British journalism facing ‘dangerous period’, BBC chief warns, but privacy worries must not hinder exposure of wrong-doing The BBC director-general has warned that British journalism is facing a “dangerous period” because of attempts by police to force news organisations to hand over confidential sources. Mark Thompson was speaking the week after Scotland Yard dropped its attempt to obtain a production order, which would have compelled the Guardian to disclose the source of a story revealing that a mobile phone belonging to Milly Dowler was hacked by the News of the World. In a speech in Taiwan on Sunday morning, Thompson said the affair was part of a “disturbing trend” for “police forces in many parts of the UK routinely to demand that journalists disclose sources and hand over journalistic materials”. He added: “At the BBC, we receive an ever-growing number of demands for untransmitted news rushes which the police seem to regard as having no more privilege or protection attached to them than CCTV pictures.” The police asked broadcasters to pass them footage of rioters in the summer, a request which most of them said they were happy to comply with providing the police obtained court orders requiring them to do so. Thompson said it was vital that good journalism carried out in the public interest is not damaged in the wake of the News of the World scandal, as lawmakers decide how to answer the questions it raises about newspaper ethics. He said: “It would be easy to respond to the completely unacceptable actions of some journalists at the News of the World by adopting such a draconian approach that even the best journalism is constrained. “It would be easy for concern over the appalling invasions of privacy revealed by the phone-hacking scandal to spill over into legislation or regulation which enables wrongdoers to escape journalistic exposure.” Police investigating phone hacking had been due to attend a court hearing last Friday to pursue an application for a production order on the Guardian and reporter Amelia Hill requiring them to reveal the sources of the Dowler story. When it was published in July, it provoked a wave of public revulsion and lead to the resignations of several senior executives at Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp media empire. The Met dropped the action after an outcry from newspapers and leading politicians. Thompson said: “I can think of no better example of a journalistic disclosure being in the public interest than the Milly Dowler story in the Guardian. “That anyone in the Metropolitan police should ever have thought otherwise is not only incomprehensible but disturbing.” He also argued it would be wrong to respond to the hacking scandal by creating a single regulator to oversee all news organisations. He said he was “sceptical of the view that newspapers should be regulated in the same way as broadcasters like the BBC who reach into every household in the land. “Plurality of regulation is a good thing. One of the safeguards that broadcasters in the UK have is the presence of a far less regulated press which can draw attention to any attempt by the authorities or anyone else to misuse their powers when it comes to broadcasting. “To put all journalism under a singled converged regulator would potentially mean that, if ever the state wished to limit media freedom, it would have a single lever with which to do so.” Broadcasters must comply with a strict code enforced by Ofcom which requires their news coverage to be fair and balanced. Similar editorial guidelines are in place at BBC and overseen by the BBC Trust. Thompson argued the press should continue to regulate itself, and defended the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), which was lambasted by political leaders, including the prime minister and Ed Miliband for its failure to censure the News of the World. “The current British model of self-regulation of the press is not to be dismissed out of hand,” he said. “The PCC has a good record in arbitrating complaints and disputes. The PCC was not established as a regulator as such and it is not reasonable to criticise it for not doing things it is not designed or empowered to do.” The Leveson inquiry, which will begin taking evidence from witnesses next month, has been charged with recommending how the newspaper industry should be regulated in the future. The director-general added that the system of self-regulation should be radically reformed, however. “In particular”, he said, “the self-regulatory body would have to be given the power to conduct unfettered investigations into complaints and, in cases where serious complaints are upheld, to impose fines or other sanctions on guilty parties”. He said one possibility would be for Ofcom, which has the power to levy fines, to conduct inquiries into alleged wrongdoing at newspapers at the request of the press industry’s own regulator. Thompson also said it was vital for the public interest to be properly defined if it is to be used to defend intrusion by the press and the use of techniques including subterfuge. “The important thing is that the industry accepts a common definition so that, when we mount a public interest justification, everyone – courts, regulators, public – know that we are all talking about the same thing”. Thompson also used the speech to attack newspapers who were initially reluctant to cover the phone-hacking story. “Many national newspapers – and not just News International titles – showed a remarkable lack of interest in the phone-hacking story until it was simply too big to ignore”, he said. “Often there were more column inches attacking the BBC for its coverage of the story than there were on phone-hacking itself.” Mark Thompson Metropolitan police Police Milly Dowler Phone hacking Privacy & the media Media law The Guardian News International National newspapers Newspapers Newspapers & magazines BBC Ofcom Press Complaints Commission James Robinson guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Saudi women to be given right to vote and stand for election in four years
September 25, 2011 No Comment
King Abdullah’s ‘cautious reform’ will not take effect until 2015 but welcomed as cultural shift in conservative Islamic country Women in Saudi Arabia will be given the right to vote and to stand for election within four years, King Abdullah announced on Sunday, in a cultural shift that appears to mark a new era in the rigidly conservative Islamic kingdom. The right to vote in council elections will not take effect until 2015, and women will still be banned from casting ballots in elections this Thursday. However, the 87-year-old monarch has invited women to take part in the next shura council, a governing body that supervises legislation. King Abdullah has been trying to implement what he has described as “cautious reform” in the fundamentalist state, where women are strictly denied civic freedoms or any public role. “Because we refuse to marginalise women in society in all roles that comply with sharia, we have decided, after deliberation with our senior ulama (clerics) and others … to involve women in the shura council as members, starting from the next term,” he said in a speech. “Women will be able to run as candidates in the municipal election and will even have a right to vote.” Commentators in Saudi Arabia mostly reacted warmly to the announcement, but said broader change was needed to bring Saudi Arabia into line with other countries. Several said the move was a litmus test of the country’s appetite for more far-reaching reform. “So I can vote, but I can’t get a driver’s licence,” said one Saudi women from Jeddah, who said she had to remain anonymous. “If I use my name I may be breaching the guardianship law here.” Laws demand that a male guardian – a father, brother, or son – accompany women on any trip outside the house. When some women in Riyadh attempted to test it earlier in the year by driving car s, the move was seen as a provocation by authorities and several of the drivers were arrested. Separation of the sexes in public is also strictly enforced. Some Saudi observers say the announcement on Sunday is a nod to the popular participation showcased by the Arab spring that has led to revolts elsewhere in the region. However, democratic themes have so far won little resonance in Saudi Arabia, which is ruled by an absolute monarchy that defers to the Qur’an as the country’s constitution. King Abdullah emerged as a supporter of women playing a greater role in Saudi society two years ago when he was photographed with a group of young female students, none of whom wore the full niqab (face cover) common in Saudi society. He has since backed the establishment of a non-segregated university and has discussed appointing more women to senior positions. Both moves have drawn criticism from senior clerics and even members of the ruling family. An academic at a Riyadh University said she remained sceptical that the reforms would be implemented in time for the 2015 municipal vote. “The possibility for political participation is open, because it being discussed,” she said. “But I am not sure if it will happen. I would love to be able to vote, and think women will flock to the polls [if given the chance]. But I don’t think many will run [as candidates]. “I respect the king for trying to make a change,” she said. “This might encourage women, but they will have to fight hard against social conservatism, even if legally they are allowed to run.” The academic said the Arab spring had created a “sense of embarrassment that so much change is happening all around and the kingdom is standing still”. However, she claimed that the wholesale democratic freedoms being demanded in North Africa and on Saudi Arabia’s borders, in Yemen and in Bahrain, would not suit the desert kingdom. “Saudis do not want to change the royal family,” she said. ” They want … change, but under the family’s stewardship.” A Jeddah-based female member of the ruling family said: “People have it good here. They are sensible enough to know what to demand and what not to. What the king has done is a very good thing, but he knows and we all know that you cannot push a society like this too far too soon. “The west has come to understand that too. Democracy is something that will take the light of generations to arrive here.” Saudi Arabia Middle East King Abdullah Women Arab and Middle East unrest Martin Chulov guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Saudi women to be given right to vote and stand for election in four years
September 25, 2011 No CommentKing Abdullah’s ‘cautious reform’ will not take effect until 2015 but welcomed as cultural shift in conservative Islamic country Women in Saudi Arabia will be given the right to vote and to stand for election within four years, King Abdullah announced on Sunday, in a cultural shift that appears to mark a new era in the rigidly conservative Islamic kingdom. The right to vote in council elections will not take effect until 2015, and women will still be banned from casting ballots in elections this Thursday. However, the 87-year-old monarch has invited women to take part in the next shura council, a governing body that supervises legislation. King Abdullah has been trying to implement what he has described as “cautious reform” in the fundamentalist state, where women are strictly denied civic freedoms or any public role. “Because we refuse to marginalise women in society in all roles that comply with sharia, we have decided, after deliberation with our senior ulama (clerics) and others … to involve women in the shura council as members, starting from the next term,” he said in a speech. “Women will be able to run as candidates in the municipal election and will even have a right to vote.” Commentators in Saudi Arabia mostly reacted warmly to the announcement, but said broader change was needed to bring Saudi Arabia into line with other countries. Several said the move was a litmus test of the country’s appetite for more far-reaching reform. “So I can vote, but I can’t get a driver’s licence,” said one Saudi women from Jeddah, who said she had to remain anonymous. “If I use my name I may be breaching the guardianship law here.” Laws demand that a male guardian – a father, brother, or son – accompany women on any trip outside the house. When some women in Riyadh attempted to test it earlier in the year by driving car s, the move was seen as a provocation by authorities and several of the drivers were arrested. Separation of the sexes in public is also strictly enforced. Some Saudi observers say the announcement on Sunday is a nod to the popular participation showcased by the Arab spring that has led to revolts elsewhere in the region. However, democratic themes have so far won little resonance in Saudi Arabia, which is ruled by an absolute monarchy that defers to the Qur’an as the country’s constitution. King Abdullah emerged as a supporter of women playing a greater role in Saudi society two years ago when he was photographed with a group of young female students, none of whom wore the full niqab (face cover) common in Saudi society. He has since backed the establishment of a non-segregated university and has discussed appointing more women to senior positions. Both moves have drawn criticism from senior clerics and even members of the ruling family. An academic at a Riyadh University said she remained sceptical that the reforms would be implemented in time for the 2015 municipal vote. “The possibility for political participation is open, because it being discussed,” she said. “But I am not sure if it will happen. I would love to be able to vote, and think women will flock to the polls [if given the chance]. But I don’t think many will run [as candidates]. “I respect the king for trying to make a change,” she said. “This might encourage women, but they will have to fight hard against social conservatism, even if legally they are allowed to run.” The academic said the Arab spring had created a “sense of embarrassment that so much change is happening all around and the kingdom is standing still”. However, she claimed that the wholesale democratic freedoms being demanded in North Africa and on Saudi Arabia’s borders, in Yemen and in Bahrain, would not suit the desert kingdom. “Saudis do not want to change the royal family,” she said. ” They want … change, but under the family’s stewardship.” A Jeddah-based female member of the ruling family said: “People have it good here. They are sensible enough to know what to demand and what not to. What the king has done is a very good thing, but he knows and we all know that you cannot push a society like this too far too soon. “The west has come to understand that too. Democracy is something that will take the light of generations to arrive here.” Saudi Arabia Middle East King Abdullah Women Arab and Middle East unrest Martin Chulov guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Abdullah Ali Saleh says he wishes to transfer power through elections as factional violence continues to claim lives The Yemeni president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, called for early elections on Sunday in his first speech since returning to Yemen, but his latest peace formula is unlikely to appease protesters who want nothing less than his immediate departure. Saleh, speaking as a sixth day of violence raised the death toll to more than 100 lives, said he was committed to transferring power through elections. Since the crisis began in January, when protesters took to the streets demanding that he resign, the embattled president has made lavish proposals to end the violence but followed up on none that entail him surrendering power. Saleh, who returned from Saudi Arabia on Friday – where he sought treatment after a June assassination attempt – reiterated his acceptance of a power transfer and said the vice president retained authority to hold talks with the opposition. “Let’s all go towards dialogue, understanding and peaceful exchange of power through elections and early presidential elections,” he said in the televised speech. Traditional Arab head gear covered most of Saleh’s head and neck while an elaborate flower arrangement hid his hands in an apparent bid to disguise injuries sustained in a June bombing of the presidential palace. Yemeni officials and diplomats involved in political negotiations to ease Saleh out had said the direction the crisis takes will hinge on the president’s words on Sunday evening. Protesters, watching the speech in tents in Sana’a’s central Change Square, were disappointed. “We’re so used to this, there’s nothing new in the speech. It’s the same story, the same politics, he talks to us as if we’re children,” said Saeed, a protester watching the speech in the central square. “He’s just talking and talking about this initiative and we haven’t seen any action.” Earlier on Sunday, Yemeni soldiers killed two tribal fighters and wounded 18 anti-government protesters in the latest clashes in a week of bloodshed that has raised fears of a descent into all-out civil war. For the first time since six days of battles between opposition and loyalist forces erupted in Sana’a, the clashes spread outside the capital. Two pro-opposition tribal fighters were killed in the mountainous outskirts of Sana’a when the army shelled an area where the two sides had been clashing. In Sana’a, soldiers used live rounds against thousands of unarmed protesters singing and chanting “God is great, freedom” as they marched out of their protest camp and into the capital’s busy streets. “I saw soldiers from above, in buildings and on the bridge,” said Mohammed al-Mas, 21, a protester whose back was drenched in blood from a gunshot wound. “Then the gunfire started and I ran back, but I suddenly felt the shot in the back.” A local photographer said the violence was caused by one soldier who opened fire with a machine gun, but other protesters said they saw 10 troops open fire. Eighteen people were wounded and medics said two were in critical condition. Doctors worked on bullet wounds at a makeshift hospital in Change Square, the name protesters have given the shanty town of tents they have staked out in the middle of Sana’a. Yemen Arab and Middle East unrest Middle East guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Abdullah Ali Saleh says he wishes to transfer power through elections as factional violence continues to claim lives The Yemeni president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, called for early elections on Sunday in his first speech since returning to Yemen, but his latest peace formula is unlikely to appease protesters who want nothing less than his immediate departure. Saleh, speaking as a sixth day of violence raised the death toll to more than 100 lives, said he was committed to transferring power through elections. Since the crisis began in January, when protesters took to the streets demanding that he resign, the embattled president has made lavish proposals to end the violence but followed up on none that entail him surrendering power. Saleh, who returned from Saudi Arabia on Friday – where he sought treatment after a June assassination attempt – reiterated his acceptance of a power transfer and said the vice president retained authority to hold talks with the opposition. “Let’s all go towards dialogue, understanding and peaceful exchange of power through elections and early presidential elections,” he said in the televised speech. Traditional Arab head gear covered most of Saleh’s head and neck while an elaborate flower arrangement hid his hands in an apparent bid to disguise injuries sustained in a June bombing of the presidential palace. Yemeni officials and diplomats involved in political negotiations to ease Saleh out had said the direction the crisis takes will hinge on the president’s words on Sunday evening. Protesters, watching the speech in tents in Sana’a’s central Change Square, were disappointed. “We’re so used to this, there’s nothing new in the speech. It’s the same story, the same politics, he talks to us as if we’re children,” said Saeed, a protester watching the speech in the central square. “He’s just talking and talking about this initiative and we haven’t seen any action.” Earlier on Sunday, Yemeni soldiers killed two tribal fighters and wounded 18 anti-government protesters in the latest clashes in a week of bloodshed that has raised fears of a descent into all-out civil war. For the first time since six days of battles between opposition and loyalist forces erupted in Sana’a, the clashes spread outside the capital. Two pro-opposition tribal fighters were killed in the mountainous outskirts of Sana’a when the army shelled an area where the two sides had been clashing. In Sana’a, soldiers used live rounds against thousands of unarmed protesters singing and chanting “God is great, freedom” as they marched out of their protest camp and into the capital’s busy streets. “I saw soldiers from above, in buildings and on the bridge,” said Mohammed al-Mas, 21, a protester whose back was drenched in blood from a gunshot wound. “Then the gunfire started and I ran back, but I suddenly felt the shot in the back.” A local photographer said the violence was caused by one soldier who opened fire with a machine gun, but other protesters said they saw 10 troops open fire. Eighteen people were wounded and medics said two were in critical condition. Doctors worked on bullet wounds at a makeshift hospital in Change Square, the name protesters have given the shanty town of tents they have staked out in the middle of Sana’a. Yemen Arab and Middle East unrest Middle East guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …GPs ‘failing cancer patients’ by not spotting side-effects of treatment
September 25, 2011 No Comment
Research estimates up to 25% of those diagnosed with cancer develop further problems affecting their physical or mental health Doctors are being accused of letting down cancer patients by not spotting other serious medical problems caused by treatment for the disease. GPs are failing to identify conditions such as osteoporosis, heart disease and bowel trouble that can affect patients’ lives for years after they have become free of tumours, claims one of the UK’s leading cancer experts. The problem is so common that as many as 250,000 people who have survived cancer have had symptoms of such illnesses not picked up by their GP, Professor Jane Maher, the medical director of Macmillan Cancer Support, told the Guardian. GPs’ lack of knowledge about cancer, and poor communication between hospital specialists and family doctors, meant signs of cancer treatment side-effects went undetected and caused patients pain, misery and discomfort, said Maher. Research undertaken by the government’s National Cancer Survivorship Initiative (NCSI) estimates that 20%-25% of those who have been diagnosed with the disease later experience a consequence of their treatment which affects their physical or mental health or quality of life. Given that about 2 million people in the UK have been treated for cancer, between 400,000 and 500,000 of them will have suffered a debilitating side-effect. “GPs and oncologists are failing cancer patients far too often,” said Maher. “By not sharing vital information and recording clearly on the patients’ medical records they are putting a significant number of cancer patients at risk of having their work, health, relationships and home lives unnecessarily spoiled by long-term side-effects of their treatment. “Based on the NCSI work looking into consequences of cancer treatment, I fear that up to 500,000 people’s symptoms are being missed by GPs.” For example, there are about 80,000 people who have had life-saving pelvic radiotherapy for cervical, bowel, prostate or bladder cancer. While one in three of them are known to have problems as a result – with their bowels, sex life or urine function – GPs often fail to spot them, research shows. “GPs need to recognise that people who have had cancer may have health problems related to their treatment, and GPs are the best people to pick these up,” she added. “But that doesn’t happen nearly enough at the moment.” Maher, who is also a consultant clinical oncologist at Mount Vernon cancer hospital in London, said patients’ health suffered as a result. She said that GPs too often do not know that an increased risk of heart disease is a potential consequence of some forms of breast cancer, so do not check patients’ blood pressure regularly. “And while we know that men with prostate cancer have a higher risk of developing osteoporosis, that’s usually not recognised by the GP because that condition is associated with women,” she added. “Whereas women at higher risk have a scan to check out their bones, get tablets and are advised to stop smoking and to do weight-bearing exercises, men generally don’t get that advice. “GPs need to look at men who have had prostate cancer in a different way and be more aware of the risks of osteoporosis among them.” However, GPs need to do much more to ensure that cancer survivors’ medical records detail the type of cancer they have had and treatment received. “At the moment GPs aren’t recording whether someone has had chemotherapy or radiotherapy. “That’s partly because they don’t get enough information from hospitals, but also because they don’t realise why it’s important for them to do that.” The NHS in England is now piloting an improved treatment summary in which the oncologist spells out the treatment and risks of it. Professor Steve Field, the chairman of the government’s advisory NHS Future Forum and ex-chair of the Royal College of GPs (RCGP), said flaws in the NHS as a whole were to blame. “GPs will not be used to the long-term side-effects of many cancer drugs, so sometimes those side-effects aren’t picked up by the GP and primary care team,” he said. “The quality of information given by hospitals to GPs varies and sometimes there’s confusion about who’s looking after the patient – the GP or consultant – and the patient can get lost in the cracks in the service.” The problem was likely to get worse because of the growing number of cancer patients living longer unless the NHS as a whole, not just GPs, took action, Field added. “There’s a strong case for there being a single electronic clinical record for every patient, something the NHS IT programme seems not to have delivered. “There’s certainly an overwhelming desire from within the cancer community for that, and for patients to be able to put information into it, which would help the risks in the handovers of patients between hospitals and GP. “That should improve the long-term management of patients who have had cancer.” The government’s cancer tsar Professor Sir Mike Richards, who shares Maher’s concerns, said: “Cancer survival rates are improving year on year with more and more patients becoming long-term survivors. “To ensure that these patients receive the best possible care it is essential that GPs and oncologists should work together as a team.” Dr Clare Gerada, chair of the RCGP, admitted that family doctors were generally unaware of these risks. “GPs need help with this,” she said. “But GPs are bright people who are used to managing people with long-term conditions. “If Prof Maher and the NHS tell us exactly what cancer someone has had, and what treatment, and what the possible risks are of that, and in a way that’s easy to understand, we will do things better.” The Department of Health said it was seeking to make healthcare more joined-up. “The health secretary has said repeatedly, from the start of the health and social care bill, that more needs to be done to improve integration,” a spokesman said. “Professor Maher’s comments reinforce this. Through the National Cancer Survivorship Initiative we are working to ensure that survivors get the care and support they need to lead as healthy and active a life as possible, for as long as possible.” Cancer Health GPs NHS Health policy Denis Campbell guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …GPs ‘failing cancer patients’ by not spotting side-effects of treatment
September 25, 2011 No CommentResearch estimates up to 25% of those diagnosed with cancer develop further problems affecting their physical or mental health Doctors are being accused of letting down cancer patients by not spotting other serious medical problems caused by treatment for the disease. GPs are failing to identify conditions such as osteoporosis, heart disease and bowel trouble that can affect patients’ lives for years after they have become free of tumours, claims one of the UK’s leading cancer experts. The problem is so common that as many as 250,000 people who have survived cancer have had symptoms of such illnesses not picked up by their GP, Professor Jane Maher, the medical director of Macmillan Cancer Support, told the Guardian. GPs’ lack of knowledge about cancer, and poor communication between hospital specialists and family doctors, meant signs of cancer treatment side-effects went undetected and caused patients pain, misery and discomfort, said Maher. Research undertaken by the government’s National Cancer Survivorship Initiative (NCSI) estimates that 20%-25% of those who have been diagnosed with the disease later experience a consequence of their treatment which affects their physical or mental health or quality of life. Given that about 2 million people in the UK have been treated for cancer, between 400,000 and 500,000 of them will have suffered a debilitating side-effect. “GPs and oncologists are failing cancer patients far too often,” said Maher. “By not sharing vital information and recording clearly on the patients’ medical records they are putting a significant number of cancer patients at risk of having their work, health, relationships and home lives unnecessarily spoiled by long-term side-effects of their treatment. “Based on the NCSI work looking into consequences of cancer treatment, I fear that up to 500,000 people’s symptoms are being missed by GPs.” For example, there are about 80,000 people who have had life-saving pelvic radiotherapy for cervical, bowel, prostate or bladder cancer. While one in three of them are known to have problems as a result – with their bowels, sex life or urine function – GPs often fail to spot them, research shows. “GPs need to recognise that people who have had cancer may have health problems related to their treatment, and GPs are the best people to pick these up,” she added. “But that doesn’t happen nearly enough at the moment.” Maher, who is also a consultant clinical oncologist at Mount Vernon cancer hospital in London, said patients’ health suffered as a result. She said that GPs too often do not know that an increased risk of heart disease is a potential consequence of some forms of breast cancer, so do not check patients’ blood pressure regularly. “And while we know that men with prostate cancer have a higher risk of developing osteoporosis, that’s usually not recognised by the GP because that condition is associated with women,” she added. “Whereas women at higher risk have a scan to check out their bones, get tablets and are advised to stop smoking and to do weight-bearing exercises, men generally don’t get that advice. “GPs need to look at men who have had prostate cancer in a different way and be more aware of the risks of osteoporosis among them.” However, GPs need to do much more to ensure that cancer survivors’ medical records detail the type of cancer they have had and treatment received. “At the moment GPs aren’t recording whether someone has had chemotherapy or radiotherapy. “That’s partly because they don’t get enough information from hospitals, but also because they don’t realise why it’s important for them to do that.” The NHS in England is now piloting an improved treatment summary in which the oncologist spells out the treatment and risks of it. Professor Steve Field, the chairman of the government’s advisory NHS Future Forum and ex-chair of the Royal College of GPs (RCGP), said flaws in the NHS as a whole were to blame. “GPs will not be used to the long-term side-effects of many cancer drugs, so sometimes those side-effects aren’t picked up by the GP and primary care team,” he said. “The quality of information given by hospitals to GPs varies and sometimes there’s confusion about who’s looking after the patient – the GP or consultant – and the patient can get lost in the cracks in the service.” The problem was likely to get worse because of the growing number of cancer patients living longer unless the NHS as a whole, not just GPs, took action, Field added. “There’s a strong case for there being a single electronic clinical record for every patient, something the NHS IT programme seems not to have delivered. “There’s certainly an overwhelming desire from within the cancer community for that, and for patients to be able to put information into it, which would help the risks in the handovers of patients between hospitals and GP. “That should improve the long-term management of patients who have had cancer.” The government’s cancer tsar Professor Sir Mike Richards, who shares Maher’s concerns, said: “Cancer survival rates are improving year on year with more and more patients becoming long-term survivors. “To ensure that these patients receive the best possible care it is essential that GPs and oncologists should work together as a team.” Dr Clare Gerada, chair of the RCGP, admitted that family doctors were generally unaware of these risks. “GPs need help with this,” she said. “But GPs are bright people who are used to managing people with long-term conditions. “If Prof Maher and the NHS tell us exactly what cancer someone has had, and what treatment, and what the possible risks are of that, and in a way that’s easy to understand, we will do things better.” The Department of Health said it was seeking to make healthcare more joined-up. “The health secretary has said repeatedly, from the start of the health and social care bill, that more needs to be done to improve integration,” a spokesman said. “Professor Maher’s comments reinforce this. Through the National Cancer Survivorship Initiative we are working to ensure that survivors get the care and support they need to lead as healthy and active a life as possible, for as long as possible.” Cancer Health GPs NHS Health policy Denis Campbell guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Hume, Kristol and Stoddard All Claim ‘Grand Bargain’ with Republicans Would Help Obama Get Reelected
September 25, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media While discussing President Obama’s push to get the rich to pay their fair share in taxes, and whether or not that’s going to help his bid for reelection or not, Fox News Sunday panel members Brit Hume, Bill Kristol and The Hill’s A.B. Stoddard all apparently agreed that the best way for President Obama to get reelected would be to commit political suicide and work with Republicans on some “grand bargain” to “reform” “entitlements.” Somehow the topic of how well that worked out for George W. Bush when he was out there pushing to privatize Social Security and the public turning on him never came up during this discussion. Nor did how well going after Medicare worked in the NY-26 race where Democrats were running ads showing Paul Ryan throwing grandma off a cliff in a wheelchair. Republicans have been completely unwilling to do anything that benefits the working class or the poor and are interested in nothing else than doing everything they can to make sure President Obama is a one-term president. If there’s any interest in some “bipartisanship” when it comes to making changes to Social Security or Medicare, there’s no reason to think their goal there would not be the same. But never mind that over in upside-down land on Fox. Transcript via Fox : WALLACE: Brit — and I know you don’t agree with what a lot of what Juan said, but I think you will agree with this — the markets both in the U.S. and worldwide are a mess. Growth has stalled, unemployment is high. As we say, we saw the worst week in the stock market since October of 2008. If the president is all about 2012, what happens in the meantime? HUME: Well, the truth is, what would help him more than anything else is better results. Now, you can look at the economy and say, God, it’s so much in the doldrums, that it’s not going to come out enough to put a big dent in the jobless rate in time for his election, and that’s a huge problem. He can’t overcome that problem simply by rallying his base. It is a testament to the political weakness he senses that he is working so hard to do that both with the plans that he’s outlined and the kind of speech that we saw last night to what ought to have been a drop-dead great audience for him. He’s telling them to get off their butts. I mean, that’s an unusual message for somebody at this stage to be saying to the core of his base. But what I would say is the president could benefit, however, if there were a big, successful deal on the deficit. That would take an issue off the table, it would please Independents, and it would be a bipartisan achievement, all things that would help him with the people — the swing voters he needs to have a chance to win. If he can’t do any of that, I think his reelection gets to the point of being almost hopeless unless the Republicans nominate some freak. WALLACE: But, Bill, I mean, I’m reminded of the “Peanuts” cartoon of Charlie Brown trying to kick the football, and Lucy keeps pulling it away at the last second. You know, if you had heard David Plouffe today, he would say, look, the president has tried to get that grand bargaining, he’s trying to get that grand deal, and he just can’t get a willing partner. So maybe it’s realistic not to keep going for that. KRISTOL: Well, he’s president of the United States, and he has an obligation to try and make a concrete proposal the Republicans would then reject. But he hasn’t done that. WALLACE: Well, he did make a concrete proposal. KRISTOL: Well, really? Not a real concrete proposal, I would say. I mean, what is his Medicare reform? I was thinking George W. Bush had pretty — not so great numbers in this time in 2003. He signed the Medicare Part D bill over the objections of a lot of his own base, over the objections of a lot of conservatives. He thought it was the right thing to do. I think he also thought politically, it was smart — the Republicans had to show they cared about seniors’ problems and buying drugs. It’s the opposite strategy of President Obama, and I think it helped Bush in 2004 in a narrow reelection bid. I just can’t see how Obama — he’s the president. And 14 months is a long time. And we have real economic problems. I mean, that is what strikes me the most. Shouldn’t he be governing? Shouldn’t he be really thinking hard and trying to think, what can we do to really help the economy? Instead, he’s going out and giving speeches, rebuild this bridge. WILLIAMS: But, Bill, President Bush signed that prescription drug benefit without any funding. It has become an albatross in terms of deficits in this country. And then you think about what the president is saying here in terms of the continuing resolution argument that is paralyzing this Congress, and you say, wait a second, this is hurting the American economy, it’s hurting investor confidence. Europe and the banks are in crisis. We see a decline in terms of manufacturing output coming from China. There’s a global economic crisis that threatens a double-dip recession, and these guys continue to play a brinkmanship game on the Republican side. And as Plouffe was saying to Chris Wallace this morning, a very good interview, that, guess what? You know what? These guys don’t seem to care. HUME: Well, wait a minute. Let’s just take a look about this latest skirmish. You need a continuing resolution to keep the government open, there’s a need for some more disaster relief fund because it’s almost been exhausted. So the Republicans pass a bill that has disaster relief money in it, and it’s to the tune of several billion dollars. And they pay for it with cuts in green jobs funding. Well, green jobs funding ought to be by now a very low priority given the history of it and the fact that it’s utterly failed to produce meaningful jobs. They send it to the Senate. What does the Senate do? The Senate blocks it and then does so far nothing. Now, it may be that with media coverage and the political statements that will be made about this, that if the government shuts down, the Republicans will get the blame. But I ask you in this, who is being responsible and who’s playing politics? WILLIAMS: A.B.? STODDARD: I think that we’re going to have a deal in the next couple of days on disaster relief and the government is not going to shut down. Both sides are beginning to give. That’s going to be resolved in some way that’s not clear right now. But with regards to what Brit said, I do agree, if the president doesn’t get back to the table with House Speaker John Boehner and find a path to meaningful entitlement reform, which he was invested in, in July and now he’s abandoned, and really find a way to come up with a big deal, it would be very hard for him to convince Americans he did everything he could next spring and summer and fall to get reelected. WALLACE: All right. We’re going to have to leave it there. Thank you, all, panel. See you next week.
Continue reading …
Former PM visited Gaddafi during Libyan loan negotiations by JP Morgan, the bank that employs him as an adviser Tony Blair is facing calls for greater transparency in his role as Middle East peace envoy after it emerged that he visited Muammar Gaddafi in 2009 while JP Morgan, the investment bank that employs Blair as a £2m-a-year adviser, sought to negotiate a multibillion-pound loan from Libya. Blair also championed two large business deals in the West Bank and Gaza involving telecoms and gas extraction which stood to benefit corporate clients of JP Morgan, according to a Dispatches investigation to be broadcast on Monday night. Blair, who represents the diplomatic Quartet on the Middle East – the US, European Union, Russia and the United Nations – flew to see the former Libyan leader in January 2009 as JP Morgan tried to finalise a deal for the Libyan Investment Authority (LIA) to loan a multibillion-pound sum to Rusal, the aluminium company run by Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska. LIA was set up by Gaddafi to manage the country’s wealth and was estimated to be worth $64bn (£41bn) last September. Emails obtained by anti-corruption campaign group Global Witness and seen by the Guardian reveal JP Morgan’s vice chairman, Lord Renwick, invited the then vice chairman of LIA, Mustafa Zarti, to “finalise the terms of the mandate concerning Rusal before Mr Blair’s visit to Tripoli which is scheduled to take place on around 22 January”. The meeting went ahead, but a spokesman for Blair denied the former prime minister had been involved in the proposed Rusal deal. A spokesman for JP Morgan said Blair had no knowledge of the proposal but could not explain why Blair’s visit to Gaddafi was raised in the email. “Neither Tony Blair nor any of his staff raised any issue to do with a Russian aluminium company,” Blair’s spokesman said. According to a Rusal presentation obtained by Global Witness, the aluminium company had been seeking a $4.5bn loan in the form of a convertible bond, but the deal never happened. In Palestine while working as the quartet envoy, Blair persuaded the Israeli government to open radio frequencies so mobile phone company Wataniya could operate in the West Bank. The company’s owner, Qtel, a Qatari telecoms company, is a client of JP Morgan and its deal to buy Wataniya was funded with a $2bn loan that JP Morgan helped arrange. “I would say his [Blair's] prime contribution to Wataniya was negotiating the release of the frequencies,” Bassam Hannoun, Wataniya’s chief executive, told Dispatches. “That was a milestone. November 2009 we were nothing … and since then we have done fantastically well. We have captured 23% of the market.” The second deal saw Blair champion the development of a gas field off the coast of Gaza as a priority for the territory. The owner of the rights to operate the field is BG Group, a client of JP Morgan. “There seems to be growing evidence that Tony Blair’s business activities across the middle east may be in conflict with his peace envoy role,” said Robert Palmer, a spokesman for Global Witness. “It is time he came clean about all of his interests in the region and who they are benefitting.” A spokesman for Blair said the former prime minister had no idea JP Morgan had connections with Wataniya or BG Group and said it considered claims of a conflict of interest to be defamatory. “Tony Blair has advocated for both the Wataniya project and the Gaza gas development at the direct request of the Palestinians,” a spokesman said. “It is his responsibility as Quartet representative to work to build the Palestinian economy and the Wataniya project represented the single largest foreign direct investment there has been into the Palestinian authority. That is good news for the Palestinians. The fact that we have been doing so is hardly a revelation: it is listed on our website. Both were long-standing demands of the international community. “In neither case was Mr Blair even aware JP Morgan had a connection with the company. He never discussed it with them. They never raised it with him.” JP Morgan stressed it was one of several investment banks who acted as advisers to Qtel and said it had a minor role. “Mr. Blair is a strategic advisor to our management team on high-level geopolitical issues and trends,” a spokesman said. “We have never raised or discussed with him the two projects mentioned. Any suggestion of a conflict of interest is baseless.” Since leaving Downing Street in June 2007, Blair has established various structures for his commercial work and good causes. He has established three charities, the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, the Tony Blair Sports Foundation and the Tony Blair Africa Governance Initiative. On the commercial side, he runs a consultancy, Tony Blair Associates, and he has paid advisory roles with Zurich, a Swiss insurer, as well as JP Morgan. Tony Blair Middle East JP Morgan Libya Muammar Gaddafi Gaza Palestinian territories BG Banking Robert Booth guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Research suggests defence bill may be seven times government estimate, prompting calls for full spending breakdown The true cost of the UK’s involvement in the Libya conflict could be as high as £1.75bn – almost seven times as much as government estimates, according to a new study. Research by a respected defence analyst suggests that the government has given a misleading picture of the costs of supporting the military operation, now in its seventh month, leading to demands for a proper spending breakdown. Although Muammar Gaddafi’s regime has crumbled in recent weeks, RAF airstrikes against forces remaining loyal to him have continued at an exceptionally high rate, depleting stockpiles of expensive precision weapons the Ministry of Defence will want to replace. That will add to the overall bill, which is still rising and which the Treasury has promised to meet from its special reserves. Concern over funding for the operation has been mounting as government departments, including the MoD, have to cope with deep spending cuts because of the fragility of the economy. Reacting to the latest analysis, Labour renewed its call for ministers to provide more details of military costs and promise there will be no knock-on effect for the MoD budget, which is under huge strain. “It is vital we have transparency on this,” said Jim Murphy, the shadow defence secretary. The Treasury has still not paid the MoD for the “wear and tear” costs of equipment used in Iraq, raising further concerns within the military about the long-term consequences of the deployment to Libya. This month the MoD revealed that UK combat aircraft had flown more than 1,600 missions over Libya – around one fifth of all Nato strike sorties – and destroyed or damaged about 900 targets. Those figures will have risen significantly in the last fortnight. The UK has also deployed 32 aircraft, Apache attack helicopters, warships, a helicopter carrier, a submarine and anti-mine vessels. Using data provided in answers to parliamentary questions, and figures provided by the RAF since the campaign started, the defence expert Francis Tusa, editor of Defence Analysis, was able to make two sets of detailed calculations about the costs of the Libya operation in the first six months. Using one method, he estimated the cumulative cost of the operation to the end of August at between £1.38bn and £1.58bn. Using a second method, the costs were potentially even higher – between £850m and £1.75bn. In June, the government said the overall costs of the Libya campaign were in the region of £260m. An earlier estimate by the chancellor, George Osborne, put the operation in the “tens of millions.” Tusa did not include the cost of the most recent sorties, which have included several RAF Tornados flying on numerous occasions from the UK to Libya, or the “start-up” costs that were incurred when, in the early weeks of the mission, the MoD hired fleets of Eddie Stobart trucks and trailers to take equipment from here to the military base in Gioia del Colle, Italy. “Where there has been any doubt, I have underestimated rather than overestimated in my calculations,” Tusa said. “With the number of missions the RAF has flown in the last fortnight, I am sure the cost of the campaign has gone up considerably.” Tusa’s detailed calculations and analysis by him, are available on the Guardian’s datablog. Murphy said the government needed to be open about the costs, and challenged the way ministers had appeared to deliberately downplay the money spent so far. “Labour supported the conflict in Libya. £1bn is much higher than the initial estimate and if it is correct we will want to see detailed breakdowns. We will also want to know why Danny Alexander [chief secretary to the Treasury] was so wrong when he said the conflict would cost ‘hundreds of millions’.” He added: “It is vital we have transparency on this, as the British people will want to know that our military strategy balances advanced kit and equipment with cost-effective decisions. Many have questioned whether the decisions made in the rushed defence review left our forces stretched and may have cost the country more in this unforeseen conflict. It is up to ministers to answer that charge. “At a time when redundancies are being made and cuts to equipment are biting, it is important that the core defence budget is protected as much as is possible. Replenishments of munitions used in Libya, therefore, must come out of the Treasury reserve.” Rear Admiral Chris Parry, a former director of development at the MoD, said the department had to look out for being charged for “hidden costs” that would further erode its budget. “Despite government assurances, every operation has hidden costs that are never recovered,” he said. “Although a substantial proportion of the costs of the Libya operation will come out of the Treasury reserves, this does not take into account the ‘wear and tear’ on ships, airframes and equipment caused by a higher tempo and intensity of activity. “These hidden costs include the extra provision required for missed training and exercising, the depletion of munitions and spares stocks, which are not always replaced on the basis of like-for-like, and the extra loading placed on those units not directly involved in the conflict. These usually have to cover for deployed units, or have to give up manpower and equipment to support it.” Parry said that mandarins had, in the past, used “opaque, complex accounting practices” to conceal the true costs of military operations. This meant that “the full impact of a conflict on the armed forces in operational capability terms is obscured in the short term, but over time results in a progressive hollowing-out of effective capability.” When the government said Libya would cost taxpayers £260m, it gave limited information about how it had reached the figure. It said that £120m was needed to cover the cost of day-to-day running, over and above the money already set aside for training and exercises. The other £140m represented the cost of the munitions used so far. Neither the Treasury or the MoD said it had anything further to add at this stage. Giving evidence to the defence select committee in June, the MoD’s chief of defence materiel, Bernard Gray, was asked whether the Treasury had yet paid for the wear and tear costs from the war in Iraq. When asked if it was true the MoD had received “nothing so far”, he replied: “Yes.” Defence policy Libya Middle East Africa Muammar Gaddafi Foreign policy George Osborne Jim Murphy Military Nick Hopkins guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …