Events Calendar
Poll / Survey
Banners of the NUM
Page: < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 >
HUMAN RIGHTS AND WRONGS AND THE TABLOID PRESS - 06 JULY 2009
Earlier this year, the case of Jason Smith, a young private in the Territorial Army, was widely reported. He had died within two months of arriving in Basra when he literally overheated. His death was preventable and the court of appeal upheld a ruling that the government had an obligation to act to prevent similar incidents as much in Iraq as they do at home.
A story about the government's failure to put the lives of British troops first would ordinarily be a tabloid newspaper's dream. But Smith's story was also a landmark extension of the Human Rights Act and so it attracted deeply hostile coverage instead. "Human rights rule will cripple troops" ran a headline in the Sun, reporting the Ministry of Defence claim that the decision "will force officers to hesitate in making life-and-death decisions in battle".
There is an increasingly full history of tabloid papers attacking the HRA at every opportunity – an approach described in the commission's report as a "savaging of human rights by the media".
Only last month, a Daily Mail story headlined "The war criminals we cannot deport because of their human rights" suggested the Human Rights Act, and not – as is actually the case – a loophole in the UK's implementation of international law, was to blame for genocide suspects living with impunity in the UK.
Other similar instances include the case of Learco Chindamo, who became a hate figure when he was jailed for life in 1995 for killing headteacher Phillip Lawrence, when he was just 15. The decision not to deport him to his native Italy in 2007 was reported at the time as "the Human Rights Act gone wrong", when in fact the decision was taken under the terms of an EU directive and was not Human Rights Act-based at all.
In 2001 the case of Denis Nilsen attracted similarly damning coverage for the Human Rights Act, as the press reported the convicted killer had been allowed access to pornography in his prison cell because of his "human rights". In fact, it emerged that Nilsen's inability to establish a breach of his rights had denied him access to the material he wanted. The story is yet another example of the appetite for anti-Human Rights Act stories with a tenuous foundation in fact.
There are plenty of examples of flawed reporting in the British press and, on one level, these simply add to the list. But there is a darker side to this bias, which organisations at the forefront of human rights work reveal clearly in the report.
"The Human Rights Act is used as a vehicle to demonise certain communities – for example, asylum seekers [as] illegal immigrants," said one respondent. "It is only used in sensationalist journalism."
Another said: "One negative story about 'mad axemen in the community' can undermine 12 months of work."
There is an argument that the behaviour of journalists, editors and media proprietors is simply symptomatic of a widespread problem identified in the report – a general lack of understanding and education about rights.
As the former senior law lord Lord Bingham said in June, "The Human Rights Act … has been the subject of much hostility from those who find it less trouble to attack than to try and understand what [it] means."
And perhaps if tabloid journalists were genuinely aware that the old person in a care home, or the exhausted teacher, were benefiting from human rights, they would revise their stance. In this regard, critics say, the government is clearly at fault. "When stereotypical, misinformed or straightforwardly malicious attacks are made [it is up to the government to] say: "No, that is wrong, it is incorrect," says David Howarth MP, Liberal Democrat spokesman on justice. "It is a matter of political will. It is a matter of believing that certain values are more important than the political risks involved in supporting those values publicly".
Comments in the Daily Mail by a "frustrated" justice secretary Jack Straw that he could understand why the act was seen as a "villain's charter" did little to provide such support.
But not long before this, Straw had told a pro-human rights audience of his deeply felt commitment to human rights. "The foundation in people's souls for human rights is not as deep or strong as I would wish," he said.
Such ambivalence, from the very minister charged with overseeing human rights law, raises questions as to what can really be expected of the press.
Or, as some suggest, it's the other way round. Unless the press recognise the benefits human rights are already providing to their own readers, politicians will continue running scared.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/humanrightsandwrongs/bad-press
A story about the government's failure to put the lives of British troops first would ordinarily be a tabloid newspaper's dream. But Smith's story was also a landmark extension of the Human Rights Act and so it attracted deeply hostile coverage instead. "Human rights rule will cripple troops" ran a headline in the Sun, reporting the Ministry of Defence claim that the decision "will force officers to hesitate in making life-and-death decisions in battle".
There is an increasingly full history of tabloid papers attacking the HRA at every opportunity – an approach described in the commission's report as a "savaging of human rights by the media".
Only last month, a Daily Mail story headlined "The war criminals we cannot deport because of their human rights" suggested the Human Rights Act, and not – as is actually the case – a loophole in the UK's implementation of international law, was to blame for genocide suspects living with impunity in the UK.
Other similar instances include the case of Learco Chindamo, who became a hate figure when he was jailed for life in 1995 for killing headteacher Phillip Lawrence, when he was just 15. The decision not to deport him to his native Italy in 2007 was reported at the time as "the Human Rights Act gone wrong", when in fact the decision was taken under the terms of an EU directive and was not Human Rights Act-based at all.
In 2001 the case of Denis Nilsen attracted similarly damning coverage for the Human Rights Act, as the press reported the convicted killer had been allowed access to pornography in his prison cell because of his "human rights". In fact, it emerged that Nilsen's inability to establish a breach of his rights had denied him access to the material he wanted. The story is yet another example of the appetite for anti-Human Rights Act stories with a tenuous foundation in fact.
There are plenty of examples of flawed reporting in the British press and, on one level, these simply add to the list. But there is a darker side to this bias, which organisations at the forefront of human rights work reveal clearly in the report.
"The Human Rights Act is used as a vehicle to demonise certain communities – for example, asylum seekers [as] illegal immigrants," said one respondent. "It is only used in sensationalist journalism."
Another said: "One negative story about 'mad axemen in the community' can undermine 12 months of work."
There is an argument that the behaviour of journalists, editors and media proprietors is simply symptomatic of a widespread problem identified in the report – a general lack of understanding and education about rights.
As the former senior law lord Lord Bingham said in June, "The Human Rights Act … has been the subject of much hostility from those who find it less trouble to attack than to try and understand what [it] means."
And perhaps if tabloid journalists were genuinely aware that the old person in a care home, or the exhausted teacher, were benefiting from human rights, they would revise their stance. In this regard, critics say, the government is clearly at fault. "When stereotypical, misinformed or straightforwardly malicious attacks are made [it is up to the government to] say: "No, that is wrong, it is incorrect," says David Howarth MP, Liberal Democrat spokesman on justice. "It is a matter of political will. It is a matter of believing that certain values are more important than the political risks involved in supporting those values publicly".
Comments in the Daily Mail by a "frustrated" justice secretary Jack Straw that he could understand why the act was seen as a "villain's charter" did little to provide such support.
But not long before this, Straw had told a pro-human rights audience of his deeply felt commitment to human rights. "The foundation in people's souls for human rights is not as deep or strong as I would wish," he said.
Such ambivalence, from the very minister charged with overseeing human rights law, raises questions as to what can really be expected of the press.
Or, as some suggest, it's the other way round. Unless the press recognise the benefits human rights are already providing to their own readers, politicians will continue running scared.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/humanrightsandwrongs/bad-press
TEMP WORKERS ARE USED ILLEGALLY AS SCAB LABOUR - 02 JULY 2009
Businesses are exploiting a loophole in the law banning the supply of strike-breakers by employment agencies, says Thompsons, the UK’s largest firm of
trade union and employment rights lawyers.
Agency staff are being switched from their normal duties to work undertaken by employees on strike to get round the law, according to Thompsons. It urges the government to make it crystal clear that under Regulation 7 of the Conduct of employment agencies and employment businesses regulations 2003, agency staff originally supplied for other purposes should not be used to perform the duties of strikers. At the moment some businesses are subverting the intention of the regulation.
Thompsons believes there should be a duty on any employer to inform an employment agency if the workers it supplies may be used to perform the duties of strikers.
There should also be a fast-track procedure for Investigating complaints by unions.
At the moment unions are invariably unable to seek redress during industrial action because of the time taken to conduct inquires.
Richard Arthur of Thompsons said: “It can take months to conduct an official investigation into complaints. By then the damage — as far as unions are concerned — has been done.
“We have found by using the Freedom of Information Act that there has been no prosecution under Regulation 7 since the legislation came into force in April 2004.
That fact speaks for itself.”
www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ntext/loophole-for-strike-breakers.htm
trade union and employment rights lawyers.
Agency staff are being switched from their normal duties to work undertaken by employees on strike to get round the law, according to Thompsons. It urges the government to make it crystal clear that under Regulation 7 of the Conduct of employment agencies and employment businesses regulations 2003, agency staff originally supplied for other purposes should not be used to perform the duties of strikers. At the moment some businesses are subverting the intention of the regulation.
Thompsons believes there should be a duty on any employer to inform an employment agency if the workers it supplies may be used to perform the duties of strikers.
There should also be a fast-track procedure for Investigating complaints by unions.
At the moment unions are invariably unable to seek redress during industrial action because of the time taken to conduct inquires.
Richard Arthur of Thompsons said: “It can take months to conduct an official investigation into complaints. By then the damage — as far as unions are concerned — has been done.
“We have found by using the Freedom of Information Act that there has been no prosecution under Regulation 7 since the legislation came into force in April 2004.
That fact speaks for itself.”
www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ntext/loophole-for-strike-breakers.htm
OIL PRICES TRIM AFTER BOUNCING ABOVE - 01 JULY 2009
Oil prices pared gains on Wednesday, after bouncing above 71 dollars in earlier trade, despite a larger-than-expected drop in crude reserves in key energy consumer the United States.
New York's main contract, light sweet crude for August delivery rose 20 cents to 70.09 dollars a barrel.
Brent North Sea crude for August delivery advanced 25 cents to 69.55 dollars.
The US government's Department of Energy (DoE) said American crude oil reserves tumbled 3.7 million barrels in the week ending June 26.
That was the fourth weekly drop in a row and contrasted with market expectations for a lighter decline of 2.1 million barrels, according to analysts polled by Dow Jones Newswires.
The DoE added that US gasoline or petrol stocks rose 2.3 million barrels, and distillates, which include diesel and heating duel, increased by 2.9 million barrels last week.
Prices had sunk Tuesday from eight-month peaks above 73 dollars after new data showed a plunge in American consumer confidence.
"Crude oil tumbled from an eight-month high as US consumer confidence declined in June, indicating lower fuel demand," said BetOnMarkets analyst David Evans.
"Oil prices are likely to continue to trade around the 70 dollar level, as traders are worried that the economy has not hit bottom," he added.
Some analysts expect that the rebound in crude prices, coming mainly on the back of investors looking for an alternative to equities, will be temporary amid fresh worries about US energy demand.
Figures released on Tuesday by the Conference Board, a business research group, showed that US consumer confidence sank in June as Americans fretted about the recession and vanishing jobs.
The Conference Board's consumer confidence index retreated to 49.3 points in June from a revised 54.8 in May, an eight-month high. Most analysts expected a much stronger reading of 55.3 points.
Oil jumped dramatically -- by 40 percent, or more than 20 dollars -- in the second quarter on rising confidence that the global slump is easing.
In early trading on Tuesday, Brent oil had struck 73.50 dollars -- the highest level since last October -- as the market was propelled by tensions in key crude producer Nigeria.
Nigerian rebels on Monday announced a new raid against a Shell oil facility and said they had killed at least 20 soldiers in a gun battle, a claim denied by the security forces.
While a Shell spokesman confirmed the raid and said it had caused a loss of production, Nigeria's combined police and army joint task force (JTF) denied there had been any clash with the rebels.
The Niger Delta has since 2006 been rocked by violence by armed groups who say they are fighting for a greater share of the region's oil wealth for the local population.
New York's main contract, light sweet crude for August delivery rose 20 cents to 70.09 dollars a barrel.
Brent North Sea crude for August delivery advanced 25 cents to 69.55 dollars.
The US government's Department of Energy (DoE) said American crude oil reserves tumbled 3.7 million barrels in the week ending June 26.
That was the fourth weekly drop in a row and contrasted with market expectations for a lighter decline of 2.1 million barrels, according to analysts polled by Dow Jones Newswires.
The DoE added that US gasoline or petrol stocks rose 2.3 million barrels, and distillates, which include diesel and heating duel, increased by 2.9 million barrels last week.
Prices had sunk Tuesday from eight-month peaks above 73 dollars after new data showed a plunge in American consumer confidence.
"Crude oil tumbled from an eight-month high as US consumer confidence declined in June, indicating lower fuel demand," said BetOnMarkets analyst David Evans.
"Oil prices are likely to continue to trade around the 70 dollar level, as traders are worried that the economy has not hit bottom," he added.
Some analysts expect that the rebound in crude prices, coming mainly on the back of investors looking for an alternative to equities, will be temporary amid fresh worries about US energy demand.
Figures released on Tuesday by the Conference Board, a business research group, showed that US consumer confidence sank in June as Americans fretted about the recession and vanishing jobs.
The Conference Board's consumer confidence index retreated to 49.3 points in June from a revised 54.8 in May, an eight-month high. Most analysts expected a much stronger reading of 55.3 points.
Oil jumped dramatically -- by 40 percent, or more than 20 dollars -- in the second quarter on rising confidence that the global slump is easing.
In early trading on Tuesday, Brent oil had struck 73.50 dollars -- the highest level since last October -- as the market was propelled by tensions in key crude producer Nigeria.
Nigerian rebels on Monday announced a new raid against a Shell oil facility and said they had killed at least 20 soldiers in a gun battle, a claim denied by the security forces.
While a Shell spokesman confirmed the raid and said it had caused a loss of production, Nigeria's combined police and army joint task force (JTF) denied there had been any clash with the rebels.
The Niger Delta has since 2006 been rocked by violence by armed groups who say they are fighting for a greater share of the region's oil wealth for the local population.
US TAKES CRITICAL STEP IN CONTROLLING CLIMATE CHANGE - 29 JUNE 2009
The U.S. House of Representatives on Friday narrowly passed a bill aimed at capping and reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and lowering the country's dependence on foreign oil, in what experts say a critical step toward tackling climate change.
The bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES Act), was passed by a vote of 219-212 after hours of bitter debate.
SIGNIFICANT MEANING
As the biggest economy in the world with the highest per capita carbon dioxide emissions, what the U.S. does in its response to climate change will have a direct bearing on the international community's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, analysts said.
They added that any substantive progress at the Copenhage climate change talks scheduled for December this year will hinge to a large extent on whether Washington agrees to set mandatory emissions targets.
Under the administration of former U.S. President George W. Bush, the U.S. climate policy aroused deep disappointment and great dismay in the international community. The Bush administration also withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, making the U.S. a target of criticism at almost all climate negotiations.
After taking office in January this year, the new U.S. government took a stance in stark contrast to that of the previous administrations. The passage of the bill is considered to be a personal triumph for President Barack Obama, as he has made great efforts to push the House of Representatives to pass the historic bill.
Praising the House for passing the legislation, Obama said: "It's a bold and necessary step that holds the promise of creating new industries and millions of new jobs, decreasing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil."
He said such a bill will finally spark a clean energy transformation and help the U.S. lead the global economy in the 21st century.
It is "the most important energy and environmental legislation in the history of our country," said Representative Edward Markey of Massachusetts, "It sets a new course for our country, one that steers us away from foreign oil and towards a path of clean American energy."
Nobel Peace Prize laureate and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore posted a statement on his Website saying the measure represents "an essential first step towards solving the climate crisis." Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to draw attention to the destructive potential result of global warming.
Eileen Claussen, president of U.S. think tank Pew Center on Global Climate Change, said the bill has "international implications."
"Enactment of a comprehensive energy and climate bill along the lines of the ACES Act will finally allow the United States to help lead the efforts toward a global agreement in which the major economies of the world, both developed and developing, play their part to address climate change, " Claussen said in a statement.
MAIN PROVISIONS
The bill calls for a 17 percent reduction in emissions of heat-trapping gases from the 2005 levels by 2020. That is less ambitious than the target of 20 percent initially sought, but slightly more aggressive than the approximately 15 percent that President Obama has proposed.
The bill sets further pollution reduction goals -- 42 percent by 2030 and 83 percent by 2050, with the latter just slightly higher than what Obama has suggested.
It establishes a cap-and-trade program to control climate-altering emissions, allowing companies to meet emission-limiting targets by investing in offset projects such as tree planting and forest protection.
The legislation also dictates an increase in the use of renewable energy sources and sets new efficiency standards for buildings, lighting and industrial facilities.
The bill requires new buildings to be 30 percent more energy-efficient by 2012 and 50 percent more efficient by 2016.
By 2020, electric utilities must produce at least 15 percent of their power from renewable sources such as wind and solar energy, according to the bill.
DEEP RIFTS
The fact that the bill was narrowly passed reveals the rifts between Democrats and Republicans. After the bill's passage, Democrats hailed the legislation as historic, while Republicans said it would damage the economy without solving the nation's energy woes.
Democrats said the bill will create more "green jobs," decrease U.S. dependence on foreign oils and convert the U.S. economy to a more efficient one.
"Just remember these four words for what this legislation means -- jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. Let's vote for jobs," Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi exhorted her colleagues minutes before the vote.
However, Republicans warned the measure would send energy costs skyrocketing and denounced it as "the biggest job-killing bill that has ever been on the floor of the House."
The controversy surrounding the bill was self-evident in the House, where only eight Republicans joined 211 Democrats in favor, while 44 Democrats joined 168 Republicans in opposition.
Big compromises are needed to heal the deep rifts.
One big compromise involved the near total elimination of an administration plan to sell pollution permits to raise more than 600 billion dollars over a decade, and the money would be used to finance continuation of a middle class tax cut.
However, after heated debate, the plan was changed whereby about 85 percent of the permits are to be given away rather than sold, a concession to energy companies and their allies in the House -- and even that is uncertain to survive in the Senate.
In order to protect consumers from rising energy costs, the bill also requires giving rebates and credits to low-income households.
After the passage of the bill, Obama said: "Now it's up to the Senate to take the next step." The U.S. Senate is expected to try to write its own version of a climate change bill, and whether the bill can manage its way through the Senate by the end of this year remains uncertain.
by Ren Haijun
China View
The bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES Act), was passed by a vote of 219-212 after hours of bitter debate.
SIGNIFICANT MEANING
As the biggest economy in the world with the highest per capita carbon dioxide emissions, what the U.S. does in its response to climate change will have a direct bearing on the international community's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, analysts said.
They added that any substantive progress at the Copenhage climate change talks scheduled for December this year will hinge to a large extent on whether Washington agrees to set mandatory emissions targets.
Under the administration of former U.S. President George W. Bush, the U.S. climate policy aroused deep disappointment and great dismay in the international community. The Bush administration also withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, making the U.S. a target of criticism at almost all climate negotiations.
After taking office in January this year, the new U.S. government took a stance in stark contrast to that of the previous administrations. The passage of the bill is considered to be a personal triumph for President Barack Obama, as he has made great efforts to push the House of Representatives to pass the historic bill.
Praising the House for passing the legislation, Obama said: "It's a bold and necessary step that holds the promise of creating new industries and millions of new jobs, decreasing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil."
He said such a bill will finally spark a clean energy transformation and help the U.S. lead the global economy in the 21st century.
It is "the most important energy and environmental legislation in the history of our country," said Representative Edward Markey of Massachusetts, "It sets a new course for our country, one that steers us away from foreign oil and towards a path of clean American energy."
Nobel Peace Prize laureate and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore posted a statement on his Website saying the measure represents "an essential first step towards solving the climate crisis." Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to draw attention to the destructive potential result of global warming.
Eileen Claussen, president of U.S. think tank Pew Center on Global Climate Change, said the bill has "international implications."
"Enactment of a comprehensive energy and climate bill along the lines of the ACES Act will finally allow the United States to help lead the efforts toward a global agreement in which the major economies of the world, both developed and developing, play their part to address climate change, " Claussen said in a statement.
MAIN PROVISIONS
The bill calls for a 17 percent reduction in emissions of heat-trapping gases from the 2005 levels by 2020. That is less ambitious than the target of 20 percent initially sought, but slightly more aggressive than the approximately 15 percent that President Obama has proposed.
The bill sets further pollution reduction goals -- 42 percent by 2030 and 83 percent by 2050, with the latter just slightly higher than what Obama has suggested.
It establishes a cap-and-trade program to control climate-altering emissions, allowing companies to meet emission-limiting targets by investing in offset projects such as tree planting and forest protection.
The legislation also dictates an increase in the use of renewable energy sources and sets new efficiency standards for buildings, lighting and industrial facilities.
The bill requires new buildings to be 30 percent more energy-efficient by 2012 and 50 percent more efficient by 2016.
By 2020, electric utilities must produce at least 15 percent of their power from renewable sources such as wind and solar energy, according to the bill.
DEEP RIFTS
The fact that the bill was narrowly passed reveals the rifts between Democrats and Republicans. After the bill's passage, Democrats hailed the legislation as historic, while Republicans said it would damage the economy without solving the nation's energy woes.
Democrats said the bill will create more "green jobs," decrease U.S. dependence on foreign oils and convert the U.S. economy to a more efficient one.
"Just remember these four words for what this legislation means -- jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. Let's vote for jobs," Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi exhorted her colleagues minutes before the vote.
However, Republicans warned the measure would send energy costs skyrocketing and denounced it as "the biggest job-killing bill that has ever been on the floor of the House."
The controversy surrounding the bill was self-evident in the House, where only eight Republicans joined 211 Democrats in favor, while 44 Democrats joined 168 Republicans in opposition.
Big compromises are needed to heal the deep rifts.
One big compromise involved the near total elimination of an administration plan to sell pollution permits to raise more than 600 billion dollars over a decade, and the money would be used to finance continuation of a middle class tax cut.
However, after heated debate, the plan was changed whereby about 85 percent of the permits are to be given away rather than sold, a concession to energy companies and their allies in the House -- and even that is uncertain to survive in the Senate.
In order to protect consumers from rising energy costs, the bill also requires giving rebates and credits to low-income households.
After the passage of the bill, Obama said: "Now it's up to the Senate to take the next step." The U.S. Senate is expected to try to write its own version of a climate change bill, and whether the bill can manage its way through the Senate by the end of this year remains uncertain.
by Ren Haijun
China View
MARK SERWOTKA'S PALeSTINE BLOG
Mark Serwotka, general secretary, is currently visiting Palestine as part of a delegation hosted by the Palestine General Federation of Trade Unions. Each day Mark will post his reflections on the visit.
Click the link below then click Palestine Blog
http://www.pcs.org.uk/
Click the link below then click Palestine Blog
http://www.pcs.org.uk/
These cuts are the pits
Hundreds of thousands of retired miners and their widows face pension cuts because the Government is imposing miserly new rules.
Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith wants private pensions to rise in line with the Consumer Prices Index rather than the Retail Prices Index. It doesn’t soun
[ MORE ]
[ MORE ]
Fraud 'a cover for hurting the poor'
Trade unionists have accused David Cameron of using benefit fraud as "cover for swingeing cuts to genuine claimants."
Speaking last week Mr Cameron described benefit fraud and error as "the one area of ingrained waste that outranks all others."
However the TUC said that, while all fraud should b
[ MORE ]
[ MORE ]
These cuts won't hurt a bit. Unless you're young or poor
This is only the appetiser, not even the first course, just the amuse-bouche to whet the appetite. With a hint of lip-smacking relish for the coming cuts, George Osborne and David Laws today sharpened their knives. There were no expressions of regret, not even a crocodile tear or two for the real
[ MORE ]
[ MORE ]
INDIA' RELIANCE ON COAL
India claimed to be a front-runner among developing nations for emissions disclosure today with its first national survey of greenhouse gases in more than a decade.
The government study based on 2007 data showed a sharp increase in industrial activity since the last assessment in 1994 has made Indi
[ MORE ]
[ MORE ]