The Heritage Foundation on Tuesday released its comprehensive budget proposal, titled ” Saving the American Dream .” The plan would reform entitlements and the tax code, and balance the federal budget in ten years. But while it is primarily an economic plan, it “has a higher moral purpose,” Heritage writes. “If entitlements are not reformed, the next generation and future ones will have to pay punitive tax rates that will end liberty as we have known it.” Check out some commentary on the plan below the break from columnist – and recent recipient of MRC's William F. Buckley Jr. Award for Media Excellence – Cal Thomas. The Heritage Foundation has developed a formula, made possible by a grant from the Peterson Foundation, that could balance the budget in 10 years, reduce the debt to 30 percent of gross domestic product within 25 years, cut the size of the federal government in half by 2036 and reform the tax code. It also could restructure Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid while protecting the most vulnerable and not increasing taxes, if — and it is a very big “if” — politicians prefer the solution to continued bickering… What's the difference between the Heritage Foundation plan and the one proposed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis.? Stuart Butler, who headed the team that drew up the Heritage proposal, tells me the Ryan plan “can't balance the budget anytime soon. Ours does.” Knowing what must be done and not doing it is not just irresponsible, but deplorable. The Heritage plan offers a way out if politicians put the welfare of their country ahead of their own. Follow the link to Thomas's column, or the one to Heritage's more detailed description, for the specifics of the plan, and let us know what you think. Is this preferable to the Ryan plan (and other plans currently under consideration in Congress)? Is it politically feasible?
Continue reading …
Goldsmith and Hunt speak out after identities of celebrities alleged to have taken out injunctions are revealed on Twitter Political pressure mounted for privacy law reform after a cabinet minister warned that Twitter had been “making a mockery” of celebrities’ attempts to gag the media – and a high-profile Conservative backbencher who once took out his own injunction called on parliament to develop a privacy law. Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary, who is responsible for the media, said he would “sit down” with Ken Clarke, the minister of justice, to review the regulatory environment because “a crazy situation” had emerged “where information is available freely online which you are not able to print in newspapers”. Zac Goldsmith, the multimillionaire MP, spoke for the first time about his decision to take out an injunction, arguing that they were necessary because, he said, some newspapers were unwilling “to distinguish between what is in the public interest and what is merely of prurient interest to some of the public”. Their comments came after the identities of several celebrities who have taken out injunctions preventing the mention of their name in the context of sexual indiscretions were revealed on Twitter. Public interest in the identity of the individuals – who cannot be named by the Guardian under the court orders – was so great that Twitter had its busiest ever day of traffic. Meanwhile, on the same day, Max Mosley, the former Formula One boss outed by the News of the World for participating in a sado-masochistic orgy, lost his legal challenge to force newspapers to warn people before publishing stories exposing their private lives, after a European court ruled on Tuesday that such as system would have a “chilling effect” on the press. Goldsmith said he believed the solution to the injunction problem was that “parliament should design proper privacy laws” so that “the media can do the job we want them to do, without fear, but that they don’t invade people’s privacy unless there’s good reason”. He conceded the gagging orders were “an overreaction” on the part of wealthy celebrities and politicians, but said their existence was “an inevitable one” given repeated attempts by tabloids to write about people’s personal lives. Noting that David Cameron has said we need to have “a discussion and a debate” about whether to introduce a privacy law, Goldsmith added: “The PM has said he wants parliament to take the initiative, and he’s right. I hope he follows through with it.” Hunt, though, reacted cautiously to the idea of introducing a privacy law, telling reporters it was important to examine the alternatives. “We need to get into a situation where regulation and legislation is up to speed with changes in technology and that we get the balance right between the rights of an individual and the rights we all cherish for freedom of expression.” The MP for Richmond Park & North Kingston took out a court order in 2008, as he sought to prevent the media from reporting that he, his sister Jemima Khan and his then wife Sheherazade had had their personal email accounts hacked. Goldsmith, his former wife – whom he divorced in 2010 shortly after becoming an MP – and his sister all took out an injunction in December 2008 to prevent the publication of personal emails that had been offered by an unnamed individual to a national newspaper. The court order was varied in March of this year to allow the identities of the three who had taken out the injunction to be made public. Describing the decision to go to law, the MP said: “The emails were private, and even the tabloids seemed to accept that there was no justification for publishing them.” Goldsmith agreed to allow his anonymity to be waived this year because “I do not want or need” it to be maintained – before going on to add that it was appropriate to keep the identity of the hacker secret because of the “person’s mental state”. Mr Justice Tugendhat ruled in March that the hacking of the emails was “a flagrant breach of the law of confidence” but “having regard to medical evidence” about the “fragile” individual who hacked into the accounts, the high court judge kept that person’s identity secret. Reacting to that ruling, Goldsmith told the Guardian: “It is a perfect example of where a superinjunction is justified and right.” Possibly after confusion relating to this case, Jemima Khan was separately – and wrongly – named as having taken out a gagging order to prevent “intimate photos” of herself and Jeremy Clarkson being published. Khan said the rumours were “untrue and upsetting” – although they remain in circulation on Twitter. The politician’s criticism found some support from media owners and editors. Evgeny Lebedev, the son of Alexander Lebedev, the owner of the Independent and the Evening Standard, said British newspapers had to be “wary of abusing our freedom” and needed to conduct themselves with responsibility. He added: “If we slip up, the judges and politicians will enforce the restrictions that will not be so different from those in regimes where there are institutional straitjackets, preventing the freedom to report.” Alan Rusbridger, the editor of the Guardian, warned that the problem with examining laws affecting freedom of speech was that reform was often proposed in a piecemeal fashion. “It is increasingly difficult to look at one of the laws affecting free speech in isolation from the other – and from the sort of standards and expectations that are going to be widely debated in society in relation to government, the state, the internet and business.” Privacy Privacy & the media Twitter Superinjunctions Internet Dan Sabbagh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Goldsmith and Hunt speak out after identities of celebrities alleged to have taken out injunctions are revealed on Twitter Political pressure mounted for privacy law reform after a cabinet minister warned that Twitter had been “making a mockery” of celebrities’ attempts to gag the media – and a high-profile Conservative backbencher who once took out his own injunction called on parliament to develop a privacy law. Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary, who is responsible for the media, said he would “sit down” with Ken Clarke, the minister of justice, to review the regulatory environment because “a crazy situation” had emerged “where information is available freely online which you are not able to print in newspapers”. Zac Goldsmith, the multimillionaire MP, spoke for the first time about his decision to take out an injunction, arguing that they were necessary because, he said, some newspapers were unwilling “to distinguish between what is in the public interest and what is merely of prurient interest to some of the public”. Their comments came after the identities of several celebrities who have taken out injunctions preventing the mention of their name in the context of sexual indiscretions were revealed on Twitter. Public interest in the identity of the individuals – who cannot be named by the Guardian under the court orders – was so great that Twitter had its busiest ever day of traffic. Meanwhile, on the same day, Max Mosley, the former Formula One boss outed by the News of the World for participating in a sado-masochistic orgy, lost his legal challenge to force newspapers to warn people before publishing stories exposing their private lives, after a European court ruled on Tuesday that such as system would have a “chilling effect” on the press. Goldsmith said he believed the solution to the injunction problem was that “parliament should design proper privacy laws” so that “the media can do the job we want them to do, without fear, but that they don’t invade people’s privacy unless there’s good reason”. He conceded the gagging orders were “an overreaction” on the part of wealthy celebrities and politicians, but said their existence was “an inevitable one” given repeated attempts by tabloids to write about people’s personal lives. Noting that David Cameron has said we need to have “a discussion and a debate” about whether to introduce a privacy law, Goldsmith added: “The PM has said he wants parliament to take the initiative, and he’s right. I hope he follows through with it.” Hunt, though, reacted cautiously to the idea of introducing a privacy law, telling reporters it was important to examine the alternatives. “We need to get into a situation where regulation and legislation is up to speed with changes in technology and that we get the balance right between the rights of an individual and the rights we all cherish for freedom of expression.” The MP for Richmond Park & North Kingston took out a court order in 2008, as he sought to prevent the media from reporting that he, his sister Jemima Khan and his then wife Sheherazade had had their personal email accounts hacked. Goldsmith, his former wife – whom he divorced in 2010 shortly after becoming an MP – and his sister all took out an injunction in December 2008 to prevent the publication of personal emails that had been offered by an unnamed individual to a national newspaper. The court order was varied in March of this year to allow the identities of the three who had taken out the injunction to be made public. Describing the decision to go to law, the MP said: “The emails were private, and even the tabloids seemed to accept that there was no justification for publishing them.” Goldsmith agreed to allow his anonymity to be waived this year because “I do not want or need” it to be maintained – before going on to add that it was appropriate to keep the identity of the hacker secret because of the “person’s mental state”. Mr Justice Tugendhat ruled in March that the hacking of the emails was “a flagrant breach of the law of confidence” but “having regard to medical evidence” about the “fragile” individual who hacked into the accounts, the high court judge kept that person’s identity secret. Reacting to that ruling, Goldsmith told the Guardian: “It is a perfect example of where a superinjunction is justified and right.” Possibly after confusion relating to this case, Jemima Khan was separately – and wrongly – named as having taken out a gagging order to prevent “intimate photos” of herself and Jeremy Clarkson being published. Khan said the rumours were “untrue and upsetting” – although they remain in circulation on Twitter. The politician’s criticism found some support from media owners and editors. Evgeny Lebedev, the son of Alexander Lebedev, the owner of the Independent and the Evening Standard, said British newspapers had to be “wary of abusing our freedom” and needed to conduct themselves with responsibility. He added: “If we slip up, the judges and politicians will enforce the restrictions that will not be so different from those in regimes where there are institutional straitjackets, preventing the freedom to report.” Alan Rusbridger, the editor of the Guardian, warned that the problem with examining laws affecting freedom of speech was that reform was often proposed in a piecemeal fashion. “It is increasingly difficult to look at one of the laws affecting free speech in isolation from the other – and from the sort of standards and expectations that are going to be widely debated in society in relation to government, the state, the internet and business.” Privacy Privacy & the media Twitter Superinjunctions Internet Dan Sabbagh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Goldsmith and Hunt speak out after identities of celebrities alleged to have taken out injunctions are revealed on Twitter Political pressure mounted for privacy law reform after a cabinet minister warned that Twitter had been “making a mockery” of celebrities’ attempts to gag the media – and a high-profile Conservative backbencher who once took out his own injunction called on parliament to develop a privacy law. Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary, who is responsible for the media, said he would “sit down” with Ken Clarke, the minister of justice, to review the regulatory environment because “a crazy situation” had emerged “where information is available freely online which you are not able to print in newspapers”. Zac Goldsmith, the multimillionaire MP, spoke for the first time about his decision to take out an injunction, arguing that they were necessary because, he said, some newspapers were unwilling “to distinguish between what is in the public interest and what is merely of prurient interest to some of the public”. Their comments came after the identities of several celebrities who have taken out injunctions preventing the mention of their name in the context of sexual indiscretions were revealed on Twitter. Public interest in the identity of the individuals – who cannot be named by the Guardian under the court orders – was so great that Twitter had its busiest ever day of traffic. Meanwhile, on the same day, Max Mosley, the former Formula One boss outed by the News of the World for participating in a sado-masochistic orgy, lost his legal challenge to force newspapers to warn people before publishing stories exposing their private lives, after a European court ruled on Tuesday that such as system would have a “chilling effect” on the press. Goldsmith said he believed the solution to the injunction problem was that “parliament should design proper privacy laws” so that “the media can do the job we want them to do, without fear, but that they don’t invade people’s privacy unless there’s good reason”. He conceded the gagging orders were “an overreaction” on the part of wealthy celebrities and politicians, but said their existence was “an inevitable one” given repeated attempts by tabloids to write about people’s personal lives. Noting that David Cameron has said we need to have “a discussion and a debate” about whether to introduce a privacy law, Goldsmith added: “The PM has said he wants parliament to take the initiative, and he’s right. I hope he follows through with it.” Hunt, though, reacted cautiously to the idea of introducing a privacy law, telling reporters it was important to examine the alternatives. “We need to get into a situation where regulation and legislation is up to speed with changes in technology and that we get the balance right between the rights of an individual and the rights we all cherish for freedom of expression.” The MP for Richmond Park & North Kingston took out a court order in 2008, as he sought to prevent the media from reporting that he, his sister Jemima Khan and his then wife Sheherazade had had their personal email accounts hacked. Goldsmith, his former wife – whom he divorced in 2010 shortly after becoming an MP – and his sister all took out an injunction in December 2008 to prevent the publication of personal emails that had been offered by an unnamed individual to a national newspaper. The court order was varied in March of this year to allow the identities of the three who had taken out the injunction to be made public. Describing the decision to go to law, the MP said: “The emails were private, and even the tabloids seemed to accept that there was no justification for publishing them.” Goldsmith agreed to allow his anonymity to be waived this year because “I do not want or need” it to be maintained – before going on to add that it was appropriate to keep the identity of the hacker secret because of the “person’s mental state”. Mr Justice Tugendhat ruled in March that the hacking of the emails was “a flagrant breach of the law of confidence” but “having regard to medical evidence” about the “fragile” individual who hacked into the accounts, the high court judge kept that person’s identity secret. Reacting to that ruling, Goldsmith told the Guardian: “It is a perfect example of where a superinjunction is justified and right.” Possibly after confusion relating to this case, Jemima Khan was separately – and wrongly – named as having taken out a gagging order to prevent “intimate photos” of herself and Jeremy Clarkson being published. Khan said the rumours were “untrue and upsetting” – although they remain in circulation on Twitter. The politician’s criticism found some support from media owners and editors. Evgeny Lebedev, the son of Alexander Lebedev, the owner of the Independent and the Evening Standard, said British newspapers had to be “wary of abusing our freedom” and needed to conduct themselves with responsibility. He added: “If we slip up, the judges and politicians will enforce the restrictions that will not be so different from those in regimes where there are institutional straitjackets, preventing the freedom to report.” Alan Rusbridger, the editor of the Guardian, warned that the problem with examining laws affecting freedom of speech was that reform was often proposed in a piecemeal fashion. “It is increasingly difficult to look at one of the laws affecting free speech in isolation from the other – and from the sort of standards and expectations that are going to be widely debated in society in relation to government, the state, the internet and business.” Privacy Privacy & the media Twitter Superinjunctions Internet Dan Sabbagh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Martha Graham, whose ‘fierce’ dance language has left a worldwide legacy, would have been 117 years old Martha Graham, the American dancer and choreographer whose name became synonymous with ‘modern’ or ‘contemporary’ dance, is celebrated in Google’s latest doodle today, marking her 117th birthday. In an eleborate piece of animation, the doodle is based on a dancer who performs a series of striking, Grahamesque routines to spell out the six letters of the search engine’s name. Graham, whose influence on modern dance has been likened to the legacy of Pablo Picasso and Frank Lloyd Wright in their own spheres, passed away at her home in Manhattan in 1991 at the age of 96. However, she had sealed her place long before then in the pantheon of great artistic revolutionaries of the 20th century, having been credited with developing a new and codified dance language that smashed the traditional mold and established itself as a lasting alternative to the older ballet tradition. According to Time magazine: “Her fierce choreography sometimes amazed and sometimes horrified, but in it she embodied modern dance — arrogantly and spectacularly.” Initially acclaimed as a great dancer in her own right, the Pittsburgh-born daughter of a Victorian-era mental health physician, she contined to perform late on in to her life and left the stage at the age of 75 when she gave her final performance in 1969. Graham choreographed more than 180 works, looking on enviously later in life at young dancers performing in her signature style, based upon contraction and release of the body. Her legacy lives on in the techniques used by dance companies around the globe, including the Martha Graham Dance Company, which has continued to develop contemporary dance since its founding in 1926, often rooting works in contemporary social and political contexts. Google doodle Dance Internet Search engines Google Ben Quinn guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
• China and India embassies boosted and Europe posts cut • Foreign Office ‘must match realities of 21st century’ William Hague is due to unveil changes to the way Britain deploys diplomats around the world, with fewer to be stationed in Europe and more to go to emerging powers, such as China and India, in what he claims is the biggest strategic shift in the service for decades. The changes, which the foreign secretary will present to the Commons, are a response to the 10% cut in the Foreign Office’s resources imposed in last year’s comprehensive spending review, and to changes in the global power structure. Hague will say that redeployments of diplomats over the next four years will reflect Britain’s long-term interests rather than be in response to short-term crises. “By 2015 we must aim to be a Foreign Office that is lean and efficient but configured to match the realities of the 21st century,” Hague told civil servants on Tuesday. “Taken together, this represents the biggest strategic diplomatic advance by Britain in decades.” The most tangible change will be a boost to the number of diplomats despatched to the world’s emerging powers. There will be 50 more envoys in China and 30 more in India, roughly a 7% increase in the size of both embassies. More “frontline staff” will be sent to Brazil, Mexico, Turkey and Indonesia. Hague will maintain the existing 140 or so embassies and high commissions, but add more – in El Salvador, Kyrgyzstan, South Sudan (due to become independent in July) and, when local circumstances permit, in Somalia and Madagascar. To pay for this expansion and meet the Foreign Office’s budgetary target of a 10% real cut by 2014-15, savings are to be made in Europe, the most expensive region. Representation in European cities outside capitals is to be scaled down; consulates will close or be replaced with smaller trade missions. Some consular staff will move according to peaks in demand, following the flow of tourists, for example. It is hoped the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq can be scaled back as conditions allow in the coming years. “When I am asked if the intensive pace of events in the Middle East means that we care less about commercial diplomacy and relations with the emerging powers, the answer is a resounding no. We have to do both the short- and long-term work. So by 2015 we must aim to be a Foreign Office that is lean and efficient but configured to match the realities of the 21st century,” Hague told Foreign Office staff on Tuesday, in a preview of the Commons statement. “Taken together, this represents the biggest strategic diplomatic advance by Britain in decades.” Some of the European savings would be additional to the target of £100m reductions in departmental running costs, and up to £40m cuts in the costs of programmes, such as special joint projects with other governments. Robin Niblett, director of the foreign policy thinktank Chatham House, said: “This is putting meat on the bones of the announced strategy of shifting from a Euro-Atlantic focus towards a more G20, multipolar world.” In 2008 Hague’s predecessor, David Miliband, also called for a shift of resources away from Europe to China and India, and for “laptop diplomats” who could be sent to remote areas and troublespots where they could function independently without the need for embassies or consulates. Foreign Office sources said that Miliband’s ambitions were overshadowed by the urgent need to build up the UK embassy in Kabul, and by the department’s temporary loss of budgetary protection against fluctuations in global exchange rates. Foreign policy William Hague Julian Borger guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Survey shows just 7% of people read the full terms when buying a product or service online, while a fifth say they have suffered from not doing so It is the important small print setting out our contractual rights, but latest research reveals just 7% of Britons read the online terms and conditions when signing up for products and services. The research, commissioned by investment specialist Skandia , exposes how easy it is for people booking and paying for goods and services online to click the terms and conditions box without actually reading them in full. Nearly six in 10 (58%) adults said they would rather read an instruction manual or their utility or credit card bill than go through online terms, and more than one in 10 (12%) would rather read the phone book. Meanwhile, 43% of those who don’t always read the terms and conditions say they are boring or difficult to understand. But by failing to check the small print they are in the dark about their rights, until something goes wrong. Just over a fifth (21%) of people surveyed said they had suffered as a result of ticking the terms and conditions box without having done their homework. One in 10 found themselves locked into a longer contract than expected because they signed up without reading the small print, and one in 20 lost money by not being able to cancel or amend hotel or holiday bookings. Joanne Lezemore, senior lawyer at Which? Legal Service , said: “The advice is simple: always read the terms and conditions of any contract before you sign it. “It is really important you understand everything before you sign on the dotted line, as you could find yourself landed with extra fees or charges. While all consumer contracts are subject to the unfair terms in consumer contract regulations, this doesn’t mean you can challenge a clause just because you didn’t know it was there, or you think it’s unfair – because it’s clearly written, you’re bound by it.” She said online shoppers may be tempted to tick the box to confirm they have read the terms and conditions when they have not actually done so, but added: “They are different on every website, so make sure you know what you’re agreeing to. People are often surprised to find out they’re obliged to pay to return unwanted items purchased online, as it is commonly stated in the terms and conditions – and these fees can be expensive.” Skandia conducted the research to draw attention to changes made to the terms and conditions on all its financial products, and has signed up the broadcaster and comedian Clive Anderson to present its standard online terms to customers in a video . Rachel Eyre got caught out after buying plane tickets online on 7 October 2010. “Having purchased the tickets, the travel company decided to refund my payment on 9 October stating that the flights were no longer available at the price I paid. “The travel agent refused to supply the tickets or enter any resolution process despite many requests – referring me to their standard terms and conditions which they claim allow them to do this. I will always make sure I read terms and conditions now before signing up to anything.” Consumer rights Consumer affairs Rebecca Smithers guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Prime minister Naoto Kan says renewables will become a key part of energy policy as country marks two months since tsunami Japan is to abandon plans to expand its nuclear power industry and make renewables a key part of its energy policy, the prime minister, Naoto Kan, said as the country marked two months since the tsunami disaster. As workers continued efforts to stabilise the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, Kan said he would “start from scratch” a policy that initially envisaged nuclear making up more than 50% of Japan’s energy needs by 2030. Japan, whose 54 nuclear reactors provide 30% of its electricity, had planned to build at least 14 new reactors over the next 20 years, but policymakers accept that will be impossible in light of the Fukushima crisis. Kan said that renewables, which currently make up 20% of overall supply, would have a bigger role to play in meeting the country’s energy needs. “I think it is necessary to move in the direction of promoting natural energy and renewable energy” such as wind, solar and biomass,” he said. The stronger commitment to renewables marks Kan’s second sudden shift on nuclear power in the space of a week following his order to close the Hamaoka atomic, which sits on an active fault line, while a new tsunami wall is built. Confronted with low approval ratings and criticism of his handling of the nuclear crisis from inside his own party, his public commitment to nuclear power has markedly weakened in recent days. But Kan, who will not take his prime minister’s salary until the Fukushima crisis is resolved, said Japan would retain the use of fossil fuel and ruled out an abandonment of nuclear power. “We need to start from scratch,” he said. “We need to make nuclear energy safer and do more to promote renewable energy.” He added: “I believe the government bears a major responsibility for having promoted nuclear energy as national policy. I apologise to the people for failing to prevent the nuclear accident.” His announcement came as the first of tens of thousands of nuclear evacuees were allowed to return home for two hours to collect clothes and other personal items. About 100 residents of Kawauchi village – a small portion of those who will make similar trips in the coming weeks – were each permitted to fill one large bag with belongings. Dressed in protective suits, goggles and facemasks, the residents were given personal radiation monitors and walkie-talkies as they made their short but emotional return home for the first time in weeks. They were taken out of the zone on chartered government buses and screened for radiation exposure. About 80,000 people within 20 kilometres of the Fukushima Daiichi plant were forced out of their homes by the accident and have yet to be given an idea when they will be able to return permanently. The plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power [Tepco], has vowed to stabilise radiation levels and achieve safe “cold shutdown” of the plant’s damaged reactors within six to nine months. In the past few days, workers have entered the No 1 reactor building to start reconnecting cooling systems knocked out by the tsunami. On Tuesday they were preparing to flood the reactor’s containment vessel to immerse overheating fuel rods in cool water. Tepco sought to calm fears about rising temperatures in the No 3 reactor, releasing an image showing fuel rods covered with debris from hydrogen explosions in March. The firm said it believed the fuel rods, some of which contain plutonium, had been largely undamaged. On Wednesday, Tepco said it would accept the conditions for state support for a massive compensation payout for those deprived of their homes and businesses by the Fukushima accident. The utility, which has seen its market value plummet since the disaster, accepted there should be no upper limit on damages that could reach 10 trillion yen. It must also dramatically cut costs and cooperate with an investigation by a government-appointed panel. The government is considering setting up a fund that would draw on cash from the state and other power companies if Tepco were unable to cover all of the compensation claims itself. Japan disaster Japan Nuclear power Renewable energy Energy Justin McCurry guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Fines of £80 to £100 portrayed as a break from the previous government’s supposed reliance on speed cameras Motorists are to be hit with on-the-spot fines of between £80 and £100 for careless driving as part of a major package of road safety laws being portrayed as a break from the previous government’s supposed reliance on speed cameras. The fixed penalty notices have been designed with a view to clamping down on “boy racers”, who drive aggressively by tailgating, undertaking or cutting up fellow motorists, along with other offenders such as repeat law-breakers and those who drive under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Ordinary motorists should not fear the tough new penalties, the government will insist in its overall road safety strategy – the Strategic Framework for Road Safety. “We want to make a clear distinction between those drivers who are a real danger to road safety – reckless, dangerous drivers – and those who are merely occasionally careless or who make an honest mistake,” the transport secretary, Philip Hammond, said in the Daily Mail. “That means much more emphasis on enforcement against those who represent the biggest risk and a big increase in the use of education for those who make minor transgressions.” He signalled a determined break with the previous administration’s strategy. “The big problem under the last government was using technology. Speed cameras were installed and speed became the only focus of the road safety agenda. It ceased to be a road safety agenda and became a speed agenda,” added Hammond. “That meant somebody driving at 55mph in a 50mph limit might get prosecuted but the idiot who is weaving in and out of traffic and tailgating gets off scot-free.” However, the government’s scrapping of grants for councils to put up speed cameras sparked warnings last year from road safety campaigners who said that lives could be put at risk. Additional measures in the package include retests for disqualified offenders before they regain their licence, an end to the right to request blood tests rather than breath tests for drink-driving, seizures of vehicles belonging to the most dangerous offenders, a post-test qualification for new drivers to encourage lower insurance premiums and the offer of educational courses instead of points on a licence for minor offences. Other elements will revolve around a new crackdown on driving while under the influence of drugs, an increase in the range of educational courses for lower level offence and the abolition of loopholes that allow drink drivers to get off without charge. The current Pass Plus scheme for novice drivers will also be replaced with a new qualification – including an assessment – in an attempt to encourage insurers to lower premiums. The Department for Transport said: “The strategy will focus on cracking down on the really reckless drivers through more efficient enforcement. By giving the police the tools to deal with those who present the greatest danger to others, we can make our roads even safer. “While seeking to do everything possible to tackle the most dangerous drivers, the strategy will also help the responsible majority to improve their driving. This is the government’s twin approach to improving road safety.” Road transport Ben Quinn guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media C-SPAN featured some past White House Correspondents’ Dinners last Saturday and here’s Al Franken back in 1996 poking fun at Don Imus, President Clinton, Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh among others. Open thread below…
Continue reading …