Train drivers’ union RMT calls walkouts across two weeks, starting 16 May and 13 June, over sacking of two drivers London commuters face travel disruption in the coming weeks after it was announced that tube workers are to take strike action in an escalating row over the sacking of two drivers. The Rail, Maritime and Transport union has said its tube drivers will walk out for between nine and 24 hours from Monday 16 May to Friday 20 May; and again from Monday 13 June to Friday 17 June. The strikes will disrupt the underground network over a period of two weeks, with the union claiming the action will have a “major impact” on services. It follows a 2-1 vote in favour of industrial action by RMT members in protest at the dismissal of Northern line driver Eamon Lynch and Bakerloo line driver Arwyn Thomas. Both men have gone to an employment tribunal claiming unfair dismissal. RMT members held a 24-hour strike in January over their dismissal and there have been several other stoppages in recent months. In November RMT walked out in a dispute over staffing levels at ticket offices . On Boxing Day the other train drivers’ union, Aslef, went on strike over bank holiday pay. RMT claims Lynch and Thomas were sacked because of their trade union activities, although this has been denied by Transport for London. “It is absolute nonsense to suggest that these individuals were dismissed unfairly due to their union activities and it is disgraceful that the RMT leadership has chosen to ballot for strike action when both cases are still going through the employment tribunal process,” said TfL. “The threat of strike action will never resolve issues such as this.” TfL alleged one man breached safety rules while the other was abusive towards colleagues. But RMT said Lynch had an “unblemished” 15-year service record while Thomas had been an RMT member for 29 years and both were “clear-cut cases of victimisation on the grounds of trade union activity”. London Transport Trade unions Mark Tran guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Report by human rights group cites ex-inmates and defectors’ accounts of torture and executions in series of camps North Korea’s political prison camps have expanded substantially over the last decade and hold 200,000 people, according to Amnesty International. The human rights group says satellite imagery shows that locations identified as prison camps by defectors have grown rapidly in recent years. Former detainees and guards who subsequently escaped from the country described horrific conditions including torture and widespread malnutrition, Amnesty said, with every former inmate saying they had witnessed executions. Thousands of prisoners are thought to be held purely for guilt by association under a system of collective punishment that holds relatives responsible when an individual breaks the law. “Hundreds of thousands of people exist with virtually no rights, treated essentially as slaves, in some of the worst circumstances we’ve documented in the last 50 years,” said Sam Zarifi, Amnesty’s Asia Pacific director. “As North Korea seems to be moving towards a new leader in Kim Jong-un and a period of political instability, the big worry is that the prison camps appear to be growing in size.” Satellite images showed four of the six camps sprawling over large tracts of land in remote rural areas of South Pyongan, South Hamkyung and North Hamkyung provinces. A comparison with images taken 10 years ago showed that they had grown significantly, Amnesty said, with 15 more guardhouses at Yodok alone. It combined the evidence of additional buildings with former detainees’ descriptions of conditions at the camps to arrive at its estimate of political prisoner numbers. The South Korean human rights commission has also estimated a population of 200,000 while South Korean government sources have suggested around 150,000 people are held in the camps. North Korea has a population of around 24 million. According to defectors, the camps consist of two areas. No one is ever released from the total control zones, for those alleged to have committed serious crimes such as those against the regime. Those deemed to have committed less serious offences, such as being critical of government policy or illegally crossing the border, face sentences of between a few months and a decade in revolutionary zones. Amnesty says only three people are known to have escaped total control zones and managed to leave North Korea. Most of its interviewees had been held in the revolutionary zone at a camp in Yodok. A devastating famine in the mid-1990s killed hundreds of thousands in North Korea and the country has suffered food shortages ever since, but conditions appear to have been particularly gruelling in the camps. Former inmate Jeong Kyoungil, who was detained in Yodok from 2000 to 2003, told Amnesty that prisoners received three meals of 200g of corn gruel a day, with food withheld if they failed to finish their work. “Seeing people die happened frequently – every day. Frankly, unlike in a normal society, we would like it rather than feel sad because if you bring a dead body and bury it, you would be given another bowl of food. I used to take charge of burying dead people’s bodies,” he said. Others reported torture, with detainees forced to spend a week or more in a cube-shaped cell too small in which to stand or lie down. North Korea, which does not acknowledge it has political prison camps, has not responded to the report. North Korea Tania Branigan guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Building society’s new Save to Buy account will enable first-time home buyers to apply for 95% loan-to-value mortgages Latest news: House prices dip in roller coaster ride Nationwide building society is launching a savings account which enables first-time buyers to apply for a mortgage with just a 5% deposit. From Friday, those aspiring to buy their own home can open a Save to Buy regular savings account which pays interest of 2.5% gross on balances up to £20,000. After at least six months of saving a minimum of £50 a month, the saver is entitled to apply for one of the Nationwide’s 95% loan-to-value (LTV) ratio mortgages: until now these have only been available to existing Nationwide mortgage customers who want to move home. The Nationwide joins a very small band of lenders prepared to extend mortgages to those with a deposit of just 5% on a relatively straightforward basis. Most others require parents or other family members to act as guarantors on the loans, or to put their own money into savings accounts which can be set against the loans in case things go wrong. Nationwide currently offers a 95% loan fixed for three years at 6.29% and one fixed for five years at 6.89%, although the rates on offer will almost certainly have changed by the time first-time buyers qualify to apply. Those who go on to take out a Nationwide 95% LTV mortgage will also benefit from cash back ranging from £250 for those who save from £2,500 to £4,999, to £1,000 for those who save £10,000 or more. Save to Buy customers will also qualify for any Nationwide first-time buyer deals available at the time of application, such as the current offer of a £500 discount off the product fee. David Hollingworth of mortgage broker London & Country said aspiring buyers might be able to find better savings rates elsewhere, but added that the Nationwide’s entrance to the 95% LTV market was still very welcome. “The Nationwide is getting back to that old-fashioned condition of wanting to get some savings in and making sure the borrower is able to put money away each month. This is no bad thing,” he said. “The obvious downside is that saving in the Save to Buy account does not guarantee that you will get a mortgage. The Nationwide is simply saying that it will consider your application.” He said other lenders offering 95% LTV loans, including the Skipton building society and Yorkshire Bank , charge similar interest rates to the Nationwide, but he added that the lenders set strict criteria when considering applications. “It’s not easy to get one of these loans,” he said. First-time buyers are generally considered to be the driving force behind the housing market. Their buying of a property releases homeowners to buy bigger or more expensive property, and spurs a whole chain of shopping, from house paint to white goods, that helps support the economy. But their numbers have dropped over the past few years, as buyers have been forced out of the market by high house prices, low or non-existent salary increases and an unwillingness on the part of lenders to provide them with high LTV mortgages. The government has put pressure on lenders to increase the number of mortgages they are making available to first-time buyers, and launched a scheme to help such buyers in the Budget . The Firstbuy scheme is open to those with a household income of less than £60,000 a year who can put down a 5% deposit – but the catch is that the mortgage must be used to buy a new home. First-time buyers Mortgages House prices Consumer affairs Housing market Housing Jill Insley guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Rolling coverage of all the day’s political developments including prime ministers questions 8.20am: Humphrys turns to other subjects. Q: Did Labour get it wrong on immigration? Miliband says Labour significantly underestimated the number of EU migrants who would come to Britain. It’s a class issue. The arrival of Polish builders is good of people who need a builder. But not for anyone who works as a builder. Immigration will contribute to the economic and culture life of Britain, he says. But the problem arises when politicians make false promises. David Cameron is promising to control immigration. But he can’t control the numbers coming in from the EU. The government’s proposed cap is a “very dubious thing”. Q: Are too many people coming into the country? Miliband says you cannot make that judgment. It depends what the economic circumstances are at the time. Cameron’s plan for a cap is not realistic. And it would not be good for British people working abroad. Q: Will your nose operation make you sound different? Miliband says he does not know. He hopes not. But he is having the operation for medical reasons. Humphrys concludes the interview by thanking “David Miliband”. Oh no. Another Humphrys gaffe. He’s not having a good slip. Miliband laughs it off, describing it as a “Freudian slip”, although he must find this a bit humiliating. I’ll post a full summary of the interview in a moment. 8.15am: Q: Why did you not change the voting system when you were in office? Miliband says: “We should have done.” He argued for putting a commitment to an AV referendum in the manifesto. But it didn’t happen earlier because Labour had “too big a majority”. Humphrys says this shows that Labour were motivated by party advantage. Miliband says he is giving an honest answer. Q: People understand first past the post, don’t they? Miliband says AV is an “equally simple system”. Q: But Cameron said yesterday that under AV people have their vote counted twice. Miliband says Humphrys got into “a bit of a tangle” over this. Cameron was wrong. Everyone has their vote counted when votes are counted for a second time. Q: Do you support PR? Miliband says he is not in favour of PR. He supports the constituency link. Q: Would a vote for AV be the end of electoral reform? Yes, says Miliband. “That’s the system I want.” Q: If you lose, is it over for a generation? Miliband says he does not want to speculate on the result. But if the yes camp lose, “we won’t be coming back to this quickly.” 8.10am: John Humphrys is interviewing Ed Miliband. They’re starting now. Q: Why can’t you persuade your own party to support AV? Miliband says Labour has been split on electoral reform for 80 years. But he’s in favour because it would change the political culture. It would force parties to reach out to others. Q: You talk about reaching out. But you were not prepared to share a platform with Nick Clegg? Miliband says he did not want the AV campaign to become a referendum on any individual. He did not share a platform with Clegg because that would damage the campaign. People were “shocked” by what Clegg did at the election. He posed as a politician of the centre left, but then went into government and supported policies that he had opposed. Q: But didn’t Vince Cable, with whom you have shared a platform, do this too? Miliband says Clegg was the “poster boy” for the new politics. But he has broken his promises, showing that he exemplifies the worst of old politics. Q: But so did Cable. Miliband says this is the decision he has made. 8.08am: There’s one day to go until the elections and Ed Miliband will be on the Today programme at 8.10am for an interview. He will be mainly talking about the alternative vote. Miliband is in favour of AV, but today there is a ComRes poll in the Independent showing the no camp 32 points ahead . And we’ve got PMQs at 12pm. Otherwise it looks quite quiet. That will probably suit most MPs. They were here until 4am this morning debating the finance bill. As usual, I’ll be covering all the breaking political news, as well as looking at the papers (I didn’t have time yesterday, but I don’t think you missed much because they were dominated by Osama bin Laden stories) and bringing you the best politics from the web. I’ll post a lunchtime summary at around 1pm, and an afternoon one at about 4pm. Alternative vote AV referendum Elections 2011 PMQs House of Commons David Cameron Ed Miliband Andrew Sparrow guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Studying moths is the new birdwatching. There’s more to them than you think… Move over birds; the moths are coming. The green silver- spangled shark, the soybean looper, the scarce merveille du jour and 2,500 more. Cinderellas of the UK’s natural history world for years, their time has come, judging by a national surge in moth blogs, digital photography and “moth breakfasts” as enthusiasts inspect (then release) their slumbering catch from overnight traps which use powerful, disorientating lights. The Houses of Parliament runs one; another casts its spooky glow over Buckingham Palace gardens (a sub- Saharan moth called the spiny bollworm puzzled scientists until they discovered a state delegation from Tanzania had stayed with the Queen the week before). Most moths are small, brown and hard to identify – same difference between so many UK moths and birds so why the surge in interest now? Two moth bibles are part of the answer – a breakthrough guide with astonishingly accurate paintings by Richard Lewington and the first UK atlas of species based on 11,300,000 examples going back to 1769. Record No 1 was a sinister death’s head hawk moth, which has a skull-pattern on its back and the unique ability to squeak. Add digital photography,, with comatose light-trapped moths an easy subject for macro focus, and check out the sense of community on the moth- infested blogosphere. Thus an arcane and difficult branch of natural history has become common property and science has begun to benefit from its new army of fired-up amateurs. Small and brown? Not the Clifden nonpareil, the Tunbridge Wells gem or the gold spangle. And look at the mysteries to solve. How does the winter moth, which flew on last December’s iciest nights, concoct the natural antifreeze in its blood? What triggers the decoy radar signals that the large yellow underwing deploys against bats? And those holes in your clothes? Only around six UK moth caterpillars chomp textiles, say experts such as composer Sir Harrison Birtwistle, a moth man since childhood. “Mind you, we did have a lot of expensive cashmere . . .” he adds, between work on a forthcoming musical elegy for the UK’s lost species. • Requiem for a Moth by the Guardian’s Iain Chambers and Martin Wainwright is on Radio 4 at 11am on Friday. Insects Martin Wainwright guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Fiendishly complex and morally ambiguous, The Shadow Line aims to bring HBO-style drama to the BBC. Amy
Continue reading …Fiendishly complex and morally ambiguous, The Shadow Line aims to bring HBO-style drama to the BBC. Amy
Continue reading …Director of public prosecution to review earlier decision following jury’s finding that newspaper vendor was ‘unlawfully killed’ Britain’s most senior prosecutor has said he was considering whether to prosecute the police officer who attacked Ian Tomlinson for manslaughter after an inquest jury found that the newspaper seller had been unlawfully killed. Tomlinson, 47, had been trying to walk home from work through the G20 demonstrations near the Bank of England when he was attacked from behind by a Metropolitan police constable, Simon Harwood, a member of the Met’s Territorial Support Group (TSG). Returning their verdict after three hours of deliberation on Tuesday, jurors said Tomlinson died of internal bleeding in the abdomen after being struck with a baton and pushed to the ground with “excessive and unreasonable” force on 7.20pm on 1 April 2009. Within minutes of the verdict being announced, the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, said a “thorough review” of his earlier decision not to bring criminal prosecutions against Harwood had begun. “That review will now take place and will be thorough,” he said. “It will take into account all of the evidence now available, including any new evidence that emerged at the inquest, the issues left by the coroner to the jury and the conclusions they reached. The review will be conducted as quickly as is compatible with the care and rigour required in a thorough exercise.” For legal reasons, the jury’s verdict could not name Harwood or apportion blame. The verdict, however, did say that Tomlinson’s death came after he was “fatally injured. This was as a result of a baton strike from behind and a push in the back by a police officer which caused Mr Tomlinson to fall heavily,” the verdict said. “Both the baton strike and the push were excessive and unreasonable. As a result, Mr Tomlinson suffered internal bleeding which led to his collapse within a few minutes and his subsequent death.” Their finding noted Tomlinson, a father of nine, was walking away from police, obeying orders and posed “no threat” when he was struck by Harwood. There were shouts of “yes” from Tomlinson’s family when the verdict was returned. His son Paul King said afterwards: “We’ve got a long way ahead of us. We’ve been let down for two years. It’s been proven that Ian was killed unlawfully. Now we’d like to go to court and continue with the manslaughter charges.” The Met expressed “profound condolences” to Tomlinson’s family, saying in a statement: “It is a matter of deep regret that the actions of an MPS officer have been found to have caused the death of a member of the public.” The Tomlinson inquest verdict comes just over a year after the Met was forced to accept one of its officers almost certainly killed Blair Peach, an anti-fascist protester, at a protest in Southall, west London, in 1979. The Met kept a report into Peach’s death secret for more than 30 years. It revealed he was killed by an officer from the Special Patrol Group – the precursor to the TSG. Police initially denied Tomlinson had had contact with police officers before his death. Reporters were briefed that Tomlinson had died of “natural causes”. Tomlinson’s family, who have alleged that police covered up information about involvement in his death, were told he probably died of a heart attack before a postmortem had even taken place. They were discouraged from talking to reporters investigating the death and told Tomlinson has simply been seen to “run out of batteries”. Details about a bruise on his leg and puncture marks in his skin, now known to have been caused by a baton strike and dog bite, were also withheld from them. However, the release six days later of footage obtained by the Guardian showing the newspaper seller’s encounter with Harwood prompted the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) to launch a criminal inquiry. The footage was played repeatedly during the five-week hearing at the International Dispute Resolution Centre in Fleet Street, London. Starmer said last July he did not believe a prosecution was possible because of complications on medical evidence, which he said meant prosecutors would struggle to prove a cause of death. There were two divergent explanations of Tomlinson’s death. The first pathologist to conduct a postmortem examination on the body, Dr Freddy Patel, said he died of a heart attack as a result of coronary heart disease. He was contradicted by three other pathologists who examined Tomlinson’s body, all of whom found he died of internal bleeding in the abdomen. Starmer said last year that changes in Patel’s evidence about the extent of blood found in Tomlinson’s abdomen rendered any prosecution particularly difficult. However, Patel made several changes to his evidence in the course of the inquest, and was undermined by a number of experts, including a heart specialist who said defibrillator readings showing Tomlinson’s heart attack were “entirely inconsistent” with Patel’s theory. The jury was also told that Patel had twice been suspended by the General Medical Council disciplinary panel in recent months after being found guilty of a botched postmortem and dishonesty. Reviewing his decision, Starmer will have to consider the new medical evidence as well as the jury verdict. The jury had to be satisfied “beyond reasonable doubt” that Tomlinson’s injuries were caused by the trauma of the fall – the same burden of proof that would be applied in a criminal trial. Starmer’s initial decision not to prosecute was backed by the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, but prompted widespread anger and questions in parliament. The Met commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, said at the time he could understand the “outrage” over the decision not to prosecute Harwood. The IPCC is also known to have believed there was sufficient evidence to bring a manslaughter charge. In a statement released through his lawyers on Tuesday, Harwood said he was “sorry” Tomlinson died, but denied he intended to hurt him. “The mass of video and other evidence gathered by the IPCC now presents a picture very different from the one PC Harwood had on the day,” his lawyer said. “In particular, he wishes that he had known then all that he now knows about Mr Tomlinson’s movements and fragile state of health.” Ian Tomlinson G20 London Metropolitan police Police Paul Lewis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Director of public prosecution to review earlier decision following jury’s finding that newspaper vendor was ‘unlawfully killed’ Britain’s most senior prosecutor has said he was considering whether to prosecute the police officer who attacked Ian Tomlinson for manslaughter after an inquest jury found that the newspaper seller had been unlawfully killed. Tomlinson, 47, had been trying to walk home from work through the G20 demonstrations near the Bank of England when he was attacked from behind by a Metropolitan police constable, Simon Harwood, a member of the Met’s Territorial Support Group (TSG). Returning their verdict after three hours of deliberation on Tuesday, jurors said Tomlinson died of internal bleeding in the abdomen after being struck with a baton and pushed to the ground with “excessive and unreasonable” force on 7.20pm on 1 April 2009. Within minutes of the verdict being announced, the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, said a “thorough review” of his earlier decision not to bring criminal prosecutions against Harwood had begun. “That review will now take place and will be thorough,” he said. “It will take into account all of the evidence now available, including any new evidence that emerged at the inquest, the issues left by the coroner to the jury and the conclusions they reached. The review will be conducted as quickly as is compatible with the care and rigour required in a thorough exercise.” For legal reasons, the jury’s verdict could not name Harwood or apportion blame. The verdict, however, did say that Tomlinson’s death came after he was “fatally injured. This was as a result of a baton strike from behind and a push in the back by a police officer which caused Mr Tomlinson to fall heavily,” the verdict said. “Both the baton strike and the push were excessive and unreasonable. As a result, Mr Tomlinson suffered internal bleeding which led to his collapse within a few minutes and his subsequent death.” Their finding noted Tomlinson, a father of nine, was walking away from police, obeying orders and posed “no threat” when he was struck by Harwood. There were shouts of “yes” from Tomlinson’s family when the verdict was returned. His son Paul King said afterwards: “We’ve got a long way ahead of us. We’ve been let down for two years. It’s been proven that Ian was killed unlawfully. Now we’d like to go to court and continue with the manslaughter charges.” The Met expressed “profound condolences” to Tomlinson’s family, saying in a statement: “It is a matter of deep regret that the actions of an MPS officer have been found to have caused the death of a member of the public.” The Tomlinson inquest verdict comes just over a year after the Met was forced to accept one of its officers almost certainly killed Blair Peach, an anti-fascist protester, at a protest in Southall, west London, in 1979. The Met kept a report into Peach’s death secret for more than 30 years. It revealed he was killed by an officer from the Special Patrol Group – the precursor to the TSG. Police initially denied Tomlinson had had contact with police officers before his death. Reporters were briefed that Tomlinson had died of “natural causes”. Tomlinson’s family, who have alleged that police covered up information about involvement in his death, were told he probably died of a heart attack before a postmortem had even taken place. They were discouraged from talking to reporters investigating the death and told Tomlinson has simply been seen to “run out of batteries”. Details about a bruise on his leg and puncture marks in his skin, now known to have been caused by a baton strike and dog bite, were also withheld from them. However, the release six days later of footage obtained by the Guardian showing the newspaper seller’s encounter with Harwood prompted the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) to launch a criminal inquiry. The footage was played repeatedly during the five-week hearing at the International Dispute Resolution Centre in Fleet Street, London. Starmer said last July he did not believe a prosecution was possible because of complications on medical evidence, which he said meant prosecutors would struggle to prove a cause of death. There were two divergent explanations of Tomlinson’s death. The first pathologist to conduct a postmortem examination on the body, Dr Freddy Patel, said he died of a heart attack as a result of coronary heart disease. He was contradicted by three other pathologists who examined Tomlinson’s body, all of whom found he died of internal bleeding in the abdomen. Starmer said last year that changes in Patel’s evidence about the extent of blood found in Tomlinson’s abdomen rendered any prosecution particularly difficult. However, Patel made several changes to his evidence in the course of the inquest, and was undermined by a number of experts, including a heart specialist who said defibrillator readings showing Tomlinson’s heart attack were “entirely inconsistent” with Patel’s theory. The jury was also told that Patel had twice been suspended by the General Medical Council disciplinary panel in recent months after being found guilty of a botched postmortem and dishonesty. Reviewing his decision, Starmer will have to consider the new medical evidence as well as the jury verdict. The jury had to be satisfied “beyond reasonable doubt” that Tomlinson’s injuries were caused by the trauma of the fall – the same burden of proof that would be applied in a criminal trial. Starmer’s initial decision not to prosecute was backed by the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, but prompted widespread anger and questions in parliament. The Met commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, said at the time he could understand the “outrage” over the decision not to prosecute Harwood. The IPCC is also known to have believed there was sufficient evidence to bring a manslaughter charge. In a statement released through his lawyers on Tuesday, Harwood said he was “sorry” Tomlinson died, but denied he intended to hurt him. “The mass of video and other evidence gathered by the IPCC now presents a picture very different from the one PC Harwood had on the day,” his lawyer said. “In particular, he wishes that he had known then all that he now knows about Mr Tomlinson’s movements and fragile state of health.” Ian Tomlinson G20 London Metropolitan police Police Paul Lewis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …