
A survivor tells the story of a five-week ordeal on the North Atlantic passage to Europe.
|
Africa
|
Adama Sarr at home in Senegal. "In the beginning we all had hope," he said.
Adama and Moussa Sarr had lost track of the exact number of days they had been at sea.
The brothers were drifting somewhere off the coast of West Africa, in a traditional Senegalese fishing canoe known as a pirogue. They were two of 39 passengers in total - all malnourished, many close to death.
When a fishing vessel appeared in the distance one day, Adama, 21, was so weak he could only stare, he said. Moussa, 17, slipped into the water to swim.
He would almost certainly have drowned, had the fishing crew not spotted him in the water and plucked him to safety.
When they drew alongside the pirogue, they found Adama and the rest of the survivors and seven bodies. The pirogue had set out from Senegal five weeks earlier, with 101 souls on board.
Pirogues lined up on the beach in Fass Boye. Large pirogues are used for migration voyages
The survivors had drifted hundreds of miles on one of the most dangerous migrant routes in the world - the North Atlantic sea passage from Senegal to the Canary Islands, a Spanish archipelago about 1,000 miles away.
They had left on 10 July, from the coastal village of Fass Boye. Adama and Moussa came from a long line of fishermen in the village. The boys learned to fish together and worked a pirogue together.
But like many young people in Senegal, they felt the pull of Europe. "Everyone wants to go on the boats," Adama said. "It's the thing you're supposed to do."
He was sitting in the shaded courtyard of a family home, safely back in Senegal but noticeably thinner than before. The journey had begun at dusk, he said. He and Moussa, along with two cousins, Pape and Amsoutou, aged 40 and 20, joined the pirogue a little way off the coast as it set off into the night.
Unlike the Mediterranean, there are no patrols on the North Atlantic route - no-one proactively searching for lost or distressed boats. It is easy to founder without being seen. If you miss the Canaries, or Cape Verde, you can drift into the Atlantic and disappear.
For the first three days, Adama and Moussa's pirogue, powered by an outboard motor, battled against strong headwinds. But on the fourth day, the wind died down and the boat began to progress, Adama said. The passengers believed they had only a few more days at sea.
When the sixth day passed with no sight of land, an argument erupted over whether to push on or turn back.
"The captain ruled that we should push on, because we had enough food and water and the wind was quiet," Adama said.
The passengers grew confident again and began to eat lots of food, he said, and they used drinking water to wash their hands for prayers.
It was around day six that the food and water began to run out. There were four children on board, and some older people gave the last of their food to the young. Some hoarded even after people began to die.
Adama couldn't remember the exact date of the first death, but it was shortly after the first week passed, he said - a fishing captain, used to being on the water but not young. It was six more days until the next person died. Then the deaths came every day.
"At first, we said a prayer for each dead person and laid their body onto the ocean," Adama said. "Then later we just threw the bodies into the water because we didn't even have the energy to pray. We just needed to get rid of the corpses."
Adama's mother, Sokhna. "The young are leaving because of poverty and family pressure," she said.
Back in Fass Boye, news was spreading through the village that the boat had not arrived. "We all knew it should be five or six days by boat to Spain," Adama's mother, Sokhna, said. "When a week had passed with no news I stopped eating. I became sick from stress."
Nearly everyone on the pirogue was from Fass Boye or nearby, and everyone in the village seemed to know someone aboard. The families began to do anything they could, alerting local authorities and migration NGOs. The founder of one NGO even tweeted a warning that the boat was missing, two weeks after its departure, but the warning went unheeded and the boat drifted for three more weeks.
On the pirogue, the four men from the family stuck together, but they were growing weaker and weaker. The eldest cousin, Pape, died first, Adama said. "Before he passed, he said, 'If death must happen, I wish that I die and you three survive'."
Then Adama's younger cousin, Amsoutou, disappeared. One morning they woke up and Amsoutou was simply gone.
Adama and Moussa hung on, sipping seawater and baking under the sun. Each night they looked for lights from the Canary Islands but the lights never appeared.
Nobody in Fass Boye seemed to blame the migrants for taking the risk. More than a third of the country lives in poverty, according to the World Bank. The young see few opportunities at home. "Macky Sall sold the ocean," said Assane Niang, a 23-year-old fishing captain, referring to the Senegalese president. Fishermen in Fass Boye say the government has granted too many licences to foreign trawlers, which overfish their waters and deplete the catch.
Niang was sitting on the beach in the shade of a pirogue, knitting generator covers he can sell to help make ends meet. "If we had other alternatives we would stay, but we cannot sit here and do nothing," he said. "We are trying to support our families."
There is social pressure on the young to try to leave on the boats, and there can be stigma attached to those who fail or never try.
So much so that the sea route to Spain has earned its own grim slang in Senegal's Wolof language: "Barcelona or death."
The wooden pirogues the smugglers use are not suitable for the voyage. They are often poorly constructed. They lack navigation technology and are liable to run out of petrol and be pushed off course. And yet the number of migrants using the route to reach Spain has been rising every year.
Young fishermen in Fass Boye say poverty is driving them to risk all on the water.
According to the International Organisation for Migration, about 68,000 people have successfully reached the Canary Islands by boat from West Africa since January 2020 and about 2,700 have been recorded dead or disappeared. But the number of casualties is likely significantly higher, because fatal accidents are more likely to go unrecorded on this route.
"We call them invisible shipwrecks," said Safa Msehli, a spokeswoman for the IOM. "A boat washes ashore with nobody aboard, or a body washes ashore not linked to a known capsized boat."
Part of the problem was that people leaving Fass Boye, particularly fishermen, were too confident in their chances, said Abdou Karim, a lifelong fisherman and the father of Pape Sarr, who died on the boat.
"The fisherman think that, if they get into trouble, they will be able to swim," he said. "But there is a limit. You cannot swim forever. The ocean will not hold you."
And yet, young fishermen in Fass Boye said they were still willing to take the risk.
"I am thinking about going on a boat right now," said Niang, the fisherman on the beach. "The tragedies will not stop us from trying."
About a month into Adama and Moussa's voyage, a large ship appeared on the horizon and more than 20 people decided to to take their chances in the water, Adama said. But he knew it was too far.
Many of the remaining survivors were barely able to move, he said. Then on 14 August, exactly five weeks after they had departed, they caught sight of the Spanish fishing boat that would rescue them.
The Spanish crew helped them aboard and put the seven bodies into plastic sheets. Adama and Moussa lay together on the deck of the fishing vessel.
They had survived the pirogue. But Moussa was too weak. He was the last of the 63 people who died on the voyage.
"He died right there on the deck," Adama said. "In front of my eyes."
Assane Niang, a 23-year-old fisherman, on the beach next to a traditional fishing pirogue.
The survivors were taken to Cape Verde and spent six days receiving medical treatment, before the majority were flown back to Dakar. Those who could walk were given prescriptions and sent back to Fass Boye.
When news had broken of the number of deaths, there was a brief spasm of violent protest in the village that brought the police to town. Some relatives were arrested, including a member of Adama and Moussa's family.
The survivors were harassed in their homes by curious residents and relatives of the dead, families said. So one day after they arrived home, they were all sent back out of Fass Boye to recuperate elsewhere. Adama and his mother Sokhna went to stay with close relatives nearby. They were spending their days resting, praying, and avoiding asking Adama about his ordeal.
The family had lost three sons and got one back. Fass Boye had seen 101 set out on the water and 37 come home.
"It changes a place," said Abdou Karim, Pape's father, silently counting prayer beads in one hand.
"Even one soul is a lot," he said. "And this is more than 60. It is a lot for one place."
Additional reporting by Sira Thierij. Mady Camara contributed to this report. Photographs by Joel Gunter.
|
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-66665299
|
news_world-africa-66665299
|
|
Laura Kuenssberg: Labour - damned if they dare, damned if they don't? - BBC News
|
2023-09-17
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
When Keir Starmer unveils a policy it is roundly attacked - is this the price of getting a hearing?
|
UK Politics
|
Too boring? Too serious? Too left wing? Too right wing? Too much of a mystery still?
For a long time, Keir Starmer's Labour has been miles ahead in the opinion polls. And even before that, for a very long time, he has faced calls to be more explicit about his priorities.
When he ran to become leader, promising "moral socialism", I wondered what his priorities were as he did his first interview as part of his campaign to take on the job.
Even then, he carefully refused to say if his politics were closer to Jeremy Corbyn's or Tony Blair's.
This week though, and this weekend at a left wing love-in in Canada with like minded leaders, Keir Starmer is very deliberately picking a subject and sticking to it, talking about border security and immigration.
This episode illustrates exactly the opportunity and dilemma the Labour leadership faces.
Say too much? The plans can be shredded (or nabbed!) by opponents, or cause grumbles closer to home.
Say as little as humanly possible, and face accusations that you stand for nothing, and have no ideas of your own.
Yvette Cooper and Keir Starmer aiming to show they mean business on migration
After attacks on the border security plans presented alongside Keir Starmer's carefully-choreographed trip to Europol, in the Netherlands, is Labour damned if they dare put policy out there, and damned if they don't?
The plans, which you can read more about here, were met with what could have almost been a pre-scripted response.
There were squeals from the right immediately, with highly debatable claims that the Labour would automatically open the door to an extra 100,000 migrants a year.
That estimate assumed that a Labour government would sign up to an EU-wide quota deal that is not yet in operation.
Labour says they would never sign up to the continent-wide scheme, even though they do want closer cooperation.
Some Conservatives reckon Starmer has made a "strategic mistake" by focusing on these plans, opening himself to accusations of cosying up to the EU on immigration.
But one shadow minister played down the attack, saying the "Tories are struggling and so it means they are going to make stuff up".
On the other side, there was some obvious discomfort too at the message the leadership has been pushing.
Union leaders and charity bosses branded it as "pandering", "knee-jerk" language just to grab "headlines in the Sun".
Certainly, promises to "smash the gangs", or treat human traffickers like "terrorists" are not designed to tickle the bellies of the Labour membership - those who'll be leafing through all 116 pages of the party's policy document, which will be argued over and voted on at conference in a few weeks.
So if Starmer's had screams from the right and squeals from the left, then surely something's gone wrong?
Not so fast. It's politics! Not normal life.
It's a weird old business. You pick an issue, provoke a row. The row isn't a damaging thing, as long as it stays as a controllable spat, not an overwhelming bunfight.
The row is, in fact, the point.
Get your rivals on the inside and the outside to argue, the argument kicks off, then get the public to notice you are taking a stand on issues they care about, and bingo.
The impression is created, whether it's genuine or not, that the party understands voters' worries and will actually do something about it.
As one Labour source suggests, "in opposition you have to be prepared to have the row, that's the only way you get heard".
They say, "whether we are trying to claim the mantle of the economy, or the party to fix small boats - we have to show we can make progress on it".
That doesn't happen by shying away from a tricky subject, or only sticking to Labour crowd pleasers.
Credibility by caring about the right things and offering solutions is the aim. A shadow cabinet minister says the proposals are about being "practical", the political responses this week were predictable, and the priority is to "look like they are serious" about fixing the country's ills.
More than 100,000 migrants have crossed the Channel on small boats in the last five years
Labour HQ seems neither surprised nor perturbed by the rumpus their proposals this week caused.
More images and coverage of Keir Starmer to come on his adventure to Canada and Paris - tick.
But there are, of course, still risks all around.
There is a sense among some voters that Labour still just attacks on issues where things are going wrong for the Conservatives, like immigration, rather than pursuing strong areas of their own.
One pollster says in almost every focus group they host, someone says of Starmer, "he just criticises" - the "risk is [the] public just think Keir is a moaner or a clever lawyer".
There is a danger, they say, "of Labour not having their agenda", so even if they win, "if things improve people don't stick with them, or potentially worse they have zero honeymoon when they get in, and no enthusiasm".
There is also a risk of stirring up too much unhappiness on the left, so that the party ends up preoccupied with internal fights again.
It is not true to say that this is the first time Labour has talked about immigration, or that the party has always avoided the topic.
Ed Miliband's 2015 campaign mug did not go down well with activists
Remember Gordon Brown's clamour for "British jobs for British workers" or Ed Miliband's awkward somersaults over the issue, accompanied by his bizarre branded mug which promised controls on immigration?
But Keir Starmer's trying to show something else - not just that he will talk about the issue, but that the party is comfortable taking on the concern and has credible solutions.
There are dangers for any opposition in saying too little or too much.
The thing Labour is most afraid of is not winning or losing any specific argument, but failing to win the country, and losing again.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66831207
|
news_uk-politics-66831207
|
|
Brexit: Labour will seek re-write of deal, Starmer says - BBC News
|
2023-09-17
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The agreement is due for review in 2025, which the Labour leader says is a key moment to reset relations.
|
UK Politics
|
Sir Keir Starmer is currently in Canada meeting with centre-left global leaders
Sir Keir Starmer has said he will seek a "much better" Brexit deal with the EU if Labour wins the next general election.
The opposition leader told the Financial Times that the current deal, which is due for review in 2025, is "too thin".
Sir Keir was speaking at a conference of centre-left leaders in Montreal, Canada.
But he ruled out re-joining the customs union, the single market or the EU.
It remains unclear, however, if Brussels would be open to making major changes to the agreement, which was agreed by former Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson in 2021.
A Conservative spokesman accused the Labour leader of changing his position, saying: "Three years ago he promised he wouldn't seek major changes to the UK's new relationship with the EU, but now his latest short term position is that he will.
"What price would Keir Starmer be prepared to pay to the EU for renegotiating our relationship?"
Sir Keir has repeatedly said he would not seek to rejoin the EU if his party comes to power, promising to "make Brexit work".
His party has consistently held double-digit leads in the political opinion polls, with a general election expected to take place some time in 2024.
"Almost everyone recognises the deal Johnson struck is not a good deal - it's far too thin," he told the Financial Times.
"As we go into 2025 we will attempt to get a much better deal for the UK," he said, although he did not specify what parts of the deal he would seek to improve.
He added that he was confident a better deal could be negotiated with Brussels, as well as a "closer trading relationship".
"We have to make it work. That's not a question of going back in, but I refuse to accept that we can't make it work," he said, adding that he was thinking about "future generations".
"I say that as a dad. I've got a 15-year-old boy and a 12-year-old girl. I'm not going to let them grow up in a world where all I've got to say to them about their future is, it's going to be worse than it might otherwise have been.
"I've got an utter determination to make this work."
This is a significant piece of political positioning from Sir Keir. He has spent much of his leadership trying to reassure voters that he would not take Britain back into the EU, or seek membership of the single market or customs union.
That position has not changed. But figures around the Labour leader believe that having got over the message that he does not want to undo Brexit, he has now earned a hearing to talk about changing the terms of the settlement.
The Trade and Co-Operation Agreement signed by Mr Johnson already has a review in 2025 written into it. The current thinking in Brussels is that this would only involve minor tweaks, though Sir Keir may have further-reaching changes in mind, including agreements on deeper trade ties, more exchanges for young people and students and easier rules for touring musicians and artists.
The willingness to put improved relations with the EU at the heart of his political offer is a sign of Sir Keir's growing political confidence. This was also in evidence last week when Sir Keir visited The Hague, in the Netherlands, to talk about how better co-operation with the EU could help deal with small boats crossing the Channel.
The Conservatives have already seized on Sir Keir's comments about Brexit. They believe that his position could push Brexiteers who backed the Conservatives in 2019 back towards Rishi Sunak. A Conservative spokesman said that Sir Keir "wants to take Britain back to square one on Brexit, reopening the arguments of the past all over again".
Sir Keir spent the weekend meeting fellow centre-left leaders in Canada, including the country's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
He is also expected to travel to Paris to meet French President Emmanuel Macron later this week, where post-Brexit relations are expected to feature heavily in talks.
His visit to the Hague last week to meet with the EU's law enforcement agency Europol, seeking a deal to try and stop smuggling gangs bringing people across the channel in small boats led to accusations by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Home Secretary Suella Braverman that his party was planning to let the UK become a "dumping ground" for 100,000 migrants from the continent each year, claims he said were "complete garbage".
There is some anxiety in Labour about the row Sir Keir found himself embroiled in about whether Labour would accept a quota of asylum seekers from the EU as part of a 'burden-sharing' migration agreement. On Sunday, the Labour leader ruled this out after days of debate.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66839501
|
news_uk-66839501
|
|
Google antitrust trial: Tech giant denies abusing power to gain monopoly - BBC News
|
2023-09-13
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
In a landmark trial brought by the US government, the tech giant denies using illegal practices to gain a monopoly.
|
Business
|
Jonathan Kanter, assistant attorney general for the antitrust division at the Department of Justice, arrives at court
Google has dismissed arguments that it is the world's biggest search engine because of illegal practices, saying to switch to another company takes "literally four taps".
A lawyer for the company made the remarks in court in Tuesday in Washington DC, where it is facing trial over whether it is a monopoly.
The case is a major test of the power of US regulators over the tech giants.
Prosecutors said the case was about "the future of the internet".
The trial is expected to last 10 weeks and will feature testimony from Google boss Sundar Pichai as well as executives from Apple.
Judge Amit Mehta, who was appointed to his position on DC district court by former president Barack Obama, will decide the case - the biggest for the industry in 25 years.
The government's lawsuit focuses on billions of dollars in payments Google has made to Apple, Samsung, Mozilla and others to be pre-installed as the default online search engine.
The US said Google typically pays more than $10bn a year for that privilege, securing its access to a steady gush of user data that helped maintain its hold on the market.
"Are there other distribution channels? Other ways of distributing search? Yes.... Are these powerful as defaults? No," Department of Justice lawyer Kenneth Dintzer said, addressing the judge. "The best testimony for that, for the importance of defaults, your Honour, is Google's cheque book."
When Apple first installed Google as the default search engine in 2002, no payments were involved, prosecutors said.
But by 2005, worried about its lead eroding, Google proposed to pay the company - later threatening to cancel payments if other firms got similar access, the government said.
The company also discouraged Apple from expanding its own search products and Samsung, which makes Android phones, from working with a company that used a different kind of search method.
"This is a monopolist, flexing," Mr Dintzer said.
Google said it faced intense competition, not just from general search engine firms, such as Microsoft's Bing, but more specialised sites and apps that people use to find restaurants, airline flights and more.
"There are lots of ways users access the web, other than through default search engines, and people use them all the time," the company's lawyer, John Schmidtlein, said.
"The evidence in this case will show Google competed on the merits to win pre-installation and default status, and that its browser and Android partners judged Google to be the best search engine for its users."
Mr Schmidtlein said that despite Windows PCs being the number one used desktop and having Bing pre-set as the default search engine, a majority of Windows users still opt to use Google - demonstrating Google's superiority as a search platform.
The trial is the latest regulatory challenge to face Google, which recently settled another case over its app store brought by US states. The company is also facing a federal lawsuit over its advertising business and has found itself in the crosshairs in Europe, where it has been fined billions in monopoly cases.
The government has asked for "structural relief" if it wins - which could mean the break-up of the company.
The suit comes as artificial intelligence and new forms of search, such as ChatGPT, are providing a more serious threat to Google's dominance than the company has encountered in years.
• None US takes on Google in fight against tech giants
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66790608
|
news_business-66790608
|
|
UK government will not block Scots drug room pilot - BBC News
|
2023-09-13
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Scottish Secretary Alister Jack says Westminster will not intervene if a facility is set up in Glasgow.
|
Scotland politics
|
The Scottish government has backed plans for a drug consumption facility in Glasgow
The UK government will not block plans for a drug consumption room pilot in Scotland, the Scottish secretary has confirmed.
Alister Jack said Westminster would not intervene, but that there were no plans to devolve drugs laws to Holyrood.
It came after the Lord Advocate said it would not be in the public interest to prosecute users of drug consumption rooms for simple possession offences.
The Scottish government is backing plans to set up a pilot in Glasgow.
Campaigners say that drug consumption rooms - facilities where people can inject illegal drugs under supervision - can reduce overdose deaths, public injecting and drug-related litter.
A number of medical groups have backed the idea as a harm reduction measure, as part of a wider drugs strategy.
But others oppose them, claiming they send out the wrong signal about the dangers of drugs, and could divert resources away from tackling the the problem through treatment-based approaches.
Speaking in the House of Commons, Mr Jack said: "Drug consumption rooms are not the easy solution.
"There is no safe way to take illegal drugs. They devastate lives, the ruin families, they damage communities and the UK government believes the police and the procurator fiscal service should fully enforce the law.
"However, if the Scottish government and the Lord Advocate decide to proceed with a pilot on drugs consumption rooms, the UK government will not intervene."
The Scottish secretary said the Scottish government now had "no excuses" to tackle the country's drug death rate, which is the highest in Europe despite falling to a five-year low last year. Figures for the first six months of this year show a year on year increase.
SNP Scotland spokesman Tommy Sheppard described the Lord Advocate's statement as a "game-changer" as it removes "one of the major obstacles" to a pilot facility to help prevent overdoses.
Scottish Secretary Alister Jack says the UK government would not intervene in a pilot scheme
The Home Affairs Committee at Westminster recommended previously that the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) be amended to allow a pilot project to run in Scotland, but the call was rejected by the Home Office.
Drug laws are reserved to the UK government but Scotland's Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC sets out the rules on whether prosecutions should take place.
Scottish Drugs and Alcohol Policy Minister Elena Whitham called Ms Bain's announcement a "significant moment" in Scotland's mission to tackle drug deaths.
Ms Whitham has been examining plans for a pilot project developed by Glasgow City Health and Social Care Partnership (HSCP) and Police Scotland, facilitated by the Scottish government.
Those plans are expected to be presented for approval to the Glasgow City Integration Joint Board - which brings together council and health officials - at its next meeting on 27 September.
Ms Whitham said she would like to see the facilities rolled out across the country if the pilot is successful, and that she would "absolutely not" cut funding for other drug recovery services to launch the pilot.
The minister said she expected the proposed site to be in the city centre because there were known to be between 400 and 500 people who inject drugs in city centre alleyways.
Councillor Allan Casey, Glasgow City Council convener for addiction services, said a proposed site in the city centre had been identified.
He told BBC Radio Scotland's Drivetime a public consultation would be held if the proposals are agreed by the Integration Joint Board.
"There is broad support across all political parties I believe to open this trial facility," the councillor said.
"Clearly we are in a public health emergency and we need to move at pace to really address the issue and reduce the number of people who are needlessly dying on our streets."
The SNP's Tommy Sheppard said Alister Jack was someone who had "form" when it came to intervening on Scottish decisions.
He urged Mr Jack to be on "the right side of history" on this as and he was perhaps expecting more of a row.
The Scottish Secretary confirmed that the UK government's policy was against consumption rooms but Mr Jack said they wouldn't stand in the way of the pilots going ahead.
There is a feeling among those close to Mr Jack that the Scottish government have been setting themselves up for a fight that isn't there in this case.
Many in the SNP will point to recent decisions by the UK government to block items on the Scottish legislative agenda - the Gender Recognition Act, the Deposit return scheme.
But the Scottish Secretary's argument is that those are cases that undermined the devolution settlement, impacting the wider UK somehow.
In this case, criminal justice is a devolved matter, and prosecution policy is a matter for Scotland's Lord Advocate.
There's also a feeling that as we're not talking about actual legislation just yet, it's hard to argue against. Also, the UK government would be weary of trying to overrule a law officer.
Alister Jack standing up in the Commons today saying "no more excuses" is his way of saying to the Scottish government that this is no longer an issue to point the blame at Westminster for - and what happens next is over to them.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66796575
|
news_uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66796575
|
|
Peter Navarro: Ex-Trump adviser convicted of contempt of Congress - BBC News
|
2023-09-07
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Peter Navarro faces up to a year in prison for failing to co-operate with a congressional committee.
|
US & Canada
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Former Trump aide Peter Navarro has been convicted of contempt of Congress for refusing to co-operate with an inquiry into alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election result.
Prosecutors said Navarro acted "above the law" by ignoring a subpoena from a congressional investigation.
He faces up to a year in prison for each of the two contempt counts.
Another key Trump ally, former strategist Steve Bannon, was convicted last year of contempt of Congress.
Outside the court in Washington DC on Thursday, Navarro said it was a "sad day for America", vowing to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.
"This is the first time in the history of our republic," he said, "that a senior White House adviser, an alter ego of the president, has ever been charged with this alleged crime."
He argued that the Department of Justice has had a policy for more than 50 years that senior White House advisers could not be compelled to testify before Congress.
"Yet they brought the case," Navarro said.
He was found guilty by the 12-member jury after four hours of deliberations, following a trial that lasted two days.
As well as an appeal, Navarro's lawyers are motioning for a mistrial, alleging that jurors went outside court during their deliberations and encountered protesters.
Navarro, who served as senior trade adviser to former President Donald Trump, was served with a subpoena by a US House of Representatives select committee in February 2022.
But he did not hand over any of the requested emails or documents or appear to testify before the Democratic-led panel.
The committee had hoped to question Navarro about efforts to delay certification of the 2020 election, according to a former staff director for the panel who testified in court.
In his 2021 book, In Trump Time, Navarro said he was the architect of a strategy to challenge the election results, claiming widespread voter fraud.
The plan was for congressional Republicans to delay certification of President Joe Biden's victory.
Navarro called this strategy the Green Bay Sweep, a reference to a tactic in American football.
The House committee said Navarro's claims of massive ballot fraud had been exposed as baseless by state and local officials.
Navarro was indicted in June last year and arrested by FBI agents at a Washington airport as he was boarding a flight to Nashville, Tennessee.
During their closing arguments, prosecutors said Navarro chose his allegiance to Mr Trump over complying with the subpoena.
"That is contempt. That is a crime," prosecutor Elizabeth Aloi told the court.
Navarro's lawyer, Stanley Woodward, presented little evidence during the trial and instead sought to discredit the prosecutor's case.
When contacted by the committee, Navarro said Mr Trump had instructed him to cite executive privilege.
This is a legal principle that allows certain White House communications to be kept under wraps.
But last week, Judge Amit Mehta, an Obama nominee, ruled there was no evidence that Mr Trump or executive privilege could have permitted Navarro to ignore the committee's summons.
In addition to a maximum sentence of a year in prison for each count, Navarro also faces fines of up to $100,000 (£80,000).
His sentencing is scheduled for January.
Bryan Lanza, a former Trump campaign adviser, told the BBC the prosecution seemed politically motivated.
"It is not uncommon for Congress to hold former or serving members of presidential administrations in contempt," he said.
Lawmakers found ex-Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, but he was not criminally prosecuted
"It is uncommon for the actual justice department to go forward with these prosecutions."
He cited the example of the former US Attorney General Eric Holder, under Democratic President Barack Obama, who was found in contempt of a Republican-controlled Congress in 2012 for refusing to hand over subpoenaed documents, but was not criminally prosecuted.
"We're going down a dangerous route by escalating these things," said Mr Lanza.
"That's not good for our system of government," he added.
Former Trump campaign strategist Steve Bannon was convicted of two counts of contempt for defying the House committee's legal summons in July 2022.
Bannon was sentenced to four months in jail, but has remained free while his defence team appeals the conviction.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66744592
|
news_world-us-canada-66744592
|
|
Government denies U-turn on encrypted messaging row - BBC News
|
2023-09-07
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The government states that the tech tools for accessing private messages don't yet exist.
|
Technology
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
The government has denied it is changing plans to force messaging apps to access users' private messages if requested by the regulator Ofcom.
There has been a stand-off between the UK government and tech firms over a clause in the Online Safety Bill relating to encrypted messages.
These are messages that can only be seen by the sender and recipient.
The Bill states that if there are concerns about child abuse content, tech companies might have to access it.
But platforms like WhatsApp, Signal and iMessage say they cannot access or view anybody's messages without destroying existing privacy protections for all users, and have threatened to leave the UK rather than compromise message security.
The debate has raged for several months and for some it has turned into an argument about privacy versus the protection of children. The government insists it is possible to have both.
The Online Safety Bill is due to become law in autumn and cleared its final stage in the House of Lords on Wednesday before returning to the commons.
The government has denied that its position has changed. In a statement in the House of Lords, the minister, Lord Parkinson, clarified that if the technology to access messages without breaking their security did not exist, then Ofcom would have the power to ask companies to develop the ability to identify and remove illegal child sexual abuse content on their platforms.
Indeed, the Bill already stated that the regulator Ofcom would only ask tech firms to access messages once "feasible technology" had been developed which would specifically only target child abuse content and not break encryption.
The government has tasked tech firms with inventing these tools.
"As has always been the case, as a last resort, on a case-by-case basis and only when stringent privacy safeguards have been met, [the Bill] will enable Ofcom to direct companies to either use, or make best efforts to develop or source, technology to identify and remove illegal child sexual abuse content - which we know can be developed," said a government spokesperson.
Some security experts suggest such tech tools may never exist, and the tech firms themselves say it is not possible.
Head of WhatsApp, Will Cathcart, posted on X Wednesday that "the fact remains that scanning everyone's messages would destroy privacy as we know it".
Meredith Whittaker, president of encrypted messaging app Signal, has previously said it was "magical thinking" to believe we can have privacy "but only for the good guys".
She told the BBC that the firm welcomed the latest clarification which was "a good start to incorporating the voices of human rights defenders into the final stages.
"We hope to see more progress over the next days, ideally making stronger commitments in the text of the bill," said Ms Whittaker.
Prof Ciaran Martin, former head of the National Cyber Security Centre, said in reaction to the minister's clarification that in practical terms this meant the powers to access private messages would not be deployed: "The government is still technically taking the power but is placing so many conditions on its use it cannot to my mind ever be used."
But some campaign groups warned nothing had changed. Index on Censorship told the BBC that the Bill was "still a threat to encryption and as such puts at risk everyone from journalists working with whistleblowers to ordinary citizens talking in private.
"We need to see amendments urgently to protect our right to free speech online," it added.
And Matthew Hodgson, who runs the British-based messaging platform Element, said "all 'until it's technically feasible' means is opening the door to scanning in future rather than scanning today."
It was merely "kicking the can down the road" in his view.
The Internet Watch Foundation - which finds, flags, and removes images and videos of child sexual abuse from the web said that in its opinion it was already technically feasible to scan encrypted messaging systems while preserving privacy.
"As far as we can see, the Government's position on this has not changed", it said.
"We know technologies exist, now, which can do this - with no more invasion of privacy than a virus guard or spam filter".
Another view is that this is an attempt at a last-minute diplomatic resolution in which neither the tech firms nor the government lose face: the government says it knew all along that the tech did not exist and removes immediate pressure from the tech firms to invent it, and the tech firms claim a victory for privacy.
Currently, the two most viable tech solutions are to either break the encryption - which would leave a backdoor open to any bad actors who found it - or introduce software which scans content on a device. It is called client-side scanning and has been dubbed "the spy in your pocket" by critics.
Children's charities like the NSPCC have described encrypted messaging as the "front line" of child abuse because of privacy settings.
But privacy campaigners say everybody has a right to privacy protection.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66716502
|
news_technology-66716502
|
|
The inside story of the mini-budget disaster - BBC News
|
2023-09-25
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
One year on Liz Truss's and Kwasi Kwarteng's economic policies cast a big shadow still.
|
Business
|
The term "mini budget" will be forever toxic in British politics.
So disastrous was then-Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng's September 2022 statement - which included £45bn of unfunded tax cuts - that its long shadow still stretches over our economics and politics.
Over the past year, I have spoken to all the key players, some in public and some in private, about what happened both before and after that day.
Those conversations have revealed important new details about Mr Kwarteng and then-PM Liz Truss' "growth plan" - including that its initial impact was far worse than has been publicly known up to this point.
In the immediate aftermath, top officials were being asked by astounded counterparts how Britain had singlehandedly shifted one of the key indicators of the world economy in the financial markets, known as the Fed Fund futures curve. It was not a proud moment, they tell me.
In Washington for a key IMF meeting, Mr Kwarteng himself was privately having to reassure US bankers, politicians, and diplomats at the British embassy that the UK "was committed to fiscal responsibility" and that the Bank of England was one of the UK's "finest institutions".
That final comment attracted a lone clapper in the room - a board member of a British bank.
The chancellor went on to draw parallels between himself and Sir Isaac Newton, who held the high-ranking title of Warden of the Royal Mint for roughly 30 years. Bemused guests may not have realised that Sir Isaac himself made drastic attempts to reassert sterling's credibility in the late 17th Century.
As journalists in the room knew at the time, Mr Kwarteng was summoned back to Downing Street mid-meeting - but as he swept through the Washington DC rain he chafed at comparisons between himself and the crisis-ridden Greek Finance minister Evangelos Venizelos who had been hauled back from the IMF during the country's 2011 crisis.
As Mr Kwarteng rushed home, PM Liz Truss was being forced to take her own drastic action.
Off the back of the mini-budget, the Bank of England was about to cease its emergency purchases of government bonds - these are a form of debt that the government sells to raise money it needs for public spending. As a result, Ms Truss' team felt she had no choice but to U-turn on a corporation tax cut announced in the mini-budget.
The Bank's Governor Andrew Bailey tells me that this was not designed to pressure the government - but to ensure financial stability.
But Ms Truss says there were questions about the bank's governance - they were in a very powerful position over her and did effectively put "pressure on me and the government to reverse our decisions on taxes", she says.
Ms Truss says the same of another institution, the Office for Budget Responsibility, which is the country's official independent economic forecaster. It was created to help market confidence by ensuring a government's numbers are regularly checked. She says she had not realised the "sheer level of power an organisation like the OBR has" before she got to Downing Street.
The plan by Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng was to bypass the OBR.
Its boss had worked through summer to prepare for an early set of tax changes and Mr Kwarteng had a draft forecast on his desk when he arrived in the job.
But as I revealed a week before the mini-budget, Downing Street refused to publish it.
The numbers, marked as "market sensitive", forecast the Truss administration borrowing an extra £110bn over five years as gas prices, inflation and interest rates surged.
The OBR chief executive Richard Hughes told me: "We were not asked to produce an updated forecast for him. And we were not asked to publish any forecasts alongside that [mini-budget]."
Current Chancellor Jeremy Hunt has said this was a fundamental error by Mr Kwarteng. If the OBR had provided a forecast alongside the mini-budget, Mr Kwarteng would have been forced to show how his £45bn in tax cuts would balance with spending cuts or increased borrowing.
Instead, the mini-budget had a solitary table asserting how, theoretically, the gap could be filled if the economy grew faster.
It was the equivalent of trying to pay a restaurant bill with an Instagram photo of some gold bars.
Governor Andrew Bailey said the Bank of England's actions were taken to ensure financial stability.
In the mini-budget, as soon as the government revealed it needed an extra £72bn in funding from the markets - without details of how it calculated the number - the market reacted badly. It simply did not believe the plans.
Massive spending cuts might have bridged the gap - but both Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng lacked both the clout and the numbers to push such plans through the Commons.
It was made worse by a crisis in a normally sleepy corner of the pensions system that is used to manage the risks of interest rate changes, which are normally predictable and gradual. Interest rates rises are normally good for pensions funds' long term health - but the rise in the effective interest costs for government after the mini-budget was so rapid that these funds had to sell more and more of their government bonds.
The more they sold, the more the value of the bonds fell.
Ms Truss's team say this was the real crisis, that it was a failure of Bank of England regulation, and that the Bank should have warned them.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
There was another problem for the markets. The government risked digging an even deeper credibility hole as it continued to defend itself. Cabinet ministers repeatedly blamed the market gyrations on "global factors", effectively sending the message that there was no problem to rectify.
On two occasions, the Bank of England sent charts to MPs making it crystal clear that the mini-budget was the trigger. Yes, there was a global trend of rising rates, but the surge last September was a UK-specific issue.
Senior bank officials also felt the need to directly correct ministers' public mistakes - for example when ministers played down, or appeared not to understand, the direct impact of rising government interest on fixed-rate mortgages. The Governor of the Bank himself had to explain to senior Cabinet ministers that mortgages were now more likely to be priced off long term borrowing rates rather than the Bank of England base rate.
"Banks were finding it hard to price on a curve that was moving so much," said one official, who advised ministers not to go out in public and blame banks for rising mortgage costs. "You've got to understand how the pricing works."
It's clear, looking back, that this was not just a financial heart attack - it was a stress test of Britain's entire system of institutions.
And beyond changing the public perception of Mr Kwarteng and Ms Truss, it changed the entire way British economic policy is directed, how investors act, and how institutions respond to blips.
Economically, the UK has long enjoyed a privilege in the markets - able to run "twin deficits" on both trade and government borrowing. But this reliance on the "kindness of strangers" funding was shaken by last year's events.
Big corporations report that there are more questions now from major investors than before the mini-budget. Those burnt by a sharp fall in sterling after the announcement will now insist on factoring in costly currency hedges before investing in major British infrastructure.
Politically, "mini-budget" is now a sort of anti-brand. Its name is a trump card, deployed to argue for financial credibility and a tight hand on the tiller above everything else. The government and the opposition are contorting themselves to meet a five-year debt target and cut back on investments they have previously said the country badly needs.
If HS2 is cut back, for example, some of that can be attributed to the mini-budget hangover.
Labour's shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves has already won an argument to rein in a planned tsunami of green investments if her party wins the general election - and has vowed to strengthen the OBR even more.
She and others are clearly trying to link the rising mortgage costs to the chaos of last year - even though much of that now arises from the Bank of England's inflation-fighting efforts.
Arguably the biggest impact of the mini-budget has been on the UK's big institutions.
This time a year ago the OBR, the Bank of England, and top Treasury civil servant Sir Tom Scholar were variously side-lined, briefed against, and fired.
They were the "bean counters" pursuing "abacus economics", standing in the way of newly appointed Prime Minister Liz Truss' agenda.
Her experiment - that push-back against the "economic orthodoxy" - went to its breaking point. Policy, from the jobs market, to visas, to investment, is now prioritised based on whether it will "score" on the OBR's forecast and help the numbers add up.
The radical economic laboratory experiments are over.
|
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66897881
|
news_business-66897881
|
|
The inside story of the mini-budget disaster - BBC News
|
2023-09-25
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
One year on Liz Truss's and Kwasi Kwarteng's economic policies cast a big shadow still.
|
Business
|
The term "mini budget" will be forever toxic in British politics.
So disastrous was then-Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng's September 2022 statement - which included £45bn of unfunded tax cuts - that its long shadow still stretches over our economics and politics.
Over the past year, I have spoken to all the key players, some in public and some in private, about what happened both before and after that day.
Those conversations have revealed important new details about Mr Kwarteng and then-PM Liz Truss' "growth plan" - including that its initial impact was far worse than has been publicly known up to this point.
In the immediate aftermath, top officials were being asked by astounded counterparts how Britain had singlehandedly shifted one of the key indicators of the world economy in the financial markets, known as the Fed Fund futures curve. It was not a proud moment, they tell me.
In Washington for a key IMF meeting, Mr Kwarteng himself was privately having to reassure US bankers, politicians, and diplomats at the British embassy that the UK "was committed to fiscal responsibility" and that the Bank of England was one of the UK's "finest institutions".
That final comment attracted a lone clapper in the room - a board member of a British bank.
The chancellor went on to draw parallels between himself and Sir Isaac Newton, who held the high-ranking title of Warden of the Royal Mint for roughly 30 years. Bemused guests may not have realised that Sir Isaac himself made drastic attempts to reassert sterling's credibility in the late 17th Century.
As journalists in the room knew at the time, Mr Kwarteng was summoned back to Downing Street mid-meeting - but as he swept through the Washington DC rain he chafed at comparisons between himself and the crisis-ridden Greek Finance minister Evangelos Venizelos who had been hauled back from the IMF during the country's 2011 crisis.
As Mr Kwarteng rushed home, PM Liz Truss was being forced to take her own drastic action.
Off the back of the mini-budget, the Bank of England was about to cease its emergency purchases of government bonds - these are a form of debt that the government sells to raise money it needs for public spending. As a result, Ms Truss' team felt she had no choice but to U-turn on a corporation tax cut announced in the mini-budget.
The Bank's Governor Andrew Bailey tells me that this was not designed to pressure the government - but to ensure financial stability.
But Ms Truss says there were questions about the bank's governance - they were in a very powerful position over her and did effectively put "pressure on me and the government to reverse our decisions on taxes", she says.
Ms Truss says the same of another institution, the Office for Budget Responsibility, which is the country's official independent economic forecaster. It was created to help market confidence by ensuring a government's numbers are regularly checked. She says she had not realised the "sheer level of power an organisation like the OBR has" before she got to Downing Street.
The plan by Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng was to bypass the OBR.
Its boss had worked through summer to prepare for an early set of tax changes and Mr Kwarteng had a draft forecast on his desk when he arrived in the job.
But as I revealed a week before the mini-budget, Downing Street refused to publish it.
The numbers, marked as "market sensitive", forecast the Truss administration borrowing an extra £110bn over five years as gas prices, inflation and interest rates surged.
The OBR chief executive Richard Hughes told me: "We were not asked to produce an updated forecast for him. And we were not asked to publish any forecasts alongside that [mini-budget]."
Current Chancellor Jeremy Hunt has said this was a fundamental error by Mr Kwarteng. If the OBR had provided a forecast alongside the mini-budget, Mr Kwarteng would have been forced to show how his £45bn in tax cuts would balance with spending cuts or increased borrowing.
Instead, the mini-budget had a solitary table asserting how, theoretically, the gap could be filled if the economy grew faster.
It was the equivalent of trying to pay a restaurant bill with an Instagram photo of some gold bars.
Governor Andrew Bailey said the Bank of England's actions were taken to ensure financial stability.
In the mini-budget, as soon as the government revealed it needed an extra £72bn in funding from the markets - without details of how it calculated the number - the market reacted badly. It simply did not believe the plans.
Massive spending cuts might have bridged the gap - but both Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng lacked both the clout and the numbers to push such plans through the Commons.
It was made worse by a crisis in a normally sleepy corner of the pensions system that is used to manage the risks of interest rate changes, which are normally predictable and gradual. Interest rates rises are normally good for pensions funds' long term health - but the rise in the effective interest costs for government after the mini-budget was so rapid that these funds had to sell more and more of their government bonds.
The more they sold, the more the value of the bonds fell.
Ms Truss's team say this was the real crisis, that it was a failure of Bank of England regulation, and that the Bank should have warned them.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
There was another problem for the markets. The government risked digging an even deeper credibility hole as it continued to defend itself. Cabinet ministers repeatedly blamed the market gyrations on "global factors", effectively sending the message that there was no problem to rectify.
On two occasions, the Bank of England sent charts to MPs making it crystal clear that the mini-budget was the trigger. Yes, there was a global trend of rising rates, but the surge last September was a UK-specific issue.
Senior bank officials also felt the need to directly correct ministers' public mistakes - for example when ministers played down, or appeared not to understand, the direct impact of rising government interest on fixed-rate mortgages. The Governor of the Bank himself had to explain to senior Cabinet ministers that mortgages were now more likely to be priced off long term borrowing rates rather than the Bank of England base rate.
"Banks were finding it hard to price on a curve that was moving so much," said one official, who advised ministers not to go out in public and blame banks for rising mortgage costs. "You've got to understand how the pricing works."
It's clear, looking back, that this was not just a financial heart attack - it was a stress test of Britain's entire system of institutions.
And beyond changing the public perception of Mr Kwarteng and Ms Truss, it changed the entire way British economic policy is directed, how investors act, and how institutions respond to blips.
Economically, the UK has long enjoyed a privilege in the markets - able to run "twin deficits" on both trade and government borrowing. But this reliance on the "kindness of strangers" funding was shaken by last year's events.
Big corporations report that there are more questions now from major investors than before the mini-budget. Those burnt by a sharp fall in sterling after the announcement will now insist on factoring in costly currency hedges before investing in major British infrastructure.
Politically, "mini-budget" is now a sort of anti-brand. Its name is a trump card, deployed to argue for financial credibility and a tight hand on the tiller above everything else. The government and the opposition are contorting themselves to meet a five-year debt target and cut back on investments they have previously said the country badly needs.
If HS2 is cut back, for example, some of that can be attributed to the mini-budget hangover.
Labour's shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves has already won an argument to rein in a planned tsunami of green investments if her party wins the general election - and has vowed to strengthen the OBR even more.
She and others are clearly trying to link the rising mortgage costs to the chaos of last year - even though much of that now arises from the Bank of England's inflation-fighting efforts.
Arguably the biggest impact of the mini-budget has been on the UK's big institutions.
This time a year ago the OBR, the Bank of England, and top Treasury civil servant Sir Tom Scholar were variously side-lined, briefed against, and fired.
They were the "bean counters" pursuing "abacus economics", standing in the way of newly appointed Prime Minister Liz Truss' agenda.
Her experiment - that push-back against the "economic orthodoxy" - went to its breaking point. Policy, from the jobs market, to visas, to investment, is now prioritised based on whether it will "score" on the OBR's forecast and help the numbers add up.
The radical economic laboratory experiments are over.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66897881
|
news_business-66897881
|
|
Liberal Democrats face housebuilding target row at conference - BBC News
|
2023-09-25
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Leader Ed Davey says he wants to focus on building social housing, rather than pledging 380,000 new homes a year.
|
UK Politics
|
Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey has told the BBC his party has not changed tack on housebuilding targets in order to win votes from Conservative supporters.
The party is considering dropping a pledge to build 380,000 new homes a year in England, in favour of a promise of 150,000 new council or social homes.
It will be debated at the party conference in Bournemouth on Monday.
The Young Liberals group is pushing for the target to be kept, saying ditching it would send the wrong message.
In 2021, the Liberal Democrats overturned a 16,000 majority to take the Conservative seat of Chesham and Amersham in a by-election.
The unpopularity of Boris Johnson's government's housebuilding plans and the Lib Dems' ability to capitalise on this were seen as key factors in the result.
Appearing on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, presented by Victoria Derbyshire, Sir Ed denied opposing new housing in Tory-run areas where parliamentary and council seats were being targeted, saying he was against "developer-led" schemes without proper amenities.
Janey Little says the housing crisis needs a local and national focus
Young Liberal chair Janey Little said: "We think that having a commitment to an ambitious national housebuilding target... we think that's necessary to signal to young people that the Liberal Democrats are onside, and we understand the scale of the housing crisis."
Leaflets have been circulated at the conference, urging members not to vote for the Young Liberals amendment, to keep the 380,000 target. Ms Little said that was a "shame".
"We have a lot of grassroots members on our side. But equally, people are working very hard on the other side of the argument. I really can't tell which way it will go."
Frontbencher Layla Moran, MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, said she had huge sympathy for young people "desperate to get on the housing ladder" and the leadership was "on the same page" on this.
There was "a discussion" going on about the best way to deliver more housing, she added.
The party's housing spokesperson Helen Morgan said the proposal would not do away with targets.
She told a fringe event in Bournemouth: "We can not deliver housing at scale unless we build council housing, or social housing - it could include housing associations as well - we have to get that bit right, and then we have to pin councils down so that they do a great of delivering the rest of the housing that that community needs.
"The point of the proposal we're making is to build those targets from the bottom, and to say what's your current level of need, what's your proper forecasted future need, and that would be independently assessed, and it would be binding on those councils."
Sir Ed said his party backed a "community-led approach" and "local neighbourhood plans" where local residents were involved in the whole decision-making process around new housing.
"Top-down targets lead to developer-led approaches", resulting in "the wrong houses being built in the wrong places", he said.
"You need to take communities with you. So often, you hear people are objecting not to houses, but objecting to the fact there are not enough houses, not enough GPs, not enough schools.
"When you take communities with you, it results in more houses being built" and "houses people want, in places they want, with the infrastructure they want", he argued.
Building more social housing would pave the way for more affordable housing and also free up more private housing for rent, he added.
Elsewhere in his BBC interview, Sir Ed brushed aside suggestions that voters had no idea what his party stood for, saying the Lib Dems were winning by-elections and council seats in Conservative heartlands where people were hearing their message.
Sir Ed was energy and climate change secretary in David Cameron's 2010-15 coalition government.
Asked if he would ever go into coalition with the Tories again, he said "there is no way we could deal with the Conservatives, they've ruined our country".
But he refused to be drawn on whether he might consider a coalition with Labour after the next general election, saying he had learned from his predecessors that "when they have focused on that question, they have been distracted from the task in hand".
He declined to rule out the UK rejoining the European Union at some point in the future, but again insisted the issue was "currently not on the table".
His priority was to rebuild relations and trust with other European leaders, and to put Britain back "at the heart of Europe", he added.
The Lib Dem leader was later heckled about Brexit at conference on Sunday afternoon during a Q&A session.
A member of the crowd called out that the Lib Dems should be working to rejoin the EU, and when Sir Ed responded saying: "We're camp5aigning hard on Europe as you know my friend", a second member of the audience shouted: "No you're not."
Meanwhile the Lib Dems have become the first party to adopt a pre-manifesto for the next election, with a proposal to give everyone in England the right to see a GP within a week a centrepiece policy.The document, which was approved by party members in a conference vote, sets out an early draft of the party's manifesto.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66888549
|
news_uk-politics-66888549
|
|
Russell Brand accuser sparks debate about staggered age of consent - BBC News
|
2023-09-25
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Claims against the star have led to discussions about the power dynamic between adults and teens in relationships.
|
UK
|
At 16, you can't legally buy alcohol, place a bet or vote in a general election - but you can consent to sex.
It has been this way since 1885 in the UK, when the age of consent was raised from 13. For gay and bisexual men, the age of consent was reduced from 18 to 16 in a law change in 2000, after a long campaign for equality.
But now, people are debating if consent laws should be changed again. This time, discussion has been triggered by allegations made against Russell Brand - in particular, those made by one alleged victim, "Alice", who says she had a relationship with Brand when he was in his 30s and she was 16.
Alice told the Sunday Times and Channel 4's Dispatches that Brand sexually assaulted her, and that, looking back, she feels she was groomed by him during their relationship. Brand denies her allegations.
Due to the fact she was over the age of sexual consent at the time, Alice says it would have been difficult for anyone to raise concerns about their relationship to the police.
But Alice believes we should start considering a change to the law in the form of "staggered ages of consent", so that people over 18 would not be allowed to have sex with 16 and 17-year-olds.
"There's a reasonable argument [that] individuals between the ages of 16 and 18 can have relations with people within that same age bracket," she told BBC Women's Hour. "You're allowed to make mistakes as a teenager, they should be with other people your own age."
This view has been echoed by many people on social media, with some commentators floating ideas such as restricting those under 18 to sleeping with those under 21.
But would a change in the law protect 16 and 17-year-olds from harm? And could it criminalise healthy relationships that happen to have an age gap?
While sex involving one or more people under 16 is illegal, police use discretion to decide whether a prosecution is in the public interest. They take into account factors such as the relationship between the people involved, whether the underage person consented to what happened and how close in age the people were.
If a person is under 13, they cannot be seen as consenting in law - even if they say they consented.
It is already illegal to take, share or possess indecent images of people under 18 - even if the person is a consenting 16- or 17-year-old.
It is also against the law for people in a position of trust, such as teachers, to engage in sexual activity with a child in their care, even if that child is over the age of consent.
But what if special protections were introduced more widely for sexual relationships involving those who are over the age of consent, but still children?
"My view would be that changing the law doesn't actually achieve a lot," says Roger Ingham, director of the Centre for Sexual Health Research at the University of Southampton.
He says one of the arguments for having an age of consent is that it allows people who may feel pressured to have sex under 16 to say, "it's against the law".
"How often that's actually used, how often that stops people having sex that they don't want, we don't know."
He says surveys suggest that by the time they reach 18, the majority of people - about 60 to 70%, he says - have had sex (usually defined as intercourse).
But if the age of consent were to be raised to 18, for example, he says this would be "bringing in an awful lot of people into the bracket of being criminalised, even if the practice of the police and the prosecution is not to prosecute under certain conditions".
He says teenagers in consensual relationships below the age of consent - for example two 15-year-olds - are often nervous about going to family planning clinics to seek contraception in case they are reported - so one risky consequence of raising the age of consent could be more young people having unprotected sex.
In reality, sexual health clinics keep underage patients' details confidential, unless they are under 13 and thought to be at risk of harm, in which case other services may be alerted.
Brand denies the allegations of rape, sexual assaults and emotional abuse
Prof Ingham says more comprehensive sex and relationships education could help protect 16 and 17-year-olds, adding there should be "much more attention paid to issues of consent, not just in sexual situations".
Jayne Butler, chief executive of the charity Rape Crisis, agrees that better sex and relationship education and increased understanding are needed to shift societal attitudes around consent.
"We don't want to criminalise consensual relationships between 16-year-old peers, but there needs to be recognition of the significant power imbalance between older men and 16 year olds," she says.
"The cultural acceptance of relationships between young, potentially vulnerable people and someone much older needs to be addressed, and this doesn't start or end with just changing the law."
Prof Ingham says the issue of consent is challenged when someone with power or status, such as a celebrity, takes an interest in a young person.
A "star-struck" young person may be willing to have sex at the time but may regret it later, he says.
"It's a really complicated psychological issue, I'm not sure how you can legislate for it, to be honest."
Dr Laura Janes, from the Law Society's criminal law committee, also points out that the law in this area is already quite complex.
"What many people find confusing is we have different ages of consent for different things," she says - highlighting that in the UK someone is considered criminally responsible at 10 but can't have sex until 16 or vote in a general election until 18.
"If you take these three dates of what the law thinks you can do in terms of your development, we have already got a law which is very incoherent and inconsistent," she says.
A 16-year-old in the UK is allowed to have sex but not vote in a general election
The age of consent in England and Wales is broadly similar to other European countries - slightly higher than France's 15 and Germany's 14, but lower than Ireland's 17 and Malta's 18. However, the gap between the age of criminal responsibility and the age of consent in England and Wales is the biggest of all countries, she says.
"It's important to remember the law is a very blunt instrument and creates black and white lines," Dr Janes says.
And, crucially, the law changes according to the moral values of society, she says - so you have to take into account the cultural reality. She highlights YouGov research from earlier this year that shows a fifth of people say they had sex before the age of consent.
On top of this, she says one of the problems with English law is there has been a "proliferation in the number of laws we have". And the question is what another law change would achieve, when there are other current laws - for example, against coercive control - which aim to protect young people from the kind of harmful relationships that can happen when one partner is older.
"There's been a huge number of new offences that have appeared on the statute book and there is a real risk of it becoming overcomplicated," she says.
Dr Janes says that before any law change is considered, the priority should be making sure young people understand what the current law is - and then ensuring they know they can use it with confidence. "There needs to be a cultural understanding where people feel sufficiently confident to go to the police," she says.
And if there are going to be any legal changes, particularly if they involve intimacy and relationships between young people, "it has to be really clear and it has to be understandable to everyone, including potential victims and potential perpetrators".
• None Why do rape and sexual assault victims find it hard to go to police?
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66872467
|
news_uk-66872467
|
|
G20 laments war in Ukraine but avoids blaming Russia - BBC News
|
2023-09-10
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Leaders meeting in Delhi issue an ambiguous statement on the conflict, drawing criticism from Kyiv.
|
India
|
The G20 summit in India has agreed on a joint declaration, including a statement on the war in Ukraine.
On the first of their two-day meeting, G20 leaders denounced the use of force for territorial gain but stopped short of directly criticising Russia.
The Ukrainian government said the statement was "nothing to be proud of".
The summit in Delhi also discussed a number of global issues, including climate change and the debt burden of developing countries.
But it was a day of unexpectedly big headlines at the G20 summit.
Few expected a joint declaration, not least on the first day of the summit given the sharp divisions in the group over the war in Ukraine.
But Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that the group had reached consensus on the declaration.
A strong indication that last-minute negotiations were ongoing came in an earlier draft of the declaration accessed by the BBC on Friday - it showed the paragraph on Ukraine was left blank.
The sticking point was the Ukraine war - as it was during the Bali summit last year.
The Delhi declaration appears designed to allow both the West and Russia to find positives. But in the process, it has used language that is not as strong in its condemnation of Moscow as it was in Bali last year.
In Bali, the members deplored "in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine" - although it noted that "there were other views and different assessments of the situation and sanctions".
The Delhi declaration does not directly criticise Russia for the war.
But it does talk about "the human suffering and negative added impacts of the war in Ukraine with regard to global food and energy security". It also repeated the acknowledgement of "different views and assessments".
Importantly, the declaration specifies "the war in Ukraine" rather than "the war against Ukraine." This choice of words could have increased the likelihood of Russia endorsing of the declaration.
Ukraine - which took part in the Bali summit - was not invited this year, and its response to the declaration has been critical.
"In terms of Russia's aggression against Ukraine, G20 has nothing to be proud of," the Ukrainian foreign ministry tweeted.
It's hard for Kyiv to see the dropping of any reference to Russian "aggression" as anything but a sign that its Western backers are losing the argument with the "global South" over how to characterise the war.
The other big news came when Mr Modi formally invited the African Union (AU) to become a permanent member of the G20.
Delhi prioritised elevating the voices of these nations as the foundation of its presidency, and in the near future, it is poised to reap the rewards of this strategic choice as it vies with China for influence across Asia and Africa.
The decision is also good news for Africa as the continent of 1.4 billion people will now have wider representation on a global forum like the G20.
At the ministerial level meetings in the run-up to the summit, there had been no agreement on the issue. But now officials say they have reached "100% consensus".
There has been evident give-and-take on climate in the declaration.
It says the G20 countries will "pursue and encourage efforts to triple renewable energy capacity globally through existing targets and policies". G20 accounts for more than 75% of greenhouse gas emissions.
Developing countries had in the past resisted increasing renewable energy targets, phasing down fossil fuels and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from developed nations.
On greenhouse emissions peaking - the point after which emissions will need to drop - developing nations have been able to buy time.
The declaration says that "timeframes for peaking may be shaped by sustainable development, poverty eradication needs, equity, and in line with different national circumstances".
Experts have also emphasised the importance of the Green Development Pact, a plan to tackle the environmental crisis through global co-operation over the next decade.
G20 countries have also pledged to work together to enable low-cost financing for developing countries to support their transitions to low emissions.
Pramit Pal Chaudhuri, South Asia practice head of Eurasia Group, said India had done "reasonably well" on green finance.
"Green finance now largely goes from rich countries to other rich countries. Private capital is central to this financing. Not even emerging economies get it. India has been pushing to change that. At the heart of it is to get multilateral development banks to begin the process of de-risking private capital flows in the green space," he said.
Then there is the growing concern over debt. The World Bank has calculated that the world's poorest nations are burdened with an annual debt service of over $60bn to bilateral creditors, which escalates the risk of defaults. Two-thirds of this debt is owed to China.
The group has said it wants to help these countries manage their debt burden. The Delhi declaration has committed to address debt vulnerabilities in developing countries.
Additional reporting by Navin Singh Khadka in Delhi and BBC diplomatic correspondent Paul Adams in Kyiv.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-66763836
|
news_world-asia-india-66763836
|
|
Donald Trump liable for business fraud, says judge in New York civil case - BBC News
|
2023-09-26
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The former president was accused of overvaluing his net worth by as much as $ 2.2bn.
|
US & Canada
|
The former president has denied any wrongdoing and on Tuesday said the case in New York was another political "witch hunt"
Donald Trump committed fraud by repeatedly misrepresenting his wealth by hundreds of millions of dollars, a New York judge has ruled.
The ruling, part of a civil case brought against the former president and his family business, said he defrauded banks and insurers for years.
It is a major blow to Mr Trump that will likely hamper his ability to do business in the state.
Mr Trump and the other defendants have argued that they never committed fraud.
New York Attorney General Letitia James had accused Trump, his two adult sons and the Trump Organization of inflating the value of their properties by more than $2bn (£1.65bn) to suit the needs of their business.
She claimed the defendants issued false records and financial statements in order to get better terms on loans and insurance deals, and to pay less tax.
The scathing decision on Tuesday was issued by Judge Arthur Engoron in the New York state court, after Ms James asked for a summary ruling before the trial begins. She argued that finding certain facts to be beyond dispute would speed up the trial.
The ruling resolves the key claim of fraud made in the lawsuit, meaning the trial will now focus on a more narrow set of six remaining claims and determine the size of any potential penalty.
The trial is scheduled to begin on 2 October and could last until at least December. Ms James is seeking $250m in penalties and a ban on Mr Trump doing business in his home state.
In his ruling, Judge Engoron said "the documents here clearly contain fraudulent valuations that defendants used in business".
"That is a fantasy world, not the real world," he wrote.
Judge Engoron also ordered the cancellation of business certificates that allow some of the former president's businesses, including the Trump Organization, to operate in New York.
That will not dissolve his company, but could end his control over signature New York properties like the Trump Tower and the Trump Building at 40 Wall Street.
The judge denied the Trump team's request to throw out the case, and separately fined five Trump attorneys $7,500 each for making "preposterous" arguments already rejected by the court and fuelling what he called their clients' "obstreperous" conduct.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. New York attorney general Letitia James wants the Trumps to repay $250m that she says was illegally obtained
Lawyers for Mr Trump said this ruling was "a miscarriage of justice" and indicated they would appeal.
The former president has denied any wrongdoing and on Tuesday said the case was another political "witch hunt" brought by a prosecutor who was biased against him.
He accused the judge of being "highly politicised".
Mr Trump is still seeking to delay the trial in New York and has sued the judge. An appeals court is set to rule this week on that lawsuit. If it rules against him, Mr Trump will have to fight out the rest of the case in court.
It is just one of several legal battles the Republican frontrunner is facing as he campaigns for an election rematch with President Joe Biden next year and a potential return to the White House.
He is also facing 91 felony charges across four criminal cases. He has pleaded not guilty in those cases.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66931855
|
news_world-us-canada-66931855
|
|
Russell Brand accuser sparks debate about staggered age of consent - BBC News
|
2023-09-26
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Claims against the star have led to discussions about the power dynamic between adults and teens in relationships.
|
UK
|
At 16, you can't legally buy alcohol, place a bet or vote in a general election - but you can consent to sex.
It has been this way since 1885 in the UK, when the age of consent was raised from 13. For gay and bisexual men, the age of consent was reduced from 18 to 16 in a law change in 2000, after a long campaign for equality.
But now, people are debating if consent laws should be changed again. This time, discussion has been triggered by allegations made against Russell Brand - in particular, those made by one alleged victim, "Alice", who says she had a relationship with Brand when he was in his 30s and she was 16.
Alice told the Sunday Times and Channel 4's Dispatches that Brand sexually assaulted her, and that, looking back, she feels she was groomed by him during their relationship. Brand denies her allegations.
Due to the fact she was over the age of sexual consent at the time, Alice says it would have been difficult for anyone to raise concerns about their relationship to the police.
But Alice believes we should start considering a change to the law in the form of "staggered ages of consent", so that people over 18 would not be allowed to have sex with 16 and 17-year-olds.
"There's a reasonable argument [that] individuals between the ages of 16 and 18 can have relations with people within that same age bracket," she told BBC Women's Hour. "You're allowed to make mistakes as a teenager, they should be with other people your own age."
This view has been echoed by many people on social media, with some commentators floating ideas such as restricting those under 18 to sleeping with those under 21.
But would a change in the law protect 16 and 17-year-olds from harm? And could it criminalise healthy relationships that happen to have an age gap?
While sex involving one or more people under 16 is illegal, police use discretion to decide whether a prosecution is in the public interest. They take into account factors such as the relationship between the people involved, whether the underage person consented to what happened and how close in age the people were.
If a person is under 13, they cannot be seen as consenting in law - even if they say they consented.
It is already illegal to take, share or possess indecent images of people under 18 - even if the person is a consenting 16- or 17-year-old.
It is also against the law for people in a position of trust, such as teachers, to engage in sexual activity with a child in their care, even if that child is over the age of consent.
But what if special protections were introduced more widely for sexual relationships involving those who are over the age of consent, but still children?
"My view would be that changing the law doesn't actually achieve a lot," says Roger Ingham, director of the Centre for Sexual Health Research at the University of Southampton.
He says one of the arguments for having an age of consent is that it allows people who may feel pressured to have sex under 16 to say, "it's against the law".
"How often that's actually used, how often that stops people having sex that they don't want, we don't know."
He says surveys suggest that by the time they reach 18, the majority of people - about 60 to 70%, he says - have had sex (usually defined as intercourse).
But if the age of consent were to be raised to 18, for example, he says this would be "bringing in an awful lot of people into the bracket of being criminalised, even if the practice of the police and the prosecution is not to prosecute under certain conditions".
He says teenagers in consensual relationships below the age of consent - for example two 15-year-olds - are often nervous about going to family planning clinics to seek contraception in case they are reported - so one risky consequence of raising the age of consent could be more young people having unprotected sex.
In reality, sexual health clinics keep underage patients' details confidential, unless they are under 13 and thought to be at risk of harm, in which case other services may be alerted.
Brand denies the allegations of rape, sexual assaults and emotional abuse
Prof Ingham says more comprehensive sex and relationships education could help protect 16 and 17-year-olds, adding there should be "much more attention paid to issues of consent, not just in sexual situations".
Jayne Butler, chief executive of the charity Rape Crisis, agrees that better sex and relationship education and increased understanding are needed to shift societal attitudes around consent.
"We don't want to criminalise consensual relationships between 16-year-old peers, but there needs to be recognition of the significant power imbalance between older men and 16 year olds," she says.
"The cultural acceptance of relationships between young, potentially vulnerable people and someone much older needs to be addressed, and this doesn't start or end with just changing the law."
Prof Ingham says the issue of consent is challenged when someone with power or status, such as a celebrity, takes an interest in a young person.
A "star-struck" young person may be willing to have sex at the time but may regret it later, he says.
"It's a really complicated psychological issue, I'm not sure how you can legislate for it, to be honest."
Dr Laura Janes, from the Law Society's criminal law committee, also points out that the law in this area is already quite complex.
"What many people find confusing is we have different ages of consent for different things," she says - highlighting that in the UK someone is considered criminally responsible at 10 but can't have sex until 16 or vote in a general election until 18.
"If you take these three dates of what the law thinks you can do in terms of your development, we have already got a law which is very incoherent and inconsistent," she says.
A 16-year-old in the UK is allowed to have sex but not vote in a general election
The age of consent in England and Wales is broadly similar to other European countries - slightly higher than France's 15 and Germany's 14, but lower than Ireland's 17 and Malta's 18. However, the gap between the age of criminal responsibility and the age of consent in England and Wales is the biggest of all countries, she says.
"It's important to remember the law is a very blunt instrument and creates black and white lines," Dr Janes says.
And, crucially, the law changes according to the moral values of society, she says - so you have to take into account the cultural reality. She highlights YouGov research from earlier this year that shows a fifth of people say they had sex before the age of consent.
On top of this, she says one of the problems with English law is there has been a "proliferation in the number of laws we have". And the question is what another law change would achieve, when there are other current laws - for example, against coercive control - which aim to protect young people from the kind of harmful relationships that can happen when one partner is older.
"There's been a huge number of new offences that have appeared on the statute book and there is a real risk of it becoming overcomplicated," she says.
Dr Janes says that before any law change is considered, the priority should be making sure young people understand what the current law is - and then ensuring they know they can use it with confidence. "There needs to be a cultural understanding where people feel sufficiently confident to go to the police," she says.
And if there are going to be any legal changes, particularly if they involve intimacy and relationships between young people, "it has to be really clear and it has to be understandable to everyone, including potential victims and potential perpetrators".
• None Why do rape and sexual assault victims find it hard to go to police?
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66872467
|
news_uk-66872467
|
|
Laura Kuenssberg: Inside the high-stakes soap opera that led to political chaos - BBC News
|
2023-09-18
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Key players tell Laura Kuenssberg how six years of political turbulence rocked the British state.
|
UK
|
"We lost our minds." That unforgiving assessment is how a former government official who had one of the most important jobs in Britain, sums up the huge political turbulence that engulfed the UK between 2016 and 2022. It was, as she sees it, a collective meltdown in a country previously known for stability.
That period began with a referendum that tore up the status quo that had governed the country for 40 years and ended with the departure of the fourth prime minister in six years. It included two general elections and a global pandemic that pushed the machinery of government to the edge.
One resident of No 10 Downing Street even broke the law, and just about every unwritten rule too. So-called permanent secretaries - Whitehall bosses - turned out not to be so permanent after all, as tensions between the civil service and elected politicians reached fever pitch. And just for good measure, events of 2016 to 2022 poured political petrol on a burning conflict in the Conservative Party, the flames of which still glow today.
Boris Johnson in front of his "Get Brexit Done" election campaign bus
So why did our politics turn into a chaotic, high-stakes soap opera that left the civil service exhausted and the Conservative Party struggling to move on? How close did the British state come to implosion, and how did the conventions, checks and balances that have held it together for centuries come through their most prolonged stress test in a generation?
To answer these questions, I have spoken to dozens of senior politicians, staffers and former top officials to find out why they believe the era we have all just lived through was so wild. These were the people who were in the room when vital decisions were taken that affected us all, and they have relived and recounted the most intense moments for a major new BBC documentary series starting on Monday, State of Chaos.
We hear how rebels planned the takedown of Theresa May, sweating over computer screens, wearing shorts and flip-flops as they plotted through the height of summer. We take you right inside Downing Street as Dominic Cummings discussed breaking the law. We reveal the drastic steps some officials were willing to take as the government teetered on the edge during the height of the pandemic. We go to the Bank of England when financiers were shouting down the phone, as Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng's decisions sent the markets into meltdown.
Prime Minister Liz Truss and Chancellor of the Exchequer Kwasi Kwarteng visit a construction site for a medical innovation campus in Birmingham
And what became obvious is how the pace of events got faster and faster, the controversies wilder and wilder. The clashes of Theresa May's time, boiled into deliberate controversy and bust-ups across Whitehall under Boris Johnson, accelerating into the calamitous high-speed implosion of Liz Truss's ridiculously short time in charge.
While our leaders were fighting amongst themselves, with Whitehall, or trying to get elected, they were often distracted by the politics, even though the practical challenges were vast. Consider the two profound events those different administrations were grappling with - the decision to leave the EU and the pandemic.
If you had been travelling around the country during the early summer of 2016, the referendum result was not a surprise. But for the political establishment, for the institutions that wield power in this country, it was an incredible shock. It shook Westminster and Whitehall emotionally, leaving Parliament and government departments nervy, and unsure of their ground. That shock, evidence of how remote SW1 really was, became a justification for some Brexiteers of why they had wanted to quit the EU in the first place.
The decision then required the government and civil service to work out how to unplug the country from the framework it had followed for many decades, without a plan, and without political clarity.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson gives an update on relaxing Covid-19 restrictions ahead of "Freedom Day"
Then along came a genuine national emergency, which began with an obscure-sounding virus thousands of miles away, plunging the country into a period of danger and uncertainty, and the government into chaos. There was no adequate plan. At the start Downing Street had scant information. Yet Whitehall and Westminster, barely recovered from the stresses and strains of making Brexit happen, had to try to cope with the biggest crisis since World War Two, stepping into our lives in all sorts of ways to prevent disaster.
It might have been impossible for even the most harmonious government to keep calm through all of that. But the backdrop to it all was the screaming divisions inside the Conservative Party itself. Successive Tory governments walked into these challenges riddled with grudges, hurt and frustrations from the referendum campaign, including - on the Remain side - a deep sense of disbelief in quarters that the country had really voted to leave at all. The campaign made the splits ever more public and painful, carving the party into two deadly rival camps, and dragging in the whole country.
Chancellor Philip Hammond, Prime Minister Theresa May and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson during UK-France summit talks
There were days in Westminster where everyone felt like an enemy. It was striking how many of our interviewees, looking back, burst into tears at the awful memories - getting off the Tube at Parliament Square every day to walk through screaming crowds of protestors, death threats and danger appallingly became the norm. There were days when the atmosphere around Westminster felt foreign, and unsafe.
Trying to ram the Brexit result through Parliament was like trying to mix oil and water - a binary yes or no, stay or leave, did not compute in a system designed to amend, to tweak, to make gradual change. The country saw Parliament failing to find a way through, night after night, obscure disagreement after obscure disagreement.
As a result, the way each successive prime minister tried to govern changed. Theresa May had disastrously tried to follow the traditional Conservative way, running a broad church to please as many of the people much of the time. But to actually take the UK out of the EU, Boris Johnson and his team concluded the only way was to force everyone in the Tory party to pick a side, and to treat anyone who disagreed as an enemy.
Theresa May disastrously tried to follow the traditional Conservative way
Liz Truss went even further, overtly rejecting what she called the "orthodoxy", slamming the previous governments that even she had been part of, trying to change the course of the Conservatives at a hundred miles an hour. Her spectacular crash and burn was the logical end point, perhaps, of six years of chaos when the Conservatives so often turned in on themselves - and turned on each other.
David Cameron's decision to allow his ministers to campaign on different sides of the referendum all those years ago meant the incentive for ambitious Conservatives was to disagree with the boss, rather than fall into line. It created a habit that descended into a dangerous political addiction.
Boris Johnson and his team concluded the only way was to force everyone in the Tory party to pick a side
With the governing party at war with itself, there was a desperate hunt for any weapon that would do, and creating controversy became a more and more convenient choice.
Remember, politicians have never exactly been angels. Before 2016, it was not unheard of for them to provoke arguments to get their point heard. But the divisions the referendum baked in were so deep, the stakes so high, that making noise, and making enemies became standard business. And the volumes of debate became so loud, that actions became ever more radical to be heard.
Elements in the Conservative Party made targets of the civil service, the law, Parliament (where it was actually in charge), and the "elite", even though that was essentially blaming their reflections in the mirror. Boris Johnson, with the help of Dominic Cummings, picked fights which drove his rivals round the twist, to dramatic effect. Bosses in Whitehall were their targets often - the drive to reform the civil service was not new, and necessary even, according to some insiders - but the brutal tactics they tried to use, blew up.
Boris Johnson, with the help of Dominic Cummings, picked fights which drove his rivals round the twist
In the end, Mr Johnson found all the controversy sapped even his allies' tolerance. Ms Truss enthusiastically ran at many fights, including her own track record in government, and ended up punching herself in the face.
The Conservatives spent much of the last six years treating each other as enemies, and hunting for other bogeymen - Brussels, Whitehall, even former Conservative governments. It was so messy because of the bad blood of the referendum campaign which seeped into the party and Parliament, compounded by Whitehall's struggle to manage the challenges of Brexit and the pressures of the pandemic.
In all of our interviews for the series, it was glaringly obvious that not a single one disputed that things had gone terribly wrong. They point fingers in different places, but do not try to pretend the last six years have been anything other than chaotic.
And the consequence? Conservative hopes of pushing forward bold solutions to many of the country's problems, like social care, or housing, have largely had to wait. In private, many Conservatives now seethe at the lost opportunity of a big majority. It is normally only once in a generation that any political party gets the kind of numbers in the Commons that means they can make sweeping changes to the country - think of 1979 for the Conservatives, or 1997 for Labour. On paper, 2019 would have been one of those moments - not any more.
Boris Johnson is being paid millions to put pen to paper and Liz Truss is writing her own version of events too
Different arguments about that era, 2016 to 2022, will rage for decades. None of the departed prime ministers have just given up. Theresa May is arguing for her reputation in a new book. Boris Johnson is being paid millions to put pen to paper, and some of his allies are still fighting the cause. Liz Truss is writing her own version of events too.
And while the chaos has, under Rishi Sunak, subsided, achieving his primary goal, there is no escape from the legacy of those years of mess. There is a seemingly never-ending stream of by-elections, as the former PM's old allies leave the scene. A coalition of voters brought together by Mr Johnson's Brexit, is now up for grabs. The public finances are in bad shape, partly down to the actions of Ms Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng.
Whitehall feels battered, depleted. Its vulnerabilities were laid so bare during the pandemic that confidence has fallen away in some quarters. And it is common now for politicians to target Whitehall as "the blob" - resistant to change, still accused of having never wanted Brexit at all.
At senior levels of the civil service there has long been an acknowledgement that the Rolls-Royce reputation of Whitehall may not be entirely deserved, and things have to change. But being the target of overt political attacks has hardly helped ease that along. On the other side, ministers privately wonder even if some departments are on a "go-slow", after all the drama, waiting out what might be left of this Conservative administration before a potential change next time round.
Liz Truss, Theresa May and Boris Johnson after delivering their resignation speeches outside No 10
But more than anything, perhaps we are left with a big problem that affects every political group. After all the drama, many voters wonder if any party, any leader would actually put them first. Would any of the promises they make actually come true?
The two contenders to be the next prime minister, unkindly branded "dull and duller" by one of their rivals, do not have the obvious instinct to breed deliberate controversy, to break the rules. Yet without excitement, without screeds of evidence of passion and conviction, can they really enthuse the public at all? An apathetic, exhausted electorate might, next time, just stay at home.
Over the next three weeks we will reveal just how close the political system came to falling apart, and how conventions were smashed to bits.
The deepest irony of course? David Cameron's decision to hold the referendum was meant to end the Tories' internal woes over Europe. In fact, it opened up a nasty chasm in our political system that nearly sucked everyone and everything in.
From Theresa May's slow demise to Liz Truss's sharp exit, the fighting and campaigning never really stopped. Maybe it made it hard for the governing ever really to begin.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66755345
|
news_uk-66755345
|
|
Brexit: Labour will seek re-write of deal, Starmer says - BBC News
|
2023-09-18
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The agreement is due for review in 2025, which the Labour leader says is a key moment to reset relations.
|
UK Politics
|
Sir Keir Starmer is currently in Canada meeting with centre-left global leaders
Sir Keir Starmer has said he will seek a "much better" Brexit deal with the EU if Labour wins the next general election.
The opposition leader told the Financial Times that the current deal, which is due for review in 2025, is "too thin".
Sir Keir was speaking at a conference of centre-left leaders in Montreal, Canada.
But he ruled out re-joining the customs union, the single market or the EU.
It remains unclear, however, if Brussels would be open to making major changes to the agreement, which was agreed by former Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson in 2021.
A Conservative spokesman accused the Labour leader of changing his position, saying: "Three years ago he promised he wouldn't seek major changes to the UK's new relationship with the EU, but now his latest short term position is that he will.
"What price would Keir Starmer be prepared to pay to the EU for renegotiating our relationship?"
Sir Keir has repeatedly said he would not seek to rejoin the EU if his party comes to power, promising to "make Brexit work".
His party has consistently held double-digit leads in the political opinion polls, with a general election expected to take place some time in 2024.
"Almost everyone recognises the deal Johnson struck is not a good deal - it's far too thin," he told the Financial Times.
"As we go into 2025 we will attempt to get a much better deal for the UK," he said, although he did not specify what parts of the deal he would seek to improve.
He added that he was confident a better deal could be negotiated with Brussels, as well as a "closer trading relationship".
"We have to make it work. That's not a question of going back in, but I refuse to accept that we can't make it work," he said, adding that he was thinking about "future generations".
"I say that as a dad. I've got a 15-year-old boy and a 12-year-old girl. I'm not going to let them grow up in a world where all I've got to say to them about their future is, it's going to be worse than it might otherwise have been.
"I've got an utter determination to make this work."
This is a significant piece of political positioning from Sir Keir. He has spent much of his leadership trying to reassure voters that he would not take Britain back into the EU, or seek membership of the single market or customs union.
That position has not changed. But figures around the Labour leader believe that having got over the message that he does not want to undo Brexit, he has now earned a hearing to talk about changing the terms of the settlement.
The Trade and Co-Operation Agreement signed by Mr Johnson already has a review in 2025 written into it. The current thinking in Brussels is that this would only involve minor tweaks, though Sir Keir may have further-reaching changes in mind, including agreements on deeper trade ties, more exchanges for young people and students and easier rules for touring musicians and artists.
The willingness to put improved relations with the EU at the heart of his political offer is a sign of Sir Keir's growing political confidence. This was also in evidence last week when Sir Keir visited The Hague, in the Netherlands, to talk about how better co-operation with the EU could help deal with small boats crossing the Channel.
The Conservatives have already seized on Sir Keir's comments about Brexit. They believe that his position could push Brexiteers who backed the Conservatives in 2019 back towards Rishi Sunak. A Conservative spokesman said that Sir Keir "wants to take Britain back to square one on Brexit, reopening the arguments of the past all over again".
Sir Keir spent the weekend meeting fellow centre-left leaders in Canada, including the country's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
He is also expected to travel to Paris to meet French President Emmanuel Macron later this week, where post-Brexit relations are expected to feature heavily in talks.
His visit to the Hague last week to meet with the EU's law enforcement agency Europol, seeking a deal to try and stop smuggling gangs bringing people across the channel in small boats led to accusations by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Home Secretary Suella Braverman that his party was planning to let the UK become a "dumping ground" for 100,000 migrants from the continent each year, claims he said were "complete garbage".
There is some anxiety in Labour about the row Sir Keir found himself embroiled in about whether Labour would accept a quota of asylum seekers from the EU as part of a 'burden-sharing' migration agreement. On Sunday, the Labour leader ruled this out after days of debate.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66839501
|
news_uk-66839501
|
|
Humza Yousaf: Scotland can lead world in climate crisis - BBC News
|
2023-09-18
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The first minister says the country will transition away from being Europe's oil and gas capital.
|
Scotland politics
|
Humza Yousaf has travelled to New York for a climate conference
Scotland will transition from Europe's oil and gas capital to its net-zero capital as it provides "moral leadership" on the climate crisis, Humza Yousaf has claimed.
The first minister said his government was "putting money where our mouth is" during a speech at a New York Climate Week event.
He announced funding for countries worst affected by climate change.
Mr Yousaf was the keynote speaker at an event on "financing climate justice".
He warned countries in the global south who had contributed least to global CO2 emissions were bearing the brunt of the climate emergency.
"We are collectively guilty of catastrophic negligence and our children have every right to be angry and they have every right, quite frankly, not to forgive us if we do not step up," the SNP leader said.
He announced an extra £800,000 of funding, in partnership with the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, to help the victims of Storm Freddy in Malawi.
The first minister also said the government would partner with the Climate Justice Resilience Fund to deliver £5m for a non-economic loss and damage programme.
A further £1m is to be provided to address loss and damage through the Humanitarian Emergency Fund.
Mr Yousaf said it meant Scotland was fulfilling its pledge from COP27 to commit £7m to countries hit hardest by the climate crisis.
"We will transition from being the oil and gas capital of Europe to unleashing our renewable potential and becoming the net-zero capital of the world," Mr Yousaf added.
"We will show moral leadership and ensure funding for loss and damage is not just pledged but paid and I would urge other nations to join us. The very existence of humanity depends on it."
Earlier, a Scottish government minister said it was right that Mr Yousaf travelled more than 3,000 miles to attend the event in New York.
Mairi McAllan, secretary for transport, net zero and just transition, told Good Morning Scotland: "I understand the argument about reducing travel - it's something we bear in mind.
"When it comes to the transformation that the climate emergency demands of us, it is very important to be having discussions in person and to be doing those negotiations both formally and informally."
In August, the Scottish government's climate justice fund pledged £24m to aid agencies working in Malawi, Rwanda and Zambia.
Transport, Net Zero and Just Transition Secretary Mairi McAllan said Scotland had a "moral obligation" to help other nations
"It's right that we do everything we can to support the nations who have done virtually nothing to contribute but who are on the first and worst receiving end of it," Ms McAllan said.
The Scottish government is aiming to reach net-zero emissions by 2045, with its two largest cities - Glasgow and Edinburgh - setting the even more ambitious target of 2030.
But both Edinburgh and Glasgow city councils have warned that they lack the funds to reach those goals, with billions of pounds of investment required.
Ms McAllan acknowledged the cost of decarbonising was "really significant" but said the government was investing heavily in the process and "pioneering" progressive taxation.
"The public sector cannot fund the journey to net-zero alone and we need to private finance in a way which is responsible and which works for our communities but undoubtedly it will have to play a significant part in the journey," she told BBC Scotland.
She called for more radical action from the UK government, describing Westminster policy as "increasingly out of date".
The minister criticised the UK government for not introducing more progressive taxes on energy firms, failing to decouple the price of gas from electricity and not using more carbon capture and wind technology.
One of the key debates about the UK's climate ambitions is over Rosebank, the country's largest untapped oil field, off the coast of Shetland.
Ms McAllan stressed that the Scottish government did not hold powers over licensing such sites.
She added: "It's an evidence-based approach that we want to see taken by UK government including a very strict climate compatibility test, and if Rosebank can't meet a strict climate compatibility test I see no reason why it should go ahead."
Her comments came after Oxfam released a report looking at how ministers could "make polluters across the UK pay for climate justice".
It said greater levies on oil and gas firms and a tax system targeting those with extreme wealth could have raised between £10.5bn and £12.6bn in in 2022.
The study also found transport was currently Scotland's biggest emitter, generating more than a quarter (26%) of the country's carbon emissions.
But Lewis Ryder-Jones, Oxfam Scotland's policy adviser, said his organisation was "pragmatic" in its approach to air travel when asked about Mr Yousaf's trip to New York.
"Of course we want to see a reduction in flights used by everyone globally," he told Good Morning Scotland. "That's why we want to see a progressively increasing frequent flier levy."
He added: "But the reality is people are going to need to fly and there are important reasons why people fly and those of us who take holidays every year should be allowed to do so.
"But through that process we must take responsibility for the emissions we are creating and the government has the power to increase the revenues we can get from those actions."
They said :"Our windfall tax on oil and gas companies is expected to raise an extra £26bn, whilst our tax system is also designed fairly so the richest bear the most burden - UK taxes on wealth are on par with other G7 countries and the top 5% of income taxpayers contribute half of all income tax.
"The UK is a world leader on net zero, cutting emissions faster than any other G7 country, and with 48% of our electricity coming from renewables in the first quarter of this year, the four largest operational wind farms in the world off our shores and significant investment in nuclear power, we expect that to continue."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66842054
|
news_uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66842054
|
|
Peter Navarro: Ex-Trump adviser convicted of contempt of Congress - BBC News
|
2023-09-08
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Peter Navarro faces up to a year in prison for failing to co-operate with a congressional committee.
|
US & Canada
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Former Trump aide Peter Navarro has been convicted of contempt of Congress for refusing to co-operate with an inquiry into alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election result.
Prosecutors said Navarro acted "above the law" by ignoring a subpoena from a congressional investigation.
He faces up to a year in prison for each of the two contempt counts.
Another key Trump ally, former strategist Steve Bannon, was convicted last year of contempt of Congress.
Outside the court in Washington DC on Thursday, Navarro said it was a "sad day for America", vowing to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.
"This is the first time in the history of our republic," he said, "that a senior White House adviser, an alter ego of the president, has ever been charged with this alleged crime."
He argued that the Department of Justice has had a policy for more than 50 years that senior White House advisers could not be compelled to testify before Congress.
"Yet they brought the case," Navarro said.
He was found guilty by the 12-member jury after four hours of deliberations, following a trial that lasted two days.
As well as an appeal, Navarro's lawyers are motioning for a mistrial, alleging that jurors went outside court during their deliberations and encountered protesters.
Navarro, who served as senior trade adviser to former President Donald Trump, was served with a subpoena by a US House of Representatives select committee in February 2022.
But he did not hand over any of the requested emails or documents or appear to testify before the Democratic-led panel.
The committee had hoped to question Navarro about efforts to delay certification of the 2020 election, according to a former staff director for the panel who testified in court.
In his 2021 book, In Trump Time, Navarro said he was the architect of a strategy to challenge the election results, claiming widespread voter fraud.
The plan was for congressional Republicans to delay certification of President Joe Biden's victory.
Navarro called this strategy the Green Bay Sweep, a reference to a tactic in American football.
The House committee said Navarro's claims of massive ballot fraud had been exposed as baseless by state and local officials.
Navarro was indicted in June last year and arrested by FBI agents at a Washington airport as he was boarding a flight to Nashville, Tennessee.
During their closing arguments, prosecutors said Navarro chose his allegiance to Mr Trump over complying with the subpoena.
"That is contempt. That is a crime," prosecutor Elizabeth Aloi told the court.
Navarro's lawyer, Stanley Woodward, presented little evidence during the trial and instead sought to discredit the prosecutor's case.
When contacted by the committee, Navarro said Mr Trump had instructed him to cite executive privilege.
This is a legal principle that allows certain White House communications to be kept under wraps.
But last week, Judge Amit Mehta, an Obama nominee, ruled there was no evidence that Mr Trump or executive privilege could have permitted Navarro to ignore the committee's summons.
In addition to a maximum sentence of a year in prison for each count, Navarro also faces fines of up to $100,000 (£80,000).
His sentencing is scheduled for January.
Bryan Lanza, a former Trump campaign adviser, told the BBC the prosecution seemed politically motivated.
"It is not uncommon for Congress to hold former or serving members of presidential administrations in contempt," he said.
Lawmakers found ex-Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, but he was not criminally prosecuted
"It is uncommon for the actual justice department to go forward with these prosecutions."
He cited the example of the former US Attorney General Eric Holder, under Democratic President Barack Obama, who was found in contempt of a Republican-controlled Congress in 2012 for refusing to hand over subpoenaed documents, but was not criminally prosecuted.
"We're going down a dangerous route by escalating these things," said Mr Lanza.
"That's not good for our system of government," he added.
Former Trump campaign strategist Steve Bannon was convicted of two counts of contempt for defying the House committee's legal summons in July 2022.
Bannon was sentenced to four months in jail, but has remained free while his defence team appeals the conviction.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66744592
|
news_world-us-canada-66744592
|
|
Leaders grapple with the politics of Rosebank oil field - BBC News
|
2023-09-27
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The PM is accused of recklessness after a new oil field is approved but he says he is being pragmatic.
|
UK Politics
|
Campaigner protest the new Rosebank oil field outside a government building in Edinburgh
For the second week in a row, the politics of climate swirl again.
In his big green speech last week, the prime minister said his government would be "brave" in its decision making and focus on what was in the long term interests of the country.
But such interests, politically, are always in the eye of the beholder.
The prime minister has welcomed the approval of the Rosebank oil and gas field.
Critics accuse the government of recklessness. Rishi Sunak argues he is being pragmatic.
This drilling isn't expected to lower bills in the UK, but a state seen as rogue - Russia - weaponising fossil fuels, has transformed one element of this debate.
And most accept Russia's invasion of Ukraine gives the argument about energy security much, much more clout.
But one figure steeped in the politics of climate change suggested to me that Mr Sunak ought to be more candid about the trade off here - improving the UK's energy security, but allowing more greenhouse gas emissions.
Scotland's First Minister, the SNP leader Humza Yousaf, argues the approval dilutes incentives for energy companies to transition to renewables.
The UK government claims it will boost their investments in them.
And then there is the Labour Party - whose position on all this is as important as it is fascinating.
Critics accuse Labour of weakness - not having their cake, and then eating it anyway - Keir Starmer insists he's being responsible in both opposing this approval but saying a Labour government would respect existing licences that have been granted.
Opposition parties, in normal times, don't have agency. They can talk, but not do.
But, a year-ish from the general election, with Labour miles ahead in the opinion polls, their view on this does matter to whether it happens.
A categorical refusal to allow the project to proceed under a Labour government could squash it right now.
But the party's judgement - in its quest for economic credibility and political stability - is that would be wrong.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66942988
|
news_uk-politics-66942988
|
|
Donald Trump liable for business fraud, says judge in New York civil case - BBC News
|
2023-09-27
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The former president was accused of overvaluing his net worth by as much as $ 2.2bn.
|
US & Canada
|
The former president has denied any wrongdoing and on Tuesday said the case in New York was another political "witch hunt"
Donald Trump committed fraud by repeatedly misrepresenting his wealth by hundreds of millions of dollars, a New York judge has ruled.
The ruling, part of a civil case brought against the former president and his family business, said he defrauded banks and insurers for years.
It is a major blow to Mr Trump that will likely hamper his ability to do business in the state.
Mr Trump and the other defendants have argued that they never committed fraud.
New York Attorney General Letitia James had accused Trump, his two adult sons and the Trump Organization of inflating the value of their properties by more than $2bn (£1.65bn) to suit the needs of their business.
She claimed the defendants issued false records and financial statements in order to get better terms on loans and insurance deals, and to pay less tax.
The scathing decision on Tuesday was issued by Judge Arthur Engoron in the New York state court, after Ms James asked for a summary ruling before the trial begins. She argued that finding certain facts to be beyond dispute would speed up the trial.
The ruling resolves the key claim of fraud made in the lawsuit, meaning the trial will now focus on a more narrow set of six remaining claims and determine the size of any potential penalty.
The trial is scheduled to begin on 2 October and could last until at least December. Ms James is seeking $250m in penalties and a ban on Mr Trump doing business in his home state.
In his ruling, Judge Engoron said "the documents here clearly contain fraudulent valuations that defendants used in business".
"That is a fantasy world, not the real world," he wrote.
Judge Engoron also ordered the cancellation of business certificates that allow some of the former president's businesses, including the Trump Organization, to operate in New York.
That will not dissolve his company, but could end his control over signature New York properties like the Trump Tower and the Trump Building at 40 Wall Street.
The judge denied the Trump team's request to throw out the case, and separately fined five Trump attorneys $7,500 each for making "preposterous" arguments already rejected by the court and fuelling what he called their clients' "obstreperous" conduct.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. New York attorney general Letitia James wants the Trumps to repay $250m that she says was illegally obtained
Lawyers for Mr Trump said this ruling was "a miscarriage of justice" and indicated they would appeal.
The former president has denied any wrongdoing and on Tuesday said the case was another political "witch hunt" brought by a prosecutor who was biased against him.
He accused the judge of being "highly politicised".
Mr Trump is still seeking to delay the trial in New York and has sued the judge. An appeals court is set to rule this week on that lawsuit. If it rules against him, Mr Trump will have to fight out the rest of the case in court.
It is just one of several legal battles the Republican frontrunner is facing as he campaigns for an election rematch with President Joe Biden next year and a potential return to the White House.
He is also facing 91 felony charges across four criminal cases. He has pleaded not guilty in those cases.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66931855
|
news_world-us-canada-66931855
|
|
Croydon: Tributes paid to girl, 15, killed on way to school - BBC News
|
2023-09-27
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
A teenage boy has been arrested after the girl was stabbed on her way to school in south London.
|
London
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Residents say stabbings happen "far too often"
A 15-year-old girl who was killed on her way to school has been described as "very comedic" with a "bright future".
Flowers and cards have been placed near the scene where the stabbing took place in Croydon, south London, at about 08:30 BST on Wednesday.
A witness said the victim was stabbed in the neck with a foot-long knife.
A boy aged 17, believed to be known to the victim, was arrested shortly after the girl died at 09:21.
Neither the victim nor the suspect have been named.
Witnesses said there had been an argument with a boy who tried to give the girl or her friend flowers.
The Metropolitan Police urged those with information or footage of the attack to come forward.
Ch Sup Andy Brittain said officers were supporting the girl's family who were "facing the most tragic of news".
"I am in contact with the local community, who are clearly as concerned as we are about this tragic incident," he added.
"Within 75 minutes a 17-year-old boy was arrested in New Addington, and remains in custody."
The force said that it was not looking for anyone else in connection to the offence.
People in Croydon left flowers at the scene of the stabbing in Croydon
One of the cards left near the attack read: "Sorry we live in this crazy world, this makes no sense. Fly high up there, my mummy will look after you. RIP beautiful, forever young, taken too soon."
Staff at Old Palace of John Whitgift, the girl's school in Croydon, said the school community was "deeply shocked at the death of a "much-loved and valued friend and pupil".
"It will take some time for the Old Palace community to come to terms with this terrible news, and we will offer support to our pupils as we try to do so.
"Above all, we send our love and deepest sympathies to the girl's family at this unimaginably distressing time."
A bunch of flowers can be seen lying on the ground near a white forensic tent at the scene
The year 11 pupil had just got off the number 60 bus with a group of friends when she was attacked. Witnesses said the bus driver and other passers-by tried to save her.
"I know the officers who responded this morning, along with our emergency service colleagues, are devastated at the victim's death."
He said officers were on the scene within two minutes of the call being received and provided emergency first aid.
Visiting the scene Met Police commissioner Sir Mark Rowley called the murder "senseless" and said it was "impossible to comprehend."
He added that it was "moving and humbling to meet many members of the exceptional Croydon community who have come together in support of a family now dealing with the most unimaginable grief."
Met Police Ch Sup Andy Brittain said it was "every parent's worst nightmare"
Police cars and ambulances surrounded a red double decker bus in Wellesley Road, near the Whitgift Centre.
A white forensic tent has been erected within a police cordon outside the shopping centre and flowers can be seen by the tent.
One witness, who only wanted to be named as Bridget, said: "I was on the bus before and came off and walked back down, I saw them resuscitating her.
"The driver was holding her and a lady. The emergency services were already here when I walked back."
Local youth worker Anthony King, who runs a crime reduction organisation in Croydon, said the girl - who was in her GCSE year - "had a bright future ahead of her".
He described her as an "absolutely incredible young lady" and told of how others said she was "jovial, very comedic".
He told BBC Radio London he met with the girl's friends and family following this morning's attack.
"This is the fourth or fifth time that I've had to look a parent in the eye and tell them their child has died. It's the worst day of my life and I can't imagine what that feeling is like [for them].
"The noises and screams I heard this morning will sit in my spirit indefinitely. Keep the family in your prayers and thoughts."
He added that it had been 22 months since a teenager had been murdered in Croydon.
The 15-year-old girl was a pupil at Old Palace of John Whitgift School
This is the 15th teenage homicide this year. There were 14 last year.
According to Met Police data, between August 2022 and 2023, Croydon had more stabbings than any other borough in London, with 211 "knife crime with injury" offences recorded.
When population size is factored in, Croydon has 0.5 "knife crime with injury" offences per 1,000 people, making it the 10th highest rate out of London's boroughs.
Croydon resident Georgina Slater, told the BBC the killing was "absolutely disgusting, and it's just happening far too often in this area".
"I don't understand how at this time in the morning a little girl's been stabbed," she said.
Georgina Slater said the people of Croydon "need help and no-one's doing it"
"I don't know what the police are doing... they're just getting younger.
"We need intervention, we need stuff for the kids, they've got no guidance. The police turn up when it's this - where's the interventions in the schools?"
Another passer-by, Christopher Ita, said: "This will happen again next week, and next month, it'll just be somebody else."
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said he was "absolutely heartbroken" by the killing and appealed for witnesses, adding he was in touch with the Met Police commissioner.
Forensic investigators at the scene of the stabbing
Patrick Green, the chief executive of anti-knife crime charity the Ben Kinsella Trust, argued that knife crime is "the most pressing problem facing this country today."
He called for police to be given more resources to deal with the issue and for work to be done to make knives less readily available online.
Mr Green told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that young people carrying knives for protection is "a vicious cycle."
He added: "There is work to be done about working with young people to make sure that they feel safe in the environments that they live and go to school in. That's critical."
Croydon Central MP, Sarah Jones, said she was "heartbroken that a child in my town has been killed on her way to school".
She thanked the police and ambulance service for their quick response and attempts to save the girl's life.
Croydon South MP and minister for policing Chris Philp said news of the girl's death was "devastating".
"Nothing can be worse for a parent than losing a child. We must redouble our efforts to take all knives off the streets of London, using every means available."
Steve Reed, MP for Croydon North, called it "another tragic, shocking and avoidable loss of life".
Mayor of Croydon Jason Perry also said he was devastated, adding "our whole community's thoughts are with the victim's family and friends".
Have you been affected by what's happened? You can get in touch 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.
Listen to the best of BBC Radio London on Sounds and follow BBC London on Facebook, X and Instagram. Send your story ideas to hellobbclondon@bbc.co.uk
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66935446
|
news_uk-england-london-66935446
|
|
Peter Nygard: Fashion mogul begins trial facing sexual assault charges - BBC News
|
2023-09-27
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
He is also set to be extradited to the US to face charges there once his Canada cases end.
|
US & Canada
|
Peter Nygard, seen here leaving an Ontario courthouse, is facing extradition to the US
Canadian prosecutors began laying out arguments against former fashion mogul Peter Nygard as his sexual assault trial opened in an Ontario court.
In opening remarks, they alleged Mr Nygard, 82, used his "power and status" to assault five women in incidents dating from the late 1980s to 2005.
He lured the women - aged 16 to 28 at the time - into a private bedroom in his firm's Toronto headquarters, prosecutors said.
Mr Nygard has denied all the charges.
He pleaded not guilty last week to five counts of sexual assault and one count of forcible confinement.
In the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on Tuesday, Crown attorney Ana Serban accused Mr Nygard of using his status as a "wealthy fashion designer to lure and sexually assault young women".
The young women were offered jobs or tours to lure them to his Toronto offices, she said.
There, "behind all the trappings of success and power, there's a bedroom suite with a giant bed... and a bar and doors, doors with no handles and automatic locks controlled by Peter Nygard," Ms Serban said, according to AFP.
She alleged Mr Nygard would attack the women once they were trapped in that room.
All five women in the lawsuit are expected to testify during the Ontario trial, which is expected to last at least six weeks.
He was brought into court in a wheelchair on Tuesday, his once flowing blonde mane turned gray and pulled back in a bun, and ghostly pale, AFP reported.
Mr Nygard also faces sex-related charges in Manitoba, Quebec and the US.
He is due to face another trial in the province of Quebec next year and is set to be extradited to the US once his criminal cases in Canada are completed.
According to US authorities, the multimillionaire engaged in "a decades-long pattern of criminal conduct involving at least dozens of victims" in the US, Canada and other countries.
Mr Nygard was once estimated to be worth at least $700m (£575m), after founding a sportswear company in the 1960s in the Canadian city of Winnipeg.
The Finnish-Canadian businessman later developed his firm, Nygard International, into a global apparel empire.
Mr Nygard often hosted celebrities and politicians at his properties to promote his brands, which included Bianca Nygard, Tan Jay, ALIA and SLIMS.
He stepped down as chairman in February 2020 shortly before it filed for bankruptcy following a raid by US authorities of its New York City corporate headquarters.
He has been in prison since his arrest in December of that year.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66932067
|
news_world-us-canada-66932067
|
|
Meta announces AI chatbots with 'personality' - BBC News
|
2023-09-27
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
At Meta's first in-person event since before the pandemic, Mark Zuckerberg announced his AI plans.
|
Technology
|
Mark Zuckerberg, the boss of Facebook parent Meta, has invested billions in virtual reality and AI
Meta has announced a series of new chatbots to be used in its Messenger service.
The chatbots will have "personality" and specialise in certain subjects, like holidays or cooking advice.
It is the latest salvo in a chatbot arms race between tech companies desperate to produce more accurate and personalised artificial intelligence.
The chatbots are still a work in progress with "limitations", said boss Mark Zuckerberg.
In California, during Meta's first in-person event since before the pandemic, Mr Zuckerberg said that it had been an "amazing year for AI".
The company is calling its main chatbot "Meta AI" and can be used in messaging. For example, users can ask Meta AI questions in chat "to settle arguments" or ask other questions.
The BBC has not yet tested the chatbot which is based on Llama 2, the large language model that the company released for public commercial use in July.
Several celebrities have also signed up to lend their personalities to different types of chatbots, including Snoop Dogg and Kendall Jenner.
The idea is to create chatbots that are not just designed to answer questions.
"This isn't just going to be about answering queries," Zuckerberg said. "This is about entertainment".
According to Meta, NFL star Tom Brady will play an AI character called 'Bru', "a wisecracking sports debater" and YouTube star MrBeast will play 'Zach', a big brother "who will roast you".
Mr Zuckerberg said there were still "a lot of limitations" around what the bots could answer.
The chatbots will be rolled out in the coming days and only in the US initially.
Mr Zuckerberg also discussed the metaverse - a virtual world - which is a concept that Mr Zuckerberg has so far spent tens of billions of dollars on.
Although Meta had already announced its new virtual reality headset, Quest 3, the company gave further details at the event.
Meta's boss described the headset as the first "mainstream" mixed reality headset. Cameras facing forward will mean the headset will allow for augmented reality. It will be available from 10 October.
The firm's big, long-term bet on the metaverse still appears yet to pay off, with Meta's VR division suffering $21bn (£17bn) in losses since the start of 2022.
The Quest 3 came after Apple entered the higher-priced mixed reality hardware market with the Vision Pro earlier this year.
Mat Day, global gaming strategy director for EssenceMediacom, said Mark Zuckerberg had "reinvigorated" the VR sector.
"Meta's VR roadmap is now firmly positioned around hardware priced for the mass market. This is a stark contrast to Apple's approach which is aimed at the high end tech enthusiast," he said.
Meta's announcement came on the same day as rival OpenAI, the Microsoft-backed creator of ChatGPT, confirmed its chatbot can now browse the internet to provide users with current information. The artificial intelligence-powered system was previously trained only using data up to September 2021.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66941337
|
news_technology-66941337
|
|
Drive-through worker draws gun on 'missing curly fries' customer - BBC News
|
2023-09-27
|
[]
|
CCTV of a fast food drive-through shows a worker pull a gun during a row with a customer.
| null |
CCTV footage of a fast food restaurant drive-through shows the moment a worker pulled a gun on a customer after an argument over missing fries.
The incident took place in March 2021 in Houston, Texas.
The driver’s family has since filed a lawsuit against Jack-in-the-Box and its employee, Alonniea Ford-Theriot.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66933961
|
news_world-us-canada-66933961
|
|
Rosebank oil field given go-ahead by regulators - BBC News
|
2023-09-27
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The controversial development west of Shetland is estimated to contain 300 million barrels of oil.
|
Scotland business
|
Equinor hope to develop Rosebank close to BP's Clair Ridge development (pictured) which has been in operation since 2018
The controversial Rosebank offshore development off Shetland has been granted consent by regulators.
Located 80 miles west of Shetland, Rosebank is the UK's largest untapped oil field and is estimated to contain up to 300 million barrels of oil.
Development and production approval has been given to owners Equinor and Ithaca Energy, following reassurances over environmental concerns.
The plan has faced widespread criticism due to its impact on climate change.
Supporters of the project say it is vital for the energy security as it will reduce reliance on imports.
Its owners say it will create about 1,600 jobs during the height of construction, support 450 UK-based jobs during its lifetime, and provide "a significant amount of tax revenues for the treasury".
It comes after the UK government said in July that it would issue hundreds of new licences for oil and gas exploration in the North Sea.
But last month 50 MPs and peers from all major parties raised concerns Rosebank could produce 200 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and urged then Energy Secretary Grant Shapps to block it.
It has been predicted that Rosebank could produce 69,000 barrels of oil a day at its peak, and about 44 million cubic feet of gas per day in its first 10 years.
Production is expected to begin in 2026/27 but a senior executive with Norweigan state oil company Equinor has admitted the new field will not be electrified at that point.
Electrification of the extraction process is one of the key industry pledges for reducing its production emissions.
The oil and gas regulator, North Sea Transition Authority, said approval had been awarded "in accordance with our published guidance and taking net zero considerations into account throughout the project's lifecycle".
What questions do you have about the Rosebank oil field?
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said it "makes sense" for the UK to use its own oil and gas supplies as the UK makes the transition to renewables.
The UK has a target to hit net zero - emitting no more greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide than the amount taken out of the atmosphere - by 2050.
"This is the right long-term decision for the UK's energy security," he added.
Meanwhile Energy Security Secretary Claire Coutinho said its value to the economy would give the UK greater energy independence.
"We will continue to back the UK's oil and gas industry to underpin our energy security, grow our economy and help us deliver the transition to cheaper, cleaner energy," she added.
Anti-Rosebank protesters outside the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero earlier this year
Opponents argue the oil and gas produced from Rosebank will be sold at world market prices, so the project will not cut prices for UK consumers.
"It won't make the slightest difference to people's energy bills", the Green Party MP Caroline Lucas claimed on BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
Equinor - which is the majority owner of Rosebank - confirmed that during a briefing for journalists earlier.
"If the UK needs Rosebank oil, it will go to the UK through open market mechanisms", said Arne Gurtner, Equinor's senior vice president for the UK.
Scotland's Energy Secretary Neil Gray raised concerns that the majority of what will be extracted from Rosebank will go overseas rather than contribute to domestic energy security.
"We are therefore disappointed that approval has been given by the UK government while these concerns remain unaddressed," he added.
His colleague Stephen Flynn - the SNP's Westminster leader and MP for Aberdeen South, a constituency with strong links to the oil and gas industry - did not oppose the oil field outright.
He said that if the UK government was considering oil and gas projects "through the prism of energy security, net zero, jobs, opportunities and concurrent renewables investment... then of course it should go ahead."
"Where I have concerns is I don't think the UK government is looking at projects through that prism," he said.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has confirmed that his party will not revoke the licence for Rosebank if it wins the election.
But he added that no new licences would be granted if Labour gained power.
He told the BBC's Political Thinking with Nick Robinson podcast that allowing the North Sea exploration to go ahead would provide "the stability that we desperately need in our economy"
Scottish Green MSPs were among those who joined a protest against the Rosebank decision outside the UK government building in Edinburgh
Meanwhile it was condemned as an "utter catastrophe" by the Scottish Greens, the SNP's partners in the Scottish government.
Climate spokesperson Mark Ruskell said it was the "worst possible choice at the worst possible time" and showed "total contempt for our environment and future generations".
He was among dozens of climate activists demonstrating against the Rosebank decision out the UK government offices in Edinburgh.
Another, Bryce Goodall, said: "We absolutely outraged that this has been decided in the midst of a cost of living crisis... this oil field is not going to do anything to lower energy bills or provide energy security whatsoever so I'm absolutely incensed with anger here."
Juliet Dunstone, who was also part of the protest, said: "We need to have a just transition and we need to prioritise people who are working in oil and gas to give them those green jobs and get them out of these polluting jobs that they're stuck in because we need to avert the climate crisis immediately or millions of people will die."
But Russell Borthwick, chief executive of Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, said: "Rosebank will make an important contribution to UK and European energy security, create several hundred new jobs here in Scotland and result in over £6bn being spent within the UK supply chain which is anchored in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire.
"Today's announcement is a welcome shot in arm for the UK energy sector which will give investors, operators and the wider supply chain confidence as they strive to provide the power we need here and now and transition towards a net zero future."
For more than half a century, North Sea oil has been at the heart of economic and political debate in Scotland.
The discovery of the "black gold" turned Aberdeen into the oil capital of Europe and fuelled the Scottish independence movement.
Critics of the UK's approach say it should have followed Norway's lead by investing revenue generated by the boom in a sovereign investment fund.
Now the industry has moved westwards into the stormy waters of the North Atlantic ocean, the focus of the debate has switched to the environmental impact of drilling but those old arguments about economic benefit have been revived too.
For decades Shetland prospered handsomely from oil thanks to a deal the local council struck with energy firms to allow the construction of a terminal at Sullum Voe.
However the oil from Rosebank will not be processed on Shetland but offloaded by tanker and sold on the international market.
Supporters say the project, run by the Norwegian state energy firm Equinor, will create hundreds of jobs and bring in billions of pounds in investment.
But critics say the biggest winner is Norway.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-66933346
|
news_uk-scotland-scotland-business-66933346
|
|
GB News suspends Laurence Fox over comments about journalist Ava Evans - BBC News
|
2023-09-27
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
In a segment on the channel, Fox made disparaging remarks about PoliticsJOE reporter Ava Evans.
|
UK
|
GB News has suspended host Laurence Fox after he denigrated a journalist and asked what "self-respecting man" would "climb into bed" with her.
His comments were made in a live discussion after PoliticsJOE reporter Ava Evans said on the BBC that calls for a minister for men "feed into the culture war".
GB News said it would formally apologise to Evans.
The broadcaster distanced itself from Fox's comments shortly after they were aired, with a statement describing the remarks as "totally unacceptable".
In a later statement issued on Wednesday morning, a GB News spokesperson said: "GB News has formally suspended Laurence Fox while we continue our investigation into comments he made on the channel last night.
"Mr Fox's suspension is effective immediately and he has been taken off air. We will be apologising formally to Ms Evans today."
Fox - who unsuccessfully ran to be London mayor in 2021 - said "I stand by every word of what I said" in a social media post on Wednesday morning.
The BBC discussion took place on Monday's episode of Politics Live and featured Evans alongside comedian and commentator Geoff Norcott, who raised the issue of men's mental health and the fact that, for men under 50, suicide remains the biggest cause of death.
When the host mentioned a call by a Conservative MP for a dedicated minister to address such issues, Evans - who is the political correspondent for online news platform PoliticsJOE - said: "I think that it feeds into the culture war a little bit, this minister for men argument.
"[Mental illness] is a crisis that's endemic throughout the country, not specific to men. And I think a lot of ministers bandy this about to - I'm sorry - make an enemy out of women."
She later said on X, formerly known as Twitter, that the comments had been "a little rash" and that she was "actually very interested in a brief for a minister on young men's mental health".
Fox, who hosts his own show on GB News, was asked about the exchange while appearing as a guest on another of the channel's programmes, Dan Wootton Tonight, on Tuesday.
"We're past the watershed so I can say this. Show me a single self-respecting man that would like to climb into bed with that woman - ever, ever," he said.
"That little woman has been fed, spoon-fed oppression day after day after day.
"And she's sat there and I'm going like - if I met you in a bar and that was like sentence three, [the] chances of me just walking away are just huge.
"We need powerful strong, amazing women who make great points for themselves."
He then added: "Who'd want to shag that?"
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. GB News suspends Laurence Fox for comments about a female journalist involved in a BBC discussion about men.
Reacting on the same platform alongside a video clip of the exchange between Fox and Wootton, Evans said: "Laurence Fox just did a whole speech on GB News on why men apparently won't shag me? I feel physically sick."
She told Channel 5's Jeremy Vine show on Wednesday: "I'm really hurt by it... I'm shocked about by it, I'm shocked that it went out."
Host Wootton, who could be seen laughing at points as Fox spoke, issued two statements apologising on X, calling the remarks "totally unacceptable" and saying he had reacted "out of shock".
He continued: "Having looked at the footage, I can see how inappropriate my reaction to his totally unacceptable remarks appears to be and want to be clear that I was in no way amused by the comments."
In social media posts on Wednesday, Fox shared a screenshot which he claimed shows a conversation with a GB News employee informing them of the nature of the comments he intended to make ahead of his appearance, though not with the specific explicit language.
Fox's comments attracted widespread condemnation, including from Labour MP and shadow attorney general Emily Thornberry, who tagged media regulator Ofcom into a post on X in an apparent call for it to intervene.
"British television should never subject women to this sort of abuse," she said.
Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho said the comments were "completely vile", adding: "I don't think any woman gives her opinion to be attractive to a member of the opposite sex."
Ofcom said it had received "a number of complaints" about Fox's comments which it was "assessing" against its broadcast rules.
Fox, 45, first established a public profile as an actor, most notably in ITV's detective series Lewis. His extended family is closely associated with the acting profession and he is the son of actor James Fox.
In recent years he has become known as a right-wing political commentator and activist. He launched his own political party, the Reclaim Party, in 2020.
Fox's attempt to become London mayor the following year saw him finish sixth with 1.9% of the vote.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66932538
|
news_uk-66932538
|
|
Angel Lynn: Paralysed woman speaks first word since kidnap injuries - BBC News
|
2023-09-11
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Angel Lynn has been unable to talk since suffering severe injuries in a fall from a moving van in 2020.
|
Leicester
|
Angel Lynn was bundled into a van before she was found injured on the A6
A woman, paralysed after falling from a moving van when she was kidnapped by her coercive boyfriend, has spoken her first word in three years, her mother has said.
Angel Lynn was dragged into the van by Chay Bowskill after an argument and then fell from the vehicle at 60mph (96km/h) on the A6 in Leicestershire.
Her severe brain injuries, suffered in 2020, left her unable to talk or walk.
However, Angel's mother Nikki revealed she has now said the word "mum" to her.
Speaking to Good Morning Britain on Monday, Mrs Lynn said she had feared her daughter would never be able to talk again.
Angel had not spoken since suffering her catastrophic injuries and has since had to communicate using computer software which reads her words.
Angel also surprised doctors by taking assisted steps earlier this year
Mrs Lynn heard her making groaning noises when she visited her in hospital earlier this year.
"I said, 'Angel, you know if you're making those sorts of sounds, you must be able to say something'," she said.
"It just came out. I had no warning or anything she was going to speak. I thought she'd never speak again.
"She said it the first time and I just couldn't believe it. I thought I've got to get it on camera, because sometimes she doesn't always do things a second time. I asked her to do it again and she did it straight away."
Angel's father Paddy said: "We have prayed for the past three years that she would [speak again]."
Angel, who requires 24-hour care, has previously surprised her family and medical staff by regaining enough strength to stand and take assisted steps.
On Sunday, Mrs Lynn ran the Great North Run in Newcastle to raise money for air ambulance staff who were called after Angel was found injured in the road near Loughborough.
Chay Bowskill had been in a relationship with Angel when he abducted her
Bowskill, from Syston, Leicestershire, was convicted of kidnapping Angel and originally sentenced to seven and a half years in a young offender institution.
His sentence was later reviewed by the Court of Appeal following concerns it was too lenient and increased to 12 years.
He was also convicted of coercive and controlling behaviour towards Angel, and perverting the course of justice.
Angel's parents previously told the BBC they were devastated they had not seen the signs of his coercive behaviour before Bowskill abducted her.
They filmed a documentary to raise awareness of the dangers of abusive behaviour suffered by women at the hands of their partners.
Mrs Lynn said: "[We're] just absolutely devastated that we didn't spot it because we wouldn't be here today had we spotted it earlier.
"It can happen to anyone. It doesn't matter how strong you are. It can happen to men and women.
"We've had to do this because this is how we tell other people about being coerced and how easy it is, even if you're strong-minded, that it can happen to you and to just get out of it, because I wouldn't want anyone else to go through what we've been through."
Rocco Sansome, who was driving the van when Angel fell from it, was sentenced to 21 months in a young offender institution.
Follow BBC East Midlands on Facebook, on Twitter, or on Instagram. Send your story ideas to eastmidsnews@bbc.co.uk.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-66774875
|
news_uk-england-leicestershire-66774875
|
|
Jolene Bunting loses appeal over drag queen video post - BBC News
|
2023-09-15
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Jolene Bunting must now pay a £750 fine over failing to remove a video of drag queen Cherrie Ontop.
|
Northern Ireland
|
Jolene Bunting, pictured in 2019, is a former independent unionist councillor for Belfast City Council
A former Belfast councillor who compared a drag queen to a wolf in make-up has lost her appeal against being fined for breaking a court order.
Jolene Bunting had previously been barred from harassing actor Matthew Cavan, known as Cherrie Ontop.
She was fined £750 in June after failing to take down a social media video immediately.
Ms Bunting claimed the financial penalty imposed after violating the court order was "disproportionate".
However, on Friday, judges at Belfast's Court of Appeal ruled the sentence was appropriate and necessary to send out a wider message.
"The appellant has been guilty of a deliberate and flagrant breach of a court order," Madam Justice McBride said.
Ms Bunting has already been barred from any further harassment of the performer for the next five years.
Cherrie Ontop, the drag queen persona of Matthew Cavan, pictured in 2019, was targeted after a children's storytelling event
In July 2022, Ms Bunting, a former independent unionist councillor, was involved in protests outside the Mac theatre in Belfast.
Mr Cavan, in his role as Cherrie Ontop, was taking part in a children's story-time event.
A group calling themselves Parents Against Grooming held banners which read "hands off our children".
A video featuring an image of a wolf and a photograph of Mr Cavan later appeared on YouTube, which was viewed 22,000 times.
Previously, Mr Cavan said the posting was a twisted portrayal of his work, which left him horrified at being likened to the creature in make-up from the children's fairy tale Little Red Riding Hood.
He later received threats from so-called paedophile hunters because of the YouTube video.
A group from east Belfast messaged Mr Cavan warning him they knew where he lived and were watching him. Others told him to take his own life.
Mr Cavan previously said the attention led to him losing three well-paid gigs.
He also said he was put on anti-anxiety medication and installed security cameras and lights at his home.
Ms Bunting, who sat on Belfast City Council, denied specifically targeting Mr Cavan and claimed she was only concerned about safeguarding children.
Last August, the drag queen obtained an interim court order requiring her to take down social media posts on YouTube and Twitter without delay.
However, contempt of court proceedings were then brought against Ms Bunting for failing to comply until the day of the hearing.
In June, she was handed a £750 fine and was given 26 weeks to pay.
Matthew Cavan, pictured in 2017 as part of the Visage exhibition, had to install security cameras and lights after threats
However, Ms Bunting appealed the sentence, claiming it was wrong in law and that it failed to account for the eventual purging of her contempt.
Her barrister said instead of a financial penalty, a remedial outcome of keeping the peace would have been proper.
Rejecting the argument, Justice McBride said there were no flaws in the sentence based on the case's public nature.
She also highlighted Ms Bunting's failure to remove the video from her social media accounts until the day of the hearing.
"We are satisfied the sentence imposed was not wrong in principle or on the facts, and accordingly dismiss the appeal," she added.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-66820321
|
news_uk-northern-ireland-66820321
|
|
Russell Brand accuser sparks debate about staggered age of consent - BBC News
|
2023-09-23
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Claims against the star have led to discussions about the power dynamic between adults and teens in relationships.
|
UK
|
At 16, you can't legally buy alcohol, place a bet or vote in a general election - but you can consent to sex.
It has been this way since 1885 in the UK, when the age of consent was raised from 13. For gay and bisexual men, the age of consent was reduced from 18 to 16 in a law change in 2000, after a long campaign for equality.
But now, people are debating if consent laws should be changed again. This time, discussion has been triggered by allegations made against Russell Brand - in particular, those made by one alleged victim, "Alice", who says she had a relationship with Brand when he was in his 30s and she was 16.
Alice told the Sunday Times and Channel 4's Dispatches that Brand sexually assaulted her, and that, looking back, she feels she was groomed by him during their relationship. Brand denies her allegations.
Due to the fact she was over the age of sexual consent at the time, Alice says it would have been difficult for anyone to raise concerns about their relationship to the police.
But Alice believes we should start considering a change to the law in the form of "staggered ages of consent", so that people over 18 would not be allowed to have sex with 16 and 17-year-olds.
"There's a reasonable argument [that] individuals between the ages of 16 and 18 can have relations with people within that same age bracket," she told BBC Women's Hour. "You're allowed to make mistakes as a teenager, they should be with other people your own age."
This view has been echoed by many people on social media, with some commentators floating ideas such as restricting those under 18 to sleeping with those under 21.
But would a change in the law protect 16 and 17-year-olds from harm? And could it criminalise healthy relationships that happen to have an age gap?
While sex involving one or more people under 16 is illegal, police use discretion to decide whether a prosecution is in the public interest. They take into account factors such as the relationship between the people involved, whether the underage person consented to what happened and how close in age the people were.
If a person is under 13, they cannot be seen as consenting in law - even if they say they consented.
It is already illegal to take, share or possess indecent images of people under 18 - even if the person is a consenting 16- or 17-year-old.
It is also against the law for people in a position of trust, such as teachers, to engage in sexual activity with a child in their care, even if that child is over the age of consent.
But what if special protections were introduced more widely for sexual relationships involving those who are over the age of consent, but still children?
"My view would be that changing the law doesn't actually achieve a lot," says Roger Ingham, director of the Centre for Sexual Health Research at the University of Southampton.
He says one of the arguments for having an age of consent is that it allows people who may feel pressured to have sex under 16 to say, "it's against the law".
"How often that's actually used, how often that stops people having sex that they don't want, we don't know."
He says surveys suggest that by the time they reach 18, the majority of people - about 60 to 70%, he says - have had sex (usually defined as intercourse).
But if the age of consent were to be raised to 18, for example, he says this would be "bringing in an awful lot of people into the bracket of being criminalised, even if the practice of the police and the prosecution is not to prosecute under certain conditions".
He says teenagers in consensual relationships below the age of consent - for example two 15-year-olds - are often nervous about going to family planning clinics to seek contraception in case they are reported - so one risky consequence of raising the age of consent could be more young people having unprotected sex.
In reality, sexual health clinics keep underage patients' details confidential, unless they are under 13 and thought to be at risk of harm, in which case other services may be alerted.
Brand denies the allegations of rape, sexual assaults and emotional abuse
Prof Ingham says more comprehensive sex and relationships education could help protect 16 and 17-year-olds, adding there should be "much more attention paid to issues of consent, not just in sexual situations".
Jayne Butler, chief executive of the charity Rape Crisis, agrees that better sex and relationship education and increased understanding are needed to shift societal attitudes around consent.
"We don't want to criminalise consensual relationships between 16-year-old peers, but there needs to be recognition of the significant power imbalance between older men and 16 year olds," she says.
"The cultural acceptance of relationships between young, potentially vulnerable people and someone much older needs to be addressed, and this doesn't start or end with just changing the law."
Prof Ingham says the issue of consent is challenged when someone with power or status, such as a celebrity, takes an interest in a young person.
A "star-struck" young person may be willing to have sex at the time but may regret it later, he says.
"It's a really complicated psychological issue, I'm not sure how you can legislate for it, to be honest."
Dr Laura Janes, from the Law Society's criminal law committee, also points out that the law in this area is already quite complex.
"What many people find confusing is we have different ages of consent for different things," she says - highlighting that in the UK someone is considered criminally responsible at 10 but can't have sex until 16 or vote in a general election until 18.
"If you take these three dates of what the law thinks you can do in terms of your development, we have already got a law which is very incoherent and inconsistent," she says.
A 16-year-old in the UK is allowed to have sex but not vote in a general election
The age of consent in England and Wales is broadly similar to other European countries - slightly higher than France's 15 and Germany's 14, but lower than Ireland's 17 and Malta's 18. However, the gap between the age of criminal responsibility and the age of consent in England and Wales is the biggest of all countries, she says.
"It's important to remember the law is a very blunt instrument and creates black and white lines," Dr Janes says.
And, crucially, the law changes according to the moral values of society, she says - so you have to take into account the cultural reality. She highlights YouGov research from earlier this year that shows a fifth of people say they had sex before the age of consent.
On top of this, she says one of the problems with English law is there has been a "proliferation in the number of laws we have". And the question is what another law change would achieve, when there are other current laws - for example, against coercive control - which aim to protect young people from the kind of harmful relationships that can happen when one partner is older.
"There's been a huge number of new offences that have appeared on the statute book and there is a real risk of it becoming overcomplicated," she says.
Dr Janes says that before any law change is considered, the priority should be making sure young people understand what the current law is - and then ensuring they know they can use it with confidence. "There needs to be a cultural understanding where people feel sufficiently confident to go to the police," she says.
And if there are going to be any legal changes, particularly if they involve intimacy and relationships between young people, "it has to be really clear and it has to be understandable to everyone, including potential victims and potential perpetrators".
• None Why do rape and sexual assault victims find it hard to go to police?
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66872467
|
news_uk-66872467
|
|
Nikki Haley calls for 'mental competency tests' for ageing US leaders - BBC News
|
2023-09-01
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The White House hopeful says "you have to know when to leave" when asked about a Senate leader's lapses.
|
US & Canada
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley is again calling for "mental competency tests" for ageing US leaders after Senator Mitch McConnell froze up in two separate news conferences.
"The Senate is the most privileged nursing home in the country," Ms Haley told Fox News.
Mr McConnell, 81, stared into space for more than 30 seconds when asked this week if he would run for re-election.
A doctor has medically cleared him to work. He had a similar lapse in July.
Mr McConnell has led the Senate Republicans since 2006 and has built a reputation as a ruthless political tactician who keeps his party rank-and-file in line.
Members of the Kentucky senator's caucus have not publicly questioned his ability to lead, though they have the option to call a meeting to discuss the matter when the Senate returns to Washington next week.
Ms Haley, a former UN Ambassador and South Carolina governor, is the most senior Republican to speak out about Mr McConnell's health concerns.
She told Fox News on Friday: "I mean, Mitch McConnell has done some great things and he deserves credit. But you have to know when to leave."
Ms Haley, 51, has focused her presidential campaign on the argument that America needs a new generation of leaders. The average age for members of the US Senate is 65.
"I think that we do need mental competency tests for anyone over the age of 75, I wouldn't care if they did them over the age of 50," she said.
"It's sad," she told Fox. "No-one should feel good about seeing that any more than we should feel good about seeing [90-year-old California Senator] Dianne Feinstein, any more than we should feel good about a lot of what's happening or seeing Joe Biden's decline."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: US senator freezes in front of reporters in July
During Wednesday's press event in Covington, Kentucky, Mr McConnell was unable to answer questions, which had to be repeated by staff.
The senator suffered from a concussion after falling at an event in March, according to staff.
Brian Monahan, the attending physician of the US Congress, said on Thursday he had consulted with Mr McConnell and his neurology team.
Dr Monahan said in a statement on Thursday: "Occasional lightheadedness is not uncommon in concussion recovery and can also be expected as a result of dehydration."
Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene wrote in a social media post on Thursday that Mr McConnell was "not fit for office".
"Severe ageing health issues and/or mental health incompetence in our nation's leaders MUST be addressed," Ms Greene said, also mentioning the age of US President Biden, who is 80.
Democratic congressman Dean Phillips called on social media for term limits for members of Congress and the Supreme Court.
President Biden said on Thursday he did not have any concerns about whether Mr McConnell was fit to do his job.
"He's a friend," Mr Biden told reporters in Washington DC, "and I spoke to him today. And you know, he was his old self on the telephone."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66678130
|
news_world-us-canada-66678130
|
|
Jurassic Coast cliff falls tempt fossil hunters - BBC News
|
2023-09-09
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Cliff collapses reveal a plentiful supply of fossils but also make the coast a hazardous place.
|
Dorset
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Beachgoers had to run when a cliff collapsed at West Bay in August. Video: Daniel Knagg
Recent footage of people running from collapsing cliffs is a stark reminder of the dangers of our coast.
But on one stretch of Dorset's Jurassic Coast, major cliff falls are soon followed by an influx of fossil hunters, creating a headache for those tasked with keeping people safe.
The unstable shores have seen numerous rescues and even some fatalities.
But as experts explain, those taking the risks are usually the least likely to find any prehistoric remains.
Hundreds of tourists scour the beach in the aftermath of a cliff fall
Several major cliff falls have already been reported this year at West Bay and Charmouth.
During the tourist season, the beaches at Charmouth are patrolled by fossil wardens whose job it is to warn visitors against the riskiest behaviour, and steer them towards the easier pickings near the shoreline.
"If I see someone hacking away at the bottom of the cliff, I will go and speak to them," says Stuart Godman, who has been patrolling the beach for 17 years.
Stuart Godman has been patrolling the beach at Charmouth for 17 years
"You will always get the odd person here and there who does not listen but I'm not going to get into an argument with them."
It seems the majority of risk takers are holidaymakers - keen to bag themselves a souvenir, oblivious to the slow trickle of dust and stones from above.
Mr Godman points out huge boulders on the crowded beach that he says were not there the day before.
People are discouraged from digging at the base of the collapsing cliff
The fossils at Charmouth are about 180-200 million years old and embedded in the dark-grey limestone. The air is filled with the sound of the waves and of hammers hitting rock.
Anyone found hitting the pale, more recently formed chert stone is strongly discouraged because it splinters, making it hazardous and impossible to split successfully.
"If you look along the shoreline, that's where you will find the fossils, usually after a few tides," said Mr Godman.
Isaac Cousins, 13, (left) discovered an ichthyosaur vertebra on the water's edge
And, as if on cue, a father and son approach, holding up a vertebra of an ichthyosaur - a prehistoric marine reptile - they found on the water's edge.
Aspiring palaeontologist Isaac Cousins, 13, had clearly done his research, knowing exactly where to look and even correctly identifying his find.
Rising up from the beach is the remains of the latest rockfall - a huge shelf of soft clay and crumbling rock that fell in July.
Stuart Godman called emergency services in 2020 after finding a boy stuck in mud on the cliffs
About 20ft (6m) up, on top of the landslip, a small group of adults and teenagers hunt for prehistoric treasure.
Three years ago, close to this very spot, Mr Godman encountered a similar scene - a family fossil-hunting high up on the collapsed cliff.
"I suggested they come down but the lad, an 11-year-old, had got stuck in the mud 80-90ft (25m) up the cliff."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. A drone captured the extent of a landslip near West Bay in July. Video: Lyme Bay RIB Charter
With the tide coming in, Mr Godman alerted the emergency services, triggering a rescue operation involving two coastguard teams, three fire engines and the ambulance service - about 40 people in total.
Aside from mild hypothermia, the boy was uninjured, but his predicament highlighted that falling rocks are not the only danger here.
Lizzie Hingley, a commercial fossil hunter, says her most successful beach trips have often been weeks or months after a collapse.
Her methods speak for themselves with her finds including "category one" fossils - species previously unknown to science, which have been named after her.
"People who go straight after a cliff fall, unless you know what you are doing or if it goes through a certain layer of cliff, you are unlikely to find anything," she said.
"Sometimes it's a case of waiting for the tide to run over it to break it up. Sometimes it's a couple of months after the landslide.
"If you go around hitting random rocks with a hammer, one person in a million might have some luck. Your eyes really are your best tool."
A significant cliff fall in August blocked the beach at West Bay
Ms Hingley, who began fossil hunting as a child, turned professional six years ago, preparing and selling her finds online.
She estimates there are about 10 or 20 others like her, making a living from the beach.
"There are certain beaches that I would not go to," she said. "Not Burton Bradstock or West Bay because they do have a tendency to collapse."
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. A collapse in January blocked the beach between Burton Bradstock and West Bay. Video: @EnvAgencySW
It was on this stretch in 2012 that tragedy struck when a sudden collapse killed 22-year-old holidaymaker Charlotte Blackman, who had been walking along the beach with her boyfriend and family who were just metres away.
Following the latest spate of collapses, large warning signs mark the start of the cliffs but, 50m (160ft) up, the occasional intrepid explorer can be seen peering over the overhang, while families picnic on the beach below.
Every hour, a voice from the RNLI lifeguards office booms over a loudspeaker, urging people to stay clear.
Signs at West Bay urge people to stay away from the cliffs
The coast between Lyme Regis and Burton Bradstock, primarily owned by the National Trust and Charmouth Parish Council, is covered by a "fossil collecting code of conduct", aimed at keeping people safe and ensuring finds are correctly recorded.
It urges people to only search on a falling tide, avoid the base of cliffs, wear appropriate clothing and to tell someone of their whereabouts and expected return time.
The coastguard offers similar advice, adding that people should carry a charged mobile phone.
Walkers clamber over recent rockfalls to take photographs beneath the latest cliff collapse
Follow BBC South on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. Send your story ideas to south.newsonline@bbc.co.uk.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-66619300
|
news_uk-england-dorset-66619300
|
|
G20 laments war in Ukraine but avoids blaming Russia - BBC News
|
2023-09-09
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Leaders meeting in Delhi issue an ambiguous statement on the conflict, drawing criticism from Kyiv.
|
India
|
The G20 summit in India has agreed on a joint declaration, including a statement on the war in Ukraine.
On the first of their two-day meeting, G20 leaders denounced the use of force for territorial gain but stopped short of directly criticising Russia.
The Ukrainian government said the statement was "nothing to be proud of".
The summit in Delhi also discussed a number of global issues, including climate change and the debt burden of developing countries.
But it was a day of unexpectedly big headlines at the G20 summit.
Few expected a joint declaration, not least on the first day of the summit given the sharp divisions in the group over the war in Ukraine.
But Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that the group had reached consensus on the declaration.
A strong indication that last-minute negotiations were ongoing came in an earlier draft of the declaration accessed by the BBC on Friday - it showed the paragraph on Ukraine was left blank.
The sticking point was the Ukraine war - as it was during the Bali summit last year.
The Delhi declaration appears designed to allow both the West and Russia to find positives. But in the process, it has used language that is not as strong in its condemnation of Moscow as it was in Bali last year.
In Bali, the members deplored "in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine" - although it noted that "there were other views and different assessments of the situation and sanctions".
The Delhi declaration does not directly criticise Russia for the war.
But it does talk about "the human suffering and negative added impacts of the war in Ukraine with regard to global food and energy security". It also repeated the acknowledgement of "different views and assessments".
Importantly, the declaration specifies "the war in Ukraine" rather than "the war against Ukraine." This choice of words could have increased the likelihood of Russia endorsing of the declaration.
Ukraine - which took part in the Bali summit - was not invited this year, and its response to the declaration has been critical.
"In terms of Russia's aggression against Ukraine, G20 has nothing to be proud of," the Ukrainian foreign ministry tweeted.
It's hard for Kyiv to see the dropping of any reference to Russian "aggression" as anything but a sign that its Western backers are losing the argument with the "global South" over how to characterise the war.
The other big news came when Mr Modi formally invited the African Union (AU) to become a permanent member of the G20.
Delhi prioritised elevating the voices of these nations as the foundation of its presidency, and in the near future, it is poised to reap the rewards of this strategic choice as it vies with China for influence across Asia and Africa.
The decision is also good news for Africa as the continent of 1.4 billion people will now have wider representation on a global forum like the G20.
At the ministerial level meetings in the run-up to the summit, there had been no agreement on the issue. But now officials say they have reached "100% consensus".
There has been evident give-and-take on climate in the declaration.
It says the G20 countries will "pursue and encourage efforts to triple renewable energy capacity globally through existing targets and policies". G20 accounts for more than 75% of greenhouse gas emissions.
Developing countries had in the past resisted increasing renewable energy targets, phasing down fossil fuels and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from developed nations.
On greenhouse emissions peaking - the point after which emissions will need to drop - developing nations have been able to buy time.
The declaration says that "timeframes for peaking may be shaped by sustainable development, poverty eradication needs, equity, and in line with different national circumstances".
Experts have also emphasised the importance of the Green Development Pact, a plan to tackle the environmental crisis through global co-operation over the next decade.
G20 countries have also pledged to work together to enable low-cost financing for developing countries to support their transitions to low emissions.
Pramit Pal Chaudhuri, South Asia practice head of Eurasia Group, said India had done "reasonably well" on green finance.
"Green finance now largely goes from rich countries to other rich countries. Private capital is central to this financing. Not even emerging economies get it. India has been pushing to change that. At the heart of it is to get multilateral development banks to begin the process of de-risking private capital flows in the green space," he said.
Then there is the growing concern over debt. The World Bank has calculated that the world's poorest nations are burdened with an annual debt service of over $60bn to bilateral creditors, which escalates the risk of defaults. Two-thirds of this debt is owed to China.
The group has said it wants to help these countries manage their debt burden. The Delhi declaration has committed to address debt vulnerabilities in developing countries.
Additional reporting by Navin Singh Khadka in Delhi and BBC diplomatic correspondent Paul Adams in Kyiv.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-66763836
|
news_world-asia-india-66763836
|
|
G20 in India: Group laments suffering in Ukraine but no condemnation of Russia - BBC News
|
2023-09-09
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Leaders agree on a joint declaration, but the language about Ukraine is softer on Russia than last year.
|
India
|
Ukraine is clearly disappointed at the G20’s wording on the war.
The foreign ministry spokesman, Oleg Nikolenko, said the G20 had “nothing to be proud of", while thanking “those who tried to include strong wording in the text".
And in a post on Facebook, he quoted the language of the declaration, complete with a teacher’s corrections in red.
Obviously, these included references to Russia - conspicuously absent from the text agreed in Delhi - and replacement of the neutral term “war in Ukraine” with the rather more pointed “war against Ukraine".
It’s hard for Kyiv to see the absence of any reference to Russian “aggression” (included in the last declaration agreed in November) as anything but a sign that its Western backers are losing their argument with the “global South” over how to characterise the war.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-66724117
|
news_live_world-66724117
|
|
Scottish government challenges gender reform block - BBC News
|
2023-09-19
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The Scottish and UK governments are in court over Holyrood plans to make it easier for people to change legal gender.
|
Scotland
|
What is the role of the lord advocate?
The court has now paused for lunch. Dorothy Bain KC will continue her argument at 14:00. Until then, let's take a look at her role as the lord advocate. The office of lord advocate dates back to the 1400s, and after 1707 was the chief legal advisor to the UK government on Scottish legal matters. After devolution, the lord advocate became legal advisor to the Scottish government, while a new office of Advocate General for Scotland was set up to advise the Crown and UK ministers on matters of Scots law. The lord advocate tends to represent the Scottish government in big court cases, with other recent examples including the various legislative disputes over Brexit and the powers of the Scottish Parliament. As well as advising ministers on legal wrangles and legislative plans, the lord advocate can take part in the weekly meetings of the first minister's cabinet. They can also sit on the government benches at Holyrood and make statements to MSPs or answer questions on behalf of ministers. The lord advocate is also the head of Scotland's independent prosecution service, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
• What are the roles of Scotland's lord advocate?
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66842504
|
news_live_uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66842504
|
|
UN General Assembly live: Zelensky tells UN 'evil cannot be trusted' - BBC News
|
2023-09-19
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The Ukrainian president seeks support to repel Russia at a gathering of nearly 200 world leaders in New York.
|
World
|
President Zelensky was clear and brutal in his analysis.
Russia, he said, was weaponizing food shortages, energy, even nuclear power. It was committing genocide by abducting children from occupied parts of Ukraine. And he warned against “shady deals” to try to end the war on unfair terms.
So far, so straightforward.
But his key point was to warn the international community that the outcome of the war would affect them all. Russia’s goal, he said, was to turn Ukraine into “a weapon against you, against the rules based international order”.
The peace formula that he has been outlining for months was, he said, not just for Ukraine, but also the rest of the world.
So the pitch was clear and aimed squarely at countries - many of them in the Global South - which have thus far stayed on the side lines.
Western powers have been rushing around the UN trying to address those countries’ wider concerns about development issues and climate change.
But President Zelensky’s argument was just about security. If Ukraine wins, then the rest of the world will be better protected from suffering similar aggression.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-66835995
|
news_live_world-66835995
|
|
Rishi Sunak: I care about reaching net zero carbon emissions - BBC News
|
2023-09-19
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The PM says he listens to his daughters' concerns about climate change but they are not "eco-zealots".
|
UK Politics
|
Rishi Sunak has insisted he cares about reaching net zero but that the 2050 target needs to be achieved in "a proportionate and pragmatic way".
The prime minister has faced criticism from environmental groups and some of his own MPs that he is not committed to tackling climate change.
Mr Sunak told LBC he wanted to leave the environment in "a better state than we found it in" for his two daughters.
But he added that the UK would still need fossil fuels in the future.
Asked if he was confident he could win over his environmentally conscious daughters, Mr Sunak said they were not "eco-zealots" and like most people, were "open to sensible, practical arguments".
He has previously described his daughters as "passionate environmentalists", who have often asked him what he is doing about climate change.
Mr Sunak is facing pressure from some Conservative MPs to review the government's green policies, after the party's surprise win in the Uxbridge by-election, when it capitalised on anger over London's Ultra Low Emissions Zone (Ulez).
However, he has said the government is committed to reaching net zero by 2050 - which means no longer adding to the total amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which are increasing global temperatures.
Other leading climate campaigners in the Conservative Party have criticised Mr Sunak's commitment to environmental issues.
Lord Goldsmith recently resigned from the government, accusing the prime minister of "apathy" over climate change.
The prime minister has also attracted criticism for the number of domestic flights he has taken to travel for government business across the UK.
Earlier this week he defended flying to Scotland, to announce support for a carbon capture project, as "an efficient use of time for the person running the country".
"If your approach to climate change is to say that no one should go on holiday, no one should go on a plane, I think you are completely and utterly wrong," he told BBC's Good Morning Scotland.
In his interview with LBC he also revealed he was taking his family on a summer holiday to California this week, including a visit to Disneyland.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. The prime minister is due to head on a family holiday this Thursday
Mr Sunak has announced the government is granting 100 new North Sea oil and gas licences, as well as supporting a carbon capture project in the north east of Scotland.
The decision was criticised by environmental campaigners, who said it would "send a wrecking ball through the UK's climate commitments".
Conservative MP Chris Skidmore said the move was "the wrong decision at precisely the wrong time" and "on the wrong side of history".
However, Mr Sunak said: "I 100% believe that what I'm doing is right," adding that even after meeting the 2050 target the UK would still need fossil fuels.
He argued it was "sensible" to use "the energy we have here at home", as this would be better for jobs and avoid the environmental cost of shipping energy from abroad, as well as reducing the UK's reliance on other countries.
Meanwhile, Energy Security Secretary Grant Shapps is meeting oil and gas bosses in Downing Street to talk about the government's decision to invest in home-grown energy sources, including renewables and North Sea oil and gas.
Mr Sunak is also facing pressure over measures to move towards electric cars.
Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch is understood to have raised concerns about rules due to come into effect next year that require car manufacturers to sell a certain proportion of electric models.
From January, 22% of vehicles sold have to be zero emission, or car makers could be hit with fines.
Some manufacturers have been calling for a softening of the rules, and as first reported by the Politico website, Ms Badenoch has passed on their concerns to her cabinet colleagues.
But Labour said the sector was "crying out for certainty" and Ms Badenoch's reported comments were a "threat to investment".
Ministers have insisted the government remains committed to banning the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030, despite calls from some Tory MPs for a delay.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66382265
|
news_uk-politics-66382265
|
|
UK block on Scottish gender reforms unlawful, court hears - BBC News
|
2023-09-19
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
A court battle between the Scottish and UK governments over controversial legislation has begun.
|
Scotland
|
The Scottish Parliament has passed a law allowing people to self-identify their sex - but it has been blocked by Westminster
The UK government's block on Scottish gender recognition reforms is unlawful, Scotland's top law officer has said.
The Scottish government is seeking to overturn the veto at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain said the court had a "constitutional duty" to review the unprecedented use of a Section 35 Order by Downing Street.
The UK government has raised concerns about the impact of the legislation on Britain-wide equality laws.
The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, which would allow people in Scotland to self-identify their sex, was passed by the Scottish Parliament in December last year.
But for first time since the creation of the devolved parliament, the UK government used Section 35 of the Scotland Act to prevent a bill receiving royal assent.
Scottish Secretary Alister Jack raised concerns that it would affect the 2010 Equality Act, which applies in Scotland, England and Wales.
It sets out different "protected characteristics" including those of sex and gender reassignment, and underpins the rights and protections afforded to these groups.
The civil case at the Court of Session, which is being heard by Lady Haldane, began on Tuesday and will last several days. If the result is appealed, it could ultimately be heard in the Supreme Court in London.
Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC warned the UK government could have a "veto" over Scottish government policy it did not agree with
Ms Bain, representing the Scottish government, said conditions required to use a Section 35 Order had not been met, meaning its use was unlawful.
She told the court the case did not concern the "merits of the bill", which was passed by 86 votes to 39 at Holyrood, nor the Scottish secretary's opinion on it.
The Lord Advocate warned that if the UK government was successful, Westminster "could veto practically any act of the Scottish Parliament having an impact on reserved matters because he disagreed with it on policy grounds".
She added: "That would be tantamount to the Scottish Parliament being able to legislate only insofar as the UK executive consented."
Ms Bain argued such an approach would contradict the "overarching" purpose of the Scotland Act.
The court heard that a Section 35 Order was designed to be "narrowly construed" and "tightly controlled" and should only be used in very specific circumstances as a "last resort".
Ms Bain raised questions about the timing of the UK government's intervention, four weeks after the bill was passed in the Scottish Parliament.
She argued Mr Jack made two "material errors of law" - namely that nothing in the bill makes modification of the law as it applies to reserved matters, nor does it have an "adverse effect" on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters.
The Lord Advocate told the court that because the bill only changed the process for getting a gender recognition certificate, not the actual effect of the certificate itself, there was no impact on equalities laws.
Activists opposed to the legislation held a protest outside the Court of Session
She said the reasons given by the UK government for using the Section 35 Order were "insufficient in law".
Mr Jack's suggestions that the bill would have "adverse effects" on reserved matters, Ms Bain argued, were "either unfounded, too speculative or hypothetical or insufficiently cogent and material to justify the exceptional step of making the order".
She described complaints about divergence between Scottish law and laws in other parts of the UK as irrelevant, pointing out that gender recognition is devolved to Holyrood.
The Lord Advocate told the court Westminster had long established that divergence is acceptable and characterised Mr Jack's argument as irrational.
And she described concerns that the legislation would lead to an increase in fraudulent applications for gender recognition certificates as an "irrelevant consideration" that did not relate to reserved matters and was not based on "credible evidence".
Ms Bain accused Mr Jack of presenting a "partisan" case against the reforms, ignoring arguments in favour of it and failing to take "reasonable steps" to understand relevant information.
David Johnston KC, who is acting for the UK government, urged the court to reject the Scottish government's petition.
He said it was not Mr Jack's "duty" to scrutinise the bill as MSPs do, but to "protect the interests of the United Kingdom if he identifies adverse effects on the operation of law as it applies to reserved matters".
The lawyer described Section 35 as "integral to the constitutional distribution of power in the Scotland Act". He said it was "express recognition" that devolved bills could have an adverse effect on the operation of reserved law and that the UK government should have limited power to intervene if that happens.
Mr Johnston will be given further time to set out the UK government's case on Wednesday.
The UK government's objections to the reforms are largely based on concerns about how the 2004 Gender Recognition Act - which set up the certification process which is being reformed - interacts with the Equality Act.
The case is being heard at the Court of Session in Edinburgh
The UK government argues it is "highly problematic" to have two different gender recognition systems within the UK.
It cites several potential issues, including with single-sex organisations, schools and tax rules.
The reforms would see applications for a gender recognition certificate handled by Scottish registrars, rather than a UK panel, and would remove the need to obtain medical reports with a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria.
The plans would also cut the amount of time applicants need to have lived in their acquired gender from two years to a matter of months, and cut the age at which people can apply to 16.
The UK government claims making the gender recognition process easier could "significantly" increase the risk of fraudulent applications from those with "malicious intent", which could lead to people "no longer feeling safe in any sex-segregated setting and self-excluding from such settings even though they could significantly benefit from them".
For nearly 500 years the Court of Session has considered the thorniest and weightiest matters of the moment.
There can hardly be a more fundamental issue than what it means to be a man or a woman.
Judge Lady Haldane, in civilian attire rather than robe and wig as this is a civil not a criminal case, is familiar with the topic, having issued a hotly-debated ruling about the definition of sex last year.
But the Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC, representing the Scottish government, says these proceedings are different.
The court, she says, is not being asked to rule on whether changes to gender law approved by Holyrood "could or should have been different or better."
Rather, argues Ms Bain, the issue is whether or not the Scottish Secretary Alister Jack overstepped his constitutional authority in deciding to block the bill.
She argues that he did. The UK government obviously disagrees, as we will hear from its counsel, David Johnston KC, in the coming days.
But whatever happens here, in the airy, wood-panelled courtroom number one of Edinburgh's Parliament House, is unlikely to be the end of the matter.
An appeal to a panel of three judges in what is known as the Inner House of the Court of Session may well follow.
And, given that the case hinges on the unprecedented use of a provision of the Scotland Act which established devolution, it would be odd indeed if it did not end up before the UK Supreme Court in London.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66852911
|
news_uk-scotland-66852911
|
|
Watchdog criticises decision to pay Johnson's £265,000 Partygate bill - BBC News
|
2023-09-19
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
An audit opinion says due process was not followed when the government approved the bill for the former PM's lawyers.
|
UK Politics
|
The government's justification for footing a £265,000 bill for Boris Johnson's Partygate inquiry legal fees has been criticised by the spending watchdog.
An inquiry by MPs found the former prime minister had deliberately misled Parliament over lockdown parties during the pandemic.
The top lawyers helping Mr Johnson were paid for with taxpayer funds.
The government has repeatedly defended using public money to cover the costs.
But following its inspection of government accounts, the National Audit Office (NAO) said it was not convinced by the reasoning behind the decision, saying it was not "wholly persuasive".
In an audit opinion, the government's spending watchdog said due process was not followed when signing off the money for Mr Johnson's lawyers.
As the BBC reported earlier this year, the Cabinet Office did not seek Treasury sign-off before deciding to pay for the bill with public money.
The Treasury's spending rulebook says its consent should always be sought for costs "which set precedents, are novel, contentious or could cause repercussions elsewhere in the public sector".
The Cabinet Office has argued the Treasury is not required to approve all of its spending decisions, and because the Partygate inquiry related to Mr Johnson's conduct as a minister, he was entitled to taxpayer-funded legal support.
But Gareth Davies, who leads the NAO, suggested a spending commitment of this kind should have been flagged as novel and contentious.
Mr Davies wrote: "I have considered the precedents cited by the Department [the Cabinet Office] in concluding that this proposed expenditure was not novel, contentious or repercussive, and did not find these to be wholly persuasive."
The NAO scrutinises the way public money has been used by the government and gives audit opinions on spending decisions across the public sector.
It first emerged in February that the spending watchdog was examining the decision to cover Mr Johnson's legal costs during the Partygate inquiry by the Commons Privileges Committee.
As the bill grew into a six-figure sum, the Cabinet Office came under pressure to explain why taxpayers - and not Mr Johnson himself - were on the hook.
The government said the decision was justified, saying there is a precedent for supporting former ministers with legal representation.
It has cited legal support given to former ministers during public inquiries into the Grenfell Tower fire, the BSE disease outbreak in cattle, and infected blood products as examples of precedents.
But to date, the government has not been able to name an example of a former minister receiving taxpayer-funded legal support for a parliamentary inquiry.
The BBC has spoken to two former ministers who were investigated by MPs for misleading Parliament and were not given legal support.
In his audit opinion, Mr Davies said the government "recognised that none of these previous examples was an exact precedent for this case".
In a submission to the NAO, the Cabinet Office noted: "There is no case that is exactly analogous to the circumstances of the Privileges Committee's inquiry into Mr Boris Johnson MP."
Mr Davies added that most of the examples cited by the government "relate to legal advice provided to former prime ministers to support their evidence sessions with public inquiries, which is a well-established practice".
"In my view, these examples are substantively different from an investigation by the Committee of Privileges into a potential contempt of the House by a prime minister."
Mr Davies concluded that the Cabinet Office's chief accounting officer "should have approved this expenditure before it was incurred", supported by a formal assessment, in line with Treasury guidance on novel and contentious spending.
A spokesman for Mr Johnson said: "There is a long-standing principle that former ministers' legal expenses are met by government in relation to issues that arose during their tenure.
"Matters of process are for the Cabinet Office."
A Cabinet Office spokesperson said there was no suggestion of impropriety in the National Audit Office report and repeated its argument that former ministers "may be supported with legal representation after they have left office".
"The government has been consistently clear that the contract award followed the proper procurement process," the spokesperson said.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Mr Johnson has faced calls to pay the legal costs himself, with opposition parties highlighting he has earned millions since standing down as prime minister.
The inquiry by the Privileges Committee was launched last April, after opposition parties accused Mr Johnson of misleading MPs about gatherings in government buildings during Covid-19 lockdowns.
In an unprecedented decision, the committee found Mr Johnson had committed repeated contempts of Parliament with his Partygate denials.
In its conclusions, the committee said criticisms of the inquiry in opinions submitted by Mr Johnson's legal advisers were "without merit".
Mr Johnson said the inquiry amounted to a "political assassination", and branded the committee's findings "deranged".
The former prime minister stepped down as a Conservative MP in June, saying he was "forced out of Parliament" over Partygate.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66852723
|
news_uk-politics-66852723
|
|
British Museum: Chinese TikTok hit amplifies calls for return of artefacts - BBC News
|
2023-09-06
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The show about a jade teapot that busts out of the museum fuels calls for treasures to be returned.
|
China
|
Escape from the British Museum tells the story of a jade teapot becoming human and wishing to return to China.
A short video series is racking up views in China, amplifying calls for the British Museum to return artefacts.
It tells the story of a jade teapot, played by a woman, looking for its way back to China.
The world-renowned museum has been under pressure after 2,000 items were reported to be "missing, stolen or damaged" last month.
The scandal has prompted demands from China and other countries for treasures to be returned.
Titled Escape from the British Museum, the three-part series from two Chinese social media influencers tells the story of a jade teapot coming alive and taking a human form as she tries to escape from the museum.
Her wish? To return home to China, with the help of a Chinese journalist she meets on the streets of London.
The teapot is a real artefact - and relatively recent addition to the British Museum. It was made in 2011 by a Chinese artist who specialises in intricate jade carvings.
Though not exactly a cultural relic, the delicate technique used in the making of the pot is a craft unique to China and that has resonated with the Chinese public.
First released on China's version of TikTok, Douyin, the series has been played 270 million times on the platform. It has also seen its creators, who claim to be independent content makers, gaining more than five million followers on Chinese social media apps within one week.
The series has also been strongly endorsed by state media. State broadcaster CCTV gave it a pat on the back this week, saying: "We are very pleased to see Chinese young people are passionate about history and tradition… We are also looking forward to the early return of Chinese artefacts that have been displaced overseas".
The series has also inspired other influencers to dress up as characters from ancient Chinese paintings and sculptures.
While traditional media have scrambled to decode the secret of the series' success, social media users credit it to the relatable message of "homecoming".
The show has fuelled calls among Chinese for treasures to be returned
"Maybe the Chinese cultural relics in the British Museum are also missing home right now. But they can only be squeezed into the crowded booths. Will they be thinking 'Bring me home' when they see Chinese faces there?" read one top-liked comment on Douyin.
"Eventually, there will be a day when [the items] come home in a dignified way," another user commented on Weibo.
Cultural heritage and ownership has become a more sensitive topic for the Chinese public in recent years amid rising nationalist sentiment. President Xi Jinping continues to push for a strong Chinese identity against growing tensions with the West.
Last year, luxury brand Dior was accused of "culturally appropriating" a Chinese traditional design for one of its skirts, triggering backlash online and protests in front of their stores.
And earlier this year around the Lunar New Year, a video of a Chinese influencer visiting the museum went viral on Douyin, in which the user said the treasures must be homesick. A comment suggesting the escape of the treasures be turned into an animation inspired the series.
The series' release has come as the British Museum faces intense pressure over the thefts. Last week, Chinese nationalist newspaper The Global Times issued an editorial asking the museum to give back its entire Chinese collection.
"We formally request the British Museum to return all Chinese cultural relics acquired through improper channels to China free of charge," said the newspaper, which is known to be a Beijing mouthpiece.
It's not the first time China has made such demands - which also echo the calls of other countries including Sudan, Nigeria, and Greece, which have all asked the British Museum to give back stolen artefacts.
Egypt has been asking for the return of the Rosetta Stone, forcibly taken by the British empire in 1801. Greece has also been campaigning for its Parthenon sculptures, also known as the Elgin Marbles, to be returned.
The British Museum has long argued that it's in the best position to protect such treasures, but critics say the latest thefts show this argument no longer applies.
Some British lawmakers still insist it is a safe place. The museum houses about eight million objects from six continents. Only 80,000 items - or about 1% of the total collection - are on display at any given time.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-66714549
|
news_world-asia-china-66714549
|
|
Government denies U-turn on encrypted messaging row - BBC News
|
2023-09-06
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The government states that the tech tools for accessing private messages don't yet exist.
|
Technology
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
The government has denied it is changing plans to force messaging apps to access users' private messages if requested by the regulator Ofcom.
There has been a stand-off between the UK government and tech firms over a clause in the Online Safety Bill relating to encrypted messages.
These are messages that can only be seen by the sender and recipient.
The Bill states that if there are concerns about child abuse content, tech companies might have to access it.
But platforms like WhatsApp, Signal and iMessage say they cannot access or view anybody's messages without destroying existing privacy protections for all users, and have threatened to leave the UK rather than compromise message security.
The debate has raged for several months and for some it has turned into an argument about privacy versus the protection of children. The government insists it is possible to have both.
The Online Safety Bill is due to become law in autumn and cleared its final stage in the House of Lords on Wednesday before returning to the commons.
The government has denied that its position has changed. In a statement in the House of Lords, the minister, Lord Parkinson, clarified that if the technology to access messages without breaking their security did not exist, then Ofcom would have the power to ask companies to develop the ability to identify and remove illegal child sexual abuse content on their platforms.
Indeed, the Bill already stated that the regulator Ofcom would only ask tech firms to access messages once "feasible technology" had been developed which would specifically only target child abuse content and not break encryption.
The government has tasked tech firms with inventing these tools.
"As has always been the case, as a last resort, on a case-by-case basis and only when stringent privacy safeguards have been met, [the Bill] will enable Ofcom to direct companies to either use, or make best efforts to develop or source, technology to identify and remove illegal child sexual abuse content - which we know can be developed," said a government spokesperson.
Some security experts suggest such tech tools may never exist, and the tech firms themselves say it is not possible.
Head of WhatsApp, Will Cathcart, posted on X Wednesday that "the fact remains that scanning everyone's messages would destroy privacy as we know it".
Meredith Whittaker, president of encrypted messaging app Signal, has previously said it was "magical thinking" to believe we can have privacy "but only for the good guys".
She told the BBC that the firm welcomed the latest clarification which was "a good start to incorporating the voices of human rights defenders into the final stages.
"We hope to see more progress over the next days, ideally making stronger commitments in the text of the bill," said Ms Whittaker.
Prof Ciaran Martin, former head of the National Cyber Security Centre, said in reaction to the minister's clarification that in practical terms this meant the powers to access private messages would not be deployed: "The government is still technically taking the power but is placing so many conditions on its use it cannot to my mind ever be used."
But some campaign groups warned nothing had changed. Index on Censorship told the BBC that the Bill was "still a threat to encryption and as such puts at risk everyone from journalists working with whistleblowers to ordinary citizens talking in private.
"We need to see amendments urgently to protect our right to free speech online," it added.
And Matthew Hodgson, who runs the British-based messaging platform Element, said "all 'until it's technically feasible' means is opening the door to scanning in future rather than scanning today."
It was merely "kicking the can down the road" in his view.
The Internet Watch Foundation - which finds, flags, and removes images and videos of child sexual abuse from the web said that in its opinion it was already technically feasible to scan encrypted messaging systems while preserving privacy.
"As far as we can see, the Government's position on this has not changed", it said.
"We know technologies exist, now, which can do this - with no more invasion of privacy than a virus guard or spam filter".
Another view is that this is an attempt at a last-minute diplomatic resolution in which neither the tech firms nor the government lose face: the government says it knew all along that the tech did not exist and removes immediate pressure from the tech firms to invent it, and the tech firms claim a victory for privacy.
Currently, the two most viable tech solutions are to either break the encryption - which would leave a backdoor open to any bad actors who found it - or introduce software which scans content on a device. It is called client-side scanning and has been dubbed "the spy in your pocket" by critics.
Children's charities like the NSPCC have described encrypted messaging as the "front line" of child abuse because of privacy settings.
But privacy campaigners say everybody has a right to privacy protection.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66716502
|
news_technology-66716502
|
|
The inside story of the mini-budget disaster - BBC News
|
2023-09-24
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
One year on Liz Truss's and Kwasi Kwarteng's economic policies cast a big shadow still.
|
Business
|
The term "mini budget" will be forever toxic in British politics.
So disastrous was then-Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng's September 2022 statement - which included £45bn of unfunded tax cuts - that its long shadow still stretches over our economics and politics.
Over the past year, I have spoken to all the key players, some in public and some in private, about what happened both before and after that day.
Those conversations have revealed important new details about Mr Kwarteng and then-PM Liz Truss' "growth plan" - including that its initial impact was far worse than has been publicly known up to this point.
In the immediate aftermath, top officials were being asked by astounded counterparts how Britain had singlehandedly shifted one of the key indicators of the world economy in the financial markets, known as the Fed Fund futures curve. It was not a proud moment, they tell me.
In Washington for a key IMF meeting, Mr Kwarteng himself was privately having to reassure US bankers, politicians, and diplomats at the British embassy that the UK "was committed to fiscal responsibility" and that the Bank of England was one of the UK's "finest institutions".
That final comment attracted a lone clapper in the room - a board member of a British bank.
The chancellor went on to draw parallels between himself and Sir Isaac Newton, who held the high-ranking title of Warden of the Royal Mint for roughly 30 years. Bemused guests may not have realised that Sir Isaac himself made drastic attempts to reassert sterling's credibility in the late 17th Century.
As journalists in the room knew at the time, Mr Kwarteng was summoned back to Downing Street mid-meeting - but as he swept through the Washington DC rain he chafed at comparisons between himself and the crisis-ridden Greek Finance minister Evangelos Venizelos who had been hauled back from the IMF during the country's 2011 crisis.
As Mr Kwarteng rushed home, PM Liz Truss was being forced to take her own drastic action.
Off the back of the mini-budget, the Bank of England was about to cease its emergency purchases of government bonds - these are a form of debt that the government sells to raise money it needs for public spending. As a result, Ms Truss' team felt she had no choice but to U-turn on a corporation tax cut announced in the mini-budget.
The Bank's Governor Andrew Bailey tells me that this was not designed to pressure the government - but to ensure financial stability.
But Ms Truss says there were questions about the bank's governance - they were in a very powerful position over her and did effectively put "pressure on me and the government to reverse our decisions on taxes", she says.
Ms Truss says the same of another institution, the Office for Budget Responsibility, which is the country's official independent economic forecaster. It was created to help market confidence by ensuring a government's numbers are regularly checked. She says she had not realised the "sheer level of power an organisation like the OBR has" before she got to Downing Street.
The plan by Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng was to bypass the OBR.
Its boss had worked through summer to prepare for an early set of tax changes and Mr Kwarteng had a draft forecast on his desk when he arrived in the job.
But as I revealed a week before the mini-budget, Downing Street refused to publish it.
The numbers, marked as "market sensitive", forecast the Truss administration borrowing an extra £110bn over five years as gas prices, inflation and interest rates surged.
The OBR chief executive Richard Hughes told me: "We were not asked to produce an updated forecast for him. And we were not asked to publish any forecasts alongside that [mini-budget]."
Current Chancellor Jeremy Hunt has said this was a fundamental error by Mr Kwarteng. If the OBR had provided a forecast alongside the mini-budget, Mr Kwarteng would have been forced to show how his £45bn in tax cuts would balance with spending cuts or increased borrowing.
Instead, the mini-budget had a solitary table asserting how, theoretically, the gap could be filled if the economy grew faster.
It was the equivalent of trying to pay a restaurant bill with an Instagram photo of some gold bars.
Governor Andrew Bailey said the Bank of England's actions were taken to ensure financial stability.
In the mini-budget, as soon as the government revealed it needed an extra £72bn in funding from the markets - without details of how it calculated the number - the market reacted badly. It simply did not believe the plans.
Massive spending cuts might have bridged the gap - but both Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng lacked both the clout and the numbers to push such plans through the Commons.
It was made worse by a crisis in a normally sleepy corner of the pensions system that is used to manage the risks of interest rate changes, which are normally predictable and gradual. Interest rates rises are normally good for pensions funds' long term health - but the rise in the effective interest costs for government after the mini-budget was so rapid that these funds had to sell more and more of their government bonds.
The more they sold, the more the value of the bonds fell.
Ms Truss's team say this was the real crisis, that it was a failure of Bank of England regulation, and that the Bank should have warned them.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
There was another problem for the markets. The government risked digging an even deeper credibility hole as it continued to defend itself. Cabinet ministers repeatedly blamed the market gyrations on "global factors", effectively sending the message that there was no problem to rectify.
On two occasions, the Bank of England sent charts to MPs making it crystal clear that the mini-budget was the trigger. Yes, there was a global trend of rising rates, but the surge last September was a UK-specific issue.
Senior bank officials also felt the need to directly correct ministers' public mistakes - for example when ministers played down, or appeared not to understand, the direct impact of rising government interest on fixed-rate mortgages. The Governor of the Bank himself had to explain to senior Cabinet ministers that mortgages were now more likely to be priced off long term borrowing rates rather than the Bank of England base rate.
"Banks were finding it hard to price on a curve that was moving so much," said one official, who advised ministers not to go out in public and blame banks for rising mortgage costs. "You've got to understand how the pricing works."
It's clear, looking back, that this was not just a financial heart attack - it was a stress test of Britain's entire system of institutions.
And beyond changing the public perception of Mr Kwarteng and Ms Truss, it changed the entire way British economic policy is directed, how investors act, and how institutions respond to blips.
Economically, the UK has long enjoyed a privilege in the markets - able to run "twin deficits" on both trade and government borrowing. But this reliance on the "kindness of strangers" funding was shaken by last year's events.
Big corporations report that there are more questions now from major investors than before the mini-budget. Those burnt by a sharp fall in sterling after the announcement will now insist on factoring in costly currency hedges before investing in major British infrastructure.
Politically, "mini-budget" is now a sort of anti-brand. Its name is a trump card, deployed to argue for financial credibility and a tight hand on the tiller above everything else. The government and the opposition are contorting themselves to meet a five-year debt target and cut back on investments they have previously said the country badly needs.
If HS2 is cut back, for example, some of that can be attributed to the mini-budget hangover.
Labour's shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves has already won an argument to rein in a planned tsunami of green investments if her party wins the general election - and has vowed to strengthen the OBR even more.
She and others are clearly trying to link the rising mortgage costs to the chaos of last year - even though much of that now arises from the Bank of England's inflation-fighting efforts.
Arguably the biggest impact of the mini-budget has been on the UK's big institutions.
This time a year ago the OBR, the Bank of England, and top Treasury civil servant Sir Tom Scholar were variously side-lined, briefed against, and fired.
They were the "bean counters" pursuing "abacus economics", standing in the way of newly appointed Prime Minister Liz Truss' agenda.
Her experiment - that push-back against the "economic orthodoxy" - went to its breaking point. Policy, from the jobs market, to visas, to investment, is now prioritised based on whether it will "score" on the OBR's forecast and help the numbers add up.
The radical economic laboratory experiments are over.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66897881
|
news_business-66897881
|
|
Liberal Democrats face housebuilding target row at conference - BBC News
|
2023-09-24
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Leader Ed Davey says he wants to focus on building social housing, rather than pledging 380,000 new homes a year.
|
UK Politics
|
Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey has told the BBC his party has not changed tack on housebuilding targets in order to win votes from Conservative supporters.
The party is considering dropping a pledge to build 380,000 new homes a year in England, in favour of a promise of 150,000 new council or social homes.
It will be debated at the party conference in Bournemouth on Monday.
The Young Liberals group is pushing for the target to be kept, saying ditching it would send the wrong message.
In 2021, the Liberal Democrats overturned a 16,000 majority to take the Conservative seat of Chesham and Amersham in a by-election.
The unpopularity of Boris Johnson's government's housebuilding plans and the Lib Dems' ability to capitalise on this were seen as key factors in the result.
Appearing on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, presented by Victoria Derbyshire, Sir Ed denied opposing new housing in Tory-run areas where parliamentary and council seats were being targeted, saying he was against "developer-led" schemes without proper amenities.
Janey Little says the housing crisis needs a local and national focus
Young Liberal chair Janey Little said: "We think that having a commitment to an ambitious national housebuilding target... we think that's necessary to signal to young people that the Liberal Democrats are onside, and we understand the scale of the housing crisis."
Leaflets have been circulated at the conference, urging members not to vote for the Young Liberals amendment, to keep the 380,000 target. Ms Little said that was a "shame".
"We have a lot of grassroots members on our side. But equally, people are working very hard on the other side of the argument. I really can't tell which way it will go."
Frontbencher Layla Moran, MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, said she had huge sympathy for young people "desperate to get on the housing ladder" and the leadership was "on the same page" on this.
There was "a discussion" going on about the best way to deliver more housing, she added.
The party's housing spokesperson Helen Morgan said the proposal would not do away with targets.
She told a fringe event in Bournemouth: "We can not deliver housing at scale unless we build council housing, or social housing - it could include housing associations as well - we have to get that bit right, and then we have to pin councils down so that they do a great of delivering the rest of the housing that that community needs.
"The point of the proposal we're making is to build those targets from the bottom, and to say what's your current level of need, what's your proper forecasted future need, and that would be independently assessed, and it would be binding on those councils."
Sir Ed said his party backed a "community-led approach" and "local neighbourhood plans" where local residents were involved in the whole decision-making process around new housing.
"Top-down targets lead to developer-led approaches", resulting in "the wrong houses being built in the wrong places", he said.
"You need to take communities with you. So often, you hear people are objecting not to houses, but objecting to the fact there are not enough houses, not enough GPs, not enough schools.
"When you take communities with you, it results in more houses being built" and "houses people want, in places they want, with the infrastructure they want", he argued.
Building more social housing would pave the way for more affordable housing and also free up more private housing for rent, he added.
Elsewhere in his BBC interview, Sir Ed brushed aside suggestions that voters had no idea what his party stood for, saying the Lib Dems were winning by-elections and council seats in Conservative heartlands where people were hearing their message.
Sir Ed was energy and climate change secretary in David Cameron's 2010-15 coalition government.
Asked if he would ever go into coalition with the Tories again, he said "there is no way we could deal with the Conservatives, they've ruined our country".
But he refused to be drawn on whether he might consider a coalition with Labour after the next general election, saying he had learned from his predecessors that "when they have focused on that question, they have been distracted from the task in hand".
He declined to rule out the UK rejoining the European Union at some point in the future, but again insisted the issue was "currently not on the table".
His priority was to rebuild relations and trust with other European leaders, and to put Britain back "at the heart of Europe", he added.
The Lib Dem leader was later heckled about Brexit at conference on Sunday afternoon during a Q&A session.
A member of the crowd called out that the Lib Dems should be working to rejoin the EU, and when Sir Ed responded saying: "We're camp5aigning hard on Europe as you know my friend", a second member of the audience shouted: "No you're not."
Meanwhile the Lib Dems have become the first party to adopt a pre-manifesto for the next election, with a proposal to give everyone in England the right to see a GP within a week a centrepiece policy.The document, which was approved by party members in a conference vote, sets out an early draft of the party's manifesto.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66888549
|
news_uk-politics-66888549
|
|
Russell Brand accuser sparks debate about staggered age of consent - BBC News
|
2023-09-24
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Claims against the star have led to discussions about the power dynamic between adults and teens in relationships.
|
UK
|
At 16, you can't legally buy alcohol, place a bet or vote in a general election - but you can consent to sex.
It has been this way since 1885 in the UK, when the age of consent was raised from 13. For gay and bisexual men, the age of consent was reduced from 18 to 16 in a law change in 2000, after a long campaign for equality.
But now, people are debating if consent laws should be changed again. This time, discussion has been triggered by allegations made against Russell Brand - in particular, those made by one alleged victim, "Alice", who says she had a relationship with Brand when he was in his 30s and she was 16.
Alice told the Sunday Times and Channel 4's Dispatches that Brand sexually assaulted her, and that, looking back, she feels she was groomed by him during their relationship. Brand denies her allegations.
Due to the fact she was over the age of sexual consent at the time, Alice says it would have been difficult for anyone to raise concerns about their relationship to the police.
But Alice believes we should start considering a change to the law in the form of "staggered ages of consent", so that people over 18 would not be allowed to have sex with 16 and 17-year-olds.
"There's a reasonable argument [that] individuals between the ages of 16 and 18 can have relations with people within that same age bracket," she told BBC Women's Hour. "You're allowed to make mistakes as a teenager, they should be with other people your own age."
This view has been echoed by many people on social media, with some commentators floating ideas such as restricting those under 18 to sleeping with those under 21.
But would a change in the law protect 16 and 17-year-olds from harm? And could it criminalise healthy relationships that happen to have an age gap?
While sex involving one or more people under 16 is illegal, police use discretion to decide whether a prosecution is in the public interest. They take into account factors such as the relationship between the people involved, whether the underage person consented to what happened and how close in age the people were.
If a person is under 13, they cannot be seen as consenting in law - even if they say they consented.
It is already illegal to take, share or possess indecent images of people under 18 - even if the person is a consenting 16- or 17-year-old.
It is also against the law for people in a position of trust, such as teachers, to engage in sexual activity with a child in their care, even if that child is over the age of consent.
But what if special protections were introduced more widely for sexual relationships involving those who are over the age of consent, but still children?
"My view would be that changing the law doesn't actually achieve a lot," says Roger Ingham, director of the Centre for Sexual Health Research at the University of Southampton.
He says one of the arguments for having an age of consent is that it allows people who may feel pressured to have sex under 16 to say, "it's against the law".
"How often that's actually used, how often that stops people having sex that they don't want, we don't know."
He says surveys suggest that by the time they reach 18, the majority of people - about 60 to 70%, he says - have had sex (usually defined as intercourse).
But if the age of consent were to be raised to 18, for example, he says this would be "bringing in an awful lot of people into the bracket of being criminalised, even if the practice of the police and the prosecution is not to prosecute under certain conditions".
He says teenagers in consensual relationships below the age of consent - for example two 15-year-olds - are often nervous about going to family planning clinics to seek contraception in case they are reported - so one risky consequence of raising the age of consent could be more young people having unprotected sex.
In reality, sexual health clinics keep underage patients' details confidential, unless they are under 13 and thought to be at risk of harm, in which case other services may be alerted.
Brand denies the allegations of rape, sexual assaults and emotional abuse
Prof Ingham says more comprehensive sex and relationships education could help protect 16 and 17-year-olds, adding there should be "much more attention paid to issues of consent, not just in sexual situations".
Jayne Butler, chief executive of the charity Rape Crisis, agrees that better sex and relationship education and increased understanding are needed to shift societal attitudes around consent.
"We don't want to criminalise consensual relationships between 16-year-old peers, but there needs to be recognition of the significant power imbalance between older men and 16 year olds," she says.
"The cultural acceptance of relationships between young, potentially vulnerable people and someone much older needs to be addressed, and this doesn't start or end with just changing the law."
Prof Ingham says the issue of consent is challenged when someone with power or status, such as a celebrity, takes an interest in a young person.
A "star-struck" young person may be willing to have sex at the time but may regret it later, he says.
"It's a really complicated psychological issue, I'm not sure how you can legislate for it, to be honest."
Dr Laura Janes, from the Law Society's criminal law committee, also points out that the law in this area is already quite complex.
"What many people find confusing is we have different ages of consent for different things," she says - highlighting that in the UK someone is considered criminally responsible at 10 but can't have sex until 16 or vote in a general election until 18.
"If you take these three dates of what the law thinks you can do in terms of your development, we have already got a law which is very incoherent and inconsistent," she says.
A 16-year-old in the UK is allowed to have sex but not vote in a general election
The age of consent in England and Wales is broadly similar to other European countries - slightly higher than France's 15 and Germany's 14, but lower than Ireland's 17 and Malta's 18. However, the gap between the age of criminal responsibility and the age of consent in England and Wales is the biggest of all countries, she says.
"It's important to remember the law is a very blunt instrument and creates black and white lines," Dr Janes says.
And, crucially, the law changes according to the moral values of society, she says - so you have to take into account the cultural reality. She highlights YouGov research from earlier this year that shows a fifth of people say they had sex before the age of consent.
On top of this, she says one of the problems with English law is there has been a "proliferation in the number of laws we have". And the question is what another law change would achieve, when there are other current laws - for example, against coercive control - which aim to protect young people from the kind of harmful relationships that can happen when one partner is older.
"There's been a huge number of new offences that have appeared on the statute book and there is a real risk of it becoming overcomplicated," she says.
Dr Janes says that before any law change is considered, the priority should be making sure young people understand what the current law is - and then ensuring they know they can use it with confidence. "There needs to be a cultural understanding where people feel sufficiently confident to go to the police," she says.
And if there are going to be any legal changes, particularly if they involve intimacy and relationships between young people, "it has to be really clear and it has to be understandable to everyone, including potential victims and potential perpetrators".
• None Why do rape and sexual assault victims find it hard to go to police?
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66872467
|
news_uk-66872467
|
|
Google anti-trust trial: Tech giant accused of 'hobbling rivals' to gain search monopoly - BBC News
|
2023-09-12
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
In a landmark trial, the US government says the tech giant uses illegal tactics to stifle competition from start-ups.
|
Business
|
Now that we've heard the opening arguments from both sides, we're going to wrap up this live page.
It's unclear how long this trial will take, but some guess it could last as long as 10 weeks.
So, who could we expect to be called upon in court?
Earlier this month, Cue, Giannandrea and Perica lost a challenge to stop them being called as witnesses in the trial. We know that Pichai is in Washington this week for a global AI forum at the Senate.
Rest assured we'll be keeping an eye on this case, and will bring you more coverage as it goes on.
For now, thanks for joining us, and enjoy the rest of your day.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-66782668
|
news_live_business-66782668
|
|
Google antitrust trial: Tech giant denies abusing power to gain monopoly - BBC News
|
2023-09-12
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
In a landmark trial brought by the US government, the tech giant denies using illegal practices to gain a monopoly.
|
Business
|
Jonathan Kanter, assistant attorney general for the antitrust division at the Department of Justice, arrives at court
Google has dismissed arguments that it is the world's biggest search engine because of illegal practices, saying to switch to another company takes "literally four taps".
A lawyer for the company made the remarks in court in Tuesday in Washington DC, where it is facing trial over whether it is a monopoly.
The case is a major test of the power of US regulators over the tech giants.
Prosecutors said the case was about "the future of the internet".
The trial is expected to last 10 weeks and will feature testimony from Google boss Sundar Pichai as well as executives from Apple.
Judge Amit Mehta, who was appointed to his position on DC district court by former president Barack Obama, will decide the case - the biggest for the industry in 25 years.
The government's lawsuit focuses on billions of dollars in payments Google has made to Apple, Samsung, Mozilla and others to be pre-installed as the default online search engine.
The US said Google typically pays more than $10bn a year for that privilege, securing its access to a steady gush of user data that helped maintain its hold on the market.
"Are there other distribution channels? Other ways of distributing search? Yes.... Are these powerful as defaults? No," Department of Justice lawyer Kenneth Dintzer said, addressing the judge. "The best testimony for that, for the importance of defaults, your Honour, is Google's cheque book."
When Apple first installed Google as the default search engine in 2002, no payments were involved, prosecutors said.
But by 2005, worried about its lead eroding, Google proposed to pay the company - later threatening to cancel payments if other firms got similar access, the government said.
The company also discouraged Apple from expanding its own search products and Samsung, which makes Android phones, from working with a company that used a different kind of search method.
"This is a monopolist, flexing," Mr Dintzer said.
Google said it faced intense competition, not just from general search engine firms, such as Microsoft's Bing, but more specialised sites and apps that people use to find restaurants, airline flights and more.
"There are lots of ways users access the web, other than through default search engines, and people use them all the time," the company's lawyer, John Schmidtlein, said.
"The evidence in this case will show Google competed on the merits to win pre-installation and default status, and that its browser and Android partners judged Google to be the best search engine for its users."
Mr Schmidtlein said that despite Windows PCs being the number one used desktop and having Bing pre-set as the default search engine, a majority of Windows users still opt to use Google - demonstrating Google's superiority as a search platform.
The trial is the latest regulatory challenge to face Google, which recently settled another case over its app store brought by US states. The company is also facing a federal lawsuit over its advertising business and has found itself in the crosshairs in Europe, where it has been fined billions in monopoly cases.
The government has asked for "structural relief" if it wins - which could mean the break-up of the company.
The suit comes as artificial intelligence and new forms of search, such as ChatGPT, are providing a more serious threat to Google's dominance than the company has encountered in years.
• None US takes on Google in fight against tech giants
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66790608
|
news_business-66790608
|
|
Simona Halep: Two-time Grand Slam champion handed four-year ban for doping - BBC Sport
|
2023-09-12
|
[]
|
Two-time Grand Slam champion Simona Halep is banned for four years following breaches of tennis doping rules.
| null |
Two-time Grand Slam champion Simona Halep has been banned for four years following breaches of the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme.
An independent tribunal determined the 31-year-old Romanian had committed "intentional" anti-doping violations.
Halep said in a statement she intends to appeal against the decision at the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
"I am continuing to train and do everything in my power to clear my name of these false allegations," she said.
Former world number one Halep tested positive for the use of roxadustat at last year's US Open.
She was also found guilty of using an unspecified prohibited substance or method in 2022 after irregularities were found in her biological passport.
The tribunal accepted Halep's argument she had taken a contaminated supplement, but decided that would not have resulted in the concentration of roxadustat found in her urine sample.
Roxadustat is an anti-anaemia drug which stimulates the production of red blood cells in the body.
The panel also stated they had no reason to doubt the unanimous "strong opinion" reached by three independent experts that "likely doping" was the explanation for the irregularities in her biological passport.
Halep has been provisionally suspended since October 2022, which means she will be able to play again on 7 October 2026, by which time she will be 35.
The findings of the tribunal, however, can be appealed against and Halep indicated that she would challenge the verdict.
She said: "The last year has been the hardest match of my life, and unfortunately my fight continues. I have devoted my life to the beautiful game of tennis.
"I take the rules that govern our sport very seriously and take pride in the fact I have never knowingly or intentionally used any prohibited substance. I refused to accept their decision of a four-year ban."
Halep said she "adjusted" her nutritional supplements on the recommendation of her team before the hard court season in 2022 and that "none of the listed ingredients included any prohibited substances".
However, she acknowledged that "one of them was contaminated with roxadustat" and she also planned to "pursue all legal remedies against the supplement company in question".
Halep added: "I was tested almost weekly after my initial positive test through early 2023, all of which came back negative.
"I believe in a clean sport and in almost two decades as a professional tennis player, through hundreds of tournaments and two Grand Slam titles, I have taken 200 blood and urine tests to check for prohibited substances - all of which have been clean."
The Professional Tennis Players' Association called the "repeated and unexplained delays" in Halep's case "both unfair and unacceptable" and said it was "fully committed to supporting her in any future appeals".
Halep, who won the French Open in 2018 and Wimbledon the following year, is the highest-profile tennis player to fail a drugs test since Maria Sharapova in 2016.
She has won 24 WTA tour singles titles and earned £32.2m ($40.2m) in prize money and was ranked number one in the world in 2017 and 2018.
Simona Halep has been far from silent in a case which, to the frustration of all sides, has taken a year to reach a verdict.
She said in one social media post that her name had been "soiled in the worst possible way" and accused the tennis authorities of "killing her reputation".
But now the verdict has arrived, it is an incredibly damaging one.
A four-year ban is, to all intents and purposes, the most severe penalty she could have received - although a further two years could have been added had the panel considered it an "aggravated" offence - and underlines the tribunal's view that Halep had been doping "intentionally".
The Romanian was a popular champion at both the French Open and Wimbledon, and many will be shocked that if her appeal is unsuccessful, she will not be able to play for another three years.
Halep did consider retiring in the early part of 2022 because of a series of injuries which she said left her "no more power to fight".
But she gradually rediscovered her love for the sport, reached the semi-finals of Wimbledon and won the WTA 1000 event in Toronto in the two months before her ban.
Halep's 35th birthday is 10 days before her ban is currently set to expire. Even Serena Williams won only one Grand Slam title after she turned 35 and such an achievement would be nigh on impossible after four years away from the tour.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/66789732
|
rt_tennis_66789732
|
|
Laura Kuenssberg: Labour - damned if they dare, damned if they don't? - BBC News
|
2023-09-16
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
When Keir Starmer unveils a policy it is roundly attacked - is this the price of getting a hearing?
|
UK Politics
|
Too boring? Too serious? Too left wing? Too right wing? Too much of a mystery still?
For a long time, Keir Starmer's Labour has been miles ahead in the opinion polls. And even before that, for a very long time, he has faced calls to be more explicit about his priorities.
When he ran to become leader, promising "moral socialism", I wondered what his priorities were as he did his first interview as part of his campaign to take on the job.
Even then, he carefully refused to say if his politics were closer to Jeremy Corbyn's or Tony Blair's.
This week though, and this weekend at a left wing love-in in Canada with like minded leaders, Keir Starmer is very deliberately picking a subject and sticking to it, talking about border security and immigration.
This episode illustrates exactly the opportunity and dilemma the Labour leadership faces.
Say too much? The plans can be shredded (or nabbed!) by opponents, or cause grumbles closer to home.
Say as little as humanly possible, and face accusations that you stand for nothing, and have no ideas of your own.
Yvette Cooper and Keir Starmer aiming to show they mean business on migration
After attacks on the border security plans presented alongside Keir Starmer's carefully-choreographed trip to Europol, in the Netherlands, is Labour damned if they dare put policy out there, and damned if they don't?
The plans, which you can read more about here, were met with what could have almost been a pre-scripted response.
There were squeals from the right immediately, with highly debatable claims that the Labour would automatically open the door to an extra 100,000 migrants a year.
That estimate assumed that a Labour government would sign up to an EU-wide quota deal that is not yet in operation.
Labour says they would never sign up to the continent-wide scheme, even though they do want closer cooperation.
Some Conservatives reckon Starmer has made a "strategic mistake" by focusing on these plans, opening himself to accusations of cosying up to the EU on immigration.
But one shadow minister played down the attack, saying the "Tories are struggling and so it means they are going to make stuff up".
On the other side, there was some obvious discomfort too at the message the leadership has been pushing.
Union leaders and charity bosses branded it as "pandering", "knee-jerk" language just to grab "headlines in the Sun".
Certainly, promises to "smash the gangs", or treat human traffickers like "terrorists" are not designed to tickle the bellies of the Labour membership - those who'll be leafing through all 116 pages of the party's policy document, which will be argued over and voted on at conference in a few weeks.
So if Starmer's had screams from the right and squeals from the left, then surely something's gone wrong?
Not so fast. It's politics! Not normal life.
It's a weird old business. You pick an issue, provoke a row. The row isn't a damaging thing, as long as it stays as a controllable spat, not an overwhelming bunfight.
The row is, in fact, the point.
Get your rivals on the inside and the outside to argue, the argument kicks off, then get the public to notice you are taking a stand on issues they care about, and bingo.
The impression is created, whether it's genuine or not, that the party understands voters' worries and will actually do something about it.
As one Labour source suggests, "in opposition you have to be prepared to have the row, that's the only way you get heard".
They say, "whether we are trying to claim the mantle of the economy, or the party to fix small boats - we have to show we can make progress on it".
That doesn't happen by shying away from a tricky subject, or only sticking to Labour crowd pleasers.
Credibility by caring about the right things and offering solutions is the aim. A shadow cabinet minister says the proposals are about being "practical", the political responses this week were predictable, and the priority is to "look like they are serious" about fixing the country's ills.
More than 100,000 migrants have crossed the Channel on small boats in the last five years
Labour HQ seems neither surprised nor perturbed by the rumpus their proposals this week caused.
More images and coverage of Keir Starmer to come on his adventure to Canada and Paris - tick.
But there are, of course, still risks all around.
There is a sense among some voters that Labour still just attacks on issues where things are going wrong for the Conservatives, like immigration, rather than pursuing strong areas of their own.
One pollster says in almost every focus group they host, someone says of Starmer, "he just criticises" - the "risk is [the] public just think Keir is a moaner or a clever lawyer".
There is a danger, they say, "of Labour not having their agenda", so even if they win, "if things improve people don't stick with them, or potentially worse they have zero honeymoon when they get in, and no enthusiasm".
There is also a risk of stirring up too much unhappiness on the left, so that the party ends up preoccupied with internal fights again.
It is not true to say that this is the first time Labour has talked about immigration, or that the party has always avoided the topic.
Ed Miliband's 2015 campaign mug did not go down well with activists
Remember Gordon Brown's clamour for "British jobs for British workers" or Ed Miliband's awkward somersaults over the issue, accompanied by his bizarre branded mug which promised controls on immigration?
But Keir Starmer's trying to show something else - not just that he will talk about the issue, but that the party is comfortable taking on the concern and has credible solutions.
There are dangers for any opposition in saying too little or too much.
The thing Labour is most afraid of is not winning or losing any specific argument, but failing to win the country, and losing again.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66831207
|
news_uk-politics-66831207
|
|
Rishi Sunak: I care about reaching net zero carbon emissions - BBC News
|
2023-09-20
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The PM says he listens to his daughters' concerns about climate change but they are not "eco-zealots".
|
UK Politics
|
Rishi Sunak has insisted he cares about reaching net zero but that the 2050 target needs to be achieved in "a proportionate and pragmatic way".
The prime minister has faced criticism from environmental groups and some of his own MPs that he is not committed to tackling climate change.
Mr Sunak told LBC he wanted to leave the environment in "a better state than we found it in" for his two daughters.
But he added that the UK would still need fossil fuels in the future.
Asked if he was confident he could win over his environmentally conscious daughters, Mr Sunak said they were not "eco-zealots" and like most people, were "open to sensible, practical arguments".
He has previously described his daughters as "passionate environmentalists", who have often asked him what he is doing about climate change.
Mr Sunak is facing pressure from some Conservative MPs to review the government's green policies, after the party's surprise win in the Uxbridge by-election, when it capitalised on anger over London's Ultra Low Emissions Zone (Ulez).
However, he has said the government is committed to reaching net zero by 2050 - which means no longer adding to the total amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which are increasing global temperatures.
Other leading climate campaigners in the Conservative Party have criticised Mr Sunak's commitment to environmental issues.
Lord Goldsmith recently resigned from the government, accusing the prime minister of "apathy" over climate change.
The prime minister has also attracted criticism for the number of domestic flights he has taken to travel for government business across the UK.
Earlier this week he defended flying to Scotland, to announce support for a carbon capture project, as "an efficient use of time for the person running the country".
"If your approach to climate change is to say that no one should go on holiday, no one should go on a plane, I think you are completely and utterly wrong," he told BBC's Good Morning Scotland.
In his interview with LBC he also revealed he was taking his family on a summer holiday to California this week, including a visit to Disneyland.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. The prime minister is due to head on a family holiday this Thursday
Mr Sunak has announced the government is granting 100 new North Sea oil and gas licences, as well as supporting a carbon capture project in the north east of Scotland.
The decision was criticised by environmental campaigners, who said it would "send a wrecking ball through the UK's climate commitments".
Conservative MP Chris Skidmore said the move was "the wrong decision at precisely the wrong time" and "on the wrong side of history".
However, Mr Sunak said: "I 100% believe that what I'm doing is right," adding that even after meeting the 2050 target the UK would still need fossil fuels.
He argued it was "sensible" to use "the energy we have here at home", as this would be better for jobs and avoid the environmental cost of shipping energy from abroad, as well as reducing the UK's reliance on other countries.
Meanwhile, Energy Security Secretary Grant Shapps is meeting oil and gas bosses in Downing Street to talk about the government's decision to invest in home-grown energy sources, including renewables and North Sea oil and gas.
Mr Sunak is also facing pressure over measures to move towards electric cars.
Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch is understood to have raised concerns about rules due to come into effect next year that require car manufacturers to sell a certain proportion of electric models.
From January, 22% of vehicles sold have to be zero emission, or car makers could be hit with fines.
Some manufacturers have been calling for a softening of the rules, and as first reported by the Politico website, Ms Badenoch has passed on their concerns to her cabinet colleagues.
But Labour said the sector was "crying out for certainty" and Ms Badenoch's reported comments were a "threat to investment".
Ministers have insisted the government remains committed to banning the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030, despite calls from some Tory MPs for a delay.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66382265
|
news_uk-politics-66382265
|
|
Rishi Sunak seeks to grab the agenda with green gamble - BBC News
|
2023-09-20
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Sunak's mooted changes to net zero targets are far from tinkering at the edges, our political editor writes.
|
UK Politics
|
Climate activists demonstrated outside Paliament over the use of fossil fuels on 16 September
Governments hate it when they lose control of what they plan to say and when.
And that is precisely what happened last night when we revealed that Rishi Sunak is considering weakening some of the government's key green commitments.
Downing Street's choreography, their grid of planned announcements, shredded by a leak.
Usually after a leak, folk in government will say they don't comment on leaks. Not this time.
It wasn't just a comment, but a statement from the prime minister, effectively acknowledging what we had reported.
He was, he said, committed to delivering net zero - i.e. no longer adding to the total amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - but it must be done in a "better, more proportionate way" that was "honest about costs and trade offs".
In other words, the current approach isn't proportionate in his view, and others have not been honest about the realities of attempting to deliver such promises.
Let us be clear about what we found out, and what we did not.
What we found out is what the prime minister is considering. We now wait to find out later this week, possibly on Friday, what he will actually announce.
As infuriating as the leak is to them, the row it has provoked is one they will have anticipated - within the Conservative Party, around Parliament, and beyond.
The Conservative MP Chris Skidmore, who led a government review into net zero, said it was potentially the greatest mistake of Rishi Sunak's premiership so far.
Fellow MP Karl McCartney told BBC Newsnight "the wets in the Conservative Party are wetting themselves", adding plenty of Tory MPs are very pleased.
A "dose of realism" was needed, he said.
Labour said our revelations illustrated "farce" within government - but the party, pointedly, has not committed to restoring any targets Mr Sunak may choose to dilute or ditch.
They too wrestle with being seen to get the balance right, as do trades unions.
Gary Smith of the GMB told Sky News the other day: "The climate emergency is real. It poses an existential threat to the planet.
"We don't want to have dirty air in our cities but we have to listen to the legitimate concerns of ordinary people, many of whom are struggling to get by."
The dilemma captured in three sentences.
And in industry, I'm told some investors are spooked; baffled at what the government may or may not choose to do.
Within Downing Street, there has been a growing frustration that the real Rishi Sunak - as those around him see him politically - has been shielded from view, by circumstance.
The instinctive low-tax Conservative, sceptical of big state intervention and spending, who was also the front man of the furlough scheme in the pandemic.
The prime minister who believes he has a distinctive, and (he hopes) appealing prospectus, reduced so far to merely steadying the ship of state after years of turbulence.
But the machine around Mr Sunak has been changing, becoming more political, more muscular. And this is evidence of that.
This isn't tinkering, but at least consideration of a wholesale dilution, if not outright junking, of key elements of previous Conservative prime ministers' medium-term approaches to this issue.
And a turbocharging of the politics of climate policy.
Some close observers of the government approach on energy, industry and green commitments wonder if the original plan was a speech full of incentives rather than rules. Help rather than targets.
We shall see. That, for now, has been knocked off course by a leak No10 never sought to deny the accuracy of.
We have tried to give you an insight into what was being considered privately, at the top of government.
Make no mistake, this will grab attention, provoke argument, seize the agenda - just what a prime minister in a hole in the polls feels the need to do.
Would your family like to be greener but find it unaffordable? Email haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk.
Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a BBC journalist. You can also get in touch in the following ways:
If you are reading this page and can't see the form you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question or comment or you can email us at HaveYourSay@bbc.co.uk. Please include your name, age and location with any submission.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66862498
|
news_uk-politics-66862498
|
|
What can Rishi Sunak do to tackle inflation? - BBC News
|
2023-09-20
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
There are some short-term levers the government could pull but they all involve tough political choices.
|
UK Politics
|
"Halving inflation this year" is one of the prime minister's top five priorities.
It's currently stuck at 8.7%.
When Rishi Sunak is asked how he'll meet his goal, he points to raising interest rates.
Something the Bank of England, not the government, controls.
The truth is there are some short-term levers government could pull.
The problem is they - as well as interest rates - all involve unpalatable political choices.
The Bank of England and government's argument for hiking interest rates - which some economists dispute - is that it makes borrowing more expensive.
That means people and businesses have less disposable income, less ability and incentive to spend, which pushes down the demand for goods and services.
If there's less demand for something, or more of it, the price usually goes down.
The downside of raising interest rates is it inflicts financial pain on anyone with loans, mortgages or credit card debt.
It means government debt, which is paid off by our taxes, also becomes a lot more expensive.
Raising interest rates also doesn't impact everybody equally - and so the impact on inflation is staggered.
ONS data shows more households own their home outright (37%) than with a mortgage or loan (26%).
So that 37% won't have less cash to spend.
Any of the 26% who are on a fixed rate mortgage that isn't up for renewal won't be hit just yet either.
The rest of the population privately rent, or are in social rent, so could well end up spending less due to rising rents.
Another question around rising interest rates is what it means for Rishi Sunak's second priority: growing the economy?
The strategy to get inflation down relies on stopping people from spending as much.
What does that mean for businesses? If people spend less in businesses, what does that mean for jobs? If people end up out of work, what does that mean for the government's welfare bill? And, therefore, for that third priority of the prime minister's: reducing national debt.
The increased cost of borrowing from high interest rates can also disincentivise investment in business, which can also lead to lower economic growth.
The tricky balancing act between inflation and recession is getting worse.
So what is in the government's power?
One quick lever the government can pull is taxes.
Raising taxes is another way to stop groups of people from spending more.
But that's an unpalatable political choice too.
Mr Sunak has previously made it clear, and pledged in the past, that he wants to cut - not raise - taxes before the next election.
Some Tory MPs have been repeatedly calling for tax cuts.
While we do hear ministers talk about making "efficiencies", departments talking about making cuts is - again - an unpalatable narrative ahead of an election.
Mr Sunak has said, for now, that he wants to make sure government is "responsible" with borrowing.
Another quick lever would be price controls - the government setting limits on price increases.
Mr Sunak says ministers are "looking at" supermarkets to make sure they are behaving responsibly, for example.
But Number 10 have been clear they are not introducing price caps and any such schemes would be at retailers' discretion.
The governor of the Bank of England has suggested workers shouldn't ask for excessive pay rises.
The government has also been very reluctant to hike public sector wages, especially if funded by more borrowing.
Both argue giving people more money in their pockets could fuel inflation: if people's wages keep up with rising prices, they can buy the same things, so demand (and prices) remain similar.
In blunter terms - their strategy of reducing inflation by reducing demand means people need to be able to afford less.
This argument has led to strikes in multiple sectors, with unions arguing this is unfair for workers.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Sunak makes five pledges on the NHS, economy and migrants
This is also a tricky balancing act here for the economy.
If people can afford less: what does that mean for growing the economy? And jobs?
Potentially putting people out of work has a government price tag too.
So what about pushing supply up, rather than demand down, to lower prices?
Supply-side reforms are, in simple terms, decisions that could make industries more productive to increase the supply of goods and services - and grow the economy too.
Free-market examples include things like cutting business taxes, regulation, red tape, or even certain worker protections or welfare benefits. Or increasing migration for certain sectors.
State-intervention examples could be building more houses, investing in infrastructure, or investing in homegrown energy supplies like nuclear power or renewables.
Clearly, any of these involve political choices too.
But they also take time to come into effect.
The government - and Labour - have ruled out direct support to help people with mortgages, saying this would fuel inflation - and instead point to existing benefits for the most vulnerable.
Ministers are continuing to point to interest rates as the solution, though most are reluctant to admit that involves a lot of pain for it to work.
It's important to remember when the government says it can't do something that what they're usually referring to is a choice.
Each choice comes with its own shade of political thorniness, and potentially means trading the prime minister's priorities off against each other.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65990413
|
news_uk-politics-65990413
|
|
Rishi Sunak delays petrol car ban in major shift on green policies - BBC News
|
2023-09-20
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The prime minister claims the changes will support "hard-pressed families" but opponents accuse him of "selling out".
|
UK Politics
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Rishi Sunak has delayed a ban on new petrol and diesel cars in a major change to the government's approach to achieving net zero by 2050.
The prime minister announced exemptions and delays to several key green policies, alongside a 50% increase in cash incentives to replace gas boilers.
The government could not impose "unacceptable costs" linked to reducing emissions on British families, he said.
It's prompted fierce criticism from the opposition and some industry bosses.
Mr Sunak also faced attacks from his own party, but many Conservative MPs came out in favour of the new direction, alongside some in the car industry.
The changes come as Mr Sunak seeks to create dividing lines with opposition parties ahead of a general election, expected next year.
Framing the changes as "pragmatic and proportionate", the prime minister has unpicked several of Boris Johnson's key policies, many of them launched when Mr Sunak was serving as chancellor.
In a speech from Downing Street on Wednesday, Mr Sunak said moving too fast on green policies "risks losing the consent of the British people".
Among the key changes announced were:
Mr Sunak ran the changes past a hastily organised cabinet meeting on Wednesday morning, after proposals were revealed by the BBC.
Responding to the statement, Labour unequivocally committed itself to keeping the 2030 ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars.
Shadow environment secretary Steve Reed said without the ban the UK would miss its target to hit net zero - this is the point at which a country is no longer adding to the overall amount of harmful greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Mr Reed said the prime minster had "sold out the biggest economic opportunity of the 21st Century" for Britain "to lead the world in transition to well-paid secured new jobs of the green economy".
Scottish First Minister Humza Yousaf told the BBC the move was "utterly unforgiveable" and "very firmly takes the UK out of the global consensus".
Speaking from a UN summit on climate action, which Mr Sunak had declined to attend, Mr Yousaf said: "The same day the whole world is gathered to talk about what more we can do, we have a UK prime minister rolling back on [the UK's] commitments."
The BBC's Chris Mason says Mr Sunak and his advisers will hope that beyond the criticism, many voters might quietly conclude he is onto something and being reasonable.
Mr Sunak's proposals are dividing his party, Parliament, and many in the country, but the PM will be looking at Labour's lead in the opinion polls and concluding he has no choice but to gamble.
And the political choices outlined in his speech preview more announcements later this autumn, as Mr Sunak promised he would set out "a series of long term decisions".
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Rishi Sunak's shift on green policies - what he said then and now
Billions of pounds has already been invested across multiple industries, including car makers and energy firms, in preparation of the previous deadlines.
Korean carmaker Kia, which has plans to launch nine new electric vehicles over the next few years, said the announcement was disappointing as it "alters complex supply chain negotiations and product planning, whilst potentially contributing to consumer and industry confusion".
The chief executive of energy company E.On, Chris Norbury, said it was a "misstep on many levels", adding that it was a "false argument" to suggest green policies can only come at a cost.
"We risk condemning people to many more years of living in cold and draughty homes that are expensive to heat, in cities clogged with dirty air from fossil fuels, missing out on the economic regeneration this ambition brings," Mr Norbury said.
Jaguar Land Rover, which announced hundreds of new jobs in the West Midlands a few days ago, welcomed the change, calling it "pragmatic" and adding that it brings the UK in line with other nations.
"Pragmatic" was also how Toyota described the changes.
Elsewhere, Mr Sunak also suggested he would be "scrapping" a range of proposals which had been "thrown up" by the debate, including hiking up air fares to discourage foreign holidays and taxes on meat consumption. Neither of these had been government policy.
Mr Sunak argued that without transparency and "honest debate" on the impact of green policies there would be a "backlash" against net zero.
But Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey accused Mr Sunak of being "selfish" and said the changes "epitomise his weakness".
"The prime minister's legacy will be the hobbling of our country's future economy as he ran scared from the right wing of his own party," he said.
The UK was now "at the back of the queue as the rest of the world races to embrace the industries of tomorrow", Sir Ed added.
Speaking to the BBC from the UN's Climate Action Summit, Sir Alok Sharma, a former Conservative minister who chaired the COP26 climate summit, said the response from international colleagues at the event had been one of "consternation".
"My concern is whether people now look to us and say, 'Well, if the UK is starting to row back on some of these policies, maybe we should do the same'," he said.
Also speaking from the summit, former US vice president and climate campaigner Al Gore said the announcement marked a "turn back in the wrong direction".
"At times in the past, the UK has been one of the impressive leaders on climate. And so for those who have come to expect that from the UK, it's a particular disappointment," he told the BBC.
Chris Stark, chief executive of the UK's independent Climate Change Committee, said the changes would make it harder for the government to meet legally binding climate goals.
Speaking to Radio 4's Today programme on Thursday, Mr Stark added that the committee had already advised the government in June that it "didn't look like we were on track" to meet 2030 emissions targets, before these changes were announced.
However, the shift in policy has gained support from some within Mr Sunak's party.
Former cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg backed the changes, telling the BBC: "The problem with net zero and having regulations coming in so quickly was that it was a scheme of the elite on the backs of the least well off."
Mr Sunak is instead "going with the grain of the nation and moving for 'intelligent net zero' by 2050 but not putting in costly bans in the next few years."
Sign up for our morning newsletter and get BBC News in your inbox.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66871457
|
news_uk-politics-66871457
|
|
Four sons set out on a perilous migration route. Only one came home - BBC News
|
2023-09-02
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
A survivor tells the story of a five-week ordeal on the North Atlantic passage to Europe.
|
Africa
|
Adama Sarr at home in Senegal. "In the beginning we all had hope," he said.
Adama and Moussa Sarr had lost track of the exact number of days they had been at sea.
The brothers were drifting somewhere off the coast of West Africa, in a traditional Senegalese fishing canoe known as a pirogue. They were two of 39 passengers in total - all malnourished, many close to death.
When a fishing vessel appeared in the distance one day, Adama, 21, was so weak he could only stare, he said. Moussa, 17, slipped into the water to swim.
He would almost certainly have drowned, had the fishing crew not spotted him in the water and plucked him to safety.
When they drew alongside the pirogue, they found Adama and the rest of the survivors and seven bodies. The pirogue had set out from Senegal five weeks earlier, with 101 souls on board.
Pirogues lined up on the beach in Fass Boye. Large pirogues are used for migration voyages
The survivors had drifted hundreds of miles on one of the most dangerous migrant routes in the world - the North Atlantic sea passage from Senegal to the Canary Islands, a Spanish archipelago about 1,000 miles away.
They had left on 10 July, from the coastal village of Fass Boye. Adama and Moussa came from a long line of fishermen in the village. The boys learned to fish together and worked a pirogue together.
But like many young people in Senegal, they felt the pull of Europe. "Everyone wants to go on the boats," Adama said. "It's the thing you're supposed to do."
He was sitting in the shaded courtyard of a family home, safely back in Senegal but noticeably thinner than before. The journey had begun at dusk, he said. He and Moussa, along with two cousins, Pape and Amsoutou, aged 40 and 20, joined the pirogue a little way off the coast as it set off into the night.
Unlike the Mediterranean, there are no patrols on the North Atlantic route - no-one proactively searching for lost or distressed boats. It is easy to founder without being seen. If you miss the Canaries, or Cape Verde, you can drift into the Atlantic and disappear.
For the first three days, Adama and Moussa's pirogue, powered by an outboard motor, battled against strong headwinds. But on the fourth day, the wind died down and the boat began to progress, Adama said. The passengers believed they had only a few more days at sea.
When the sixth day passed with no sight of land, an argument erupted over whether to push on or turn back.
"The captain ruled that we should push on, because we had enough food and water and the wind was quiet," Adama said.
The passengers grew confident again and began to eat lots of food, he said, and they used drinking water to wash their hands for prayers.
It was around day six that the food and water began to run out. There were four children on board, and some older people gave the last of their food to the young. Some hoarded even after people began to die.
Adama couldn't remember the exact date of the first death, but it was shortly after the first week passed, he said - a fishing captain, used to being on the water but not young. It was six more days until the next person died. Then the deaths came every day.
"At first, we said a prayer for each dead person and laid their body onto the ocean," Adama said. "Then later we just threw the bodies into the water because we didn't even have the energy to pray. We just needed to get rid of the corpses."
Adama's mother, Sokhna. "The young are leaving because of poverty and family pressure," she said.
Back in Fass Boye, news was spreading through the village that the boat had not arrived. "We all knew it should be five or six days by boat to Spain," Adama's mother, Sokhna, said. "When a week had passed with no news I stopped eating. I became sick from stress."
Nearly everyone on the pirogue was from Fass Boye or nearby, and everyone in the village seemed to know someone aboard. The families began to do anything they could, alerting local authorities and migration NGOs. The founder of one NGO even tweeted a warning that the boat was missing, two weeks after its departure, but the warning went unheeded and the boat drifted for three more weeks.
On the pirogue, the four men from the family stuck together, but they were growing weaker and weaker. The eldest cousin, Pape, died first, Adama said. "Before he passed, he said, 'If death must happen, I wish that I die and you three survive'."
Then Adama's younger cousin, Amsoutou, disappeared. One morning they woke up and Amsoutou was simply gone.
Adama and Moussa hung on, sipping seawater and baking under the sun. Each night they looked for lights from the Canary Islands but the lights never appeared.
Nobody in Fass Boye seemed to blame the migrants for taking the risk. More than a third of the country lives in poverty, according to the World Bank. The young see few opportunities at home. "Macky Sall sold the ocean," said Assane Niang, a 23-year-old fishing captain, referring to the Senegalese president. Fishermen in Fass Boye say the government has granted too many licences to foreign trawlers, which overfish their waters and deplete the catch.
Niang was sitting on the beach in the shade of a pirogue, knitting generator covers he can sell to help make ends meet. "If we had other alternatives we would stay, but we cannot sit here and do nothing," he said. "We are trying to support our families."
There is social pressure on the young to try to leave on the boats, and there can be stigma attached to those who fail or never try.
So much so that the sea route to Spain has earned its own grim slang in Senegal's Wolof language: "Barcelona or death."
The wooden pirogues the smugglers use are not suitable for the voyage. They are often poorly constructed. They lack navigation technology and are liable to run out of petrol and be pushed off course. And yet the number of migrants using the route to reach Spain has been rising every year.
Young fishermen in Fass Boye say poverty is driving them to risk all on the water.
According to the International Organisation for Migration, about 68,000 people have successfully reached the Canary Islands by boat from West Africa since January 2020 and about 2,700 have been recorded dead or disappeared. But the number of casualties is likely significantly higher, because fatal accidents are more likely to go unrecorded on this route.
"We call them invisible shipwrecks," said Safa Msehli, a spokeswoman for the IOM. "A boat washes ashore with nobody aboard, or a body washes ashore not linked to a known capsized boat."
Part of the problem was that people leaving Fass Boye, particularly fishermen, were too confident in their chances, said Abdou Karim, a lifelong fisherman and the father of Pape Sarr, who died on the boat.
"The fisherman think that, if they get into trouble, they will be able to swim," he said. "But there is a limit. You cannot swim forever. The ocean will not hold you."
And yet, young fishermen in Fass Boye said they were still willing to take the risk.
"I am thinking about going on a boat right now," said Niang, the fisherman on the beach. "The tragedies will not stop us from trying."
About a month into Adama and Moussa's voyage, a large ship appeared on the horizon and more than 20 people decided to to take their chances in the water, Adama said. But he knew it was too far.
Many of the remaining survivors were barely able to move, he said. Then on 14 August, exactly five weeks after they had departed, they caught sight of the Spanish fishing boat that would rescue them.
The Spanish crew helped them aboard and put the seven bodies into plastic sheets. Adama and Moussa lay together on the deck of the fishing vessel.
They had survived the pirogue. But Moussa was too weak. He was the last of the 63 people who died on the voyage.
"He died right there on the deck," Adama said. "In front of my eyes."
Assane Niang, a 23-year-old fisherman, on the beach next to a traditional fishing pirogue.
The survivors were taken to Cape Verde and spent six days receiving medical treatment, before the majority were flown back to Dakar. Those who could walk were given prescriptions and sent back to Fass Boye.
When news had broken of the number of deaths, there was a brief spasm of violent protest in the village that brought the police to town. Some relatives were arrested, including a member of Adama and Moussa's family.
The survivors were harassed in their homes by curious residents and relatives of the dead, families said. So one day after they arrived home, they were all sent back out of Fass Boye to recuperate elsewhere. Adama and his mother Sokhna went to stay with close relatives nearby. They were spending their days resting, praying, and avoiding asking Adama about his ordeal.
The family had lost three sons and got one back. Fass Boye had seen 101 set out on the water and 37 come home.
"It changes a place," said Abdou Karim, Pape's father, silently counting prayer beads in one hand.
"Even one soul is a lot," he said. "And this is more than 60. It is a lot for one place."
Additional reporting by Sira Thierij. Mady Camara contributed to this report. Photographs by Joel Gunter.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-66665299
|
news_world-africa-66665299
|
|
Four sons set out on a perilous migration route. Only one came home - BBC News
|
2023-09-02
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
A survivor tells the story of a five-week ordeal on the North Atlantic passage to Europe.
|
Africa
|
Adama Sarr at home in Senegal. "In the beginning we all had hope," he said.
Adama and Moussa Sarr had lost track of the exact number of days they had been at sea.
The brothers were drifting somewhere off the coast of West Africa, in a traditional Senegalese fishing canoe known as a pirogue. They were two of 39 passengers in total - all malnourished, many close to death.
When a fishing vessel appeared in the distance one day, Adama, 21, was so weak he could only stare, he said. Moussa, 17, slipped into the water to swim.
He would almost certainly have drowned, had the fishing crew not spotted him in the water and plucked him to safety.
When they drew alongside the pirogue, they found Adama and the rest of the survivors and seven bodies. The pirogue had set out from Senegal five weeks earlier, with 101 souls on board.
Pirogues lined up on the beach in Fass Boye. Large pirogues are used for migration voyages
The survivors had drifted hundreds of miles on one of the most dangerous migrant routes in the world - the North Atlantic sea passage from Senegal to the Canary Islands, a Spanish archipelago about 1,000 miles away.
They had left on 10 July, from the coastal village of Fass Boye. Adama and Moussa came from a long line of fishermen in the village. The boys learned to fish together and worked a pirogue together.
But like many young people in Senegal, they felt the pull of Europe. "Everyone wants to go on the boats," Adama said. "It's the thing you're supposed to do."
He was sitting in the shaded courtyard of a family home, safely back in Senegal but noticeably thinner than before. The journey had begun at dusk, he said. He and Moussa, along with two cousins, Pape and Amsoutou, aged 40 and 20, joined the pirogue a little way off the coast as it set off into the night.
Unlike the Mediterranean, there are no patrols on the North Atlantic route - no-one proactively searching for lost or distressed boats. It is easy to founder without being seen. If you miss the Canaries, or Cape Verde, you can drift into the Atlantic and disappear.
For the first three days, Adama and Moussa's pirogue, powered by an outboard motor, battled against strong headwinds. But on the fourth day, the wind died down and the boat began to progress, Adama said. The passengers believed they had only a few more days at sea.
When the sixth day passed with no sight of land, an argument erupted over whether to push on or turn back.
"The captain ruled that we should push on, because we had enough food and water and the wind was quiet," Adama said.
The passengers grew confident again and began to eat lots of food, he said, and they used drinking water to wash their hands for prayers.
It was around day six that the food and water began to run out. There were four children on board, and some older people gave the last of their food to the young. Some hoarded even after people began to die.
Adama couldn't remember the exact date of the first death, but it was shortly after the first week passed, he said - a fishing captain, used to being on the water but not young. It was six more days until the next person died. Then the deaths came every day.
"At first, we said a prayer for each dead person and laid their body onto the ocean," Adama said. "Then later we just threw the bodies into the water because we didn't even have the energy to pray. We just needed to get rid of the corpses."
Adama's mother, Sokhna. "The young are leaving because of poverty and family pressure," she said.
Back in Fass Boye, news was spreading through the village that the boat had not arrived. "We all knew it should be five or six days by boat to Spain," Adama's mother, Sokhna, said. "When a week had passed with no news I stopped eating. I became sick from stress."
Nearly everyone on the pirogue was from Fass Boye or nearby, and everyone in the village seemed to know someone aboard. The families began to do anything they could, alerting local authorities and migration NGOs. The founder of one NGO even tweeted a warning that the boat was missing, two weeks after its departure, but the warning went unheeded and the boat drifted for three more weeks.
On the pirogue, the four men from the family stuck together, but they were growing weaker and weaker. The eldest cousin, Pape, died first, Adama said. "Before he passed, he said, 'If death must happen, I wish that I die and you three survive'."
Then Adama's younger cousin, Amsoutou, disappeared. One morning they woke up and Amsoutou was simply gone.
Adama and Moussa hung on, sipping seawater and baking under the sun. Each night they looked for lights from the Canary Islands but the lights never appeared.
Nobody in Fass Boye seemed to blame the migrants for taking the risk. More than a third of the country lives in poverty, according to the World Bank. The young see few opportunities at home. "Macky Sall sold the ocean," said Assane Niang, a 23-year-old fishing captain, referring to the Senegalese president. Fishermen in Fass Boye say the government has granted too many licences to foreign trawlers, which overfish their waters and deplete the catch.
Niang was sitting on the beach in the shade of a pirogue, knitting generator covers he can sell to help make ends meet. "If we had other alternatives we would stay, but we cannot sit here and do nothing," he said. "We are trying to support our families."
There is social pressure on the young to try to leave on the boats, and there can be stigma attached to those who fail or never try.
So much so that the sea route to Spain has earned its own grim slang in Senegal's Wolof language: "Barcelona or death."
The wooden pirogues the smugglers use are not suitable for the voyage. They are often poorly constructed. They lack navigation technology and are liable to run out of petrol and be pushed off course. And yet the number of migrants using the route to reach Spain has been rising every year.
Young fishermen in Fass Boye say poverty is driving them to risk all on the water.
According to the International Organisation for Migration, about 68,000 people have successfully reached the Canary Islands by boat from West Africa since January 2020 and about 2,700 have been recorded dead or disappeared. But the number of casualties is likely significantly higher, because fatal accidents are more likely to go unrecorded on this route.
"We call them invisible shipwrecks," said Safa Msehli, a spokeswoman for the IOM. "A boat washes ashore with nobody aboard, or a body washes ashore not linked to a known capsized boat."
Part of the problem was that people leaving Fass Boye, particularly fishermen, were too confident in their chances, said Abdou Karim, a lifelong fisherman and the father of Pape Sarr, who died on the boat.
"The fisherman think that, if they get into trouble, they will be able to swim," he said. "But there is a limit. You cannot swim forever. The ocean will not hold you."
And yet, young fishermen in Fass Boye said they were still willing to take the risk.
"I am thinking about going on a boat right now," said Niang, the fisherman on the beach. "The tragedies will not stop us from trying."
About a month into Adama and Moussa's voyage, a large ship appeared on the horizon and more than 20 people decided to to take their chances in the water, Adama said. But he knew it was too far.
Many of the remaining survivors were barely able to move, he said. Then on 14 August, exactly five weeks after they had departed, they caught sight of the Spanish fishing boat that would rescue them.
The Spanish crew helped them aboard and put the seven bodies into plastic sheets. Adama and Moussa lay together on the deck of the fishing vessel.
They had survived the pirogue. But Moussa was too weak. He was the last of the 63 people who died on the voyage.
"He died right there on the deck," Adama said. "In front of my eyes."
Assane Niang, a 23-year-old fisherman, on the beach next to a traditional fishing pirogue.
The survivors were taken to Cape Verde and spent six days receiving medical treatment, before the majority were flown back to Dakar. Those who could walk were given prescriptions and sent back to Fass Boye.
When news had broken of the number of deaths, there was a brief spasm of violent protest in the village that brought the police to town. Some relatives were arrested, including a member of Adama and Moussa's family.
The survivors were harassed in their homes by curious residents and relatives of the dead, families said. So one day after they arrived home, they were all sent back out of Fass Boye to recuperate elsewhere. Adama and his mother Sokhna went to stay with close relatives nearby. They were spending their days resting, praying, and avoiding asking Adama about his ordeal.
The family had lost three sons and got one back. Fass Boye had seen 101 set out on the water and 37 come home.
"It changes a place," said Abdou Karim, Pape's father, silently counting prayer beads in one hand.
"Even one soul is a lot," he said. "And this is more than 60. It is a lot for one place."
Additional reporting by Sira Thierij. Mady Camara contributed to this report. Photographs by Joel Gunter.
|
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-66665299
|
news_world-africa-66665299
|
|
Rishi Sunak refuses to say if he backs Suella Braverman multiculturalism remarks - BBC News
|
2023-10-03
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Rishi Sunak declines to say whether he agrees with his home secretary that multiculturalism has failed.
|
UK Politics
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Sunak: UK has done incredible job on integration
Rishi Sunak has repeatedly declined to say if he agrees with his home secretary's view that multiculturalism has "failed" in the UK.
In a speech on Tuesday, Suella Braverman said multiculturalism was a "misguided dogma" which had allowed people to "live parallel lives".
Asked if she was wrong, the PM told the BBC the UK had "done an incredible job of integrating people into society".
However, he added that "there's always more progress we can make".
Addressing a US think tank in Washington earlier this week, Mrs Braverman said: "Multiculturalism makes no demands of the incomer to integrate.
"It has failed because it allowed people to come to our society and live parallel lives in it... And, in extreme cases, they could pursue lives aimed at undermining the stability and threatening the security of society."
She added: "We are living with the consequence of that failure today. You can see it play out in the streets all over Europe from Malmo to Paris, Brussels to Leicester."
Bishop of Leicester Martyn Snow and local Labour politicians were among those to criticise her comments, with Leicester MPs Jonathan Ashworth and Liz Kendall describing them as "ignorant and offensive".
Last September disorder broke out in Leicester, involving mainly young men from sections of the city's Muslim and Hindu communities.
In an interview with BBC East Midlands Political Editor Tony Roe, the prime minister was asked if he agreed with his home secretary that multiculturalism had failed in cities like Leicester.
In response, he said: "My mum's from Leicester so it's a place that I know incredibly well… I think this is something that is incredible about our country is that it is a fantastic multi-ethnic democracy."
Mr Sunak, who is the UK's first British Asian prime minister, added: "We have done an incredible job of integrating people into society and one of the lovely things about getting the job I have as the first person from my background to hold this job, that's a wonderful thing, but it's also not a big deal in our country.
"I think that speaks to the progress we've made over the years and how far we've come and something we should all be collectively incredibly proud of."
Pressed if he believed Mrs Braverman was wrong, the prime minister said: "I'm saying our country has done an incredibly good job of integrating people from lots of different backgrounds.
"It's important that everyone subscribes to British values. That's the thing that unites us and binds us together."
Downing Street has previously said Mr Sunak signed off the home secretary's speech.
Mrs Braverman was also criticised by charities and some Conservatives for comments in her speech that the international asylum system was no longer fit for purpose and that fearing discrimination for being gay or a woman should not be enough to qualify for refugee protection.
The United Nations refugee agency rejected her argument, saying the 1951 Refugee Convention "remains a life-saving instrument" and did not need "more restrictive interpretation".
The prime minister was speaking to local BBC political editors and radio stations in a series of interviews ahead of the Conservative Party conference this weekend.
Earlier, he repeatedly refused to say whether the HS2 high-speed rail line would run to Manchester, amid speculation the second leg of the line is to be scrapped.
A previous version of this story incorrectly quoted the prime minister as saying "I think that this is something that is incredible about this country, is that it is a fantastic multicultural democracy." This has been corrected to: "I think this is something that is incredible about our country is that it is a fantastic multi-ethnic democracy."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66948132
|
news_uk-politics-66948132
|
|
Hunter Biden pleads not guilty to federal gun charges at Delaware courthouse - BBC News
|
2023-10-03
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The president's son faces up to 25 years in prison if convicted of three federal criminal charges.
|
US & Canada
|
Hunter Biden was flanked by Secret Service agents as he entered the Delaware courtroom
Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, has entered a not guilty plea to charges of illegally owning a handgun at a Delaware courthouse.
Prosecutors allege that Mr Biden, 53, lied about his drug use on application forms when he purchased the weapon in 2018.
Mr Biden has acknowledged that he was a heavy user of crack cocaine at the time, but denies breaking the law.
He faces up to 25 years in prison if convicted of the three federal counts.
The charges could also lead to fines of up to $750,000 (£621,000).
Clad in a dark suit and flanked by Secret Service agents and his defence team, Mr Biden did not speak during the brief arraignment, other than to acknowledge the charges against him and his rights as a defendant.
The plea was entered on his behalf by his attorney, Abbe Lowell. In a statement afterwards, Mr Lowell said he believes the charges are the result of "political pressure" by right-wing Republicans.
Cameras were not allowed inside the courtroom at the J Caleb Boggs Federal Building in Delaware
Mr Biden appeared to be relaxed, laughing and smiling with his defence team before proceedings began and waving to an acquaintance in the room. As he exited, he waved to reporters and said "thank you".
While no date has been set for the beginning of the trial, prosecutors and Mr Biden's defence team have been given a 30-day deadline to file any pretrial motions they might have.
As part of the judge's conditions for his remaining free pending trial, he was ordered to abstain from drugs and alcohol, seek employment and clear any travel with a probation officer.
A proposed plea deal to resolve the charges abruptly fell apart in July, meaning Mr Biden was indicted shortly after.
He was charged with two counts of making false statements and one count of illegal gun possession. The charges all relate to his purchase of a revolver at a Delaware gun store in October 2018, which he kept for around 11 days.
By Mr Biden's own admission - published in a 2021 memoir - he was in the throes of a "full-blown addiction" at the time.
Two of the criminal counts against him, each punishable by up to 10 years, stem from the allegations that Mr Biden lied about his drug use on the forms. A third count, related to his possession of a firearm while a drug user, is punishable by up to five years.
Kevin McMunigal, a former federal prosecutor who now teaches law at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, said that while the basic facts of the prosecution's case "will be quite easy to establish", they by no means ensure a successful prosecution.
For example, Mr McMunigal noted that all three charges require that Mr Biden was "using or addicted" to drugs when he filled out the form on 12 October 2018.
"Apparently he was in and out of drug rehabilitation during that year....a question may arise as to whether he was using or addicted at that point in time," he said. "This could be tricky for the prosecution to prove if he claims he was clean during the key time period in mid-October".
Security was tight for Mr Biden's arraignment in Wilmington
Additionally, Mr McMunigal said that Mr Biden's lack of a criminal record "is a major factor in his favour in terms of avoiding jail time", and that the non-violent and victimless nature of the allegations "make prison time less likely".
In court, Mr Lowell said that Mr Biden's defence team would seek to have the charges dismissed, arguing that they are both unconstitutional and barred by the previous agreement made with prosecutors.
The argument over the constitutionality of one of the charges - a ban on gun possession for drug users - rests on a Supreme Court ruling that expanded gun rights last year.
In the ruling, the conservative-leaning court said that firearms restrictions must be consistent with the "historical tradition of firearm regulation" in the US.
Lauryn Gouldin, a law professor at Syracuse University, told the BBC that under that criteria, the court would "likely" find the charge against Mr Biden unconstitutional.
In early November, the Supreme Court will also hear another case in which it will hear arguments over whether the government can prohibit gun ownership by people with domestic violence restraining orders.
The outcome of that case, she added, "is likely to be a very clear signal" for the Biden case.
Mr Biden appeared on Tuesday in a federal courthouse in Wilmington, Delaware - which is the hometown of the Bidens.
Security was tight during the brief court appearance in Wilmington, which lasted less than 30 minutes. Mr Biden was escorted into the courtroom by Secret Service agents, while outside, police used dogs to inspect bags and nearby bushes.
One protester - dressed in a striped prison costume - stood outside the courthouse holding a sign that read "lock Biden up", occasionally eliciting profanities from passing motorists.
The gun at the centre of the case was found by Hallie Biden, the widow of Hunter's brother Beau, in his vehicle. Ms Biden threw the weapon into a rubbish bin, reportedly because she feared he might use it to hurt himself.
It was later discovered and returned to the store, but not before it prompted separate investigations by both Delaware police and the US Secret Service.
In June, a two-part agreement was reached between prosecutors and Hunter Biden's legal team in which he agreed to admit illegal possession of a firearm and undertake addiction treatment and monitoring. Under that agreement, he would also be charged with two misdemeanour counts for failing to pay his taxes on time in 2017 and 2018.
But the deal, which would have allowed Mr Biden to avoid felony charges and potential imprisonment, fell apart in July. The judge in the case, Maryellen Noreika, said she could not "rubber stamp" the agreement. She also called the deal's proposed resolution of the gun charge "unusual".
While the tax charges were dismissed in August, prosecutors are expected to refile the charges, or file new ones, in Washington DC or California.
Earlier in September, Mr Biden filed a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, alleging that two of its agents "sought to target and embarrass" him by sharing private tax information.
The case could mean that Hunter Biden faces a criminal trial while his father campaigns for re-election as president.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Why Hunter Biden is important to Republicans
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66949608
|
news_world-us-canada-66949608
|
|
Defiant Trump turns up at $250m New York fraud trial to blast 'scam' - BBC News
|
2023-10-03
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The ex-president lambasts a case that could see him lose control of Trump Tower and other properties.
|
US & Canada
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Former President Donald Trump has attacked a judge and prosecutor in a day of courtroom drama as he attended the opening of a fraud trial that could threaten his business empire.
On entering the room on Monday dressed in a blue suit, Mr Trump - who turned up voluntarily - looked ahead as he walked past the prosecutor who brought the case.
State's attorney general Letitia James, sitting in the front row, averted her gaze.
Their paths did not cross for the rest of opening statements as both sides laid out their case.
Mr Trump, the Trump Organization, several executives and two of his children - Donald Jr and Eric - are the defendants in the civil trial in New York Superior Court.
They are accused of fraud, falsification of business records, issuing false financial statements and conspiracy.
As the trial got under way, the former president occasionally glanced in the direction of Judge Arthur Engoron as he addressed the court.
Moments beforehand, in a tirade outside court that echoed across the chamber, Mr Trump had called the judge a "rogue adjudicator".
Ms James was not spared either in his remarks to reporters at the top of the courtroom steps.
"It's a scam, it's a sham. Just so you know, my financial statements are phenomenal," Mr Trump added. "There was no crime - the crime was against me."
Given the former president's personal attacks, observers expected a tense atmosphere in the cramped confines of the court. But the three key figures in the legal drama had minimal direct interactions.
While prosecutors set out their case, Mr Trump for the most part sat still, occasionally whispering to his legal team.
Ms James kept her eyes on the lawyer unveiling a visual presentation that accompanied her team's opening statements.
Proceedings began with her team accusing Mr Trump and his co-defendants of intentionally and persistently committing fraud, which reaped Mr Trump over $100m (£83m).
Last week Judge Engoron ruled against Mr Trump in a central claim of the lawsuit, finding that he had overvalued his properties by hundreds of millions of dollars in order to get favourable bank loans.
Mr Trump's lawyers addressed the court shortly afterwards, attacking the New York attorney general's arguments. Alina Habba said Ms James' goal as attorney general was to "go to work, get Trump and go home".
She claimed that Mr Trump did not inflate the value of his assets - including his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.
Real estate was malleable, she said, and his properties were "Mona Lisas" - Mar-a-Lago would sell for at least a billion dollars, she argued.
Mr Trump's attorney, Chris Kise, argued with Judge Engoron about issues including whether expert opinion counted as testimony.
And Ms Habba's attacks on Ms James drew Judge Engoron's ire. The judge said he had already dismissed claims that the suit was politically motivated.
The afternoon in court proved calmer, with former Trump accountant Donald Bender testifying as the first witness called by the attorney general's office.
Mr Bender said he had worked on Trump's tax returns and completed accounting work for Mr Trump's corporate entities.
He testified in a criminal trial against the Trump Organization in Manhattan last year, claiming the company sought to evade taxes on bonuses and other luxury benefits.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
His two-hour testimony on Monday - largely focused on technical questions about his work for the Trump Organization - capped off the first day of the three-month long trial.
The case will be decided by Judge Engoron, not a jury.
None of the defendants will face jail time if convicted, because this is a civil case not a criminal one.
Ms James is seeking $250m (£207m) and sanctions that could prevent the Trumps from doing business in the state of New York.
There is even the possibility that Mr Trump could lose some of the properties that have become a signature part of his brand.
The stakes could not be higher.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66986808
|
news_world-us-canada-66986808
|
|
Voice referendum: Australia votes in nation-defining poll - BBC News
|
2023-10-13
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The landmark Voice referendum could shape Australia's relationship with its Indigenous peoples for generations.
|
Australia
|
Yes or No. That is the choice Australia faces as polls have opened in what is seen as a nation-defining referendum.
A Yes vote will recognise Indigenous peoples in the country's constitution and establish a body - called the Voice - for them to advise governments on the issues affecting their communities.
A No outcome will reject both reforms.
The historic vote has exposed uncomfortable fault lines, and raised questions over Australia's ability to reckon with its past.
Some of the most painful chapters include massacres against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the forced removal of their children.
At the heart of this referendum is a decades-long debate that has gripped Australia over how to close the gap on the glaring disparities Indigenous communities experience in areas such as health, wealth and education.
The Voice is designed to be the first step in a three-part reform process - which would involve treaty negotiations and a period of national "truth-telling"- aimed at sparking change.
It was born out of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, a 2017 document drafted by over 250 First Nations leaders.
But since Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people make up less than 4% of Australia's population, it will be non-Indigenous voters who decide the outcome of the referendum.
The campaign itself, has become ensnared in a bitter culture war - with competing visions emerging about what the Voice stands for.
Yes advocates see this vote as a opportunity to empower Indigenous communities, who have been calling for greater political representation for generations.
But the official No campaign has labelled the Voice as a "dangerous" and "divisive" proposal.
Early in the debate, Australia's opposition leader Peter Dutton suggested the Voice would have an "Orwellian effect" on Australian society by giving First Nations people greater rights.
He, and others, have also argued that the body will undermine existing government structures and could clog up the courts with its objections.
The No side says the Voice is "divisive"
Both points are strongly disputed. In legal advice, the solicitor general said the proposal would "enhance" Australia's system of representative government, not threaten it. And leading constitutional experts say the Voice does not confer special rights on anyone.
Grassroots groups - such as the Indigenous-led Blak sovereign movement - have spoken out against the Voice for other reasons though. Their argument is that it would be "another powerless advisory body" and that treaty negotiations should be prioritised instead.
In the final weeks of the campaign, academics, sporting stars and celebrities also weighed into the debate, throwing their support behind the reform.
"We believe that the Australian nation stands on a precipice, looking towards a clear horizon, a new dawn, when this continent's First Nations will for the first time have a voice," an open letter signed by over 350 historians said.
But the No vote has continued to gain traction in almost every demographic, and the path to victory for Yes has grown narrower, according to the polls.
Campaigners on the Yes side say mis-and-disinformation has contributed to the decline in support. The Australian Associated Press' FactCheck team - which has been tasked with monitoring content on Facebook, Instagram and TikTok - told the BBC in August, that the volumes of mis-and-disinformation linked to the Voice debate had already surpassed what they saw at Australia's 2022 election.
But economic pain as Australia battles a cost-of-living crisis could also be adding to voter apathy.
A recent poll found that establishing a Voice was fifth on the list of issues those surveyed wanted the government to focus on - wages, the cost of living and housing affordability all ranked higher.
The bar for winning a referendum is also exceedingly high in Australia. Historically, only eight out of 44 attempts to change the nation's constitution have been successful. All had bipartisan support, which the Voice doesn't.
Win or lose, questions will continue to be asked about the tone of the debate that's played out in recent months.
This is Australia's first referendum in the social media age, and it's been riddled with conspiracies, which have been debunked - including claims that the Voice will create an "apartheid system" or that it's part of a United Nations plot to take over the country.
Amid all the noise, reports of racial abuse have also skyrocketed, according to mental health agencies. For many Indigenous advocates, the months spent trying to temper the debate have taken a toll.
A young boy holds up an Aboriginal Flag in Sydney
"I don't think there's many non-Indigenous people who are going through a similar experience to what we are as First Nations peoples right now," Dr Clinton Schultz, a Gamilaroi man and First Nations mental health advocate says.
"There's such a level of exhaustion in communities. We're just trying to get through the day."
The levels of disinformation and division have led to comparisons with the 2016 US presidential election, as well as headlines asking whether this could be Australia's "Brexit moment".
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who called for the referendum, has been appealing to voters to consider the country's image on the world stage when casting their ballots.
But for many First Nations people this vote isn't about how the world views Australia. They say it's about being seen and heard.
A No vote, says Larissa Baldwin-Roberts, who leads the activist group GetUp, could have an "incredible silencing effect" on Indigenous communities.
"It's one thing for governments to say no, but when millions of voters say no, that says something else."
If it is a Yes outcome though, the Widjabul Wia-bul woman says, it should be viewed as a "starting gun" for "the real work to begin".
Leading No campaigner Warren Mundine meanwhile, has urged the nation to build on the momentum of the debate, regardless of the result.
"All sides of this referendum debate must come together on Sunday to harness this goodwill, enthusiasm and momentum for change," the Bundjalung man wrote in an editorial.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-67085710
|
news_world-australia-67085710
|
|
Keir Starmer grapples with how to keep Labour ahead - BBC News
|
2023-10-07
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The Labour leader won't be short of advice in Liverpool - but how does he convert a commanding poll lead into a general election victory?
|
UK Politics
|
As Labour arrives in Liverpool for what could be its final conference before a general election, leader Sir Keir Starmer is grappling with how to convert a commanding poll lead into power.
"One of the most ambitious politicians I have ever met."
That was the verdict on Keir Starmer, before he had even been elected as an MP, by the veteran political journalist Michael Crick, quoted in a biography of the Labour leader by Lord Ashcroft.
The man who might be prime minister, who first arrived in the Commons in 2015 aged 52, is obsessed with winning.
Those who know him well say he detests opposition.
"I want to get on with the real job of winning the next election. I don't find the self-promotion of this process a comfortable experience."
That's another quote - this time from Keir Starmer himself - in Lord Ashcroft's biography, Red Knight.
It's a remark the Labour leader gave to his local paper in London, the Hampstead and Highgate Express, again before he became an MP.
"He's forced himself to get good at politics," observes a friend.
But the big question this weekend is this: what would be good politics for Labour at their party conference, getting under way in Liverpool?
A recent poll conducted by the communications company FGS Global suggested there was much more enthusiasm for getting rid of the Conservatives than there was for having Labour instead.
This implies there may be more uncertainty in the political landscape than some polls might suggest.
The Labour leadership know they still have work to do to answer the question "if not them - the Conservatives - why us?".
Nonetheless, the party arrives on Merseyside chipper: the scale of their victory in the Rutherglen and West Hamilton by election, just outside Glasgow, allows Labour folk to dream winning the next election really might be doable.
A year ago, the Labour conference felt revelatory. The place swarmed with expectation and there weren't any punch ups in the corner.
There was a harmony about the place, which felt novel.
But people will expect a professional, potential government-in-waiting vibe over the next few days.
That won't be enough to generate buzz and attention. But how much buzz and attention do they need?
"Let's Get Britain's Future Back," is the slogan that will be bandied about. Expect doses of reassurance and hope.
Reassurance that they can trusted with the economy - with a commitment to prioritising economic growth running though lots of the big speeches.
And hope they can make things better, with talk of housebuilding and cheaper, cleaner energy. But how much detail should they offer in terms of policy and ideas?
The general election must be held by January 2025. But the precise date will be chosen by Rishi Sunak. So how does Labour get its countdown right, to a date it doesn't know?
"If Labour are the smallest possible moving target, Labour wins," is one argument made to me.
Perhaps, some think, they have too many policies.
The Australian Labor Party's own review of its general election loss in 2019, despite opinion poll leads, blamed having too many policies as a significant factor.
Its then leader, Bill Shorten, had been dubbed by opponents "The Bill Australia Cannot Afford".
A sense of vision is more important, for some.
"Vision is the road, policies are the street lights. At the moment there is plenty of light, but not enough road," I'm told.
But others, equally hopeful of a Labour victory, aren't so sure.
As one put it to me: "It's only ever politicians who are told they have to have a vision. If someone came up to you in the street and said they had a vision, you'd be worried. Why do politicians need to do it?"
"Keir's great skill is being iterative, putting down another building block," they add.
The suggestion being that rather than a single, big thing being unveiled in the next few days, the plan will be about building a set of ideas that add up to something.
And how should Labour respond to the prime minister's policy blitz: ditching the northern stretch of the HS2 high speed rail line, banning smoking for the next generation, changing post-16 education in England?
There is fury at senior levels of the Labour Party at what one source described as Rishi Sunak "salting the earth for a Labour government. They are getting spending in the future off the books so they can spend the money now."
But if Labour accepts, even reluctantly, what Mr Sunak is advocating - as they have over HS2 - doesn't it leave the party looking weak?
"If your opponent wants you to do something, don't do it," says a source, explaining their strategy.
"They want us to be outraged, so clear water between us is created and they can point at all our extra spending."
Plus, they argue, reversing the cancellation of HS2 or some of the delayed green targets wouldn't be practical or promote stability.
But this does allow the Conservatives to portray Labour as callow, even empty.
The key, says one Labour grandee, is to ensure policy development is being turbo-charged in private.
One figure told me recently they felt underwhelmed by what the party currently has in its policy locker.
"The most intense period for me intellectually, in all my time in parliament, were the three years before 1997," a former minister says, describing the "intensely granular detail" that was gone into, to prepare themselves for government.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Keir Starmer says disaffected voters can now see how the Labour Party has changed
This figure suggests leaving announcements about these ideas until early next year, by which time the Conservatives may have run out of time to nick them and implement them before polling day.
They all need a ferocity and a hunger, not just a few close to the leader, says another figure, willing them on.
Develop policy. Announce policy. Don't announce policy yet. Ditch policy. Show vision. No, there's no need.
There are plenty of suggestions being made. All of which serves to prove an observation Keir Starmer has made publicly: as leader of the opposition, you're never short on advice.
And so is assembling an electable opposition.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67039284
|
news_uk-politics-67039284
|
|
Lin and Megan Russell: Michael Stone's murder convictions reviewed - BBC News
|
2023-10-07
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Michael Stone's case is to be looked at again after Levi Bellfield reportedly confessed to the murders.
|
Kent
|
Michael Stone was convicted of two counts of murder and one of attempted murder
The convictions of Michael Stone for the murders of Lin Russell and her daughter Megan are to be reviewed.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) will look at evidence again, three months after a previous review ruled out the case being sent to the Court of Appeal.
The decision comes after serial killer Levi Bellfield, whose victims include schoolgirl Milly Dowler, was reported to have confessed to the crimes.
The CCRC said in a statement that "previous reviews found no credible evidence or argument that raised a real possibility of the convictions being quashed, these conclusions are not affected by the new review".
Lin and Megan Russell were killed in July 1996
Ms Russell, 45, and her six-year-old daughter were found bludgeoned to death in Chillenden, Kent, in July 1996.
They had moved to the area from Gwynedd, north Wales, just a few months before.
Stone has always protested his innocence over the murders, and of the attempted murder of Megan's sister Josie.
In July, the CCRC ruled there was "no real possibility" the Court of Appeal would quash his convictions.
However, following the latest application a CCRC spokesman said: "We have agreed to a request from Mr Stone's representatives to carry out a further review.
"While we can't comment on the specifics of an investigation, it is not unusual for different reviews to focus on different arguments or evidence.
"Our commitment to thoroughly investigate all eligible applications extends to undertaking additional work related to cases we have previously reviewed."
Stone's solicitor Paul Bacon said he had written to the CCRC stating his intention to seek a judicial review.
"Quite remarkably, they responded to say they had decided to have another review. And particularly, they have indicated they will carry out more forensic tests, which is very important to us," he told the BBC.
Mr Bacon said the review will "take some time".
"While Mr Bellfield has admitted it over and over again, I think truthfully, the only real decision will come if a DNA profile of him or somebody else is found among the items that are still yet to be properly tested."
Levi Bellfield is serving whole-life terms for three murders and one attempted murder
Last year, Bellfield, who is serving two whole-life sentences, claimed responsibility for the murders of Ms Russell and Megan before later retracting his statement.
In April, lawyers acting for Stone claimed that Bellfield had written and signed a fresh confession.
Bellfield was convicted of murdering Marsha McDonnell, 19, in 2003. He was also found guilty of murdering Amelie Delagrange, 22, and attempting to murder Kate Sheedy, 18, in 2004.
He was later charged with murdering Milly Dowler, who was snatched from the street while walking home from school in Walton-on-Thames, Surrey, in March 2002.
Bellfield was found guilty of abducting and killing the 13-year-old following a trial at the Old Bailey in 2011.
Follow BBC South East on Facebook, on X, and on Instagram. Send your story ideas to southeasttoday@bbc.co.uk.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-67038913
|
news_uk-england-kent-67038913
|
|
FTX: 'Crypto King' tells judge he acted on legal advice - BBC News
|
2023-10-25
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Former crypto boss Sam Bankman-Fried testifies to fraud trial judge after jury sent home.
|
Business
|
Former crypto boss Sam Bankman-Fried has been testifying to a judge at his trial after the jury was sent home.
The former entrepreneur was asked to speak to Judge Lewis Kaplan to determine which parts of his testimony can be put to the jury.
The 31-year-old is accused of lying to investors and lenders and stealing money from customers of his now-bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange, FTX.
He put forward arguments that he was acting on legal advice in good faith.
The judge sent the jury home so he could decide which portions of Mr Bankman-Fried's testimony, if any, would be admissible as evidence.
The move gave Mr Bankman-Fried and the lawyers a practice run before he potentially speaks in front of the jury.
Mr Bankman-Fried defended decisions that had been questioned by prosecutors, including setting some group chats to delete automatically. He said this complied with record keeping policies set up by his legal team.
He said he had discussed many other arrangements with his lawyers, including personal loans he received from Alameda, and its role as a "payments processor" for FTX.
"Did you take comfort from the fact that lawyers had structured the loans?" Mr Bankman Fried's attorney Mark Cohen asked. "Yeah, of course," Mr Bankman-Fried responded.
He added he had trusted his legal team to prepare applications for bank accounts for his companies. "I trusted that they were proper forms," he said.
Prosecutors have objected to Mr Bankman-Fried's arguments that he acted on legal advice, arguing that it is irrelevant if the attorneys were not fully informed.
The judge did not immediately rule on what testimony Mr Bankman-Fried could give, but warned that he was pretty "dubious" about some of the arguments.
Mr Bankman-Fried spoke clearly and confidently at the start, but wavered under a barrage of questions from prosecutor Danielle Sassoon, quizzing about when he had consulted lawyers and what he had told them when he did.
"Listen to the question and answer directly," Judge Kaplan instructed Mr Bankman-Fried at one point.
Asked if it was his understanding of Alameda was permitted to spend FTX customer funds, Mr Bankman Fried responded: "I wouldn't phrase it that way but … yes."
More than a minute passed after Ms Sassoon asked him to point to language in a policy between the two firms that gave him that impression. He eventually pointed to a line that said the funds could "be held and or transferred".
Judge Lewis Kaplan will rule on Friday on what Mr Bankman-Fried can put before the jury.
Mr Bankman-Fried's expected court appearance drew dozens of curious members of the public to the court, including screenwriters, retirees and others sucked in by the former billionaire's dramatic rise and fall.
His appearance at the New York court follows 12 days of prosecution testimony in which close former colleagues gave evidence.
If he is found guilty he could face a life sentence in prison.
Defendants in the US are not obliged to testify during trials - and are often advised against doing so, since it opens them up to questioning by prosecutors.
It also gives members of the jury that will decide the case a chance to form their own impressions, which might not be favourable.
"If the jury does not believe him, it's a guaranteed conviction," Jacob Frenkel, a former federal prosecutor who has been following the trial told the BBC earlier this month.
Despite the risks, many analysts following the trial predicted Mr Bankman-Fried would take the stand to offer his own version of events and try to undermine the story presented by prosecutors.
"The prosecutors have put on a pretty strong case," said Carl Tobias, law professor at the University of Richmond. "I don't know that there's much downside in this case for him to testify given what we've seen so far."
Prosecutors have built their case on statements from three of his closest former friends and colleagues, who have already pleaded guilty.
They have tied Mr Bankman-Fried to decisions to take money deposited at FTX and use it to repay lenders at his crypto trading firm, Alameda Research, buy property, and make investments and political donations.
They say he tried to hide the transfers between the two firms and their close relationship - and lawyers have buttressed their allegations with text messages, spreadsheets and tweets.
During the trial, these witnesses, who include his ex-girlfriend and former Alameda chief executive Caroline Ellison, have emerged from hours of questioning with their credibility seemingly largely unscathed.
Mr Bankman-Fried's defence team has argued he was following "reasonable" business practices, as his companies grew rapidly.
After the collapse of his companies last year, he admitted in media interviews, including to the BBC, to managerial mistakes but said he never intended fraud.
Elizabeth Holmes is among other high-profile examples of defendants who have opted to testify in their own defence.
The founder of blood-testing start-up Theranos, who argued that she did not intend to defraud investors, was ultimately convicted of four out of 11 counts and sentenced to more than 11 years in prison.
But testifying can also pay off. Tom Barrack, a former private equity executive and fundraiser for former President Donald Trump, and Lebanese businessman Jean Boustani, both took to the stand in separate, unrelated criminal cases and were acquitted.
• None One last gamble beckons for Sam Bankman-Fried
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67221161
|
news_business-67221161
|
|
Voice referendum: Australia votes in nation-defining poll - BBC News
|
2023-10-14
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The landmark Voice referendum could shape Australia's relationship with its Indigenous peoples for generations.
|
Australia
|
Yes or No. That is the choice Australia faces as polls have opened in what is seen as a nation-defining referendum.
A Yes vote will recognise Indigenous peoples in the country's constitution and establish a body - called the Voice - for them to advise governments on the issues affecting their communities.
A No outcome will reject both reforms.
The historic vote has exposed uncomfortable fault lines, and raised questions over Australia's ability to reckon with its past.
Some of the most painful chapters include massacres against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the forced removal of their children.
At the heart of this referendum is a decades-long debate that has gripped Australia over how to close the gap on the glaring disparities Indigenous communities experience in areas such as health, wealth and education.
The Voice is designed to be the first step in a three-part reform process - which would involve treaty negotiations and a period of national "truth-telling"- aimed at sparking change.
It was born out of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, a 2017 document drafted by over 250 First Nations leaders.
But since Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people make up less than 4% of Australia's population, it will be non-Indigenous voters who decide the outcome of the referendum.
The campaign itself, has become ensnared in a bitter culture war - with competing visions emerging about what the Voice stands for.
Yes advocates see this vote as a opportunity to empower Indigenous communities, who have been calling for greater political representation for generations.
But the official No campaign has labelled the Voice as a "dangerous" and "divisive" proposal.
Early in the debate, Australia's opposition leader Peter Dutton suggested the Voice would have an "Orwellian effect" on Australian society by giving First Nations people greater rights.
He, and others, have also argued that the body will undermine existing government structures and could clog up the courts with its objections.
The No side says the Voice is "divisive"
Both points are strongly disputed. In legal advice, the solicitor general said the proposal would "enhance" Australia's system of representative government, not threaten it. And leading constitutional experts say the Voice does not confer special rights on anyone.
Grassroots groups - such as the Indigenous-led Blak sovereign movement - have spoken out against the Voice for other reasons though. Their argument is that it would be "another powerless advisory body" and that treaty negotiations should be prioritised instead.
In the final weeks of the campaign, academics, sporting stars and celebrities also weighed into the debate, throwing their support behind the reform.
"We believe that the Australian nation stands on a precipice, looking towards a clear horizon, a new dawn, when this continent's First Nations will for the first time have a voice," an open letter signed by over 350 historians said.
But the No vote has continued to gain traction in almost every demographic, and the path to victory for Yes has grown narrower, according to the polls.
Campaigners on the Yes side say mis-and-disinformation has contributed to the decline in support. The Australian Associated Press' FactCheck team - which has been tasked with monitoring content on Facebook, Instagram and TikTok - told the BBC in August, that the volumes of mis-and-disinformation linked to the Voice debate had already surpassed what they saw at Australia's 2022 election.
But economic pain as Australia battles a cost-of-living crisis could also be adding to voter apathy.
A recent poll found that establishing a Voice was fifth on the list of issues those surveyed wanted the government to focus on - wages, the cost of living and housing affordability all ranked higher.
The bar for winning a referendum is also exceedingly high in Australia. Historically, only eight out of 44 attempts to change the nation's constitution have been successful. All had bipartisan support, which the Voice doesn't.
Win or lose, questions will continue to be asked about the tone of the debate that's played out in recent months.
This is Australia's first referendum in the social media age, and it's been riddled with conspiracies, which have been debunked - including claims that the Voice will create an "apartheid system" or that it's part of a United Nations plot to take over the country.
Amid all the noise, reports of racial abuse have also skyrocketed, according to mental health agencies. For many Indigenous advocates, the months spent trying to temper the debate have taken a toll.
A young boy holds up an Aboriginal Flag in Sydney
"I don't think there's many non-Indigenous people who are going through a similar experience to what we are as First Nations peoples right now," Dr Clinton Schultz, a Gamilaroi man and First Nations mental health advocate says.
"There's such a level of exhaustion in communities. We're just trying to get through the day."
The levels of disinformation and division have led to comparisons with the 2016 US presidential election, as well as headlines asking whether this could be Australia's "Brexit moment".
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who called for the referendum, has been appealing to voters to consider the country's image on the world stage when casting their ballots.
But for many First Nations people this vote isn't about how the world views Australia. They say it's about being seen and heard.
A No vote, says Larissa Baldwin-Roberts, who leads the activist group GetUp, could have an "incredible silencing effect" on Indigenous communities.
"It's one thing for governments to say no, but when millions of voters say no, that says something else."
If it is a Yes outcome though, the Widjabul Wia-bul woman says, it should be viewed as a "starting gun" for "the real work to begin".
Leading No campaigner Warren Mundine meanwhile, has urged the nation to build on the momentum of the debate, regardless of the result.
"All sides of this referendum debate must come together on Sunday to harness this goodwill, enthusiasm and momentum for change," the Bundjalung man wrote in an editorial.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-67085710
|
news_world-australia-67085710
|
|
Voice referendum live news: Australians reject historic Indigenous vote - BBC News
|
2023-10-14
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Australian national broadcaster ABC has projected three states voted No, effectively defeating the referendum.
|
Australia
|
A defaced 'Vote Yes' sign is seen in Bassendean in Perth in Western Australia where polls have not yet closed Image caption: A defaced 'Vote Yes' sign is seen in Bassendean in Perth in Western Australia where polls have not yet closed
If you're just joining us, the latest news is that Australians have voted No and rejected a historical Indigenous referendum known as the Voice.
Here are some details about what the referendum was about and what we know about its outcome.
What is the Voice?
The Voice sought to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander body to advise the government on the issues affecting their communities. As well as creating an advisory body, the amendment sought to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as Australia’s First Peoples in its constitution.
What did the No campaign say?
The official No campaign said the Voice was a "radical" proposal that would "permanently divide" the country by giving First Nations people greater rights than other Australians.
It also argued the Voice is "a leap into the unknown" because it hasn't been "road-tested", pointing to the lack of detail about how it would operate.
Grassroots groups - such as the Indigenous-led Black sovereign movement - have spoken out against the Voice for other reasons though. Their argument is that it would be "another powerless advisory body" and that treaty negotiations should be prioritised instead.
What did Yes campaigners say?
They said Constitutional recognition of Indigenous peoples as the first inhabitants of Australia would drive practical change and argued that having an Indigenous-led elected advisory body would deliver real improvements in areas such as life expectancy, infant mortality, health, education and employment.
They believed such a body would also help governments use funding more effectively and also symbolically give Australia a chance to reconcile with its past as it charts its future.
How was the vote called so quickly?
In order to succeed, the Voice needed a majority of voters in a majority of states. That means over 50% of the population and at least four out of the country’s six states would have needed to say Yes. But early vote counting showed very quickly that three states - Tasmania, South Australia and New South Wales - had voted No, meaning that the referendum could not pass.
Stay with us as we bring you more updates on reactions to this outcome.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-australia-67100354
|
news_live_world-australia-67100354
|
|
Keir Starmer grapples with how to keep Labour ahead - BBC News
|
2023-10-10
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The Labour leader won't be short of advice in Liverpool - but how does he convert a commanding poll lead into a general election victory?
|
UK Politics
|
As Labour arrives in Liverpool for what could be its final conference before a general election, leader Sir Keir Starmer is grappling with how to convert a commanding poll lead into power.
"One of the most ambitious politicians I have ever met."
That was the verdict on Keir Starmer, before he had even been elected as an MP, by the veteran political journalist Michael Crick, quoted in a biography of the Labour leader by Lord Ashcroft.
The man who might be prime minister, who first arrived in the Commons in 2015 aged 52, is obsessed with winning.
Those who know him well say he detests opposition.
"I want to get on with the real job of winning the next election. I don't find the self-promotion of this process a comfortable experience."
That's another quote - this time from Keir Starmer himself - in Lord Ashcroft's biography, Red Knight.
It's a remark the Labour leader gave to his local paper in London, the Hampstead and Highgate Express, again before he became an MP.
"He's forced himself to get good at politics," observes a friend.
But the big question this weekend is this: what would be good politics for Labour at their party conference, getting under way in Liverpool?
A recent poll conducted by the communications company FGS Global suggested there was much more enthusiasm for getting rid of the Conservatives than there was for having Labour instead.
This implies there may be more uncertainty in the political landscape than some polls might suggest.
The Labour leadership know they still have work to do to answer the question "if not them - the Conservatives - why us?".
Nonetheless, the party arrives on Merseyside chipper: the scale of their victory in the Rutherglen and West Hamilton by election, just outside Glasgow, allows Labour folk to dream winning the next election really might be doable.
A year ago, the Labour conference felt revelatory. The place swarmed with expectation and there weren't any punch ups in the corner.
There was a harmony about the place, which felt novel.
But people will expect a professional, potential government-in-waiting vibe over the next few days.
That won't be enough to generate buzz and attention. But how much buzz and attention do they need?
"Let's Get Britain's Future Back," is the slogan that will be bandied about. Expect doses of reassurance and hope.
Reassurance that they can trusted with the economy - with a commitment to prioritising economic growth running though lots of the big speeches.
And hope they can make things better, with talk of housebuilding and cheaper, cleaner energy. But how much detail should they offer in terms of policy and ideas?
The general election must be held by January 2025. But the precise date will be chosen by Rishi Sunak. So how does Labour get its countdown right, to a date it doesn't know?
"If Labour are the smallest possible moving target, Labour wins," is one argument made to me.
Perhaps, some think, they have too many policies.
The Australian Labor Party's own review of its general election loss in 2019, despite opinion poll leads, blamed having too many policies as a significant factor.
Its then leader, Bill Shorten, had been dubbed by opponents "The Bill Australia Cannot Afford".
A sense of vision is more important, for some.
"Vision is the road, policies are the street lights. At the moment there is plenty of light, but not enough road," I'm told.
But others, equally hopeful of a Labour victory, aren't so sure.
As one put it to me: "It's only ever politicians who are told they have to have a vision. If someone came up to you in the street and said they had a vision, you'd be worried. Why do politicians need to do it?"
"Keir's great skill is being iterative, putting down another building block," they add.
The suggestion being that rather than a single, big thing being unveiled in the next few days, the plan will be about building a set of ideas that add up to something.
And how should Labour respond to the prime minister's policy blitz: ditching the northern stretch of the HS2 high speed rail line, banning smoking for the next generation, changing post-16 education in England?
There is fury at senior levels of the Labour Party at what one source described as Rishi Sunak "salting the earth for a Labour government. They are getting spending in the future off the books so they can spend the money now."
But if Labour accepts, even reluctantly, what Mr Sunak is advocating - as they have over HS2 - doesn't it leave the party looking weak?
"If your opponent wants you to do something, don't do it," says a source, explaining their strategy.
"They want us to be outraged, so clear water between us is created and they can point at all our extra spending."
Plus, they argue, reversing the cancellation of HS2 or some of the delayed green targets wouldn't be practical or promote stability.
But this does allow the Conservatives to portray Labour as callow, even empty.
The key, says one Labour grandee, is to ensure policy development is being turbo-charged in private.
One figure told me recently they felt underwhelmed by what the party currently has in its policy locker.
"The most intense period for me intellectually, in all my time in parliament, were the three years before 1997," a former minister says, describing the "intensely granular detail" that was gone into, to prepare themselves for government.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Keir Starmer says disaffected voters can now see how the Labour Party has changed
This figure suggests leaving announcements about these ideas until early next year, by which time the Conservatives may have run out of time to nick them and implement them before polling day.
They all need a ferocity and a hunger, not just a few close to the leader, says another figure, willing them on.
Develop policy. Announce policy. Don't announce policy yet. Ditch policy. Show vision. No, there's no need.
There are plenty of suggestions being made. All of which serves to prove an observation Keir Starmer has made publicly: as leader of the opposition, you're never short on advice.
And so is assembling an electable opposition.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67039284
|
news_uk-politics-67039284
|
|
Keir Starmer promises to build new towns and 1.5m homes - BBC News
|
2023-10-10
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The Labour leader says he will "bulldoze through" the planning system in England if his party wins power.
|
UK Politics
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Sir Keir Starmer has promised to build "the next generation" of new towns, along with 1.5 million homes, as part of a "decade of renewal under Labour".
The Labour leader said he would "bulldoze through" the planning system in England if his party wins power.
Without action, he said home ownership would become "a luxury for the few".
As Sir Keir readied himself for his conference speech, he was covered in glitter by a demonstrator calling for electoral reform.
But he received his biggest applause as he claimed he had moved Labour from a party "of protest" to a government in waiting.
Throughout the speech, the Labour leader set himself out as a reformer, promising to deliver economic growth and security.
Sir Keir promised to accelerate building on unused urban land to create the "next generation of new towns" near English cities, echoing those built by the first Labour government after World War Two.
He added that where there were good jobs and infrastructure nearby a Labour government would "get shovels in the ground".
However, he said this would not mean "tearing up the green belt".
"Labour is the party that protects our green spaces," he said.
"But where there are clearly ridiculous uses of it, disused car parks, dreary wasteland - not a green belt, a grey belt, sometimes within a city's boundary - then this cannot be justified as a reason to hold our future back."
Labour expects the majority of up-front investment in the new towns to come from the private sector, with local areas bidding for new towns required to seek out private backers.
He also pledged to build 1.5 million new homes during the five years of the next Parliament, arguing more housing was central to delivering economic growth.
Suggesting his party is aiming for two terms in power, he said a Labour victory would herald a "decade of national renewal" after 13 years of Conservative-led government.
Without economic security and stability people would not be able to break the "class ceiling", he said.
Sir Keir's speech in Liverpool could be his last before a general election, expected next year, and could be his final opportunity to make a speech to a conference audience setting out his pitch to be prime minister.
He made a bold appeal to Conservative voters who "despair" at their party to join Labour, adding that he now oversees a "changed Labour party, no longer in thrall to gesture politics".
This was contrasted with the Tories, who he accused of descending "into the murky waters of populism and conspiracy, with no argument for economic change".
He made several digs at former PM Boris Johnson in his speech, referencing the Downing Street partygate scandal.
Sir Keir went on to attack Labour's main rivals in Scotland, the Scottish National Party, who he said can "barely provide a ferry to the Hebrides".
The speech lasted just over an hour, including a pause as security dragged a protester off the stage.
Stood covered in glitter, Sir Keir said in response: "That's why we changed the party."
"If he thinks that bothers me he doesn't know me," he added.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
The speech exemplified Sir Keir's confidence as party leader, with praise for former PM Tony Blair, vows to reform the NHS and a declaration of support for Israel which led to a standing ovation.
But he warned that if Labour won the election, its task would be harder and longer than under Mr Blair or previous Labour regimes.
"There's no magic wand here," Sir Keir said. "Changing a country is not like ticking a box. It's not the click of a mouse."
The response from trades unions was broadly positive, but while Unite general secretary Sharon Graham welcomed the speech, she said "the devil will be in the detail" and called on Labour to "lay out a vision for a reshaped economy".
Martin McTague, chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses, said "it is good to see small business needs front and centre of this conference", adding: "The over-arching theme of this Labour conference has been build, build, build and that resonated well."
Sign up for our morning newsletter and get BBC News in your inbox.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67058848
|
news_uk-politics-67058848
|
|
Keir Starmer speech latest: Labour leader promises new towns and 1.5m homes at Liverpool conference - BBC News
|
2023-10-10
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
After being disrupted by a protester, the Labour leader tells his party's conference he would focus on NHS reform and home building as PM.
|
UK Politics
|
Things are going well for Starmer - and his confidence showed
In his three and a half years as Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer has slowly established near-total authority over his party. Today’s conference speech exemplified that. Praising Tony Blair, vowing reform of the NHS and leading a standing ovation in support of Israel - this was not a leader trying to nudge his party out of its comfort zone, but drawing attention to how far its comfort zone has already moved. It was also a testament to Starmer’s current boldness. Those who work with him closely say that he is a confidence performer - that he loosens up and takes risks when things are going well for him, but that he can lose a bit of his mojo in adversity. With a persistent lead over the Conservatives in the polls, things are going well for Starmer at the moment. That confidence showed in his speech. Though the promise to build a generation of new towns is eye-catching, it’s fair to say Starmer resisted calls from some in his party to unleash a torrent of policy in the speech. But those around him say that was less important than formulating an argument about why Starmer wants to be prime minister and why Labour deserve the voters’ trust.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-67052729
|
news_live_uk-politics-67052729
|
|
Sam Bankman-Fried: Trial of 'Crypto King' begins - BBC News
|
2023-10-04
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The former crypto billionaire is accused of "one of the biggest financial frauds in US history".
|
Business
|
A sketch from the courtroom where Judge Lewis Kaplan is presiding
Former crypto billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried is staring down decades in prison, as his trial over what has been called one of the biggest financial frauds in US history gets under way.
Opening arguments in the case are expected later in New York, after jury selection on Tuesday.
The 31-year-old, who once ran one of the world's biggest cryptocurrency exchanges, is accused of stealing billions from customers and investors.
He has denied the claims.
The son of Stanford law professors, Mr Bankman-Fried rose to fame after founding FTX, a platform where customers could trade digital currencies, in 2019.
He became a kind of crypto spokesman in Washington, known for his curly mop, sports sponsorships and hobnobbing with celebrities like American football star Tom Brady and comedian Larry David.
As crypto markets soured in 2022, he stepped in as a saviour for smaller firms, earning him the nickname, the "King of Crypto".
But a few months later, he was arrested and charged with fraud, after FTX collapsed into bankruptcy, with more than $8bn (£6.6bn) reported missing.
Mr Bankman-Fried's arrival at the federal courthouse on Tuesday kicked off what is expected to be a roughly six-week courtroom battle.
US attorney Damian Williams leads the office that is arguing the case against Mr Bankman-Fried
The moment drew dozens of reporters to the courthouse, some lining up as early as 5am for a glimpse of the man whose dramatic fall from grace seemed to force a reckoning for the wider crypto industry.
"All eyes are going to be on it," said Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor and a partner at law firm Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner.
"It has added significance given the state of the crypto industry and the state of regulation in the United States."
The trial is expected to shine a light on the heady deal-making in a sector that has been dogged by questions of legitimacy since its start but for a time seemed to mint billionaires, at least on paper, almost overnight.
In its indictment, the Department of Justice alleged that Mr Bankman-Fried used customer funds placed at FTX to spend extravagantly, buying property and making more than $100m in political donations.
He also allegedly used the money to cover losses at his trading firm, Alameda Research, lying to investors and banks about the ties between the two companies.
In media interviews, including with the BBC, Mr Bankman-Fried has admitted to sloppy record keeping but denied intentional wrongdoing.
Administrators for the bankrupt FTX had recovered more than $7bn as of August. Mr Bankman-Fried's lawyers have argued in court filings that he was following legal advice at key points.
But four of his closest business colleagues and allies - including ex-girlfriend and former Alameda chief Caroline Ellison - have already pleaded guilty. Three are expected to testify against him.
Analysts said the odds of winning favour the government, which has an overwhelming record in cases like this.
"I don't hear a strong defence that he has created yet," said John Coffee Jr, a professor at Columbia Law School. "He may convince people he's kind of a bumbling fool but that's not really a defence that will work very well when there are all these other people testifying against him.
"This is not a 'he said, she said' case. It's a 'he said and six other she saids' saying the reverse," he added, noting that it will be difficult for Mr Bankman-Fried's lawyers to sow doubts about the credibility of so many witnesses.
Mr Bankman-Fried has been awaiting trial from prison since August, when Judge Kaplan revoked his bail after it was determined that he gave Ms Ellison's private writings to a New York Times reporter.
Though he has remained unusually vocal since his downfall, it is not clear if he will speak in his own defence.
In court on Tuesday, where he appeared in a suit with his typically dishevelled locks trimmed, he told Judge Lewis Kaplan he understood that that would be his choice.
Lawyers for the two sides said a plea deal was never discussed.
Mr Bankman-Fried's best hope is to find a sympathetic member of the jury, experts said.
"All you need is one juror to say, 'Not guilty, the government hasn't proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt,'" said Ira Lee Sorkin, a lawyer at Mintz & Gold who represented disgraced financier Bernie Madoff.
Danya Perry, a former assistant US attorney for the Southern District of New York, said the outcome of the trial was likely to determine the wider consequences of the FTX collapse, as Congress debates new rules for the industry and the government pursues legal battles with several other firms and founders.
"It's really just a question of how far regulation goes to make sure something like this doesn't happen again," she said.
"That story is yet to be told - what the reverberations are going to be."
Panorama explores the breakneck rise and sensational fall of Sam Bankman-Fried, the maths genius who set out to transform the world of crypto but ended up being its biggest loser.
Watch on BBC iPlayer now and on BBC1 at 20:00, Monday 25 September (UK only)
• None Is the US trying to kill crypto?
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66990824
|
news_business-66990824
|
|
Jurgen Klopp wants Tottenham-Liverpool replay after VAR error - BBC Sport
|
2023-10-04
|
[]
|
Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp says a replay of the match against Tottenham "would be the right thing" after Luis Diaz's goal was wrongly disallowed.
| null |
Last updated on .From the section Liverpool
Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp wants the Premier League game against Tottenham to be replayed after Luis Diaz's goal was wrongly disallowed by the video assistant referee.
VAR Darren England and assistant Dan Cook did not overrule when Diaz was flagged offside at 0-0 on Saturday.
Liverpool lost 2-1 thanks to a 96th-minute own goal from Joel Matip.
"Something like this never happened, so that is why I think a replay is the right thing to do," said Klopp.
BBC Sport understands there is no prospect of the Premier League considering a replay and it is unclear whether there has been a formal request from Liverpool.
Asked whether the club had asked - or would ask - the Premier League for a replay, Klopp said: "At this stage we are still going through the information we have."
• None Tottenham v Liverpool VAR Q&A: What happens now?
Referees' body PGMOL released the audio of discussions between the match officials over the offside on Tuesday.
In the audio, England says the check is "perfect" before swearing when he realises a mistake has been made.
Klopp said: "The audio didn't change it at all. It is an obvious mistake. There should be solutions for that. The outcome should be a replay. But it probably won't happen.
"The argument against that would be it opens the gates. It is unprecedented. I'm used to wrong and difficult decisions, but something like this never happened."
After releasing the audio, PGMOL said the error was a result of a "lapse of concentration and loss of focus".
The controversy has prompted a debate about the use and efficacy of VAR.
The Premier League added that the incident in Saturday's game, and the subsequent review of what led to the incorrect decision, highlighted "systemic weaknesses in the VAR process". The league plan to undertake a comprehensive review alongside the referees' body to "seek consistently higher standards of VAR performance".
Although Klopp said the mistake was not made "on purpose", he added: "These things should not happen. Other mistakes should not happen. Find a solution to deal with it.
"We rush them and we get a quick decision, but the wrong decision."
Klopp said it would have been better to correct the mistake once it had been realised and said he wants a protocol put in place to avoid similar problems again.
He said: "If that would happen again, I would say replay. Or much, much better than a replay - sort it in that moment. Common sense."
There is no precedent in the UK for a result to be changed or a game to be replayed because of a refereeing error.
A 1999 FA Cup third-round tie was played again after Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger offered Sheffield United a replay following a controversial winning goal in the first game.
The officials involved in the match at Tottenham Hotspur Stadium have not been selected for this weekend's Premier League games, with England and Cook stood down for the rest of last weekend.
The on-field referee at Tottenham-Liverpool, Simon Hooper, will be the VAR for Bournemouth's trip to Everton on Saturday, while Michael Oliver, who was the fourth official, will feature in two games this weekend.
"I am not angry with anybody at all," said Klopp. "They made a mistake and they felt horrible that night, I am 100% sure. That's enough, for me. Nobody needs further punishment."
Diogo Jota and Curtis Jones were sent off against Spurs. Liverpool failed with an appeal against Jones' red card for a challenge on Yves Bissouma and he will serve a three-game ban.
"The ref got called to the screen and saw for the first three seconds a frozen picture. I would give immediately a red card for that picture," said Klopp.
"Then he sees the replay in slow motion. I would have given a red card for the slow motion, but in real time it is not a red card.
"You appeal it then the FA panel tells you 'no, it is not a clear and obvious mistake' and I think it is.
"The ref's first decision was yellow. The clear and obvious mistake is showing a frozen picture and a replay in slow motion."
If the PGMOL thought the release of the audio recordings during the offside fiasco would help to defuse arguably one of the biggest officiating crises in Premier League history, it was mistaken.
Klopp's suggestion that there should be a replay ensures the debate will now reignite.
Many fans will have sympathy with Klopp over a mistake that could end up costing his team dearly, both in terms of points and financially.
But others will fear such a move could open up a sporting and legal minefield, with rival clubs demanding their own replays over other injustices. Where would it end? What would the threshold be for a replay?
If Liverpool do make a formal request, it seems to have no chance of being considered. Premier League rules only allow for that in the event of a disciplinary issue, such as a team fielding an ineligible player, not due to an officiating error.
Regardless, the release of the audio recordings has helped fans to understand the mistakes, confusion and panic that unfolded behind the scenes at Stockley Park.
But the shambolic miscommunication, sense of chaos and general lack of composure that comes across is also hugely embarrassing for the authorities given the league's global status, and raises as many questions as answers.
While PGMOL blamed "significant human error" in the aftermath of the match, the Premier League now accepts that the episode has also revealed "systemic weaknesses" with VAR, a very significant admission.
So when will the PGMOL's "key learnings", such as "enhanced clarity of communication", be introduced, and are they enough?
How will the standards of officiating be improved? If automated offside is to be brought in, when will that be?
Does the International Football Association Board need to reconsider the rule that games cannot be stopped once play has resumed - even if a mistake is made?
And has the time come for much more transparency, with a live audio feed to be made available to fans and broadcasters, as in other sports?
The answer to these questions will dictate whether faith can be restored amid a serious crisis of confidence in VAR.
• None Our coverage of Liverpool is bigger and better than ever before - here's everything you need to know to make sure you never miss a moment
• None Everything Liverpool - go straight to all the best content
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67003386
|
rt_football_67003386
|
|
Sam Bankman-Fried: Fraud trial begins for FTX's 'crypto king' in New York - live updates - BBC News
|
2023-10-04
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried's trial has begun where he is accused massive financial fraud.
|
US & Canada
|
Was the crypto king acting in good faith or amassing billions in personal wealth built on a web of lies?
Those were the two opposing arguments that came out of the first proper day of Sam Bankman-Fried's trial in New York City.
The prosecution claimed the man known as SBF looted customer cash, billions of dollars that was sitting in his FTX crypto currency platform. They say he used this money to prop up his own risky investments in his other company, Alameda Research.
SBF's legal team cast him as a "math nerd" who was acting in "good faith" and simply overlooked massive financial risks.
They said it is not a crime to be the CEO of a company that goes bankrupt.
The case is likely to go for six weeks and we will be hearing from witnesses who were involved in FTX, and also from clients who lost vast sums of money.
For a full wrap of today's events you can check out this article.
Our writers today were Lisa Lambert, Madeline Halpert, Thomas Mackintosh and Malu Cursino.
This page was edited by Marianna Brady and myself.
Thanks for joining us.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-67010117
|
news_live_world-us-canada-67010117
|
|
David Hunter: Appeal against Cyprus manslaughter verdict begins - BBC News
|
2023-10-26
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
David Hunter was convicted of the manslaughter of his ill wife but could be tried again for murder.
|
Tyne & Wear
|
David Hunter was freed from prison after being found guilty of his wife's manslaughter
A prosecution appeal case against the verdict and sentence of a man who was freed from prison after killing his seriously ill wife has begun.
David Hunter, 76, was accused of murdering his wife Janice at their home in Cyprus in 2021 but was convicted of manslaughter and released from prison.
It is understood Mr Hunter, from Ashington, Northumberland, could face new charges of premeditated murder.
The date set for the appeal hearing could take place in April or May.
Mr Hunter, from Ashington, Northumberland, told his trial that he suffocated his 74-year-old wife after she "begged" him to as she was suffering from a rare form of blood cancer.
A three-judge panel accepted the defence case that he had spontaneously acted "out of love" for his wife.
He spent 19 months in prison before being found guilty of manslaughter, but cleared of the more serious charge of premeditated murder.
On Tuesday the prosecution appeal against Mr Hunter's acquittal for murder and his sentence for manslaughter came before the Court of Appeal in Nicosia.
Michael Polak, director of Justice Abroad, which is representing Mr Hunter, said the court ordered that the prosecution file its arguments within two months and the defence respond within two months of that.
At that point, the date will be set for the appeal hearing which is likely to take place in April or May.
David Hunter visited his wife Janice's grave the day after being released from prison
Mr Polak said: "After spending more than 19 months on trial and in custody in Nicosia prison, when the Assize Court of Paphos finally found David Hunter not guilty of murder in July and sentenced him for manslaughter resulting in his immediate release, we thought that the legal proceedings were over for him.
"For anyone, but especially someone of David's age, it is obviously very stressful to have the possibility of being sent back to prison for life hanging over their head," he added.
Mr Polak said although he was "disappointed with the decision to pursue David further", his team "would continue to fight for him".
Follow BBC North East & Cumbria on X (formerly Twitter), Facebook and Instagram. Send your story ideas to northeastandcumbria@bbc.co.uk.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-67225129
|
news_uk-england-tyne-67225129
|
|
Keir Starmer grapples with how to keep Labour ahead - BBC News
|
2023-10-08
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
The Labour leader won't be short of advice in Liverpool - but how does he convert a commanding poll lead into a general election victory?
|
UK Politics
|
As Labour arrives in Liverpool for what could be its final conference before a general election, leader Sir Keir Starmer is grappling with how to convert a commanding poll lead into power.
"One of the most ambitious politicians I have ever met."
That was the verdict on Keir Starmer, before he had even been elected as an MP, by the veteran political journalist Michael Crick, quoted in a biography of the Labour leader by Lord Ashcroft.
The man who might be prime minister, who first arrived in the Commons in 2015 aged 52, is obsessed with winning.
Those who know him well say he detests opposition.
"I want to get on with the real job of winning the next election. I don't find the self-promotion of this process a comfortable experience."
That's another quote - this time from Keir Starmer himself - in Lord Ashcroft's biography, Red Knight.
It's a remark the Labour leader gave to his local paper in London, the Hampstead and Highgate Express, again before he became an MP.
"He's forced himself to get good at politics," observes a friend.
But the big question this weekend is this: what would be good politics for Labour at their party conference, getting under way in Liverpool?
A recent poll conducted by the communications company FGS Global suggested there was much more enthusiasm for getting rid of the Conservatives than there was for having Labour instead.
This implies there may be more uncertainty in the political landscape than some polls might suggest.
The Labour leadership know they still have work to do to answer the question "if not them - the Conservatives - why us?".
Nonetheless, the party arrives on Merseyside chipper: the scale of their victory in the Rutherglen and West Hamilton by election, just outside Glasgow, allows Labour folk to dream winning the next election really might be doable.
A year ago, the Labour conference felt revelatory. The place swarmed with expectation and there weren't any punch ups in the corner.
There was a harmony about the place, which felt novel.
But people will expect a professional, potential government-in-waiting vibe over the next few days.
That won't be enough to generate buzz and attention. But how much buzz and attention do they need?
"Let's Get Britain's Future Back," is the slogan that will be bandied about. Expect doses of reassurance and hope.
Reassurance that they can trusted with the economy - with a commitment to prioritising economic growth running though lots of the big speeches.
And hope they can make things better, with talk of housebuilding and cheaper, cleaner energy. But how much detail should they offer in terms of policy and ideas?
The general election must be held by January 2025. But the precise date will be chosen by Rishi Sunak. So how does Labour get its countdown right, to a date it doesn't know?
"If Labour are the smallest possible moving target, Labour wins," is one argument made to me.
Perhaps, some think, they have too many policies.
The Australian Labor Party's own review of its general election loss in 2019, despite opinion poll leads, blamed having too many policies as a significant factor.
Its then leader, Bill Shorten, had been dubbed by opponents "The Bill Australia Cannot Afford".
A sense of vision is more important, for some.
"Vision is the road, policies are the street lights. At the moment there is plenty of light, but not enough road," I'm told.
But others, equally hopeful of a Labour victory, aren't so sure.
As one put it to me: "It's only ever politicians who are told they have to have a vision. If someone came up to you in the street and said they had a vision, you'd be worried. Why do politicians need to do it?"
"Keir's great skill is being iterative, putting down another building block," they add.
The suggestion being that rather than a single, big thing being unveiled in the next few days, the plan will be about building a set of ideas that add up to something.
And how should Labour respond to the prime minister's policy blitz: ditching the northern stretch of the HS2 high speed rail line, banning smoking for the next generation, changing post-16 education in England?
There is fury at senior levels of the Labour Party at what one source described as Rishi Sunak "salting the earth for a Labour government. They are getting spending in the future off the books so they can spend the money now."
But if Labour accepts, even reluctantly, what Mr Sunak is advocating - as they have over HS2 - doesn't it leave the party looking weak?
"If your opponent wants you to do something, don't do it," says a source, explaining their strategy.
"They want us to be outraged, so clear water between us is created and they can point at all our extra spending."
Plus, they argue, reversing the cancellation of HS2 or some of the delayed green targets wouldn't be practical or promote stability.
But this does allow the Conservatives to portray Labour as callow, even empty.
The key, says one Labour grandee, is to ensure policy development is being turbo-charged in private.
One figure told me recently they felt underwhelmed by what the party currently has in its policy locker.
"The most intense period for me intellectually, in all my time in parliament, were the three years before 1997," a former minister says, describing the "intensely granular detail" that was gone into, to prepare themselves for government.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Keir Starmer says disaffected voters can now see how the Labour Party has changed
This figure suggests leaving announcements about these ideas until early next year, by which time the Conservatives may have run out of time to nick them and implement them before polling day.
They all need a ferocity and a hunger, not just a few close to the leader, says another figure, willing them on.
Develop policy. Announce policy. Don't announce policy yet. Ditch policy. Show vision. No, there's no need.
There are plenty of suggestions being made. All of which serves to prove an observation Keir Starmer has made publicly: as leader of the opposition, you're never short on advice.
And so is assembling an electable opposition.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67039284
|
news_uk-politics-67039284
|
|
Lin and Megan Russell: Michael Stone's murder convictions reviewed - BBC News
|
2023-10-08
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Michael Stone's case is to be looked at again after Levi Bellfield reportedly confessed to the murders.
|
Kent
|
Michael Stone was convicted of two counts of murder and one of attempted murder
The convictions of Michael Stone for the murders of Lin Russell and her daughter Megan are to be reviewed.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) will look at evidence again, three months after a previous review ruled out the case being sent to the Court of Appeal.
The decision comes after serial killer Levi Bellfield, whose victims include schoolgirl Milly Dowler, was reported to have confessed to the crimes.
The CCRC said in a statement that "previous reviews found no credible evidence or argument that raised a real possibility of the convictions being quashed, these conclusions are not affected by the new review".
Lin and Megan Russell were killed in July 1996
Ms Russell, 45, and her six-year-old daughter were found bludgeoned to death in Chillenden, Kent, in July 1996.
They had moved to the area from Gwynedd, north Wales, just a few months before.
Stone has always protested his innocence over the murders, and of the attempted murder of Megan's sister Josie.
In July, the CCRC ruled there was "no real possibility" the Court of Appeal would quash his convictions.
However, following the latest application a CCRC spokesman said: "We have agreed to a request from Mr Stone's representatives to carry out a further review.
"While we can't comment on the specifics of an investigation, it is not unusual for different reviews to focus on different arguments or evidence.
"Our commitment to thoroughly investigate all eligible applications extends to undertaking additional work related to cases we have previously reviewed."
Stone's solicitor Paul Bacon said he had written to the CCRC stating his intention to seek a judicial review.
"Quite remarkably, they responded to say they had decided to have another review. And particularly, they have indicated they will carry out more forensic tests, which is very important to us," he told the BBC.
Mr Bacon said the review will "take some time".
"While Mr Bellfield has admitted it over and over again, I think truthfully, the only real decision will come if a DNA profile of him or somebody else is found among the items that are still yet to be properly tested."
Levi Bellfield is serving whole-life terms for three murders and one attempted murder
Last year, Bellfield, who is serving two whole-life sentences, claimed responsibility for the murders of Ms Russell and Megan before later retracting his statement.
In April, lawyers acting for Stone claimed that Bellfield had written and signed a fresh confession.
Bellfield was convicted of murdering Marsha McDonnell, 19, in 2003. He was also found guilty of murdering Amelie Delagrange, 22, and attempting to murder Kate Sheedy, 18, in 2004.
He was later charged with murdering Milly Dowler, who was snatched from the street while walking home from school in Walton-on-Thames, Surrey, in March 2002.
Bellfield was found guilty of abducting and killing the 13-year-old following a trial at the Old Bailey in 2011.
Follow BBC South East on Facebook, on X, and on Instagram. Send your story ideas to southeasttoday@bbc.co.uk.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-67038913
|
news_uk-england-kent-67038913
|
|
Labour Party latest: Rayner rallies Labour conference as Starmer stresses growth plan - BBC News
|
2023-10-08
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
"A council house changed my life," she tells the audience in Liverpool as she outlines housing policy.
|
UK Politics
|
There was plenty of policy in Angela Rayner’s speech to Labour conference. Not necessarily new policy, but the packed conference hall gave a rapturous welcome all the same to her promises to build new houses, ban no-fault evictions and abolish zero hours contracts.
But Rayner is not just shadow levelling up secretary, she is also Labour’s deputy leader - having been separately elected to the position by party members on the same day Sir Keir Starmer became leader.
At times the pair have had a somewhat fractious relationship, but in his recent reshuffle, Starmer confirmed that if he becomes prime minister he would hand Rayner the title of deputy prime minister.
And today’s speech reinforced that they are now bound together as a political unit. Beyond the specifics of her departmental brief, Rayner offered up a broad-bush rallying cry for party members at what may well be their last gathering before the general election.
Rayner repeatedly referred to the position she wants of deputy prime minister, using that title to advance her argument about the importance of electoral victory.
Her policy agenda, she stressed, “can only be completed with Labour in power.”
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-67008977
|
news_live_uk-politics-67008977
|
|
Biden attacked from both sides over new Texas border wall - BBC News
|
2023-10-05
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
US officials say they are legally obliged to move ahead with a new section of the southern border wall.
|
US & Canada
|
The US-Mexico border has become a political challenge for the Biden administration
President Joe Biden is under fire from both Republicans and Democrats after his administration announced new border wall construction in Texas.
Mr Biden has said he "had no choice" because the funding was signed off while Donald Trump was president.
Members of his Democratic Party said walls did not work, while rival Republicans accused him of hypocrisy.
Some 20 miles (32km) of barriers will be built in a sparsely populated stretch of the Rio Grande Valley.
While campaigning for president in 2020, Mr Biden promised he would not build another foot of wall if elected. He said it was "not a serious policy solution".
But on Wednesday, his administration used its sweeping executive powers to waive more than two dozen federal laws, including some that are designed to protect wildlife, to allow more barriers to be built along the US-Mexico border in southern Texas.
In a notice announcing these waivers, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said there was an "acute and immediate need" for the construction.
It prompted swift criticism from both major parties as well as from environmental activists and human rights groups.
Mr Mayorkas said the Biden administration was required under law to use the money Congress allocated in 2019 for border barriers.
"I tried to get them to redirect that money. They didn't, they wouldn't," Mr Biden said. "I can't stop that."
On Friday, Mr Biden again said that he was "told I had no choice" but to move ahead on the wall's construction.
Jonathan Entin, a law and political science professor at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, told the BBC that while Mr Biden is "legally correct" in his argument about the budget, he was under no obligation to waive the federal laws that make construction of the border barrier possible.
"It's politically advantageous to him," Mr Entin said. "He will take a certain amount of heat from his supporters in the Democratic Party, and being able to say he doesn't have legal discretion might give him some excuse or explanation."
On the other hand, Mr Entin said that by waiving the federal requirements, Mr Biden can signal to his detractors that he is "serious" about border security, contrary to what Republican lawmakers have alleged.
Mr Entin's assessment was echoed by Tony Payan, the director of the Center for the United States and Mexico at Rice University's Baker Institute in Texas.
"The Biden administration has managed to drag its feet on a number of issues that have to do with a wall, even if the money was there," he said. "He doesn't have to spend it, at least not now."
In his remarks, Mr Biden repeated that he did not think border walls were effective.
In a later statement, Mr Mayorkas rejected the claim that the administration had changed its border policy by signing off on the new construction.
"This administration has made clear that a border wall is not the answer," he said. "That remains our position and our position has never wavered."
But the comments did little to stem the criticism from all sides.
On Thursday, the administration also announced that it would resume deportations of illegal Venezuelan migrants, about 50,000 of who arrived at the US-Mexico border in September alone.
The growing number of migrants in cities such as New York has become a challenge for the president who has faced intense criticism over his handling of the border.
US authorities have detained more than 2.2 million migrants along the US-Mexico border since last October.
Building a border wall was a signature policy of Donald Trump as president and was fiercely opposed by Democrats, including Mr Biden.
Mr Trump himself said this new construction showed "I was right".
"Will Joe Biden apologise to me and America for taking so long to get moving?" he wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform on Thursday.
Republicans also criticised Mr Biden for what they see as an abrupt pivot to policies he campaigned against.
"He did not think walls work, which is total insanity," North Carolina Republican Representative Ralph Norman told the BBC. "What's changed? I'll tell you what's changed - the American people are sick and tired of seeing their cities overrun."
Democrats, meanwhile, also took aim at the president.
Representative Henry Cuellar, whose district encompasses Starr County where the new construction will take place, told the BBC he does not believe his constituents will be happy with the announcement.
"I am still against a 14th-Century solution - called 'the wall' - for a 21st-Century problem," he said. "I want to see more personnel, more technology".
Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called it a "cruel policy" and has urged President Biden to "reverse course".
The Biden administration is also facing criticism from advocacy groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, which called the decision "a profound failure".
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-67024003
|
news_world-us-canada-67024003
|
|
Stage that once hosted William Shakespeare found, claims Norfolk theatre - BBC News
|
2023-10-05
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Floorboards that are thought to have been acted on by William Shakespeare are uncovered in King's Lynn.
|
Entertainment & Arts
|
William Shakespeare acted as well as writing some of the greatest works of English drama
A theatre in Norfolk believes it has discovered the only surviving stage on which William Shakespeare performed.
St George's Guildhall in King's Lynn is the oldest working theatre in the UK, dating back to 1445.
During recent renovations, timber floorboards were found under the existing auditorium, and they have been dated back to the 15th Century.
The theatre claims documents show that Shakespeare acted at the venue in 1592 or 1593.
At the time, acting companies left the capital when theatres in London were closed due to the plague. The Earl of Pembroke's Men - thought to include Shakespeare - visited King's Lynn.
"We have the borough account book from 1592-93, which records that the borough paid Shakespeare's company to come and play in the venue," explains Tim FitzHigham, the Guildhall's creative director.
The floorboards were uncovered last month during a renovation project at the Guildhall. They had been covered up for 75 years after a replacement floor was installed in the theatre.
Dr Jonathan Clark, an expert in historical buildings, was brought on board to research the venue. "We wanted to open up an area just to check, just to see if there was an earlier floor surviving here. And lo and behold, we found this," he says, pointing through a temporary trapdoor.
A couple of inches below the modern floor are what he believes to be boards trodden by the Bard, each 12in (30cm) wide and 6in deep.
Dr Clark used a combination of tree-ring dating and a survey of how the building was assembled ("really unusual as the boards locked together and were then pegged through to some massive bridging beams") to date the floor to between 1417 and 1430, when the Guildhall was originally built.
"We know that these [floorboards] were definitely here in 1592, and in 1592 we think Shakespeare is performing in King's Lynn, so this is likely to be the surface that Shakespeare was walking on," he says.
"It's this end of the hall where performances took place."
St George's Guildhall in King's Lynn is hosting a discussion about the discovery
Dr Clark believes this is a hugely important discovery because not only is it the largest 15th Century timber floor in the country, but it would also be the sole surviving example of a stage on which Shakespeare acted.
"It's the only upper floor, which is in something of its original state, where he could have been walking, could have been performing," he says.
There has been much academic debate over the years about whether Shakespeare did act in King's Lynn, but experts say the discovery is significant.
Tiffany Stern, professor of Shakespeare and early modern drama at the University of Birmingham, tells the BBC: "The evidence he was there has to be patched together but is quite strong."
It was "very likely" that he was a member of the Earl of Pembroke's Men because they performed his plays Henry VI and Titus Andronicus, and they did visit King's Lynn in 1593, she says.
Michael Dobson, director of the Shakespeare Institute in Stratford-upon-Avon, says: "The uncovering of the actual boards really trodden by Shakespeare's troupe during their tours of East Anglia should be far more significant to archaeologists of the Elizabethan theatre than is the conjectural replica of the Globe theatre erected near the real, long-demolished Globe's foundations in central London in the 1990s."
Back at the venue, FitzHigham believes a number of theories strengthen the argument that Shakespeare performed there.
Shakespeare's comedian Robert Armin was born just one street away, he notes, while a Norfolk writer called Robert Greene famously described the Bard as an "upstart crow" in what was essentially a bad review in 1592.
The debate will continue. On Thursday, the discovery will be discussed at a talk at the venue called Revealing the Secrets of the Guildhall.
Finally, FitzHigham takes me underneath the stage, making us squeeze between beams and using a torch, to allow a closer look at the huge expanse of medieval floorboards, which he explains is the size of a tennis court.
"600 years old," he says with a real sense of wonder.
"Not just Shakespeare's trodden on it, but everyone in between and we're trying to make that safe and share it with everybody for the next hundreds of years going forward."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67007980
|
news_entertainment-arts-67007980
|
|
Chris Mason: Rishi Sunak's smoking move gets cross-party backing - BBC News
|
2023-10-05
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Despite practical issues, ministers in Scotland and Wales are on the same page on phasing it out.
|
UK Politics
|
For all the arguments about HS2, perhaps Rishi Sunak's announcement on smoking could be the most profound and long-lasting.
Labour are not seeking to oppose it. The Welsh and Scottish governments are making positive noises too.
A Conservative prime minister makes a party conference announcement, and within hours SNP and Labour ministers in Edinburgh and Cardiff respectively sound like they broadly agree.
To put it gently, that doesn't happen very often.
And this matters, because the laws on smoking are devolved. The government at Westminster decides policy for England only.
Let's be clear: those at Holyrood and in the Senedd are not copying, latching on to an idea that had never crossed their minds before.
Political instincts on this issue are coalescing around a similar position.
The prime minister told the Today programme on Radio 4 that his plans to phase out the sale of cigarettes in England will be the "biggest public health intervention in a generation".
England's Chief Medical Officer, Sir Chris Whitty - remember him from all those pandemic announcements - chimed in on how beneficial the health improvements would be.
So is this a moment rather like the ban on smoking in public places? Or gay marriage?
Political ideas that provoked a debate, but quickly became baked in - with next to no prospect of ever being reversed.
Hang on a minute: there is a complicating twist here.
When governments in recent years have passed a law to ban things or allow things, that ban or right has been universal.
Or, at least, universal for adults - and where there was a universal understanding of what an adult is.
The moving target of a steadily rising age at which cigarettes can be bought legally is more complicated.
If it happens, the oddities of it may seem minimal in the early years.
But over time, they would become more, well, odd.
Fraser Nelson, the editor of The Spectator magazine, extended the logic of the plan neatly here.
Would it involve shopkeepers having to ask middle-aged folk and older, over time, for ID, to work out which side of the ever moving line of legality they are on?
Ministers will hope the effect of the law will more than compensate for its absurdities.
That an already falling propensity to smoke across society - and among younger generations - will be accelerated to the point that the legal niceties become irrelevant.
It is not long ago that it felt like cigarette smoke was almost everywhere: in pubs and clubs, even on public transport and at work.
That now seems like another world.
But will this idea - complete as it is with quirks - manage to achieve its aim of eventually eradicating smoking almost entirely?
There is the political will for that to happen. But bringing it about is tricky.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67016548
|
news_uk-politics-67016548
|
|
FTX: 'Crypto King' tells judge he acted on legal advice - BBC News
|
2023-10-27
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Former crypto boss Sam Bankman-Fried testifies to fraud trial judge after jury sent home.
|
Business
|
Former crypto boss Sam Bankman-Fried has been testifying to a judge at his trial after the jury was sent home.
The former entrepreneur was asked to speak to Judge Lewis Kaplan to determine which parts of his testimony can be put to the jury.
The 31-year-old is accused of lying to investors and lenders and stealing money from customers of his now-bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange, FTX.
He put forward arguments that he was acting on legal advice in good faith.
The judge sent the jury home so he could decide which portions of Mr Bankman-Fried's testimony, if any, would be admissible as evidence.
The move gave Mr Bankman-Fried and the lawyers a practice run before he potentially speaks in front of the jury.
Mr Bankman-Fried defended decisions that had been questioned by prosecutors, including setting some group chats to delete automatically. He said this complied with record keeping policies set up by his legal team.
He said he had discussed many other arrangements with his lawyers, including personal loans he received from Alameda, and its role as a "payments processor" for FTX.
"Did you take comfort from the fact that lawyers had structured the loans?" Mr Bankman Fried's attorney Mark Cohen asked. "Yeah, of course," Mr Bankman-Fried responded.
He added he had trusted his legal team to prepare applications for bank accounts for his companies. "I trusted that they were proper forms," he said.
Prosecutors have objected to Mr Bankman-Fried's arguments that he acted on legal advice, arguing that it is irrelevant if the attorneys were not fully informed.
The judge did not immediately rule on what testimony Mr Bankman-Fried could give, but warned that he was pretty "dubious" about some of the arguments.
Mr Bankman-Fried spoke clearly and confidently at the start, but wavered under a barrage of questions from prosecutor Danielle Sassoon, quizzing about when he had consulted lawyers and what he had told them when he did.
"Listen to the question and answer directly," Judge Kaplan instructed Mr Bankman-Fried at one point.
Asked if it was his understanding of Alameda was permitted to spend FTX customer funds, Mr Bankman Fried responded: "I wouldn't phrase it that way but … yes."
More than a minute passed after Ms Sassoon asked him to point to language in a policy between the two firms that gave him that impression. He eventually pointed to a line that said the funds could "be held and or transferred".
Judge Lewis Kaplan will rule on Friday on what Mr Bankman-Fried can put before the jury.
Mr Bankman-Fried's expected court appearance drew dozens of curious members of the public to the court, including screenwriters, retirees and others sucked in by the former billionaire's dramatic rise and fall.
His appearance at the New York court follows 12 days of prosecution testimony in which close former colleagues gave evidence.
If he is found guilty he could face a life sentence in prison.
Defendants in the US are not obliged to testify during trials - and are often advised against doing so, since it opens them up to questioning by prosecutors.
It also gives members of the jury that will decide the case a chance to form their own impressions, which might not be favourable.
"If the jury does not believe him, it's a guaranteed conviction," Jacob Frenkel, a former federal prosecutor who has been following the trial told the BBC earlier this month.
Despite the risks, many analysts following the trial predicted Mr Bankman-Fried would take the stand to offer his own version of events and try to undermine the story presented by prosecutors.
"The prosecutors have put on a pretty strong case," said Carl Tobias, law professor at the University of Richmond. "I don't know that there's much downside in this case for him to testify given what we've seen so far."
Prosecutors have built their case on statements from three of his closest former friends and colleagues, who have already pleaded guilty.
They have tied Mr Bankman-Fried to decisions to take money deposited at FTX and use it to repay lenders at his crypto trading firm, Alameda Research, buy property, and make investments and political donations.
They say he tried to hide the transfers between the two firms and their close relationship - and lawyers have buttressed their allegations with text messages, spreadsheets and tweets.
During the trial, these witnesses, who include his ex-girlfriend and former Alameda chief executive Caroline Ellison, have emerged from hours of questioning with their credibility seemingly largely unscathed.
Mr Bankman-Fried's defence team has argued he was following "reasonable" business practices, as his companies grew rapidly.
After the collapse of his companies last year, he admitted in media interviews, including to the BBC, to managerial mistakes but said he never intended fraud.
Elizabeth Holmes is among other high-profile examples of defendants who have opted to testify in their own defence.
The founder of blood-testing start-up Theranos, who argued that she did not intend to defraud investors, was ultimately convicted of four out of 11 counts and sentenced to more than 11 years in prison.
But testifying can also pay off. Tom Barrack, a former private equity executive and fundraiser for former President Donald Trump, and Lebanese businessman Jean Boustani, both took to the stand in separate, unrelated criminal cases and were acquitted.
• None One last gamble beckons for Sam Bankman-Fried
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67221161
|
news_business-67221161
|
|
Bibby Stockholm: Resident loses High Court fight over Portland migrant barge - BBC News
|
2023-10-11
|
['https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews']
|
Carralyn Parkes loses her argument that the Government requires planning permission.
|
Dorset
|
The migrants were removed from the barge after Legionella bacteria was found in the on-board water system
There will not be a judicial review into the Home Office's use of a barge to house asylum seekers.
Carralyn Parkes, from the Isle of Portland, brought the challenge against Home Secretary Suella Braverman's department after it docked the Bibby Stockholm in Portland Port.
But Mr Justice Holgate ruled against Mrs Parkes after considering arguments at a High Court hearing.
She raised more than £25,000 via crowdfunding for the costs of the case.
Thirty-nine men were moved onto the vessel in August but were later removed when the Legionella bacteria, which can cause serious illness, was detected.
The Home Office has since confirmed it has notified the men they are to be moved back.
The three-storey Bibby Stockholm is berthed at the port in Dorset, and is intended to hold about 500 men while they await the outcome of their asylum applications.
The barge is a flagship part of the government's plan to cut the cost of housing asylum seekers and deter dangerous Channel crossings by migrants.
There has been considerable local opposition to the barge coming to Portland
Ms Parkes is also the Mayor of Portland but said she was acting in a personal capacity as a local resident.
Her lawyer Alex Goodman KC said the housing of asylum seekers on the barge was a "breach of planning control" and there had not been "compliance" with environmental impact assessment duties.
He also said "segregating non-British people" raised links to "racial segregation".
Paul Brown KC, leading Home Secretary Suella Braverman's legal team, said Ms Parkes' claim was "out of time" and "without merit".
Government lawyers also said the local planning authority did not think planning permission was required.
There was also no "general principle" that housing "non-British asylum seekers" together on a vessel was unlawful under a public sector equality duty, they added.
In a statement released before the hearing, Ms Parkes said: "If you or I want to put up a porch at our home, we need to apply for planning permission.
"It's wrong that the Home Office does what it likes without complying with the same rules.
"If the Home Office had applied for planning permission, they would have had to consult with local people - but we never got the right to have our say.
"I believe that planning permission would have been refused."
She added: "I think containing people on the barge is an inhumane way to treat those fleeing from war, conflict or persecution. Together I hope we can hold the government to account."
A Home Office spokesperson said: "Delivering accommodation sites such as the Bibby Stockholm will be more affordable for taxpayers, helping to reduce the £8m daily cost of hotels as well as being more manageable for local communities.
"We're confident that the project, which will house asylum seekers in safe and secure accommodation, meets the planning requirements"
The 222-room barge, chartered by the government for 18 months, arrived at the port in July.
It was previously used to accommodate homeless people and asylum seekers in Germany and the Netherlands.
Residents in Portland have objected to the barge, voicing concerns that the local community was not consulted.
Follow BBC South on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. Send your story ideas to south.newsonline@bbc.co.uk.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-67064005
|
news_uk-england-dorset-67064005
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.