Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 1149)
Andrew Breitbart Blames Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Black Democrats for Forcing Tea Partiers to Act Like Racists

Click here to view this media In another embarrassing segment of C-SPAN’s Book TV , Andrew Breitbart is allowed by Armstrong Williams to pretend like he didn’t lose his bet that racial slurs were hurled at members of the Congressional Black Caucus and at others at the “tea party” protests outside of Capitol Hill last year. As Karoli already noted, Breitbart did lose that bet despite his claims here to the C-SPAN audience and Williams. Andrew Breitbart pretends like the “tea party” is not really made up of a bunch of racists and is a place where women and African Americans can find a home for conservatives outside of the Republican Party. What’s utterly laughable here is that Breitbat somehow doesn’t seem to know what rights women and black people had in America when this country was first founded. Maybe someone should remind him that women didn’t have the right to vote and that black people were considered three-fifths of a person back in the days he’s aggrandizing. BREITBART: What is at stake here is that blacks and women are creating the “tea party”, making it a place that unlike the Republican Party which is a toxic environment for blacks and that’s been the media’s job for years. This is a place where blacks and women and hispanics can go to recreate this country in its original Constitutional vision. Yeah, just keep telling yourself that Breitbart and maybe some day someone will believe our “original Constitutional vision” ever meant anything but freedom for anyone but rich white male landowners. If he had a host that was going to challenge him instead of kiss his rear end for this segment, maybe they’d have asked him about this and the “tea party” and their racism — Staying KKKlassy: Tea Baggers Call Congressmen “N****rs” and “F****ts” At HCR Protest. Hate Rules The Day .

Continue reading …

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 …

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 …
Pressure rises for privacy law reform

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 …
Pressure rises for privacy law reform

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 …
Pressure rises for privacy law reform

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 …
Pressure rises for privacy law reform

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 …
Bank set to slash UK growth forecasts

Bank report will raise concerns over the strength of the UK economy as it enters the age of austerity Bank of England governor Mervyn King is expected to slash growth forecasts for the UK in a further sign the recovery is under strain. King, who will present the Bank’s quarterly inflation report at 10.30am, is also expected to say inflation will spike later this year before easing in 2012. The report should bring some relief to millions of homeowners as it is likely to reinforce dwindling expectations of an imminent interest rate hike. But lower growth will once again raise concerns over the strength of the UK economy as it enters the age of austerity, and questions will be raised over the severity of chancellor George Osborne’s fiscal squeeze. Economic growth forecasts have been progressively downgraded since the start of the year as more gloomy data emerges. The Bank predicted growth of around 2% for 2011 in its February report and City analysts expect it to revise estimates to around 1.5%. The Bank estimated growth of 3% for 2012, a figure some economists also expect to be cut. Recent figures revealed gross domestic product (GDP) grew at a tepid 0.5% in the first three months of 2011 , which, following a shock 0.5% decline in the final quarter of 2010, meant the economy had been flat for six months. Furthermore, inflation unexpectedly dropped in March to 4%, which while still double the government target, eased pressure on the Bank to raise interest rates, which have been at an historic low of 0.5% since March 2009. The rate of inflation for April is yet to be released. The Bank is expected to reiterate its belief that inflation will drop back towards the target in 2012, but analysts said the short-term estimate could be lifted. Howard Archer, chief UK and European economist at IHS Global Insight, said the flurry of recent disappointing data and surveys was likely to have heightened the MPC’s concerns over the economy. He said: “The MPC’s decision to keep interest rates down at 0.5% at its May meeting clearly reflected current serious concerns and uncertainties over the state of the economy and its ability to withstand the fiscal squeeze that increasingly kicked in from early April.” Commodity prices – such as oil and metal – slumped last week on fears over the strength of the global recovery. The Bank has frequently cited temporary global price hikes, which are beyond its control, as being behind the surge in home inflation so last week’s drop may well be welcomed. But analysts warned it is too early to say that the UK is coming out of the inflation woods. Vicky Redwood, senior UK economist at Capital Economics, said the Bank was likely to revise its near-term forecasts for inflation this year up from around 4.5% to 5%. The weak growth and eased pressure on inflation has led economists to push back expectations of an interest rate hike to August or November. Brian Hilliard, economist at Societe Generale, said King was likely to maintain his “dovish” line – that is keeping monetary policy loose. “The outstanding feature since the last inflation report has been the continuing uncertainty about the pace of the recovery,” Hilliard said. “King will feel vindicated in his dogged maintenance of the line that rate increases are not yet appropriate.” Economic growth (GDP) Bank of England Inflation Economics Mervyn King Interest rates guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Adult social care laws face reform

Law Commission calls for ‘outdated patchwork’ of legislation to be scrapped in favour of a single statute The most far-reaching reforms of adult social care law in 60 years are needed to improve the lives of the most vulnerable, the Law Commision has said. The commission, which recommends law reform, said a single, clear, modern statute and code of practice were needed to pave the way for a more coherent social care system. The fragmented and flawed current laws were out of date, more than 40 statutes needed scrapping or amending. and thousands of pages of often contradictory guidance must be consigned to history, the commission said. Frances Patterson QC, the law commissioner leading the review, said: “Today signals a significant step in moving us closer to a clearer and more coherent framework for adult social care. “Our recommendations will bring much-needed clarity and accessibility to this important area of the law and have a major, beneficial impact on the lives of many of our most vulnerable citizens.” Patterson said the changes would help “protect the strong rights that exist in adult social care law while, at the same time, ensuring that emerging policy objectives, such as personalisation and self-directed support, are recognised fully in statute law”. The government is expected to bring in legislation next year after reviewing the recommendations. In its review of adult social care, the commission said current laws were “an often-incoherent patchwork of legislation” that made interpretation of the law “complex and time-consuming”. Under the proposals a unified statute would set out a single, clear duty to assess a person and put the individual’s wellbeing “at the heart of decision-making”. The assessment would “focus on the person’s care and support needs and the outcomes they wish to achieve”, rather than having any service-led approach. A duty to assess carers would be introduced, removing the requirement for a carer to provide “a substantial amount of care on a regular basis”, which was criticised for being an “overly complex” test. Instead an assessment would be made simply if the carer may have needs that could be met by the provision of carers’ services. Once those needs were established “the authority must make arrangements for those services to be provided”, the commission said. Restrictions on using cash payments in lieu of services to purchase long-term residential accommodation would be lifted under the recommendations, the commission said. The new scheme would set out powers to protect individuals from abuse and neglect, placing a duty on local authorities “to investigate adult protection cases or cause an investigation to be made by other agencies”. Such an inquiry would be triggered if an individual appeared at risk of any harm, rather than at risk of significant harm as set out in existing guidance. Adult safeguarding boards would be given a statutory footing for the first time under the plans. The commission wants the power for a person to be removed from their home to be scrapped because it was “incompatible with the European convention on human rights, has several operational difficulties and is in practice obsolete”. Michelle Mitchell, charity director at Age UK, welcomed the “radical overhaul”, saying the current system was “a catastrophe waiting to happen”. The legal framework was “a complicated mess that sometimes local authorities either do not understand, or deliberately choose to ignore”. “The Law Commission’s recommendations provide a one-off opportunity to replace this dog’s breakfast with a clear, logical and consistent framework,” Mitchell said. “It is important, as we move forward to actual legislation, that political wrangling does not result in this clarity being lost. “Older people who enter the care system often feel that they have been stripped of their rights and of their status as equal citizens before the law. “An increasing number of cases, at great expense, are ending up in court with a judge having to decide what the law actually means.” The care services minister Paul Burstow welcomed the report, saying it “provides foundation for the most significant single reform of social care law in 60 years”. “The current law on adult social care lacks coherence, is hard to understand, and looks back to the Poor Law for its principles,” he said. “We now have the opportunity to update the law for the 21st century, placing principles of personal control and independence at the heart of social care law. “The Law Commission’s work provides us with a strong foundation upon which to build as we develop legislative reforms. “We will take this work together with the recommendations of the independent Commission on the Funding of Care and Support in the summer to set out a comprehensive reform in our care and support white paper.” Andrew Tyson, of the social care charity In Control, said reform was “long overdue”. But he warned that giving ownership of the support plans to local authorities rather than the individuals would have a detrimental effect as well as adding unnecessary and expensive bureaucracy. “These proposals represent an important step forward and, if implemented, should make the law simpler and more straightforward,” he said. “Overall the plans are positive but fall just short of the radical overhaul that we would have liked to have seen.” There were concerns that some of the proposals unamended might “unintentionally hinder the progress of personalisation and even go against the ethos of self-directed support”. “Defining a list of community care services is not in any way helpful and will restrict a person’s ability to achieve outcomes in an efficient self-directed manner,” he said. “If this is implemented we may well end up in a situation where people do not receive support if their outcomes fall outside of these categories.” David Congdon, head of campaigns and policy for the learning disability charity Mencap, warned that many local authorities were cutting support by placing tight eligibility criteria on services. “Court cases in the media recently, such as Birmingham city council’s plans to limit social care to those in critical need only, are the result of a system struggling to cope with limited resources,” he said. “A national set of guidelines and eligibility criteria would put an end to the postcode lottery and give everyone an equal opportunity to access the support they need. “The new statute would streamline over 40 laws that date back over 60 years, making the system work better for both people who need social care support and also for the local authorities themselves.” Social care guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Martha Graham honoured by Google

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 …