Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 72)
Aid workers kidnapped from Kenyan refugee camp

Two women working for Médecins sans Frontières at Dadaab camp believed to have been taken by Somali insurgents Gunmen in Kenya have kidnapped two aid workers from the Dadaab refugee camp near the Somalian border. Kenyan police say they suspect that Somalia’s al-Shabaab insurgents, who have links with al-Qaida, took the two women, who were working for Médecins sans Frontières (MSF). Police have sealed the border between the two countries. “Two female aid workers working for MSF were this afternoon kidnapped by suspected al-Shabaab militants in Dadaab refugee camp in Garissa,” the North Eastern province’s police commander, Leo Nyongesa, told Reuters. “We’ve mobilised all the officers and alerted those at the border to ensure that no vehicle exits the country to Somalia. The whole border area is now sealed,” he said. MSF confirmed the attack on its staff on Thursday morning and said a driver had been injured. “He’s currently hospitalised and stable. Two international staff are missing. A crisis team has been set up to deal with this incident,” a statement said. The kidnapping follows earlier separate incidents in which two western female tourists were snatched from beach resorts in northern Kenya and taken to Somalia. Dadaab was set up in 1991 to house Somalis fleeing violence in their country. It has since grown to become the world’s biggest refugee camp with more than 400,000 residents. Kenya Africa Somalia Global terrorism Aid guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
South Park: Obama’s Made U.S. ‘So Sh-tty’ Mexicans Are All Going Back Home

Comedy Central's cartoon hit “South Park” made quite a political statement Wednesday evening. In an episode called “The Last of the Meheecans,” Cartman becomes a border patrol agent only to discover that not only aren't Mexicans trying to cross over into the United States anymore, Obama has made America “so sh-tty” they're all going back home (videos follow with commentary, vulgarity warning): The story begins with the kids of South Park playing a game to prevent Mexicans from coming over the border. But what they don't know is that things have gotten so bad in the United States: Eventually, Cartman heads to the border only to find that nobody's trying to get into America anymore: “When we asked Obama to stop illegal immigrants, we didn't mean to make the U.S. so sh-tty they wouldn't want to come anymore.” Maybe some of them have joined the Occupy Wall Street movement. Hmmm. (H/T my dear friend at Ms. Underestimated )

Continue reading …
Riot curfews for public proposed by Home Office

Home secretary Theresa May backs police power to declare no-go areas for first time since Riot Act was repealed The police will be given a public order power allowing them to clear the streets and tell the public to leave an area during a riot or other disorder, under proposals for curfews outlined by the Home Office. The power entitles a police superintendent to declare a specific district a public “no go” area for a limited time – for the first time since the Riot Act was removed from the statute book for England and Wales in 1973. A Home Office consultation paper published on Thursday stops short of making it a criminal offence to be outdoors in a curfew zone, but says it would be an offence to refuse a police instruction to leave the area. It leaves open the question of what penalty might be imposed. The plan, which has the backing of the home secretary, Theresa May, is published alongside proposals to give the police stronger powers to order rioters and protesters to remove face masks, and for the police to impose curfews on individuals as part of a conditional caution. The consultation paper also includes a controversial proposal to remove the word “insulting” from section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act, which makes it an offence for the public to use words likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. The measure has been used recently against Christian street-preachers who were arguing that homosexuality was sinful, against a teenager who claimed Scientology was a dangerous cult, and against an Oxford University student who told a mounted police officer his horse was gay. Liberal Democrat MPs have been pressing for section 5 to be repealed for undermining free speech, though the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, wants it retained to ensure that anyone who insults police officers can be prosecuted. The crime and security minister, James Brokenshire, said it was essential to give the police all necessary legal powers to enable them to maintain public order, protect the streets and keep the public safe. “But we must also make sure any new powers do not trample upon traditional British freeedoms – that is why we are seeking public views on the powers the police really need to keep our communities safe,” he said. Civil liberties campaigners were appalled by the proposed curfew powers. Isabella Sankey, the policy director of Liberty, said: “Whatever happened to the ‘civil liberties’ coalition that abolished ID cards and sought to restore rights and freedoms? It’s all gone cat-flaps and curfews. As a result of Liberty’s victory in the court of human rights , government is reforming blanket stop-and-search powers. How on earth will blanket powers to impose curfews on peacetime Britain cut the mustard against the same tests of legality and proportionality?” The consultation paper says the aim of the proposed general curfew power would be to keep the public off the streets in a given location, for a given period of time, to prevent or address serious disorder. The paper says: “This could be used instead of dispersal powers in situations that could potentially involve large numbers of people, or where the police need to empty an area of people quickly for safety and security reasons.” The Home Office envisages a senior police officer taking the decision to clear streets based on “credible intelligence of a serious threat of such disorder in that place and at that time”. The paper recognises that it would be necessary to give appropriate notice to people within the curfew zone and to make arrangements for those who need to be outside for justifiable reasons, such as emergency workers. This move evokes a historical parallel with the 1714 Riot Act, which was last “read” in England in 1919 and was repealed in 1973. The paper states that there would need to be independent oversight of the use of the power. But while prior judicial approval could be necessary, it acknowledges that there will be circumstances where that is not possible. Police Theresa May UK civil liberties UK riots Stop and search Kettling Alan Travis guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Sharp rise in NHS patients waiting more than 18 weeks for care

Nearly 30,000 had to wait for treatment for longer than NHS target in August, a rise of 48% on previous year The number of patients waiting more than the recommended maximum of 18 weeks to be treated by the NHS has soared by almost half since last year, official data shows . A total of 28,635 patients in England who were treated in an NHS hospital during August had been waiting more than 18 weeks, compared with 19,355 in the same month in 2010 – a rise of 48%. The figures, released by the Department of Health, confirm that despite repeated ministerial pledges that the NHS would stick to waiting time targets despite growing financial pressure, the number of people having to wait beyond the department’s own recommended maximum time is rising. The 28,635 is the largest number since the coalition came to power last year, when the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, reviewed or eased several NHS waiting time targets. The data also shows that 45 hospital trusts failed to meet the 18-week target in August, compared with 18 in May 2010, the month the coalition took office. The 28,635 who waited more than 18 weeks in August represented 11.3% of all the patients treated that month, whereas the 19,355 in the same position in August 2010 were 7.1% of that month’s total. Andy Burnham, Labour’s shadow health secretary, said: “The figures published today are yet more evidence that David Cameron has put our NHS in the danger zone. “After years of improvement under Labour, more patients have had to wait longer for treatment since David Cameron came to power. “It is particularly alarming that 45 trusts are now missing the target for 90% of patients treated within 18 weeks.” The Patients Association said the latest figures showed that Cameron had not honoured his personal pledge, made earlier this year, to ensure that the 18-week target was met. Treatment within 18 weeks is enshrined in the NHS constitution. However, the Department of Health said that while the number of inpatients waiting more than 18 weeks had risen, the proportion treated within that time was 90.4%, just over the 90% target. The biggest year-on-year rises were seen in trauma and orthopaedics, in which 23.2% of patients in August had waited more than 18 weeks, up from 12.6% a year earlier. In neurosurgery, 20.2% of treated patients had waited at least 18 weeks, up from 7.9%; and in ear, nose and throat treatment, 13.2% of those treated in August had waited that long, compared with 8% a year before. A total of 301,245 NHS patients were treated during August. Of those, 281,569 were treated in an NHS hospital and the other 19,676 by an independent provider, at the NHS’s expense. The department said the NHS had stuck to its two targets in August of treating at least 90% of inpatients and 95% of outpatients within 18 weeks. Although the crucial 90% standard was missed last spring, possibly due to the usual winter pressures on the health service, it was 90.4% in August. Some 97.3% of outpatients were treated, above the 95% target. But Thursday’s data for outpatients shows that 23,511 patients in August had been waiting over 18 weeks, 38.6% more than a year ago. That number represents 2.7% of the total, compared with 2.0% in August 2010. Burnham said Labour’s analysis showed that since the election, a total of 378,850 more patients have waited longer than the guarantees for treatment as inpatients or in A&E, compared with the equivalent period under Labour. Katherine Murphy, the Patients Association’s chief executive, said: “Their [the department's] own figures show that the number of people waiting for longer than 18 weeks for treatment has increased by a shocking 48% since August 2010. Over a tenth of patients are now waiting for longer than 18 weeks to be treated. “The prime minister made a personal promise to ensure that the right to be treated within 18 weeks, enshrined in the NHS constitution, was upheld. He has utterly failed to live up to that promise. The £20bn of so-called ‘efficiency savings’ being demanded of the NHS are bringing the health service to its knees. Yet £1m is still being thrown away every single day on a reform plan that is opposed by doctors, nurses, patients and NHS managers .” Patients unable to have a hip or knee operation or surgery to remove cataracts were among the most frequent callers to the association’s helpline, Murphy said. The data relates to NHS consultant-led “referral to treatment” (RTT) waiting times. A Department of Health spokesman said that the number of people on the waiting list for treatment in England, a separate measure of the NHS’s performance, had fallen from 2.65 million in August 2010 to 2.61 million this August, a drop of 40,000 patients. The Department of Health said: “Average waiting times are low and remain stable. The vast majority of patients still receive treatment within 18 weeks. “We are committed to driving improvements in performance and the quality of care that the NHS provides – including keeping waiting times low.” Dr Mark Porter, chair of the British Medical Association’s consultants committee, said: “The rise in waiting times is one of the consequences of the huge financial strains on the NHS. It is cause for serious concern. As well as the obvious distress caused to patients, longer waiting times can decrease the likelihood of treatments being effective. There are also financial consequences for individual hospital trusts, which are losing funding as a result of the pressures on the NHS to reduce activity. “There has been an assumption that savings in the NHS can be achieved through greater efficiency, and that levels of activity can be maintained. Instead of this happening, services are being cut or downgraded to reduce costs, risking a reduction in the quality of service to patients.” NHS Public services policy Health policy Conservatives David Cameron Liberal Democrats Denis Campbell James Ball guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …

On Wednesday's the Ed Show, MSNBC host Ed Schultz berated centrist Democratic Senators Ben Nelson and Jon Tester as “turncoast Democrats” for voting against President Obama recent economic plan, lambasted Democrats for not doing more to call out their centrist colleague and support and Occupy Wall Street Movement, and advised Democrats to embrace the term “tax and spend liberal.” Schultz: Here's what the Dems need to do. You're damn right I'm a tax and spend liberal. It's time to tax the top one percent and spend it on the working folk of America who need a job, who need a school, who need some health care, all of this. Yes, I like that. I'm a tax and spend liberal. I want to tax those who've had all the breaks over the past 30 years and I want to make sure the working folk of America have a shot. He ended up accusing Democrats of letting down the 20-somethings who supported Obama: How many new people were brought into the process, the 20-somethings that lived with Bush, that lived with Cheney and saw what they did to this country. And president obama brings in all these new people and you damn Democrats, all you've done is let them down. A lot of these protesters down at Wall Street and around the country are 20-somethings who feel disenfranchised because they were meant to believe that they could make a difference. And then they see all this obstruction, and then they see Democrats who don't have the guts to stand up to the wealthiest americans in this country and tell them they need to pay more. Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Wednesday, October 12, The Show on MSNBC: ED SCHULTZ: Senate Republicans and two turncoat Democrats – and that's exactly what they are – turncoat Democrats are standing in the way of creating millions of Americans jobs. Late Tuesday night, the Senate stopped the American jobs bill dead in its tracks. The 99 percent, I think, have every reasonin the world to be out on the streets after this vote. Washington is completely dysfunctional because elected officials, they are brain dead to what the American people really want and need. It's no wonder that congress has a record low approval rating of 13 percent. Not a single Republican voted to fund schools, build roads, or give middle class Americans a freaking tax break. Just a little tax break. Freshman Democratic Senator John Tester along with all-time sellout Senator Ben Nelson voted against taxing millionaires in their back yard of Montana and Nebraska respectively. Nelson didn't vote for the $447 billion package because, quote, “it represents billions of dollars in new spending and more taxes.” You know, that reminds me of the old bullet point, so we got to hold it right there, folks. This is the, I think, perfect time for liberals to destroy the tax and spend bullet point that the Democrats have had to put up with for years. Here's what the Dems need to do. You're damn right I'm a tax and spend liberal. It's time to tax the top one percent and spend it on the working folk of America who need a job, who need a school, who need some health care, all of this. Yes, I like that. I'm a tax and spend liberal. I want to tax those who've had all the breaks over the past 30 years and I want to make sure the working folk of America have a shot. President Obama, although, is not focused on Nelson or tester. He's laying the blame on the feet of the Republicans. [PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA] SCHULTZ: President Obama needs to just keep hammering the Republicans for their record number of filibusters. Lay it out there every day, Mr. President. Tonight on the Ed Show, we're making every no vote accountable for the American jobs they rejected. For the next hour, watch the ticker at the botto of the screen to see how many jobs are being obstructed by the Senate. The numbers come from WhiteHouse.gov. California Congresswoman Linda Sanchez nailed the obstructors in the Senate on my radio show today. REP. LINDA SANCHEZ (D-CA) AUDIO: These are not patriots. People who love this country want to see jobs created. SCHULTZ AUDIO: They don't love this country? SANCHEZ AUDIO: No, I don't think they love this country. They're not concerned about the economic well being of the country as a whole. SCHULTZ AUDIO: And they are so infatuated with defeating President Obama that they have, you would label them as not patriotic? SANCHEZ AUDIO: Yes, absolutely. SCHULTZ, BACK ON SCREEN: You know, if you had every Democrat talking like that, maybe there wouldn't be any Wall Street outcry protests around the country. I completely agree with Congresswoman Sanchez. These people are not patriots. Now, the people I met in the streets of Chicago and lower Manhattan, you know, they do love this country. They want a break. The 99 percent, they're the patriots for taking it to the streets to fight for economic and social justice. Republicans in the Senate along with Tester and Nelson are completely ignoring what the American people really want. Look at the numbers. According to a new Bloomberg/Washington Post poll, 68 percent of Americans want to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Over 80 percent of Americans want Congress to protect Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. Even Republicans want to tax the top two percent and protect the social safety net. The public is with you. Over in the House, John Boehner praised the Senate for turning their backs on the American people. HOUSE SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER: Yesterday, the Senate acted in a bipartisan manner to reject the President's tax increase on job creators in our country. SCHULTZ: Bipartisan? So that means that the stimulus package that President Obama got, that was bipartisan too, right? Boehner has completely failed to bring one job to America in ten months. That's all he's been crying about. But he hasn't created anything. The entire Republican Party is morally corrupt on the jobs issue.

Continue reading …
UK must cut 5bn calories a day to tackle obesity crisis, says Lansley

Health secretary sets out ‘national ambition’ to cut the equivalent of 16.9m cheeseburgers from Britons’ daily diet The nation needs to slash five billion calories from its daily diet – the equivalent of 16.9m cheeseburgers – according to the health secretary, Andrew Lansley. Faced with an obesity crisis that a succession of initiatives on exercise have failed to turn around, Lansley and the chief medical officer, Sally Davies, have issued a call to action on diet, urging people to act responsibly and reduce the food and drink they consume. Alcohol, they said, was part of the problem – responsible for 10% of our calorie intake. Lansley framed the new plan not as a strategy but as a “national ambition” in which, he said, the food and drink industry had a major part to play. As part of the responsibility deal with food and beverage companies , Lansley will be asking the industry to reduce the calories in their products. A 3% to 5% reduction in the calorie content in an average shopping basket would cut obesity without the consumer even noticing any change in the food they eat, experts say. “We have already seen how we can move further, faster, through the responsibility deal and I am now challenging business to help us make even greater progress,” said Lansley. “Reducing the number of calories we consume is essential.” Most people in the UK – 60% – are obese or overweight, and so are a third of children. Lansley believes the new “national ambition” – which he compared to Michelle Obama’s campaign in the US – can finally turn the figures around, and reverse the upward trend by 2020. He proposes to invest in the social marketing campaign Change 4 Life, which not long ago was facing cuts , and he will urge local authorities to do more. Obesity Health Health policy Andrew Lansley Public services policy Sarah Boseley guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
UK must cut 5bn calories a day to tackle obesity crisis, says Lansley

Health secretary sets out ‘national ambition’ to cut the equivalent of 16.9m cheeseburgers from Britons’ daily diet The nation needs to slash five billion calories from its daily diet – the equivalent of 16.9m cheeseburgers – according to the health secretary, Andrew Lansley. Faced with an obesity crisis that a succession of initiatives on exercise have failed to turn around, Lansley and the chief medical officer, Sally Davies, have issued a call to action on diet, urging people to act responsibly and reduce the food and drink they consume. Alcohol, they said, was part of the problem – responsible for 10% of our calorie intake. Lansley framed the new plan not as a strategy but as a “national ambition” in which, he said, the food and drink industry had a major part to play. As part of the responsibility deal with food and beverage companies , Lansley will be asking the industry to reduce the calories in their products. A 3% to 5% reduction in the calorie content in an average shopping basket would cut obesity without the consumer even noticing any change in the food they eat, experts say. “We have already seen how we can move further, faster, through the responsibility deal and I am now challenging business to help us make even greater progress,” said Lansley. “Reducing the number of calories we consume is essential.” Most people in the UK – 60% – are obese or overweight, and so are a third of children. Lansley believes the new “national ambition” – which he compared to Michelle Obama’s campaign in the US – can finally turn the figures around, and reverse the upward trend by 2020. He proposes to invest in the social marketing campaign Change 4 Life, which not long ago was facing cuts , and he will urge local authorities to do more. Obesity Health Health policy Andrew Lansley Public services policy Sarah Boseley guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
TeaNN: Erin Burnett’s Softball Game with America’s CEOs

Click here to view this media Erin Burnett, CNN’s new talking head, is incorporating a segment into her new show entitled “Strike Force,” where a bunch of business types with whom Burnett is quite comfortable come on and answer really, really tough questions regarding our bad economy and what they will do about it. 20 CEOs, investors and entrepreneurs that I picked to answer the tough questions about the economy this election season. I’m sure they’ll speak from the heart and get to the root causes of why we’re in this situation and how we can get out of it. Burnett is right that Americans on the left and the right are angry at Washington; but we’re fundamentally different in our view of governance. As for hating the bailout of the banks, liberals are angry for different reasons than conservatives. Many of us believed that there was a big problem in the global financial markets, but as my interview with Naomi Klein revealed , we wanted Obama to come up with his own bailout plan which would include tough measures installed so that Milton Friedman disaster capitalism would not keep hold on our economy. We wanted accountability and hearings to get to the root causes of the crisis, prosecutions when necessary and reform Wall Street regulations so that banks and the financial sector could no longer destroy the world with greed. Once Glass Steagall was destroyed by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act , (Wikipedia is being hacked on this issue ) banks were able to start gambling away our money and grow too big to fail. Back in the old days of the movie It’s a Wonderful Life , bankers were portrayed as the enemy of the common man. Scheming executives found loopholes to steal farms and homes away from families. After the Great Depression, regulations placed in by the government caused banks to lose some of their power and they weren’t scorned nearly as often. Burnett proclaims on her show quite loudly that banks are the good guys in all of this because they employ so many people and we need them to create jobs so we should root for them. I guess she forgot all the corruption during the foreclosure frauds banks carried out. Burnett: Well, Wall Street protests are growing. New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco, Albuquerque — you’re looking at shots of all of them now. There is something here reminiscent of the early days of the Tea Party, which actually shares some things in common with the Wall Street occupiers. They’re both grassroots organizations, from the ground up. They’re both angry at Washington. And while most participants are sincere, there is hate in both groups. Most important, while they’re on opposite sides of American politics, they agree on something huge. They both hate the bailout of the banks and share animosity to the banks in general, which we think is a sign of a real issue because banks should be great for America, never mind what we do without ATMs and places to store our money. Banks mean jobs. Banks in America–and there are more than 7,000 of them–employ almost 1.8 million Americans, more than America’s largest private employer, Walmart. Banks employ so many people that one bank’s lay-off can skew the jobs report for the entire nation. I’m talking about Bank of America, which laid off 30,000 employees in September, almost a third of the nation’s total planned job cuts for the month, so we should be rooting for the banks. The problem is they make it really hard when they lash out at Washington’s new rules by slapping fees on consumers. And I mean there is a tsunami of fees. Citibank hiking fees today again, set to charge $20 a month for accounts between six and $15,000. Bank of America and Sun Trust, $5 debit card fees, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo testing $3 debit card fees. Well, I asked Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner about this last night. [Geithner quotes] BURNETT: The banks say Washington reforms have hurt them so much that the fees are the only way to make money. But that is not true. Take Bank of America. They are planning to put a $5 monthly fee on debit cards. And analysts who ran the numbers today for us tell us they will make 13 percent more money on that than they did before the regulations and that’s just debit fees. Bank of America is also launching $9 monthly fees on some checking accounts. Wow. In this particular point she is correct: Fees are ridiculous. Good for her. In response to her, Strike Force guest City National CEO Russell Goldsmith says he won’t raise his bank’s fees like BofA so please, love him . However, he’s very upset at Durbin’s law, which limits the fees consumers pay to banks for nothing at all , which Citi employed as much as Bank of America. Good thing he had plenty of airtime to bitch and moan about it. And what’s his solution to make Americans feel better? BURNETT: And what can the banks do, in general? Because I mean we’re looking at the fees here specifically, which I have a real issue with because they’re saying they just make up what they’re, you know, what they’re losing on the regulation and clearly when you look at the numbers, at least in the case we gave specifically, it doesn’t appear to be the case at all, but on top of that you have just in general it feels like an animosity and a tone-deaf nature especially when you’re looking around the country at people who are frustrated and angry at the banks. What should your industry do right now? Is this a time where you should have all of the big bank CEOs stand up and talk to the protesters or do something to say we’re patriotic and want to bill this country, too? GOLDSMITH: Well, I think you know I’m here talking to you, trying to explain that at City National we’re not doing what some of these big guys are doing. Unfortunately this inappropriate law, this price fixing got passed in the middle of the night. There are no facts and nobody knows what the facts are, and the banks obviously can’t sit down as a group and agree on pricing. Wow, the ego on this guy. When she asked how he could act patriotically, he basically said that “I appeared on your show, Erin. Doesn’t that count?” And he wonders why there’s so much anger directed at these banks and their suits. What a jackass.

Continue reading …
Lord Hunt of Wirral named chairman of Press Complaints Commission

PCC’s new chairman is Conservative peer, and former MP, with experience in regulatory affairs Lord Hunt of Wirral, who served in government under Margaret Thatcher and John Major, has been named as the next chairman of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC). The 69-year-old Conservative peer and former MP will take over from Baroness Buscombe on 17 October. Hunt is also a lawyer specialising in regulatory affairs, with political links and specialist expertise deemed attractive for the £170,000 a year job. Lord Hunt signalled that his chairmanship would not just amount to business as usual. He said that he hoped to lead “wholesale regeneration and renewal of the system of independent self-regulation of the press”. Critics have argued that the PCC is a better mediator rather than an effective regulator. He added: “There is a real appetite for change, however, and it is my intention to drive forward the creation of a reinvigorated and respected standards body, funded by the industry but operationally independent from both the industry and the state.” Interviews were held by the Press Standards Board of Finance, which is chaired by Lord Black of Brentwood, the former spokesman for Michael Howard when he was leader of the Conservative party – who now works for the publishers of the Daily and Sunday Telegraph. Lord Black said: “David Hunt’s wide-ranging experience in politics, in the law and in regulation and above all his unshakeable commitment to the principles of press freedom and self-regulation make him the ideal person to lead the process of renewal and regeneration which is now essential.” David Hunt was a member of the Thatcher and Major cabinets for five years from 1990, as Welsh secretary, then employment secretary and finally chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, where he co-ordinated government policy. He stepped down in 1995 and lost his Wirral West seat in 1997. He rejoined the Conservative front bench to shadow Lord Mandelson in the upper house, but did not get a government appointment when the coalition was formed, and returned to legal practice. • To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.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 Press Complaints Commission Newspapers & magazines Press freedom National newspapers Newspapers Dan Sabbagh guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Lord Hunt of Wirral named chairman of Press Complaints Commission

PCC’s new chairman is Conservative peer, and former MP, with experience in regulatory affairs Lord Hunt of Wirral, who served in government under Margaret Thatcher and John Major, has been named as the next chairman of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC). The 69-year-old Conservative peer and former MP will take over from Baroness Buscombe on 17 October. Hunt is also a lawyer specialising in regulatory affairs, with political links and specialist expertise deemed attractive for the £170,000 a year job. Lord Hunt signalled that his chairmanship would not just amount to business as usual. He said that he hoped to lead “wholesale regeneration and renewal of the system of independent self-regulation of the press”. Critics have argued that the PCC is a better mediator rather than an effective regulator. He added: “There is a real appetite for change, however, and it is my intention to drive forward the creation of a reinvigorated and respected standards body, funded by the industry but operationally independent from both the industry and the state.” Interviews were held by the Press Standards Board of Finance, which is chaired by Lord Black of Brentwood, the former spokesman for Michael Howard when he was leader of the Conservative party – who now works for the publishers of the Daily and Sunday Telegraph. Lord Black said: “David Hunt’s wide-ranging experience in politics, in the law and in regulation and above all his unshakeable commitment to the principles of press freedom and self-regulation make him the ideal person to lead the process of renewal and regeneration which is now essential.” David Hunt was a member of the Thatcher and Major cabinets for five years from 1990, as Welsh secretary, then employment secretary and finally chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, where he co-ordinated government policy. He stepped down in 1995 and lost his Wirral West seat in 1997. He rejoined the Conservative front bench to shadow Lord Mandelson in the upper house, but did not get a government appointment when the coalition was formed, and returned to legal practice. • To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.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 Press Complaints Commission Newspapers & magazines Press freedom National newspapers Newspapers Dan Sabbagh guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …