Prime minister says ‘fat tax’ could help prevent health costs soaring and life expectancy falling The government will consider introducing a “fat tax” to tackle Britain’s growing obesity levels, the prime minister, David Cameron, has said. Cameron said drastic action was needed to prevent health costs soaring and life expectancy falling. Under measures introduced in Denmark recently, a surcharge is being placed on foods that contain more than 2.3% saturated fat. The levy targets high-fat products such as butter, milk, cheese, pizza, meat, oil and processed food. Danish consumers have criticised the move, which has left many retailers complaining of excessive bureaucracy. However, Cameron said the introduction of a similar idea in the UK should not be ruled out. “I think it is something that we should look at,” he told 5 News during a round of broadcast interviews at the Tory conference in Manchester. “The problem in the past when people have looked at using the tax system in this way is the impact it can have on people on low incomes. “But frankly, do we have a problem with the growing level of obesity? Yes. Do we have a kind of warning in terms of – look at America, how bad things have got there – what happens if we don’t do anything? Yes, that should be a wake-up call.” He added: “I am worried about the costs to the health service, [and] the fact that some people are going to have shorter lives than their parents.” He warned that obesity was on the verge of overtaking smoking and drinking as the biggest health challenge facing Britain. “Don’t rule anything out, but let’s look at the evidence and let’s look at the impact on families,” he added. Conservative conference 2011 David Cameron Health policy Tax and spending Conservative conference Obesity Health guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Investigation finds the media tycoon ‘brought bodily harm’ to fellow billionaire Sergei Polonsky on the TV programme Russian prosecutors have launched a criminal case against the media tycoon Alexander Lebedev on charges of hooliganism for punching a fellow billionaire on a television programme. Lebedev would be charged with hooliganism after a preliminary investigation found that the incident “brought bodily harm” to Sergei Polonsky, the Moscow investigative committee of the general prosecutor’s office said in a statement posted on its website. The charges could carry up to two years in prison, Russian news agencies said. Lebedev, owner of the Independent and London Evening Standard, punched the property developer during a chatshow on the NTV channel . The notoriously brash Polonsky had been arguing with guests on the show when he said he was “already worn out from the desire to give [him] a punch in the chops”, gesturing to Lebedev. Lebedev jumped from his seat and threw punches at Polonsky, knocking him backwards off his chair. After the attack Russia’s prime minister, Vladimir Putin, said the incident amounted to “hooliganism”. Lebedev later defended the move, while Polonsky immediately said he would consider legal action. Polonsky, the former owner of Mirax Group, one of Russia’s biggest property developers, posted photographs online showing a cut on his arm and a tear in his trousers after the brawl. Lebedev could not be immediately reached for comment. Alexander Lebedev Russia Europe Miriam Elder guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Investigation finds the media tycoon ‘brought bodily harm’ to fellow billionaire Sergei Polonsky on the TV programme Russian prosecutors have launched a criminal case against the media tycoon Alexander Lebedev on charges of hooliganism for punching a fellow billionaire on a television programme. Lebedev would be charged with hooliganism after a preliminary investigation found that the incident “brought bodily harm” to Sergei Polonsky, the Moscow investigative committee of the general prosecutor’s office said in a statement posted on its website. The charges could carry up to two years in prison, Russian news agencies said. Lebedev, owner of the Independent and London Evening Standard, punched the property developer during a chatshow on the NTV channel . The notoriously brash Polonsky had been arguing with guests on the show when he said he was “already worn out from the desire to give [him] a punch in the chops”, gesturing to Lebedev. Lebedev jumped from his seat and threw punches at Polonsky, knocking him backwards off his chair. After the attack Russia’s prime minister, Vladimir Putin, said the incident amounted to “hooliganism”. Lebedev later defended the move, while Polonsky immediately said he would consider legal action. Polonsky, the former owner of Mirax Group, one of Russia’s biggest property developers, posted photographs online showing a cut on his arm and a tear in his trousers after the brawl. Lebedev could not be immediately reached for comment. Alexander Lebedev Russia Europe Miriam Elder guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Home secretary courts controversy with judges by claiming illegal immigrant was protected by act due to being a cat owner The home secretary, Theresa May, walked straight into a clash with senior judges on Tuesday after claiming that the Human Rights Act was responsible for blocking the deportation of an illegal immigrant because he had a pet cat. May promised the Tory party conference that she was not making the story up, but the judicial communications office, which represents senior judges, insisted the story was not true, and had told May’s department as much. “This was a case in which the Home Office conceded that they had mistakenly failed to apply their own policy – applying at that time to that appellant – for dealing with unmarried partners of people settled in the UK,” said a judicial communications office statement issued at the time of the case. “That was the basis for the decision to uphold the original tribunal decision – the cat had nothing to do with the decision,” said a spokeswoman. The case of the pet cat was one of several alleged cases that the home secretary used to illustrate her claim that the Human Rights Act should go and to justify her intention to clarify the immigration rules to ensure that a right to family life is not used to block immigration deportations. The home secretary later said she accepted the judges’ correction but argued that she wasn’t relying on that single case to justify her policy. May also introduced Colonel Tim Collins, the decorated Iraq war veteran, as the first declared Conservative candidate to run next November as a police and crime commissioner. Collins set the tone for his campaign by declaring that he wanted the police to be “ratcatchers and not social workers”, by claiming that they currently gave undue preference to political correctness and that he wanted to see ex-business and ex-military figures stand as PCC candidates not “sunset councillors or retired policemen with axes to grind”. May endorsed Collins’s robust approach, telling delegates: “I wouldn’t want to be a criminal if he gets elected.” The home secretary renewed her commitment to reforming the police and insisted government cuts did not mean that frontline policing could not be maintained and improved. But it was on immigration that the home secretary came unstuck. She repeated her pledge to reduce net migration to the “sustainable levels of tens of thousands” then she moved on to her announcement: “We need to make sure that we’re not constrained from removing foreign nationals who, in all sanity, should have no right to be here,” she said. “We all know the stories about the Human Rights Act. The violent drug dealer who cannot be sent home because his daughter – for whom he pays no maintenance – lives here. The robber who cannot be removed because he has a girlfriend. The illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because – and I am not making this up – he had a pet cat.” She said that was why she was announcing the change in the immigration rules to “ensure that the misinterpretation of article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights – the right to family life – no longer prevents the deportation of people who shouldn’t be here”. The home secretary read out the actual wording of article 8.2, which says the right to family life should be not be interfered with except where it is “necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of rights and freedom of others”. She said that this showed that the right to family life should not be used to drive a coach and horse through the immigration system by blocking deportations. But this definition, which has been used by judges to determine deportation appeals since Ted Heath’s 1971 Immigration Act, would appear to cover all the cases of convicted foreign criminals and illegal migrant families living on benefits that the home secretary has complained about. Home Office sources say there are about 100 successful appeals on article 8 grounds every year, mostly involving illegal migrants. Theresa May Human Rights Act Judiciary Conservative conference 2011 Conservative conference Conservatives Human rights Immigration and asylum Animals Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Home secretary courts controversy with judges by claiming illegal immigrant was protected by act due to being a cat owner The home secretary, Theresa May, walked straight into a clash with senior judges on Tuesday after claiming that the Human Rights Act was responsible for blocking the deportation of an illegal immigrant because he had a pet cat. May promised the Tory party conference that she was not making the story up, but the judicial communications office, which represents senior judges, insisted the story was not true, and had told May’s department as much. “This was a case in which the Home Office conceded that they had mistakenly failed to apply their own policy – applying at that time to that appellant – for dealing with unmarried partners of people settled in the UK,” said a judicial communications office statement issued at the time of the case. “That was the basis for the decision to uphold the original tribunal decision – the cat had nothing to do with the decision,” said a spokeswoman. The case of the pet cat was one of several alleged cases that the home secretary used to illustrate her claim that the Human Rights Act should go and to justify her intention to clarify the immigration rules to ensure that a right to family life is not used to block immigration deportations. The home secretary later said she accepted the judges’ correction but argued that she wasn’t relying on that single case to justify her policy. May also introduced Colonel Tim Collins, the decorated Iraq war veteran, as the first declared Conservative candidate to run next November as a police and crime commissioner. Collins set the tone for his campaign by declaring that he wanted the police to be “ratcatchers and not social workers”, by claiming that they currently gave undue preference to political correctness and that he wanted to see ex-business and ex-military figures stand as PCC candidates not “sunset councillors or retired policemen with axes to grind”. May endorsed Collins’s robust approach, telling delegates: “I wouldn’t want to be a criminal if he gets elected.” The home secretary renewed her commitment to reforming the police and insisted government cuts did not mean that frontline policing could not be maintained and improved. But it was on immigration that the home secretary came unstuck. She repeated her pledge to reduce net migration to the “sustainable levels of tens of thousands” then she moved on to her announcement: “We need to make sure that we’re not constrained from removing foreign nationals who, in all sanity, should have no right to be here,” she said. “We all know the stories about the Human Rights Act. The violent drug dealer who cannot be sent home because his daughter – for whom he pays no maintenance – lives here. The robber who cannot be removed because he has a girlfriend. The illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because – and I am not making this up – he had a pet cat.” She said that was why she was announcing the change in the immigration rules to “ensure that the misinterpretation of article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights – the right to family life – no longer prevents the deportation of people who shouldn’t be here”. The home secretary read out the actual wording of article 8.2, which says the right to family life should be not be interfered with except where it is “necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of rights and freedom of others”. She said that this showed that the right to family life should not be used to drive a coach and horse through the immigration system by blocking deportations. But this definition, which has been used by judges to determine deportation appeals since Ted Heath’s 1971 Immigration Act, would appear to cover all the cases of convicted foreign criminals and illegal migrant families living on benefits that the home secretary has complained about. Home Office sources say there are about 100 successful appeals on article 8 grounds every year, mostly involving illegal migrants. Theresa May Human Rights Act Judiciary Conservative conference 2011 Conservative conference Conservatives Human rights Immigration and asylum Animals Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
The Guardian’s Italy correspondent, John Hooper, will be online live from 2pm to discuss the appeal decision The nightmare for Amanda Knox and her Italian former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, cleared of murdering the British student Meredith Kercher, is now over, with Knox flying back to Seattle after her release from the prison where she spent four years. Another man, Rudy Guede, has been convicted of the sexual assault and murder of Kercher, and is currently in prison. But many questions remain: • Were others involved in the crime? • Will prosecutors pursue Knox and Sollecito, as they have said they will? • How did the police get it so wrong? John Hooper has reported extensively on the trial for the Guardian. He will be answering your questions about the case and what happens next from 2pm in the comments section below . Amanda Knox Meredith Kercher Italy Europe United States John Hooper James Walsh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Unemployed face losing benefit unless they spend several hours per day seeking work and accept any job within 90-mile radius Conservatives released plans to require the unemployed to look for a job for several hours a day and be willing to accept a job anywhere within a 90-mile radius of their home, or lose their benefit. A jobseeker who fails to take up a reasonable job offer three times will be debarred from receiving benefit for three years. A new DWP IT system will also make it easier for Jobcentre Plus staff to monitor the amount of jobseeking an unemployed person is undertaking, including how many job applications they have filled out. Trials will also be undertaken to require the jobless to sign on every week, rather than fortnightly. The proposals had been due to be in Monday’s speech delivered by Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, but were pulled at the last minute in the expectation that they would be owned by David Cameron in interviews the prime minister conducted on Tuesday. Unusually, neither the name Duncan Smith, nor any quote from him was included in the release issued by the Conservative party on Tuesday morning. There have also been suggestions that more radical proposals were shelved at the last minute. The Conservative plans cited research showing jobseekers’ allowance (JSA) claimants were spending very little time each day seeking work. They pointed to two studies. The first, published by Princeton economists for the Institute for the Study of Labor, found that jobseekers in the UK spend an average of eight minutes per day looking for jobs. This compares to 41 minutes per day in the United States and 27 minutes per day in France. The Conservatives also claimed that increased numbers of imposed conditions in the UK system signalled by the introduction of JSA were shown to have increased “the rate of exit” from benefit by around 9%. A study by OECD countries found that job-search reporting and regular interviews with advisers increase the probability of getting off benefit by between 15% to 30%. The Conservative party plan said: “Those who are making every effort to look for work have nothing to fear from these proposals. But for those who until now have tried to play the system, or thought they could get away with doing the bare minimum, this is a big push to do the right thing, take up the help available and get into work.” The plans also stated: “We will also introduce a clear framework for sanctions under which the more serious the failure the longer the sanction, and the more frequent the failures the longer the sanction.” Welfare Unemployment Conservative conference 2011 Conservative conference Conservatives Iain Duncan Smith Job hunting David Cameron Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …In issue 225 of the Marvel comics series X-Factor, writer Peter David portrays the team of super-powered mutants as scabs who help a contractor in his attempt at union busting. While the anti-union segment isn’t a key part of the issue’s story, it is the lead in: Jamie Madrox, X-Factor leader: We’re not proud of every job we take. Not all of them allow us to seize the moral high ground. In fact…a lot of them don’t. Sometimes you just need to pay the bills. Contractor: Look…this place has been condemned! I have a contract with the city to tear it down. Union member: And a contract with our union to do the job! Contractor: But I don’t need all of you! If you’d just accept the offer for half of — Union member: No deal! Contractor: You’re just trying to strong-arm– Union member: We’re just trying to get what we’re due! Contractor: Look…you’re forcing me to– Union member: To what? Hire scabs? Good luck with that. And what’ll you use to take it down? Explosives? Wrecking ball? You can’t do that without union talent. Contractor: Actually, it turns out I can. Okay. Do it. The next sequence shows X-Factor member Rictor uses his earthquake-making powers to bring down the building that needed demolition. This portion of the story is written specifically to show that Rictor, who had lost his powers for years, had regained them and to re-establish how powerful he is. In terms of the story, it’s an important moment, and the labor segment of it seems like little more than an aside. As written, these few pages make it look like either we have two sides of a dispute that are just in a disagreement or that the labor union members are greedy and want to get more from the contractor than he can afford. But there are numerous problems here. The first is it’s clear that there is a contract in place and that union members are the only ones willing to live up to their half of the contract. Second is the idea that the contractor is willing to not only hire scabs, but to hire them despite no evidence that they have the ability to do the job and are, in fact, quite possibly very dangerous: Madrox: Rictor swore that he could use his earthquake powers to emulate the actions of a controlled implosiong. I was a little worried since he’s only recently reacquired his powers. Rictor’s boss isn’t even sure he can do the highly dangerous job, but the “hero” is willing to take the job for the money, regardless of the consequences for the safety of the people involved or the livelihood of the workers. Some might argue that this might be too much to read into a comic book, but it’s obvious that younger readers often form their opinions about new concepts, such as unions, from the popular culture they consume. This casual anti-unionism from David and Marvel is particularly disappointing because David is usually a very progressive writer and Marvel comics are known for their themes, particularly in their mutant comic books, that promote equality and fairness.
Continue reading …
Yukos executive Vasily Aleksanyan was jailed in 2006 and was refused leave to treat Aids and cancer A former Yukos oil executive whose struggle to win medical treatment for Aids and cancer came to symbolise the harshness of the Russian prison system, has died. Vasily Aleksanyan, a Harvard-educated lawyer who headed Yukos’s legal department and was briefly vice-president of the firm, was imprisoned in April 2006 as part of the sweep against the oil company. He was diagnosed with HIV shortly after his arrest, and later with tuberculosis and cancer of the liver, as well as severely limited vision. Prosecutors accused Aleksanyan of acting as an accomplice to embezzlement and money laundering, two of the charges levelled against his former boss Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Khodorkovsky was convicted of those charges last year , in a second trial his supporters say was designed to keep the former oligarch behind bars until at least 2017. Aleksanyan served as his lawyer after the tycoon’s arrest in 2003, on fraud and tax evasion charges. Aleksanyan waged a long struggle to win himself early release so he could seek treatment for the diseases that were killing him. As Russian courts considered his case, he was moved to a hospital bed, to which he was chained. His supporters said the conditions in which he was held were degrading and inhumane. In 2008, the European court of human rights in Strasbourg ordered Aleksanyan to be released on humanitarian grounds. A Russian court then demanded he post 50m roubles (£990,000) in bail. The charges against him were quietly dropped last year. Aleksanyan, 39, died at home of complications from Aids, his family told Dozhd, a Russian TV channel. Human rights activists have compared Aleksanyan’s treatment to that of Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer for the London-based investor William Browder, who was arrested while investigating alleged fraud by government officials. Magnitsky died in November 2009 after being denied treatment for a worsening stomach condition that he developed during his imprisonment in Butyrka prison, Moscow. On Tuesday, Russian journalists and bloggers began circulating a list of those involved in Aleksanyan’s arrest. The US and UK have issued informal visa bans for around 60 officials accused of involvement in the death of Magnitsky. Russia Europe Human rights Miriam Elder guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …On the Maddow Show, They Ask Why Isn’t Obama Using Drone Attacks in Boston?
October 4, 2011 No CommentThe successful mission to kill Islamic radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki naturally drew disgust on the left, even against President Obama. On Friday night’s Rachel Maddow show, the critic was Spencer Ackerman of Wired magazine, who in the JournoList expose by the Daily Caller clearly proved he wasn’t a pacifist, when he gleefully talked of throwing anti-terrorism expert Michael Ledeen into the wall or through a window: “I’ll bet a little spot of violence would shut him right the f— up, as with most bullies.” He wondered why Obama wouldn't have drone attacks in Massachusetts, where the latest Islamic-radical plotter of D.C. violence was based. On the radio, comedian John Fugelsang tried to joke that the deceased owed him money, and Thom Hartmann blamed Bush: “I think that Anwar al-Awlaki would not even exist as a phenomenon had George Bush not responded to 9/11 by going nuts.” Ackerman wanted to establish that al-Awlaki was distasteful, but dismissed the idea that the government had enough evidence to justify attacks: ACKERMAN: They're clearly guilty of incitement. You can see on any of Awlaki's disgusting, poisonous videos how they're trying to get Americans to kill their fellow Americans. On the other hand, there's absolutely no evidence ever been offered that either man was part of an operational cell of al Qaeda or part of an unfolding plot, it's just pure assertions. And to kill an American without any recourse to due process of law absent that basic evidence is crossing a Rubicon in the war on terrorism. MADDOW: In terms of that Rubicon and whether there are others, if the U.S. government can justify this action overseas, what about here in the US? I mean, we know the FBI's also tracking people with possible ties to al Qaeda and other forms of extremism. Does, how close is this to the government claiming the right to kill first and ask questions later of U.S. citizens in the United States? ACKERMAN: Right. I don't understand what the differentiating criterion could be. You know, why in Sana'a and not Schnectady? Why in Yemen and not Yuma? If the important factor is that an American citizen can be targeted for destruction, why not just fly a drone over the next, you know, plot the, you know, like we heard this week, that guy from Massachusetts was apparently trying to pull off. Why even bother arresting an American citizen at all and then you're down the exceptionally tricky, murky and ugly constitutional path? Maddow ended the segment by honoring Ackerman for his clarifying wisdom. She clearly has a bad case of political schizophrenia on this issue. The “Sybil” segment began with Maddow showing old clips of Rudy Giuliani and John McCain saying Obama had a pre-9/11 mentality. Then, like a good DNC press agent, she listed about 20 terrorists who’ve been killed in the Obama era, and replayed the GOP clips for effect. From there, she promptly displayed the pre-9/11 mentality in wanting terrorists to have “due process,” not drone attacks. Message: Obama's plenty tough on terrorists, you Republican liars!
Continue reading …