 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Road Privatisation: Cameron's Plan To Sell-Off Highways And MotorwaysEngland's major roads could be run by private firms in a deal compared to the sell-off of the water industry under plans to boost infrastructure spending being set out by David Cameron. The prime minister has ordered Whitehall experts to investigate a radical shake-up of ownership and funding in a bid to encourage investors to fund desperately-needed upgrades to the ageing network. One model being examined would see an independent regulator set up to oversee the distribution and use of money raised through road tax, which would still be set and collected by the state. Officials insisted the move did not amount to privatisation, with roads placed in private hands on very long leases rather than sold off altogether and said tolls were not planned for existing roads. But they said they hoped it would emulate the "great success" of the 1989 water industry privatisation. Mr Cameron will say that the taxpayer cannot afford to pay for the improvements needed to ease traffic jams meaning the Government must turn to European-style private funding systems. In a pre-Budget speech he will warn that the UK is getting left behind international competitors because of a failure of finance, vision and nerve over recent decades. Focusing attention on roads, he will tell the Institution of Civil Engineers: "The problem's clear: we don't have enough capacity in places of key demand. There's nothing green about a traffic jam - and gridlock holds the economy back. So here's what we should do. Yes, move passengers and heavy goods onto rail. But also widen pinch points, add lanes to motorways by using the hard shoulder to increase capacity and dual overcrowded A-roads. "The massive programme announced during last year's Growth Review made a good start. But how do we do more, when, frankly, there isn't enough money? Road tolling is one option - but we are only considering this for new, not existing, capacity. We now need to be more ambitious. Why is it that other infrastructure - for example water - is funded by private sector capital through privately owned, independently regulated, utilities but roads in Britain call on the public finances for funding? We need to look urgently at the options for getting large-scale private investment into the national roads network - from sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, and other investors. That's why I have asked the Department for Transport and the Treasury to carry out a feasibility study of new ownership and financing models for the national roads system and to report progress to me in the autumn." Maria Eagle MP, Labour's Shadow Transport Secretary said the plans risked driving traffic onto local roads, increasing congestion and emissions. "Ministers seem to be intent on repeating the mistakes of rail privatisation, which was supposed to lead to cheaper fares and lower costs but has instead given powerful vested interests the chance to rip off passengers while increasing the cost to the taxpayer," she said. "Motorists now seem set to be in the firing line for the next phase of the Tories’ ideologically driven rip off culture." Source: Huffington UK Privatisation does not work, a fact proven by Thatcher's love for it.
Wait. let me re-phrase. Privatisation does work - but only for the rich, which is probably why the Tories are suggesting this.
Oh, and Cameron will of course abolish Road Tax at the same time as well, right? Tags: infrastructure, privatisation, tories
Current Location: Lower Holloway, London
Current Mood:  blah
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earlier this week the IMF released its Regional Economic Outlook for Europe [1]The press picked up on the fact [2] that it was reiterating its call for some countries (including specifically the UK and Germany) to slow the pace of cuts if growth falters. They made the same call in the most recent World Economic Outlook [3] and Director Christine Lagarde urged policy makers not to ‘slam on the fiscal brakes’ in an FT article back in July [4] Given that this isn’t a new call I thought the chart below was perhaps the most interesting bit of analysis in the report. And something I’ll be returning to in a future blog.  [5]
It shows what has driven the increase in public debt between 2007 and 2011 in four selected European countries. The red segment is fiscal stimulus – what becomes clear is that the UK’s fiscal stimulus (the VAT cut and the bringing forward of investment) was relatively small – especially when compared to ‘austere’ Germany’s much larger direct stimulus [6] The yellow segment is support for the financial system – the direct costs of bailing out banks. It’s interesting again to note that Britain’s costs here – although higher than those of France or Italy – are well below German levels. The grey segment is the ‘interest-growth dynamics’ – the effect of higher interest payments (due to either a bigger stock of debt or higher rates) adjusted for growth. Here we see that the UK and Germany are doing relatively well but Italy is really suffering – it’s these dynamics that are a major driver of market fears about Italy’s debts [7] Finally the blue segment is ‘accommodated revenue loss’ –as the IMF explains are ‘revenue losses associated with output losses from the financial crisis’ – which was clearly the driver of the UK’s increase in public debt. So there we have it – according to the IMF the reason the UK has experienced a large build up in public debt is because of the costs of the large loss of output following the crisis. Not quite the story of public sector profligacy the government is usually so keen to tell. ( Links )Source: Touchstone
To wit, it wasn't: single mothers, disabled benefit claimants, public sector workers... But then, we already knew that didn't we?
Tags: deficit, imf, uk
Current Location: Lower Holloway, London
Current Mood: blah
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NHS reforms: seven in 10 hospital doctors reject billRoyal College of Physicians poll shows widespread opposition to shakeup, with abundant fears about privatisation of servicesDenis Campbell, health correspondent guardian.co.uk Friday 16 March Almost half of hospital doctors polled said they wanted the Royal College of Physicians to seek withdrawal of the health and social care bill. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images *Britain's hospital doctors want the coalition's controversial NHS shakeup to be scrapped, with many fearing it will lead to health services being privatised, a poll has revealed. Almost seven in 10 members of the Royal College of Physicians (RCP), which represents hospital doctors, want the health and social care bill withdrawn. The findings of the RCP's poll of its members' views on the bill are another blow to ministers' efforts to convince doctors their plans are right, and are a significant addition to the medical community's almost unanimous opposition to it. The RCP polled its 25,417 fellows and members. Of those, 8,878 responded (35%). The survey followed the college's recent extraordinary general meeting to decide its stance on the bill, after some members said it was not being robust enough in its opposition. When asked for their personal views of the bill, 69% (6,092) said they rejected it as it stood; only 6% (525) accepted it; 22% (1,971) said they "neither completely accept nor completely reject it"; and the other 3% (290) did not offer an opinion. Of the 8,878 responders, 49% (4,386) said they wanted the RCP to "seek withdrawal of the bill", while slightly fewer – 46% (4,099) – said it should "continue to engage critically on further improving the bill". The other 4% (393) did not offer a view either way. A third question, asking RCP fellows and members what their main concerns were related to the bill and the wider health agenda, showed that large numbers of hospital doctors fear it will have a negative impact. Concern about possible privatisation of the NHS, and the planned extension of competition between healthcare providers and choice for patients, loomed large, though many are also worried about the effect of handing control of £60bn of patient treatment budgets from April 2013 to local groups of GPs called clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). CCGs will exercise considerable power, including over the commissioning of services for patients from hospitals. The RCP members' top concerns about the bill were: 1.Training, education and research (5,550 put in their top five concerns) 2. Use of the private sector (5,414) 3. Commissioning by clinical commissioning groups (4,905) 4. Choice and competition (4,866) 5. Proposed structural change (introducing the new NHS national commissioning board, CCGs, etc) (4,687) 6. Role of secretary of state (3,216) The poll also found widespread unease about issues already facing the NHS at the frontline, including the quality of patient care, budget cuts, staff shortages and patients not getting continuous care. "We believe that this is the single biggest survey among the medical royal colleges, with the highest turnout, and while it shows there is a clear majority of the RCP's fellows and members who would personally reject the bill, opinion is divided almost equally on whether the RCP should continue to critically engage or now call for the withdrawal of the bill," said Sir Richard Thompson, the RCP's president. "The areas of most concern to RCP fellows and members are the areas on which we have been strongly lobbying government, MPs, peers and other stakeholders: training, education and research; use of the private sector; commissioning by clinical commissioning groups; and choice and competition," he added. The Department of Health played down the importance of the poll, pointing out that the doctors wanting the bill scrapped represented just 17% of the RCP's membership. "While it is disappointing that some members of the Royal College of Physicians have voted to reject the bill, it is worth noting that only a third of the college's 25,000 members voted in this process, and under half of those members have asked for it to be withdrawn," said Lord Howe, the health minister in the House of Lords. "We have already strengthened the health bill following the listening exercise and have responded directly to the points raised by the Royal College of Physicians, including making clear that competition would only be used to benefit patients, never as an end in itself. "We welcome the fact that thousands of doctors have called on their college to continue to engage with the government on its plans for improving the health service. We have committed to working closely with the medical royal colleges on our plans on education and training, which they have welcomed," he said. - © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.
- * I include a link to the photograph for two reasons: a. I have no wish to reproduce it and b. even if I did want to I can't because the friggin' iPad won't let me upload shit on Safari. Fixit it someone!
Tags: nhs reform bill, polls, rcp
Current Location: Lower Holloway, London
Current Mood: White-out
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GPC seeks talks with DWP over Atos ‘fitness to work’ scheme concernsBy Andrew McNicoll The General Praticioners Committee (GPC) is seeking talks with the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) after GPs and LMC (Local Medical Committee) leaders raised a series of concerns with the tests and appeals process being used in the Government's drive to get patients off benefits. Leaders of the GPC's Professional Fees Committee are to approach the DWP for talks after LMCs warned that GPs are being swamped with requests from patients asking them to support their appeals to overturn ‘fitness to work' judgements. The GPC said it was alarmed by the high success of appeals against original fitness to work judgements made under the work capability assessment, with private firm Atos charged with carrying out initial assessments. The DWP said that a quarter of people who have received work capability assessments to date have had appeals heard against rulings by Atos assessors. Of this quarter, 38% have had their fitness to work judgements overturned. The GPC said it was particularly concerned over the length of time patients are having to wait to have their appeals handled – the latest DWP statistics show that an average appeal takes 24.6 weeks to be completed. The committee said it would be flagging up concerns over the levels of pay for doctors who sit on appeals panels, with concerns that the Government is ‘significantly underpaying' GPs. Doctors are currently paid £371 to sit on social security panels. Dr John Canning, chair of the GPC's professional fees committee and a GP in Cleveland, said:‘A 40% success rate of appeals suggests the appeals process and the first round are inconsistent in their approach. We have concerns about the process with Atos and how their doctors are remunerated and encouraged to work – that is to do with how the contract is managed. ‘The second bit is how long it takes to get an appeal, it can take up to nine months in some cases and that is incredibly unfair on people. I don't believe that the tribunal service is adequately staffed with doctors – certainly not with doctors who are active in clinical practise. ‘The fees that they pay will not backfill a doctor in active clinical practise for a day. The doctors that they are employing do not have to be licensed, they only have to be registered, so they do not have to go through revalidation. They, we believe, are significantly underpaying in order to attract people who are in active practice.' Dr John Hughes, secretary of Manchester LMC and a GP in the city, said:‘As part of the Govenrment's drive to get people into work, we have more and more patients getting called in for medicals. The quality of the assessment is sometimes in significant doubt, particularly with patients with psychological and psychiatric conditions. It does appear to be very much a tick box exercise. ‘The patients are then taken off benefits - they then appeal and we then get an increased workload from that because they are advised by third parties that if they are appealing then they have to see us for a further sick note.' Her Majesty's Courts and Appeals Service, which manages the tribunals, refused to say how many doctors used on tribunal panels are clinically active. But a spokesperson said: ‘Medical members undertake regular training and are subject to appraisal on their judicial and medical skills including ‘in-court' observation to ensure they can make fair and robust decisions based on accurate medical information.' A DWP spokesperson said: ‘If a 'fit for work' decision is overturned at appeal, it does not necessarily mean that the original decision was inaccurate - often, customers produce new evidence in their appeal. The DWP is working closely with the MoJ and the Tribunals Service to reduce the number of appeals.' An Atos spokesperson said: ‘ [An] appeal tribunal hears all evidence afresh, including any new evidence that was not available to the original Decision Maker, to decide whether the original decision on benefit entitlement was correct. Thus when an appeal panel reaches a different decision this does not necessarily mean that the original decision lacked validity or the original assessment was not correct.' Source: The Pulse Tags: dwp, nhs, nhs reform bill
Current Location: Lower Holloway, London
Current Mood:  tired
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A leading user-led organisation has been criticised for asking the minister for disabled people to help launch new guidance on disability hate crime, while failing to invite the media. Maria Miller and other work and pensions ministers have faced repeated criticism for stirring up hostility towards disabled benefits claimants over the last 12 months, particularly through their language and their department’s misuse of benefits statistics. Two weeks ago, ministers were warned by disabled peers that their rhetoric on disability benefits was fuelling an atmosphere of hatred and hostility towards disabled people. But despite these criticisms, Miller was asked to speak at the launch of new disability hate crime guidance, which has been written by Disability Rights UK (DR UK) with backing from the government’s Office for Disability Issues. DR UK failed to invite any media to the event, held at Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) offices in Whitehall, while DWP later refused to make a copy of Miller’s speech available to Disability News Service (DNS). Anne Novis, a leading disability hate crime campaigner, criticised the decision to invite Miller to speak at the launch. She said: “There has to be a line drawn between what is acceptable and what is not. “Maria Miller has crossed the line many times with the distorted facts and figures on disability benefits that she has used, and her comments about the unsustainability of supporting and caring for disabled people. She has not supported a decrease in disability hate crime in her language. In the way she works, she has increased that.” Ruth Bashall, an activist who works to address violence against disabled people, said: “As a grassroots activist I was not invited. Had I been there I would have been asking some very searching questions of the minister for disabled people. Politicians need to recognise that they are encouraging hatred towards disabled people and also creating fear among disabled people, some of whom are actually too frightened to claim what are supposed to be their entitlement. “The way they are labelling disabled people as a drain on resources is actually impacting on our safety and is making us more likely to experience hostility and hate crime and harassment. “I am sure a lot of disabled people would have liked an opportunity to ask questions directly about the link between disability hate crime and demonising disabled people.” She welcomed the guidance but said what was really needed was proper funding to tackle hate crime. DR UK itself told DNS earlier this month that DWP had “deliberately fuelled hostility towards disabled people”, for example by describing “disabled people” and “taxpayers” as different groups in its press releases. DR UK declined to comment on its decision to invite Miller to the launch. The new guidance includes: a guide for disabled people on what a disability hate crime is, why it should be reported, and how to report it; a similar guide for non-disabled people; and a third guide to help disabled people’s organisations that want to set up a third-party hate crime reporting site.
The launch came as a new report by the Trailblazers group of young disabled campaigners found that up to four-fifths of young disabled people believe the police do not take disability harassment and hate crime seriously enough. Nearly two-thirds of those questioned for the Under Investigation report believe they have been or may have been the victim of a disability hate crime, while only four out of ten of those who have been harassed or abused have reported the incident to the authorities. Marc Pyle, from Swindon, said: “People regularly taunt me for the way I walk, which has changed due to the muscles in my legs weakening. The perpetrators are usually big groups of men, who like to shout comments or mimic my walk.” Even after he was physically assaulted by a gang of young men, he said the police “didn’t really seem to care”, took three hours to get to the scene and then “as no-one was prepared to act as a witness they said there was nothing they could do”. Source: B&W
Via: disabilitynewsservice.com/ Posted via LiveJournal app for iPad. Tags: dwp, maria miller
Current Location: Lower Holloway London
Current Mood:  annoyed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The government’s controversial welfare reform bill – which will see huge cuts to disability benefits, among other major changes – has cleared its final parliamentary obstacle and is now set to become law. Following the failure of peers and MPs to reverse the most damaging aspects of the bill, disabled people’s organisations are now likely to take legal action against parts of the legislation, once it becomes law. Campaigners pointed out that the bill cleared its final hurdle in the Lords just hours before the publication of a report by the parliamentary joint committee on human rights (JCHR), which warns that the government’s reforms and cuts to disability benefits and services would put disabled people’s right to independent living at risk. Neil Coyle, director of policy and campaigns for Disability Rights UK (DR UK), said the coincidence of the report coming out as the bill was being passed was “very embarrassing” for the government. He said: “The JCHR made clear that there are significant risks for disabled people with the government’s welfare proposals, particularly with the cumulative effect when social care changes are taken into account as well.” He said he and colleagues had been asking the government for 18 months to carry out a full assessment of the impact on disabled people of all of the cuts and reforms taken together, but it had yet to do so. Coyle said legal action on the bill was now being discussed by organisations including DR UK. He said: “A lot of organisations are exploring options right now based on the final proposals.” Many disabled activists expressed despair at the final passing of the bill.Sue Marsh, who has played a key part in campaigning against the cuts to disability benefits, wrote in a “graphic, uncomfortable” post on her blog how the decision to pass the bill meant that she and others like her had “lost everything”. She described in depth the huge impact that Crohn’s disease has on her day-to-day life, and said she believes that despite that, the bill means she will soon receive no disability benefits at all. Another disabled activist who has campaigned prominently against the bill, Lisa Egan, told a Westminster meeting hosted by the Labour MP Jon McDonnell that she was “terrified and heartbroken” by the passing of the bill and the impact it will have on her own support. The government is cutting spending on disability living allowance by 20 per cent and says it wants to focus on people with higher support needs, which Egan fears will see much of her support removed. The bill cleared its final hurdle after peers backed down in their final confrontation with MPs, this time over cuts to housing benefit paid to working-age residents of social housing with spare bedrooms. Peers had proposed an amendment that would have protected some disabled people from cuts to their benefits, but it was overturned in the Commons last week. This week, peers proposed a new amendment that would have forced the government to commission an independent review of the new measures six months after they were introduced. The disabled crossbench peer Baroness [Tanni] Grey-Thompson backed the new amendment, and said: “As we have read in the press yet again today, many disabled people are being portrayed as benefit scroungers. “That causes me great concern as we make some of these changes. The review is vital if we are to ensure that our worst fears are not realised.” But Lord Freud, the Conservative welfare reform minister, refused to accept the new amendment as part of the bill, although he said the government would research the impact of the measures once they were introduced. Source: BaW http://bit.ly/wfBfxj Tags: coalition government, conseratives, disability rights, house of commons, house of lords, labour party, liberal democrats, welfare reform bill
Current Location: Lower Holloway, London
Current Music: Coldplay - Us Against The World
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TODAY IS RARE DISEASE DAYi Many Rare Disease Day events have already taken place around the world and hundreds more still are to come over the next few days. Are you wondering how you can participate? Here's how! 1. Join hands around the world for rare diseases! Raise and hold hands and show your Solidarity with rare disease patients around the world. Take a photo and send it in! Send it to http://www.rarediseaseday.org/yourstory/photo! All the photos will be displayed on http://www.rarediseaseday.org2. Watch and share the official Rare Disease Day video http://www.rarediseaseday.org/solidarity. 3. The European Symposium "Rare Diseases: A Model of EU Solidarity - Rare but Strong Together" will take place at the Residence Palace, International Press Centre in Brussels. Watch Rare Disease Day's European event online. The event will be streamed live on http://www.livestream.com/eurordis/ and on http://www.rarediseaseday.org. You can watch the day's presentations and comment on-line 6 - 11pm on Wednesday, February 29, 2012. 4. Visit our website, find your country, and read about events you can attend at http://www.rarediseaseday.org/country/finder. 5. Register as a "Friend of Rare Disease Day" on our website and ask your partners to do the same! Almost 300 people have signed up already! 6. Tell your story about yourself or someone you know who is living with a rare disease. Upload a photo or a video to http://www.rarediseaseday.org/yourstory/photo7. Join Rare Disease Day Facebook group. 8. Follow Rare Disease Day on Twitter. 9. Sign up for updates on the homepage of http://www.rarediseaseday.org10. Remember that the theme of this year's campaign is "Solidarity" and the slogan is "Rare but strong together!" For more information on how to download the logo and other communication material, go to http://www.rarediseaseday.org© 2012 EURORDIS email: rarediseaseday@eurordis.org website: http://www.eurordis.org Please share! Tags: "rare diseases", events
Current Location: Lower Holloway, London
Current Mood:  frustrated
Current Music: ITV - International Footbal: England vs. Netherlands
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just 5% of all the claimants so far referred to the work programme are in receipt of employment and support allowance (ESA), according to figures produced by the DWP. This is a much smaller proportion of sick and disabled claimants than was expected. Whilst many ESA claimants may be relieved, some charities are complaining that it is causing them financial difficulties. Statistics published by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) on 21 February 2012 show that 370,000 claimants were referred on to the Work Programme between 1 June 2011 and 31 October 2011. Of the 370,000 claimants referred, 332,000 have had an “initial engagement activity” with a Work Programme provider. Of these, however, just 17,000 are ESA claimants, the remainder are all in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance (JSA). Charities have expressed concern at both the low level of referrals being made to the voluntary sector and the small number of referrals being made for ESA claimants. Paul Winyard, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) welfare-to-work lead, told the Third Sector website: “People receiving ESA tend to be the harder-to-reach groups that are more closely associated with voluntary sector provision. It seems that low numbers of these people are being placed in the Work Programme, which supports concerns raised by our special interest group that referrals to voluntary sector groups have been lower than expected.” He also raised concerns about the adequacy of the data being published by the DWP: “We would like to see a more detailed breakdown of where jobseekers go after being sent to prime contractors so that we could ascertain the level of voluntary sector involvement.” Source: Benefits & Work Tags: dwp, esa, jsa
Current Location: London
Current Mood: awake
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iraq dossier drawn up to make case for war – intelligence officerNewly released evidence to Chilcot inquiry directly contradicts Blair government's claims about dossier by Richard Norton-Taylor A top military intelligence official has said the discredited dossier on Iraq's weapons programme was drawn up "to make the case for war", flatly contradicting persistent claims to the contrary by the Blair government, and in particular by Alastair Campbell, the former prime minister's chief spin doctor. In hitherto secret evidence to the Chilcot inquiry, Major General Michael Laurie says: "We knew at the time that the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence, and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence the wording was developed with care." His evidence is devastating, as it is the first time such a senior intelligence officer has directly contradicted the then government's claims about the dossier – and, perhaps more significantly, what Tony Blair and Campbell said when it was released seven months before the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Laurie, who was director general in the Defence Intelligence Staff, responsible for commanding and delivering raw and analysed intelligence, says: "I am writing to comment on the position taken by Alastair Campbell during his evidence to you … when he stated that the purpose of the dossier was not to make a case for war; I and those involved in its production saw it exactly as that, and that was the direction we were given." He continues: "Alastair Campbell said to the inquiry that the purpose of the dossier was not 'to make a case for war'. I had no doubt at that time this was exactly its purpose and these very words were used." Laurie said he recalled that the chief of Defence Intelligence, Air Marshal Sir Joe French, was "frequently inquiring whether we were missing something" and was under pressure. "We could find no evidence of planes, missiles or equipment that related to WMD [weapons of mass destruction], generally concluding that they must have been dismantled, buried or taken abroad. There has probably never been a greater detailed scrutiny of every piece of ground in any country." The document is one of a number released by the Chilcot inquiry. They include top secret MI6 reports warning of the damage to British interests and the likelihood of terrorist attacks here if the UK joined the US-led invasion of Iraq. However, a newly declassified document reveals that Sir Kevin Tebbit, then a top official at the Ministry of Defence, warned the defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, in January 2003 that the US would "feel betrayed by their partner of choice" if Britain did not go along with the invasion. Despite its concerns, MI6 told ministers before the invasion that toppling Saddam Hussein "remains a prize because it could give new security to oil supplies". Laurie's memo raises questions about the role of Sir John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, who later became head of MI6. © Guardian Original ArticleTags: inquiry, iraq, war, wmd
Current Location: United Kingdom, London
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
‘Forced labour’ scheme begins A new ‘forced labour’ scheme which may affect sick and disabled claimants who are refused employment and support allowance was rolled out across the country at the end of April. The sanctions for those who fail to take part are amongst the most draconian ever introduced into the benefits system. Mandatory work activity (MWA) is aimed at those jobseekers allowance claimants who, in the judgement of the DWP “have little recent experience of employment. This group has little or no understanding of what behaviours are required to obtain and keep work.” Whilst it is claimed that this scheme is only aimed at those who make no genuine effort to gain employment, the fear is that the net will be set much more widely and that people with mental health conditions, learning difficulties or even conditions like ME/CFS (may find themselves being forced onto MWA. Claimants forced onto MWA will have to work for a maximum of 30 hours a week for four weeks. They will receive no extra payments in return for their work, not even help with childcare costs. There is no limit to the number of times a claimant can be forced to participate in the scheme. Anyone who fails, without good cause, to take part in an MWA placement when ordered to do so faces having their JSA stopped for 13 weeks for a first offence and 26 weeks for a second offence. Even if they re-engage with MWA, the sanction will not be lifted and the best they can hope for during the sanction period is hardship payments. It is not yet known what work claimants will be forced to do on MWA, except that the government say it will ‘deliver a contribution to the local community’, which sounds ominously like picking up litter, removing graffiti and clearing wasteland. It is also not known which charities or other agencies are willing to provide the placements onto which claimants will be forced. The organisations who are running the scheme, however, are known. They have been named as: - South East JHP Group
- South West Rehab Group
- London Seetec
- East of England Seetec
- East Midlands Ingeus
- West Midlands ESG
- North West JHP Group
- Yorks & Humber BEST
- North East Ingeus
- Scotland JHP Group
- Wales Rehab Group
It is also not known how many claimants will be forced onto MWA. The DWP had a fund of £8 million for a minimum of 10,000 placements on the scheme, working out at £800 per place. But bidders had to say how many more places they could provide for the same budget, in order to win contracts. It is believed that the successful bidders were prepared to offer double or even quadruple the number of places for the same price – so just £400 or £200 per placement. Payment is based on a 100% start fee, however, so that even if someone drops out of the scheme after just one day, the provider still gets the full payment. Source: Benefits and Work This is reminiscent of the Nazi work camps of WWII. The only thing that's missing is that the ConDems aren't forcing people to stitch felt triangles onto their clothing. Yet.Tags: benefits, forced labour scheme
Current Location: United Kingdom, London
Current Music: BBC Parliament - Questions and Statements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many parents 'oppose school sex education for children'Many parents said children should only be taught about sex once they were 13More than half of parents do not think sex education should be taught to children in school from a young age, a survey suggests. Of 1,700 parents of UK 5-11 year olds surveyed by the BabyChild website, 59% said they disagreed with the practice. The most common reason given was that it is "inappropriate to teach children about sex". The survey comes after a Bill calling for girls to be "taught to say no" passed its first reading in parliament. The Sex Education Bill, proposed as a 10 minute rule Bill by Conservative MP Nadine Dorries, would require schools to give girls aged 13 to 16 extra sex education lessons, giving "information and advice on the benefits of abstinence". It was passed by 67 votes to 61, though is unlikely ever to become law without support from the government. In the survey, published on Thursday, parents were asked whether they agreed "with the fact that sex education is often taught to children in schools, even from a young age". In total, 59% of respondents said they did not, 18% said they did, and 23% said they were impartial. Of those who disagreed, the most frequently cited reason was "it is inappropriate to teach children about sex" (41%), followed by "it should be the parent's choice to teach their own child," (28%), "there is no need for children to know about sex" (27%) and "the lessons may encourage children to ask more about sexuality and sex" (22%). When parents were asked at what age it was appropriate to teach sex education to children in schools, by far the largest number of parents (48%) said 13 or older. More than one in six had already been asked about sex by their children, with most of the children first asking between the ages of four and seven years old. The survey also asked parents how they reacted when asked. The most popular response was "felt embarrassed" (38%), followed by "didn't know what to say" (32%) - although 31% of parents said they "explained in full everything they asked about". 13% admitted to diverting the child to his or her other parent - while 2% said they told the child off for asking. Personal, social, health and economic (PSHE) education - which includes teaching on sex and relationships - is not compulsory in England, unlike other parts of the UK, although it is in the national curriculum. It is only compulsory to teach the biological facts of reproduction in secondary school science lessons and parents have the right to withdraw their children from sex education lessons. However, campaign groups such as the Christian Institute say some councils have approved teaching materials for primary school children that contain explicit descriptions and cartoons they say are inappropriate. Promoting her Bill, Ms Dorries quoted 2007 Office for National Statistics figures that she said showed that Britain has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in western Europe. "Girls are taught to have safe sex, but not how to say no to a boyfriend who persists in wanting a sexual relationship," she argued. Labour MP Chris Bryant said it was the "daftest piece of legislation" he had seen brought forward. He said that boys, as well as girls, needed good quality sex education. Countries such Holland, France and Germany had lower teenage pregnancy rates than the UK, and also had "much better sex and relationship education in their schools that starts at a much younger age and is much more explicit", he said. In response to the Bill, the Sex Education Forum, a network of organisations under the umbrella of the National Children's Bureau, said there was "often misunderstanding" about what sex and relationships education in schools included. For children aged three to six teaching is centred around issues like, "where do babies come from?", "why are girls' and boys' bodies different?" and "which parts of my body are private?", the SEF said. At secondary school, lessons go into more detail - young people want more information about resisting pressure from friends or a partner, what to expect from a sexual relationship and how to cope with strong feelings such as anger, sadness, desire and love - and also about the law and sexual consent, it added. "Girls and boys alike tell us that the sex and relationships education they are getting is often too late, too little and too biological," the SEF said in a statement. Last year, inspectors for the education watchdog Ofsted said lessons about sex, relationships and health were not good enough in 25% of schools in England. Teacher embarrassment and lack of knowledge were often to blame, Ofsted said in a report based on findings at 92 primary and 73 secondary schools. The future of sex education is part of a current review of the entire national curriculum ordered by ministers. www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13292133Sure. Great. So abstinence classes for girls ONLY, leaving the boys to run wild, free and ignorant. No sex-ed classes if preferable, leaving the vast majority of kids open to any number of STDs (the figures - 3 years out of date - are shocking enough as it is) and a permanent place at the top of the European league for teen pregnancies. Nice job, Dorries. Surprisingly, she has three daughters. Locked in the attic, no doubt...Tags: sex education
Current Location: United Kingdom, London
Current Music: BBC1 - Vote 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To all of those who rabidly supported an illegal war based on a pack lies and watched as thousands of innocent people died. To those who saw thousands of young soldiers - mothers & fathers, sons & daughters, friends & family - give their lives in pursuit of this cause. To all of those who tried to move the goalposts and said "It was about getting rid of Saddam!" To all of you who blamed - and are still blaming - Iraq for 9-11 and let Saudi Arabia get away with it unpunished. I hope you're all ashamed. It was all for nothing. Oh, except some oil... THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, THERE NEVER WERE. Guardian Exclusive — Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war• Man codenamed Curveball 'invented' tales of bioweapons • Iraqi told lies to try to bring down Saddam Hussein regime • Fabrications used by US as justification for invasion by Martin Chulov and Helen Pidd in Karlsruhe The defector who convinced the White House that Iraq had a secret biological weapons proramme has admitted for the first time that he lied about his story, then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war. Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, codenamed Curveball by German and American intelligence officials who dealt with his claims, has told the Guardian that he fabricated tales of mobile bioweapons trucks and clandestine factories in an attempt to bring down the Saddam Hussein regime, from which he had fled in 1995. "Maybe I was right, maybe I was not right," he said. "They gave me this chance. I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime. I and my sons are proud of that and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy." The admission comes just after the eighth anniversary of Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations in which the then-US secretary of state relied heavily on lies that Janabi had told the German secret service, the BND. It also follows the release of former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld's memoirs, in which he admitted Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction programme. The careers of both men were seriously damaged by their use of Janabi's claims, which he now says could have been – and were – discredited well before Powell's landmark speech to the UN on 5 February 2003. The former CIA chief in Europe Tyler Drumheller describes Janabi's admission as "fascinating", and said the emergence of the truth "makes me feel better". "I think there are still a number of people who still thought there was something in that. Even now," said Drumheller. In the only other at-length interview Janabi has given he denied all knowledge of his supposed role in helping the US build a case for invading Saddam's Iraq. In a series of meetings with The Guardian in Germany where he has been granted asylum, he said he had told a German official, who he identified as Dr Paul, about mobile bioweapons trucks throughout 2000. He said the BND had identified him as a Baghdad-trained chemical engineer and approached him shortly after 13 March of that year, looking for inside information about Saddam's Iraq. "I had a problem with the Saddam regime," he said. "I wanted to get rid of him and now I had this chance." He portrays the BND as gullible and so eager to tease details from him that they gave him a Perry's Chemical Engineering Handbook to help communicate. He still has the book in his small, rented flat in Karlsruhe, south-west Germany. "They were asking me about pumps for filtration, how to make detergent after the reaction," he said. "Any engineer who studied in this field can explain or answer any question they asked." Janabi claimed he was first exposed as a liar as early as mid-2000, when the BND travelled to a Gulf city, believed to be Dubai, to speak with his former boss at the Military Industries Commission in Iraq, Dr Bassil Latif. The Guardian has learned separately that British intelligence officials were at that meeting, investigating a claim made by Janabi that Latif's son, who was studying in Britain, was procuring weapons for Saddam. That claim was proven false, and Latif strongly denied Janabi's claim of mobile bioweapons trucks and another allegation that 12 people had died during an accident at a secret bioweapons facility in south-east Baghdad. The German officials returned to confront him with Latif's version. "He says, 'There are no trucks,' and I say, 'OK, when [Latif says] there no trucks then [there are none],'" Janabi recalled. He said the BND did not contact him again until the end of May 2002. But he said it soon became clear that he was still being taken seriously. He claimed the officials gave him an incentive to speak by implying that his then pregnant Moroccan-born wife may not be able to travel from Spain to join him in Germany if he did not co-operate with them. "He says, you work with us or your wife and child go to Morocco." The meetings continued throughout 2002 and it became apparent to Janabi that a case for war was being constructed. He said he was not asked again about the bioweapons trucks until a month before Powell's speech. After the speech, Janabi said he called his handler at the BND and accused the secret service of breaking an agreement that they would not share anything he had told them with another country. He said he was told not to speak and placed in confinement for around 90 days. With the US now leaving Iraq, Janabi said he was comfortable with what he did, despite the chaos of the past eight years and the civilian death toll in Iraq, which stands at more than 100,000. "I tell you something when I hear anybody – not just in Iraq but in any war – [is] killed, I am very sad. But give me another solution. Can you give me another solution? "Believe me, there was no other way to bring about freedom to Iraq. There were no other possibilities." © Guardian News and Media Limited 2011 So Alwan al-Janabi waited 5 years after fleeing, then made up a pile of bullshit for warmonger Bush & his cronies, including Tony B.liar & his brown-nosers, to swallow hook, line and sinker, then watched - apparently in shock - as Iraq was bombed back to the Stone Age before waiting another eight years before admitting his lies... words fail me. This man has an incalculable amount of blood on his hands and must be brought to justice, swiftly. See also: VIDEO - Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi: 'I had the chance to fabricate something...'Curveball: How US was duped by Iraqi fantasist looking to topple Saddam • Admissions vindicate suspicions of CIA's former Europe chief (and millions of other people too...) A woefully spartan article: Curveball's lies – and the consequencesTags: curveball, iraq war
Current Location: United Kingdom, London
Current Mood:  vindicated!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=91.7){kind=small}
limeyphish's journal
Previous
crappy
cold