Ministry of Defence document published on web in redacted form could be copied and pasted to reveal full details Defence chiefs have been forced into an embarrassing emergency retraction after secret information about the UK’s nuclear-powered submarines was inadvertently published on a website. A technical error meant sections of a Ministry of Defence report that appeared to have been blacked out could in fact be read by anyone who copied and pasted them into another document. The offending paragraphs have now been properly covered up [PDF] but were reported to have included expert opinion about the fleet’s ability to withstand a catastrophic accident. Details of measures used by the US navy to protect its own nuclear submarines were also accidentally made available, according to the Daily Star Sunday newspaper, which alerted the MoD to the problem. The Tory MP Patrick Mercer, who served in the army, told the newspaper the information would be “hugely interesting” to Britain’s enemies and its release “potentially catastrophic”. The document involved was an assessment drawn up by the head of the defence nuclear safety regulator, Commodore Andrew McFarlane, over options for the reactors in future submarines to replace the Trident fleet. In sections released intentionally on the parliament website, it concluded that the existing reactors were “potentially vulnerable” to fatal accidents – leading ministers to suggest new versions would be used. Some parts of the declassified document were redacted when it was published to protect sensitive information but the technique used meant the words were still electronically available underneath. An MoD spokesman said: “The MoD is grateful to the journalist for bringing this matter to our attention. “As soon as we were told about this, we took steps to ensure the document was removed from the public domain and replaced by a properly redacted version. We take nuclear security very seriously and we are doing everything possible to prevent a recurrence of this.” Trident Military Defence policy guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
South Cambridgeshire is the best place to live in rural Britain, according to a survey by the Halifax The countryside around Cambridge is the best place to live in rural Britain, according to a Halifax survey which gave it the top spot for its mix of high incomes, life expectancy, good health, high educational standards – and the fact that it doesn’t rain too much. In a survey of every rural area in the UK, South Cambridgeshire emerged at the top of the table, closely followed by East Hertfordshire, Uttlesford (the area around Stansted Airport) and Aylesbury Vale in Buckinghamshire. Outside the south and east of England, the top-rated spots were Rushcliffe, south of Nottingham, and Wychavon in Worcestershire. But South Cambridgeshire edged ahead of every other part of the UK with 95% of its 140,000 residents reporting generally good health, and the highest life expectancy of any rural area in the country. Average weekly earnings across the area, made up of 105 villages, are £739, and the employment rate, at 79%, is one of the highest in the UK. The area, which includes the village of Grantchester made famous by Rupert Brooke and latterly Jeffrey Archer, derives most of its prosperity from the university city it encircles. Alex Colyer, executive director of South Cambridgeshire District Council, said: “It’s a very vibrant place with a science and education-driven economy which ripples out of Cambridge. We have lots of biotech and science companies and low levels of deprivation.” Recession and austerity have barely touched the district, where house prices rose strongly through 2010 and currently average around £275,000. Unemployment is below 2% and employment in the R&D sector is 18 times the national average. The council says one of its biggest challenge is public transport. “We have a very high reliance on cars in this area and cuts to public transport are an issue for us.” Halifax measured every rural location in Britain on criteria including home size, traffic flows, employment, crime, weather, and GCSE results. Employment was highest in Ryedale in North Yorkshire and the Shetlands, both at 86%. The Western Isles had the lowest burglary rate, least traffic and smallest school class sizes. At the other end of the country, the Isle of Wight scored highest for sunshine, while the Isles of Scilly, Teesdale and Wear Valley in County Durham were top for GCSE results. Health Housing market Real estate Patrick Collinson guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Human rights group: There seemed to be “a continual expectation containment would be used” on London TUC march Senior officers policing protests in London last month focused too heavily on kettling to contain activists, Liberty says. The rights group, which had 120 observers, including two inside Scotland Yard’s special operations room (SOR), for the TUC march on 26 March, said the tactic was “under near constant consideration” when potential trouble emerged. “In the SOR, there seemed to be a continual expectation that a containment would be imposed at some point,” Liberty’s report said, adding that the tactic “does appear seriously to undermine the relationship of trust and confidence between peaceful protesters and the police”. The report added: “The possibility of mass containment of peaceful protesters has undoubtedly had a chilling effect on many people’s rights to freedom of expression and assembly.” Despite its criticism, Liberty added that the Met’s response was “on the whole proportionate” and found no need for further police powers to deal with violent groups who infiltrate demonstrations. Assistant Commissioner Lynne Owens, of the Met, said: “We were faced with the difficult task of striking the right balance between ensuring the vast majority of people were able to peacefully protest whilst managing the small number of criminals intent on disorder.” Police Protest London TUC Trade unions guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Human rights group: There seemed to be “a continual expectation containment would be used” on London TUC march Senior officers policing protests in London last month focused too heavily on kettling to contain activists, Liberty says. The rights group, which had 120 observers, including two inside Scotland Yard’s special operations room (SOR), for the TUC march on 26 March, said the tactic was “under near constant consideration” when potential trouble emerged. “In the SOR, there seemed to be a continual expectation that a containment would be imposed at some point,” Liberty’s report said, adding that the tactic “does appear seriously to undermine the relationship of trust and confidence between peaceful protesters and the police”. The report added: “The possibility of mass containment of peaceful protesters has undoubtedly had a chilling effect on many people’s rights to freedom of expression and assembly.” Despite its criticism, Liberty added that the Met’s response was “on the whole proportionate” and found no need for further police powers to deal with violent groups who infiltrate demonstrations. Assistant Commissioner Lynne Owens, of the Met, said: “We were faced with the difficult task of striking the right balance between ensuring the vast majority of people were able to peacefully protest whilst managing the small number of criminals intent on disorder.” Police Protest London TUC Trade unions guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Title: Sweet Sweet Spirit Artist: Elvis/J.D. Sumner And The Stamps Quartet Happy Sunday!
Continue reading …Former Romney Spokesperson Attempts Some Damage Control on Healthcare for His Old Boss
April 17, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media On this week’s Fox News Sunday, former Mitt Romney spokesman, Kevin Madden does his best to put a positive spin on the fact that his former boss is going to get attacked for passing his health care plan in Massachusetts which was used as a model for President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. The best Madden can come up with… this was good for Massachusetts and the individual mandate was alright for that state, but now that the evil, big-government, Socialist Obama has adopted it, it’s a bad thing for the entire country to have it, or something like that anyway. As Juan Williams pointed out, it’s a pretty hard sell convincing people that something was good for a state but now simply because it applies to more people, it’s a bad idea or some kind of “government intrusion” on their lives. I don’t think most Americans are going to buy it either. Good old “Multiple-Choice” Mitt is going to have a hard time with this during the campaign. Transcript via Fox News : WALLACE: Kevin, your man, or your former man, Mitt Romney, announced his exploratory committee. Has he — and by all lights, he should be the frontrunner, I think it’s fair to say — money, organization from last time, certainly going to run, which some of the others aren’t necessarily going to do. Has he figured out how to deal with what most people consider to be the big chink in his armor — and that is, Romneycare, the health care plan in Massachusetts, which had an individual mandate much like Obamacare? MADDEN: Well, I think, first of all, the frontrunner status is one that’s usually arrived at by formula. But I think this field right now, as we see in that poll, is very unsettled. I think on the question of how he’s going to run, how he’s going to handle health care, I think the best way to describe it is that he’s going to confront it. I think it’s clearly going to be an issue in this campaign, but I don’t think it’s going to be the only issue. But it’s clearly going to be something that, as we look to contrast ourselves with other folks in the — seeking the Republican nomination, and seek to contrast yourself with President Obama, it’s certainly going to be something that’s important to many voters. WALLACE: Let me just interrupt. When you say he is going to confront it — because, before, he said some things worked, some things didn’t, or this was a state experiment, it wasn’t a federal plan — the principle, which is, I think, what most people that are concerned about and are concerned about, is that he supported an individual mandate. Is he going to sit there and say, I defend the principle of an individual mandate? MADDEN: I think the question has to be, do you defend it — how is it that you decided to drive costs and get more — and provide more access in your particular state? So, an individual mandate was the best way to reach that with a unique health care population in Massachusetts, a unique health care population of seven million. But the mistake, and where the Obama plan went wrong, was that it tried to apply a federal standard with an individual mandate to over 300 million. And I think that’s an important distinction. Now, there are a lot of people that will say, well, that’s not going to sell with many voters, but it’s important because it’s true. I think, then, you have to move on to health care debate, which is, where are we going in the future? How are we going to drive down cost? How are we going to get greater access going forward?Clearly, Obamacare is not going to drive down costs. It’s shown that it’s been a great expansion of government power, and what we’re seeing is, because of the taxes and regulations, we are seeing higher prices. So that’s going to be where the debate focuses — where do we go in future? WALLACE: Juan, has brother Kevin persuaded you that Romney doesn’t have a problem? MADDEN: He was taking notes. WILLIAMS: Well, you know, Kevin is a good political strategist. That’s why he is so successful. But, I mean, it’s just a hard sell. You know? I mean, basically, the Massachusetts plan is exactly what Obama’s health care reform prescription has been. It’s on a state level, so Kevin and Mitt Romney– MADDEN: But isn’t that an important distinction? WILLIAMS: Well, he was running a state. President Obama is running a nation. MADDEN: Right. But why would you apply something that works for one unique health care population of seven million people to 300 million? That would be a mistake, wouldn’t it? WILLIAMS: Because — in other words, in fact, President Obama has said he learned from the Massachusetts plan in trying to draft the national health care — MADDEN: But what’s right for Massachusetts is not necessarily right for other states. WILLIAMS: Well, let me just say — MADDEN: That’s an important distinction.
Continue reading …Tim Loughton says few children taken in care at five or older are placed with a family, due to ‘informal age limit’ by local authorities The minister responsible for fostering and adoption has registered concern that some local authorities operate “an informal age limit” whereby children were not considered for adoption if aged five or over when taken into care. Tim Loughton was commenting on analysis of previously published figures which show the proportion drops from one in three at four or younger to one in 15 at five. Among children aged 12 or older, only one in 100 is adopted after being taken into care, according to the Department for Education. Prospective adopters are sometimes thought to be reluctant to take on older children, who may have developmental or emotional problems as a result of more years of abuse or neglect. However, Loughton told the Times that older children should not be denied the possibility of adoption. “For kids who’ve had a pretty traumatic childhood, getting them into a safe, stable, loving family placement is of the utmost priority, and every day that we fail to achieve that puts them at even more of a disadvantage. “While many babies are being adopted, as children get to school age the chances of getting adopted fall off dramatically. We need urgently to redouble our efforts to show these children are even more needing and deserving of a long-term placement and should not be written off simply because they are not babies or toddlers. I want to make sure local authorities are not operating some sort of informal age limit.” New guidelines already drawn up by the government state that older children and those from ethnic minorities should all be considered for adoption by suitable families of any background, regardless of their racial background or social status. Ministers are eager to see an increase in adoption levels after the number of children placed for adoption fell by 15% between March 2009 and 2010, while more children are also waiting longer to be adopted. Loughton is on record as saying previously that it was “disappointing” that some councils placed only two% of the children in their care for adoption, while the rate was eight times higher in other areas. Adoption Children Local government Ben Quinn guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …This Week’s ‘Deficit Debate’: How Is It A Debate When No One Is There To Oppose It?
April 17, 2011 No Comment
According to Village protocol, the only permissible “debate” on the deficit is over how much do we cut, and how? Should we cut into the veins, arteries or capillaries? Should we use a hatchet, a knife or a scalpel, or all of the above? On This Week with Christiane Amanpour, the closest thing they had to a liberal voice was Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, who tried to have it both ways. He kinda-sorta sidestepped the idea of tax increases, proclaimed his support of “fiscal responsibility” but defended Obama’s call for certain kinds of spending: President Obama’s deficit-reduction speech wasn’t just about numbers but what kind of country America will become, Governor Deval Patrick said this morning during an appearance on ABC’s “This Week” news program. While Republicans have criticized the partisan nature of last week’s address, in which Obama proposed cutting $4 trillion over 12 years, Patrick said the critics glossed over its overarching theme. “It’s a fiscally responsible but also mutually responsible kind of community, and I support that,” the governor told host Christiane Amanpour. Patrick also said: “It thought the speech … was a real leadership moment. I think that the president took us to the place where we really ought to be debating — it’s been the subtext for a long time — and that’s, what kind of country do we want to be? That’s the underlying question in terms of the budget and the deficit and health care, as well, for that matter, and that’s what we should be debating.” George Will, of course, is worse than useless. He talked about the grand days under Jack Kennedy, when people paid a much bigger proportion of their medical expenses — with nary a hint of understanding that medical expenses have gone through the roof since then, and that U.S. wages have actually declined in the last 30 years. But that isn’t as much fun to harrumph about. The next time a wealthy talking head talks about our need to have some “skin in the game,” why don’t we peel ours off and leave it on his doorstep?
Continue reading …This Week’s ‘Deficit Debate’: How Is It A Debate When No One Is There To Oppose It?
April 17, 2011 No CommentAccording to Village protocol, the only permissible “debate” on the deficit is over how much do we cut, and how? Should we cut into the veins, arteries or capillaries? Should we use a hatchet, a knife or a scalpel, or all of the above? On This Week with Christiane Amanpour, the closest thing they had to a liberal voice was Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, who tried to have it both ways. He kinda-sorta sidestepped the idea of tax increases, proclaimed his support of “fiscal responsibility” but defended Obama’s call for certain kinds of spending: President Obama’s deficit-reduction speech wasn’t just about numbers but what kind of country America will become, Governor Deval Patrick said this morning during an appearance on ABC’s “This Week” news program. While Republicans have criticized the partisan nature of last week’s address, in which Obama proposed cutting $4 trillion over 12 years, Patrick said the critics glossed over its overarching theme. “It’s a fiscally responsible but also mutually responsible kind of community, and I support that,” the governor told host Christiane Amanpour. Patrick also said: “It thought the speech … was a real leadership moment. I think that the president took us to the place where we really ought to be debating — it’s been the subtext for a long time — and that’s, what kind of country do we want to be? That’s the underlying question in terms of the budget and the deficit and health care, as well, for that matter, and that’s what we should be debating.” George Will, of course, is worse than useless. He talked about the grand days under Jack Kennedy, when people paid a much bigger proportion of their medical expenses — with nary a hint of understanding that medical expenses have gone through the roof since then, and that U.S. wages have actually declined in the last 30 years. But that isn’t as much fun to harrumph about. The next time a wealthy talking head talks about our need to have some “skin in the game,” why don’t we peel ours off and leave it on his doorstep?
Continue reading …Lowry Calls Obama Classless, Clift Asks ‘What Would You Expect From Kenyan Socialist With No Birth Certificate?’
April 17, 2011 No Comment
For the second week in a row, Newsweek's Eleanor Clift and National Review's Rich Lowry had quite a battle on PBS's “McLaughlin Group.” This time the fireworks started when Lowry called President Obama classless for the way he treated Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) at Wednesday's speech on deficit reduction which led Clift to ask, “What else would you expect from a socialist born in Kenya who’s hiding his birth certificate?” (video follows with transcript and commentary): ELEANOR CLIFT, NEWSWEEK: It is perfectly fair politics to point out that Paul Ryan’s plan gets its cuts from taking money away from two-thirds of the public that is poorer, and hands it over in tax cuts to the top class… RICH LOWRY, NATIONAL REVIEW: It is revenue neutral. CLIFT: …and to call that classless… LOWRY: It’s a revenue neutral tax reform… CLIFT: Who gets… LOWRY: …it does not cut taxes. That is wrong. JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, HOST: Don't you think you’re a little pessimistic? CLIFT: Excuse me! The savings he gets he transfers to the upper class, and you call the President's speech classless? What do you mean by that from a party that's in favor of birther talk. MCLAUGHLIN: Let him answer, let him answer. LOWRY: He invited Paul Ryan to sit in there in front of him and tell him he hates autistic kids fundamentally. That is classless, Eleanor. There's no other word for that. CLIFT: What else would you expect from a socialist born in Kenya who’s hiding his birth certificate? LOWRY: Maybe a little class. Maybe a little class. He’s President of the United States. MCLAUGHLIN: Wait a minute, there’s too many people talking here. Let's hear from Buchanan. Who’s the demagogue? PAT BUCHANAN: In the President's speech there were real aspects of demagoguery. He’s talking about kids with autism and the rich getting their tax cuts. MCLAUGHLIN: You don’t think the American people could see through that and they saw that it was demagoguery. BUCHANAN: Demagoguery works, John. Indeed it does, and as Buchanan said during this same segment, such demagoguery might end up getting Obama reelected. Makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?
Continue reading …