Category Archives: guardian.co.uk

If only Russell Brand could use his cleverness for more than humiliation | Sarah Ditum

The star’s car-crash interview on MSNBC’s Morning Joe showcased his talents – and his penchant for lazy sexism

Russell Brand’s appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe show was a car crash all right, but you could see the collision coming a long way off. Put a quick, egotistical comedian into the glossy shambles of a breakfast show, and this is what you get. Brand looks to have come off much the better, but did he really?

Did MSNBC even knew who they were booking? At times it didn’t look like it. The interview starts off badly when host Mika Brzezinski introduces him by saying: “He’s a really big deal, I’m told this … I’m not very up on pop culture.” Brand looks instantly and justifiably pissed off. Then it gets worse.

When Brzezinski leans forward to repair the collapsing table, Brand gets a jab of revenge in by commenting on her cleavage: “I’m only flesh and blood, I’ve got instincts.” Panellist Brian Shachtman starts telling Brand he can’t understand his accent, then the presenters talk about their guest in the third person for a bit, and Katty Kay (the second panellist) bafflingly calls him Willy Brand.

At which point, Brand asks, “Is this what you do for a living?” and then takes over, plugging his tour direct to camera, and initiating a discussion about Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning, before finishing up by highlighting the way Brzezinski is clutching a water bottle and calling her a “shaft grasper”.

Many have praised Brand for his performance on the show, and it’s certainly a showcase of everything he’s got going for him. The bursts of insight smuggled in under the big hair and open shirt, the 10-mile high charisma, and the sharp edge of malice.

Brand has got form when it comes to humiliating women – his previous maverick media exploits have included detailing the sex he had with a young woman on her grandfather’s voicemail, remember – and he really goes for it here. Brzezinski makes a hash of presenting, but Brand goes way below the belt (ahem) when he smirkingly suggests she wants to wank him off.

Ha ha, you have a uterus. Ha ha, you have tits. Ha ha, you’re a lady so I bet you want to touch my cock.

It feels odd to accuse Brand of laziness when he’s so obviously energetic, but that’s exactly what this kind of dull sexism is: lazy. Writing on Thatcher for the Guardian, his criticism of her seemed to revolve around what an unloving mother she must have been.

He’s got much better material than this, so I can only assume that he doesn’t think a female opponent is worthy of his full comic majesty. (He allegedly didn’t think his ex-wife was worthy of more than a text message to inform her he was divorcing her, so maybe there’s a theme.)

That old sexist Samuel Johnson said a woman’s preaching was “like a dog’s walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.” Brand is a kind of vertical hound himself: the rock star reprobate image is so well played, anything clever he says is applauded wildly for its novelty. But he is clever, and rather than letting him deploy that smartness as a tactic to ambush people, maybe we should ask him to be clever enough to treat women as people more of the time.

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

    


Continue reading

Related posts:

  1. Whatever you do on Father’s Day, don’t buy into the fear of ‘men deserts’ | Sarah Ditum
  2. Is this parade of ‘genius children’ a really stupid idea? | Catherine Bennett
  3. Prism surveillance: spies thrive in the internet’s legal free-for-all | John Kampfner
Posted in Comment, Comment is free, Culture, Gender, guardian.co.uk, Russell Brand, Television, Television & radio, The news on TV, UK news, United States, US television, World news | Comments Off

BSkyB investigated over BT claim it is withholding Sky Sports package

YouView package which includes live Premier League football has been withheld, says BT, despite it being offered to TalkTalk

Ofcom has launched an investigation into whether BSkyB is “abusing its dominance” under competition law by withholding Sky Sports channels from BT’s rival YouView pay-TV offering.

The media regulator intervened after BT complained that Sky had acted “unreasonable and discriminatory” in negotiations over the wholesale supply of Sky Sports 1 and Sky Sports 2 to the fledgling YouView internet-connected TV service.

BT claimed that Sky had refused to supply its flagship sports channels to YouView unless the telecoms company agreed to offer wholesale its new BT Sport channel to the satellite broadcaster.

Currently, Sky customers can only watch BT Sport by purchasing a separate BT subscription.

But Sky wants to be able to bundle BT Sport into its existing subscription package for football fans. Sky further angered BT by providing Sky Sports to TalkTalk’s YouView offering on a wholesale basis.

The dispute is the latest in a bitter war of words between the two companies that erupted when BT announced its intention to launch a rival sports channel, which will show 38 live Premier League games each season.

BT upped the stakes in its battle with Sky in May by offering its sports channels for free to broadband customers, after shelling out £738m for Premier League rights over three years. Sky, which over two decades has become the home of live Premier League action, spent £2.3bn for 116 matches over the same period.

Both companies are keen for the impasse to be resolved before the new Premier League seasons starts in August. BT expects to hear back from Ofcom in July, although it is not clear whether the investigation will be concluded that quickly.

In a statement, BT accused Sky of behaving in an “unreasonable and discriminatory manner”. It added: “This is because they have refused to provide Sky Sports 1 and 2 to BT on YouView on fair terms whilst providing them to other pay TV retailers such as TalkTalk. While we are continuing to try to resolve this through commercial negotiations, we have asked Ofcom to take urgent action against Sky in the meantime. We are hopeful that Ofcom will deliver an outcome that would be in the best interests of consumers.”

A spokesman for Sky said: “Sky considers BT’s latest complaint to be entirely without merit. We look forward to engaging constructively with Ofcom.”

• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email media@guardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly “for publication”.

• To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook.

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

    


Continue reading

Related posts:

  1. Families of soldiers killed in Iraq can bring claim against UK government
  2. Dodgers and Diamondbacks to play MLB games at Sydney Cricket Ground
  3. Fewer adults playing sport since London Olympics
Posted in BSkyB, BT, BT Sport, BT Vision, Business, Football, guardian.co.uk, Media, News, Ofcom, Premier League, Sky Sports, Sport, TalkTalk Telecom, Telecommunications industry, Television industry, UK news, Video on demand, World news, YouView | Comments Off

Iraq: British soldiers’ families welcome supreme court ruling – video

Families of British soldiers killed fighting in Iraq welcome a supreme court ruling that allows them to bring damages claims against the government    
Continue reading

Related posts:

  1. Families of soldiers killed in Iraq can bring claim against UK government
  2. Nature can’t be patented: Supreme Court
  3. IHT Rendezvous: China Court Ruling Could Threaten Some Foreign-Invested Companies
Posted in British Army, guardian.co.uk, Iraq, Military, News, Top News, UK news, World news | Comments Off

US military hurdles for women more cultural than physical, general says

Comments came as military leaders map out plans to develop physical and mental standards for thousands of combat jobs

Declaring “the days of Rambo are over”, a top general said that cultural, social and behavioral concerns may be bigger hurdles than tough physical fitness requirements for women looking to join the US military’s special operations units.

Major General Bennet Sacolick, director of force management for US special operations command, said having seen women working alongside commando teams in Afghanistan, he is less concerned about their physical strength than the social issues that could arise. His comments came as military leaders mapped out plans on Tuesday to develop physical and mental standards for thousands of combat jobs and slowly bring women into front-line positions, including possibly Navy Seal teams or army ranger units, where they historically have been banned from serving.

“I’m actually more concerned with the men and their reaction to women in their formations, quite frankly,” Sacolick said, reflecting concerns about whether men would accept women in units that have long operated as small, male-only teams working in close quarters and harsh environment for extended periods of time.

He said the military has moved beyond the Hollywood stereotype of a commando, instead looking for special operators who “can speak and learn a foreign language, who understand culture, who can work with indigenous populations and have culturally attuned manners,” Sacolick said. “When people fail in the special forces qualification course, predominantly they fail because they’re not doing their homework.”

Under details the military laid out Tuesday, women could start training as army rangers by mid-2015 and as Navy Seals a year later. US special operations command is co-ordinating the studies of what commando jobs could be opened to women, what exceptions might be requested and when the transition would take place.

The proposals could mean that women are still excluded from some jobs if research and testing find that women could not be successful. But the services would have to defend such decisions to top Pentagon leaders.

Still, Sacolick said he could foresee a commando team of 11 men and one woman, if only a single female sought the job and qualified.

The military services have mapped out a schedule that includes reviewing and possibly changing the physical and mental requirements for certain infantry, armor, commando and other front-line positions across the army, navy, air force and marines. Under the plans there would be one common requirements for men and women for each post, and it would be based on specific tasks troops need to do in order to perform those jobs. Officials say standards will not be lowered in order to bring women into certain posts.

In his memo to the services, defence secretary Chuck Hagel said “the department remains committed to removing all gender barriers, wherever possible, and meeting our missions with the best qualified and most capable personnel”. He also said that the military will ensure that all women entering the newly opened jobs will be able to “meet the standards required to maintain our war fighting capability.”

Critics have questioned whether the change would result in any erosion of the military’s readiness for battle.

Elaine Donnelly, head of the conservative Center for Military Readiness, has been a vocal critic of the proposed changes. She questioned efforts to review standards for military jobs, saying that, “Due to physical differences that have been affirmed by more than 30 years of studies and reports on the subject, all possible options for implementing ‘gender-neutral standards’ would have the effect of lowering requirements.”

Military leaders have suggested bringing senior women from the officer and enlisted ranks into special forces units first to ensure that younger, lower-ranking women have a support system to help them get through the transition.

The Navy intends to open up its Riverine force and begin training women next month, with the goal of assigning women to the units by October. While not part of the special operations forces, the coastal Riverine squadrons do close combat and security operations in small boats. The Navy plans to have studies finished by July 2014 on allowing women to serve as Seals, and has set October 2015 as the date when women could begin Navy boot camp with the expressed intention of becoming Seals eventually.

The bulk of the nearly 240,000 jobs currently closed to women are in the Army, including those in infantry, armor, combat engineer and artillery units that are often close to the battlefront.

Army officials have laid out a rolling schedule of dates in 2015 to develop gender-neutral standards for specific jobs, beginning with July for combat engineers, followed by field artillery in March and the infantry and armor jobs no later than September.

Similar jobs in the marine corps are also currently closed, and would also be opened on a rolling basis.

As an example of the standards’ review, Marine Col Jon Aytes, head of the marine corps military policy branch, said that 400 men and 400 women Marines will be assessed in five key physical tests to gauge whether candidates can meet the physical requirements of the corps.

He said they include lifting a 55-pound tank round, scaling a wall and conducting some weight-lifting maneuvers. The tests evaluate whether troops can load ammunition into a tank as required or possibly carry heavy packs or injured comrades.

Lt Gen Howard B Bromberg, the army’s deputy chief of staff, said officials want to make sure that they identify all the possible hurdles and that they move slowly and carefully enough so that the women who move into the new jobs first can succeed.

The military services are also working to determine the cost of opening certain jobs to women, particularly aboard a variety of Navy ships, including certain submarines, frigates, mine warfare and other smaller warships. Dozens of ships do not have adequate berthing or facilities for women to meet privacy needs, and would require design and construction changes.

Under a 1994 Pentagon policy, women were prohibited from being assigned to ground combat units below the brigade level. A brigade is roughly 3,500 troops split into several battalions of about 800 soldiers each. Historically, brigades were based farther from the front lines, and they often included top command and support staff.

Last year the military opened up about 14,500 combat positions to women, most of them in the Army, by allowing them to serve in many jobs at the battalion level. The January order lifted the last barrier to women serving in combat, but allows the services to argue to keep some jobs closed.

The decision reflects a reality driven home by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where battle lines were blurred and women were propelled into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers who were sometimes attached, but not formally assigned, to battalions. So even though a woman could not serve officially as a battalion infantryman going out on patrol, she could fly a helicopter supporting the unit or be part of a team supplying medical aid if troops were injured.

Women make up about 14% of the 1.4 million active US military personnel. More than 280,000 women have been sent to Iraq, Afghanistan or neighboring nations in support of the wars.

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Continue reading

Related posts:

  1. Shimmy Club shut down for week after putting women and children ‘at risk’
  2. Currents: Women Are at the Table, So Now What?
  3. Africa: An Africa Fit for Women and Girls
Posted in guardian.co.uk, News, United States, US military, US national security, Women, World news | Comments Off

Robot wars: after drones, a line we must not cross | Christof Heyns

We are on the dangerous threshold of investing in machines the power to make autonomous life-or-death decisions over humans

Drones are becoming dated technology: we may now be able to hand over some of the life-and-death decisions of war to robots.

From the perspective of those engaged in modern warfare, lethal autonomous robots (LARs) offer distinct advantages. They have the potential to process information and to act much faster than humans in situations where nanoseconds could make the difference. They also do not act out of fear, revenge or innate cruelty, as humans sometimes do.

A drone still involves a human “in the loop” – someone, somewhere presses the button. This is slowed down by satellite communications (think of the time-lag when foreign correspondents speak on TV) and these communications can be interrupted by the enemy. So why not take the human “out of the loop”, and install an on-board computer that, independently, is able to identify and to trigger deadly force against targets without human intervention?

There are good reasons to be cautious about permitting this.

On a practical level, it is hardly clear that robotic systems can meet the minimum requirements set by the law of war for lethal decision-making. Popular culture, including sci-fi, celebrates the capabilities of robots, but robots are good at what they do only within a narrow range: their sensors give them tunnel-vision information and they are largely wired for quantitative work.

Soldiers in battle may lawfully target only combatants, and not civilians. Will a computer be able to make the value judgment that a group of people in plain clothing carrying rifles are not enemy combatants but hunters – or soldiers surrendering?

Civilian loss of life as “collateral damage” can be lawful only if it is proportionate to the military objective. This is essentially a qualitative judgement, requiring in many cases experience and common sense and an understanding of the larger picture that robots do not have.

It is also not clear who is to be held responsible if things go wrong. Yet it makes little sense to punish a robot.

The increased availability of weapons that place a state’s soldiers out of harm’s way may make it easier for those states to go to war, and lead to ongoing and global (if low-intensity) warfare – as well as targeted killings. This may have far-reaching implications for the international security system that has saved the last three generations from the scourge of global war.

The overriding question of principle, however, is whether machines should be permitted to decide whether human beings live or die.

Human beings are frail, flawed and, indeed, can be “inhumane”; but they also have the potential to rise above the minimum legal standards for killing. By definition, robots can never act in a humane way. If human beings are taken out of the loop, so are not only the shortcomings of humans, but also our redeeming features.

Robots may, in some respects, not be predictable enough to be used in war: even technicians will not know exactly what to expect from machines that make their own choices, and the average commander in the field who deploys them will be even more at a loss. In other respects, LARs may be too predictable: treating everyone according to the same algorithms means brushing aside the uniqueness of each individual.

But the situation is complex. While LARs pose a clear threat in some cases, there is also the argument that under certain circumstances, using robots may, in fact, save lives. For example, human soldiers who detect movement may fire, afraid it is a sign of enemy soldiers, when, in reality, their “target” may be civilians in hiding. A robotic soldier, which does not fear for its life, may be deployed to go closer and to investigate. Likewise, robots in some cases could more precisely target their fire.

The problem is that even if this is correct, it is not clear that the current laws of war, and the levels of capacity of the soldiers in the field, are sufficient to confine the use of LARs to those situations where they can possibly save lives. But more importantly, does it not demean the value of the lives of each one of us to know that it has become part of the human condition that we could potentially become collateral damage in the calculations of a machine?

This calls for a cool assessment. On the one hand, there is the danger that we overestimate the abilities of computers – because they beat us at chess and maths, we may defer to them regarding decisions that they are not equipped to take. On the other hand, we should not be closed to investigating situations where they can possibly serve to preserve life.

To some extent, we have already given some control to machines over individual targeting decisions with various long-distance weapons. But there is an important, if imperceptible line that we should not cross: humanity should not surrender meaningful control over questions of life and death to machines.

For these reasons, I have called on the United Nations to promote a moratorium on these weapons, and to appoint a high-level panel to advise on whether LARs could be deployed in compliance with relevant international law and, if so, under which circumstances.

UK foreign minister Alistair Burt gave the assurance during a debate on the issue in the House of Commons on 17 June that the UK was not developing such weapons, and had no current plans to do so. The United States took a further step in the right direction when the Department of Defense in November 2012 formalised their position and issued a directive that commanders and operators shall retain “appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force”. These initiatives should be consolidated and other states should be encouraged to follow the same route.

War without ongoing reflection on the human cost is mechanical slaughter. The current prospect of entering a world where machines are explicitly mandated to kill humans should give pause to all of us. While technology rushes forward, we need to take some time out to ensure that not only lives, but also a concept of the value of human life, are preserved in the long term.

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Continue reading

Related posts:

  1. A robot that runs like a cat
  2. Microsoft’s robot touch screen lets you palpate a brain
  3. Ma not reserved on cross-strait issues: Xi
Posted in Comment, Comment is free, drones, Ethics, guardian.co.uk, Human rights, Robots, United Nations, United States, US military, World news | Comments Off

An important lesson for Polish migrants in the Before You Go film | AM Bakalar

A film made in response to the growing number of homeless Poles in the UK is easy to mock, but it does address a problem

Before You Go is a new short film produced by the homelessness organisation The Passage that urges Poles to think carefully before coming to Britain because they may end up living on the streets. The video has received the backing of the British government in conjunction with the Polish embassy.

It tells the story of a young man and a woman whose lives change dramatically after they lose their jobs. With no savings or language skills, they are left destitute. The film shows the young man being set on fire after he is forced to sleep on the streets. It ends with a clear message: if you are planning to come to Britain, make sure you are prepared. Speak the language and bring enough money.

Many have mocked the film’s amateur acting, but it carries an important lesson: there is no doubt that homelessness is becoming a pressing problem among Poles in Britain, especially in London. According to data published in March 2013 by Thames Reach, a homelessness charity, Poles constitute 11% of the total number of homeless in the capital, “by far the biggest number of people from one country other than the UK”.

The foundation Barka UK, which helps eastern European migrants “with the opportunity for reconnection and social reintegration”, has aided close to 3,000 individuals with their return to Poland. In a recent interview on the Polish television channel TVP1, Ewa Sadowska from Barka UK said: “Very often there are cases of whole families that end up on the streets.”

Many migrants do not speak English when they arrive. There are a number of successful Polish companies operating in London that predominantly employ Poles and where the proficiency in English is not a priority, as their clients are mainly other Poles living here. But there is a limit to how many these companies can actually employ.

On websites addressed to the Polish community living here, there are hundreds of job advertisements and an equally large number of people asking for advice on how to get a job. Too often Poles naively assume that compatriots are here to help. While looking at some websites I saw several posts warning about certain companies or conmen.

Sadly, Poles in Britain often prey on the ignorance of a new arrival’s lack of language skills, knowledge of employment law, or sheer desperation. The cases of Poles trafficking Poles to the UK have significantly increased in recent years. For example, in 2011 the Metropolitan police arrested a Polish gang that trafficked 200 Poles into Britain. Not long ago I spoke to a man who had worked for a Polish company that employed him for two years without ever giving him a contract or payslip. He didn’t think there was anything wrong with that as long as he got paid, sometimes in cash.

Britain and Poland’s economic fortunes have changed dramatically in recent years: Britain’s economy has flatlined, and Poland’s comparatively stable performance has lead to a reversal the flow of migration, with many workers from Europe’s south now moving to Poland. But from conversation with Poles in Poland, I am not convinced that they have noticed. With salaries in some remote parts of Poland still low, the possibility of making £1,000 a month is hugely attractive. What people do not realise is that the cost of living in Britain remains far higher than in Poland.

I wish the video had gone a bit further. There are still Poles who come to Britain without realising that this is a very tolerant multi-ethnic society, where people are not expected to be called names on the streets because they have a different skin colour or wear extravagant clothes. I have overheard countless unpleasant conversations in my mother tongue when those who were talking probably thought nobody could understand them. Britain’s liberal attitudes can still be a cultural shock for those arriving from a predominantly white, Catholic and conservative country like Poland.

This is partly about protecting Poles who move to the UK. But it’s also about improving the lives of Britons. On the whole, Britons have been hugely welcoming to Poles – we need to make sure Poles also embrace Britain for what it is.

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

    


Continue reading

Related posts:

  1. Eric Pickles to councils – let the people film and tweet your meetings
  2. European coal pollution causes 22,300 premature deaths a year, study shows
  3. How Sweden’s innovative housing programme fell foul of privatisation | Owen Hatherley
Posted in Comment, Comment is free, Europe, guardian.co.uk, Homelessness, Housing, Immigration and asylum, London, Poland, Social exclusion, Society, UK news, World news | Comments Off

Barack Obama to call for nuclear stockpile reductions in Berlin speech

US president’s proposals will include one-third reduction in American and Russian arsenals, White House says

The US president, Barack Obama, will renew his call to reduce the world’s nuclear stockpiles, including a proposed one-third reduction in US and Russian arsenals, the White House said.

Obama will make his case during a speech on Wednesday at Berlin’s iconic Brandenburg Gate. His address comes nearly 50 years after John F Kennedy’s famous cold war speech in the then divided city.

The president has previously called for reductions to the stockpiles and is not expected to outline a timeline for this renewed push. But by addressing the issue in a major foreign policy speech, Obama is signalling a desire to rekindle an issue that was a centerpiece of his early first-term national security agenda.

The president discussed non-proliferation with the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, when they met on Monday on the sidelines of the G8 summit in Northern Ireland. During Obama’s first term, the US and Russia agreed to limit their stockpiles to 1,550 as part of the new strategic arms reduction treaty (Start).

It’s unclear whether Obama will seek further reductions through a new treaty or a non-binding agreement that would not require congressional ratification. Republicans on Capitol Hill are likely to resist any further cuts to the US stockpiles.

The Arms Control Association, a Washington-based policy group, urged Obama not to wait for a formal treaty, arguing the US and Russian leaders could move more quickly by taking parallel steps to reduce warheads.

“Today’s address is a good start but it is only a beginning,” said Daryl Kimball, the group’s executive director. “In the months ahead, President Obama must sustain the nuclear risk reduction enterprise and overcome petty partisan politics to help address today’s grave nuclear challenges.”

Obama’s calls for co-operation with Moscow come at a time of tension between the US and Russia, which are supporting opposite sides in Syria’s civil war. Russia also remains wary of US missile defence plans in Europe, despite US assurances that the shield is not aimed at Moscow.

Also in Wednesday’s speech in Berlin, Obama will press Congress to pass a nuclear test ban treaty, the White House said, seeking to revive an effort that has stalled in recent years.

Germany’s foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, is a strong advocate of nuclear disarmament and has long called for the removal of the last US nuclear weapons from German territory, a legacy of the cold war. The Büchel air base in western Germany is one of a few remaining sites in Europe where they are based.

Under an agreement drawn up when they formed a coalition government in 2009, Merkel’s conservatives and Westerwelle’s Free Democratic party agreed to press Nato and Washington for the nuclear weapons to be withdrawn, but did not set any timeframe.

Nuclear stockpile numbers are closely guarded secrets in most nations that possess them, but private nuclear policy experts say no countries other than the US and Russia are thought to have more than 300. The Federation of American Scientists estimates that France has about 300, China about 240, Britain about 225, and Israel, India and Pakistan roughly 100 each.

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Continue reading

Related posts:

  1. Obama to set new goals to cut nuclear weapons: senior official
  2. Obama to set new goals to cut global nuclear weapons
  3. President Barack Obama in Northern Ireland for the G8 summit and David Beckham’s tour of China
Posted in Barack Obama, Europe, guardian.co.uk, News, Non-proliferation treaty (NPT), Nuclear weapons, Russia, Top News, United States, Vladimir Putin, World news | Comments Off

PMQs and statement on CQC cover-up and G8: Politics live blog

Andrew Sparrow’s rolling coverage of all the day’s political developments as they happen, including David Cameron and Ed Miliband at PMQs, Jeremy Hunt’s statement on the CQC cover-up scandal and Cameron’s statement on the G8 summitAndrew Sparrow
Continue reading

Related posts:

  1. Cameron and Miliband at PMQs: Politics live blog
  2. G8 summit – day two: Politics live blog
  3. G8 summit: Politics live blog
Posted in Blogposts, David Cameron, Ed Miliband, G8, guardian.co.uk, Minute by minutes, PMQs, Politics, Syria, UK news, World news | Comments Off

Iceland resumes fin whale hunting after two-year break

Undercover pictures taken by Greenpeace show a harpooned whale being cut up for meat likely to be exported to Japan

Iceland has resumed its commercial hunting of fin whales after a two-year suspension by landing the first of an expected 180 whales in Hvalfjördur. The first kill prompted protests from environment and animal welfare groups that the hunt is “cruel and unnecessary”.

Undercover pictures taken aboard the Hvalur 8 by Greenpeace show the harpooned whale being cut up for meat that is likely to be exported to Japan. Fin whales are the second largest animal on earth after the blue whale and are listed on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red list of threatened species.

The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) condemned the Icelandic whaler Kristján Loftsson who has resumed fin whaling after a two year break. “It is a very sad day seeing these images and knowing that this endangered animal has suffered a cruel death, only to be cut up for meat that nobody needs,” said Robbie Marsland, UK director of IFAW.

“It is time that this dying industry was ended. We urge the Icelandic government to listen to its whale watching and tourism operators and many members of the public both within and outside Iceland and recognise that slaughtering whales is uneconomic as well as inhumane. Whale watching brings greater benefit to coastal communities.”

Iceland cancelled fin whale hunts in 2011 and 2012 partly because Japan, the largest market, was suffering an economic downturn after of the devastating tsunami in March 2011. Seven fin whales were killed in Iceland’s waters in 2006, 125 in 2009 and 148 in 2010.

Loftsson’s company Hvalur plans to hunt up to 180 fin whales in the 2013 season. The International Whaling Commission has banned commercial whaling but its authority is not recognised by Iceland. More than 1 million people from around the world signed a recent online petition against the trading of Icelandic fin whale meat amid revelations that some of it has ended up in dog food products in Japan.

“Whaling is brutal and belongs to a bygone era not the 21st century,” said John Sauven, director of Greenpeace UK. “It is deeply regrettable that a single Icelandic whaler backed by the government is undermining the global ban on commercial whaling which is there to secure the future of the world’s whales.”

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Continue reading

Related posts:

  1. Lib Dems under pressure to support Robin Hood tax in break with coalition
  2. European coal pollution causes 22,300 premature deaths a year, study shows
  3. Whales perform in Australia and Iranians go to the polls: the best news photographs of the day
Posted in Animals, Conservation, Environment, Europe, guardian.co.uk, Iceland, Marine life, News, Whales, Whaling, Wildlife, World news | Comments Off

Families of soldiers killed in Iraq can bring claim against UK government

Soldiers abroad are protected by human rights law, says court in case of men killed when poorly armoured vehicles were bombed

Soldiers going into battle abroad are protected by human rights legislation, the supreme court has ruled in a landmark judgment.

The decision by the UK’s highest court will have far-reaching implications for the way the Ministry of Defence (MoD) must care for troops and conduct future military campaigns.

Cases were brought by the families of three men killed in Iraq when their poorly armoured Snatch Land Rovers were destroyed by roadside bombs.

Lee Ellis, Phillip Hewett and Kirk Redpath died as a result of such attacks between 2005 and 2007.

Other claims were bought by the families of those killed and injured in a Challenger tank as a result of a friendly fire incident.

The supreme court considered several issues including:

• Whether British soldiers killed during military operations abroad were, at the time of their deaths, within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom for the purposes of article 1 of the European convention on human rights;

• Whether complaints of negligence are covered by the doctrine of combat immunity or whether it would fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the MoD in the circumstances of the case.

The individual claims brought by the families can now be brought to trial. The cases can be based on both negligence and human rights.

Jocelyn Cockburn, the solicitor who represented Susan Smith, the mother of Hewett, said: “It is fantastic that the supreme court has at last recognised that our armed forces are within the control and authority of UK authorities at all times and therefore within the UK’s jurisdiction including when deployed abroad.”

Outside the court, Smith said: “We have won at last. To be honest we didn’t expect to. The MoD will now have to make sure our soldiers are safe abroad. What we have done now will make a lot of difference to people in the future. There will have to be protection in place.

“Phillip is dead. Nothing is going to bring him back. But there are other boys out there. We don’t understand why the MoD didn’t just admit they got it wrong years ago.”

Philip Redpath, whose son Kirk died in Iraq, said: “The MoD and army have a duty of care to supply the right equipment. Without that, they could give a soldier a broomstick and that would be OK.”

Cockburn, a solicitor with the law firm Hodges, Jones and Allen, added: “What has been established is that soldiers do have human rights and remain within the jurisdiction of the UK when abroad. Whether there has been a breach of those rights is a different question.”

A decision at the European court of human rights in 2011 on the al-Skeini case, which concerned Iraqi civilians who died within areas under British military control, set a powerful precedent. If Iraqi civilians were deemed to have human rights and be under UK jurisdiction, lawyers for the soldiers’ families argued, then the troops themselves should not be denied such legal protection.

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

    


Continue reading

Related posts:

  1. Soldiers killed in Benghazi clashes
  2. Iraq attacks targeting Shia Muslims leave dozens dead
  3. Soldiers Killed During Overnight Attacks in Benghazi
Posted in British Army, guardian.co.uk, Iraq, Middle East and North Africa, Military, Ministry of Defence, News, UK news, World news | Comments Off