DrugScope charity says BBC’s failure to check thinktank’s findings risks stigmatising recovering heroin addicts The BBC has been drawn into an increasingly bitter row surrounding the merits and costs of treating heroin addicts. The charity DrugScope has written to the corporation complaining about its coverage of a report by a rightwing thinktank, the Centre for Policy Studies, that warned the prescription of the heroin substitute methadone was “entrenching addiction”. The report, Breaking the Habit , said prescribing addicts with methadone had been an expensive failure and claimed there were 320,000 problem drug users on benefits, costing the taxpayer billions of pounds. The row has highlighted the increasingly polarised nature of the debate on treatment for heroin addicts. Last year the prime minister, David Cameron, described methadone as “a government-authorised form of opium”. The centre’s report claims there are as many addicts today as there were in 2004-05. It notes: “Fewer than 4% of addicts emerge from treatment free from dependency. Drug deaths have continued to rise.” The thinktank suggested that instead of prescribing methadone, greater success would be achieved by funding small rehabilitation units that would encourage abstinence on a payment by results basis. Its hard-hitting claims have attracted extensive coverage and last week provoked a national debate on drug addiction treatment. While many in the drug treatment industry welcomed the centre’s call to reconsider how the UK treats long-term addicts, the thinktank has been attacked over “misleading” figures. DrugScope said that it had written to the BBC to complain that, by giving extensive coverage to the report, the corporation had failed “to check the accuracy of claims made, particularly about the cost of treatment and methadone prescribing”. Martin Barnes, DrugScope’s chief executive, asked why the corporation had repeated the report’s claim that “methadone prescribing costs £730m a year”, saying the figure was for the drug treatment system as a whole. Barnes outlined a series of further examples where he said the report had conflated the true cost of methadone treatment and benefits paid to drug addicts. He pointed out that last year the National Audit Office concluded that drug treatment represents “good value for money” for the taxpayer. Barnes said: “Not only are the misleading claims potentially damaging to public confidence in drug treatment at a time of spending cuts and competing priorities, they risk reinforcing the stigma and barriers many people in recovery experience.” A spokesman for the BBC confirmed it had received the complaint. BBC Drugs Health Jamie Doward guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Government may encourage applicants to seek banks’ help to pay for university places Students will be encouraged to borrow from high-street banks to cover their tuition fees, under proposals considered by the government as a way out of the funding crisis facing higher education. With more universities than expected charging the maximum of £9,000 a year for tuition, universities minister David Willetts is seeking a way to reduce the liabilities of the government-backed Student Loans Company by turning to the UK’s major banks to provide loans at preferable rates. Universities UK, which represents universities, has been consulted. Its president, Sir Steve Smith, who is vice-chancellor of Exeter University, said the proposal to allow banks to exploit the student market carried huge risks and could create a two-tier education system. He said the Department for Business Innovation and Skills had proposed that students taking private loans would be counted outside the allotment of places each university is given by the government, making them attractive to colleges aiming to increase their cash flow. Smith said the consequent risk of a two-tier higher education system had “nasty” implications. “They [the government] have talked to us about that, but the trouble is that it has the obvious objection that it looks awfully like those people buying their way in.” Smith, who said be had been in talks with several banks over the issue, added: “The trouble is that it is really difficult to come up with a system that doesn’t make it really difficult for people who attend less high-ranking institutions where the students don’t earn the money [to repay the loans].” The Observer understands that Willetts held talks with Spanish bank Santander last month over private student loans, an issue which threatens to embarrass the minister as he prepares to unveil his delayed white paper on the future of higher education. Last month Willetts was forced to defend himself from accusations that he was favouring the rich when he suggested that students who missed out on a place at the university of their choice after 2012 would still be able to attend the course if they paid up front. Banks are keen to recruit students as clients because they tend to stay loyal as they become more wealthy. A spokesman for Santander, Carlos Leira, said the bank was “very keen” on developing its discussions with the government. He said: “You are absolutely right that Santander has been in talks with David Willetts because we are very keen on developing sensible banking for students. “There is nothing set in stone yet, we are looking at different possibilities. We do have a loan at the moment for MBA students, but that is a tiny bit of what we want to do.” Smith said banks would only become involved if either the government or, more likely, the universities accepted liability for unpaid loans. He added: “Banks are interested only if the university takes the risk, the government takes the risk, or they do it only for a select few institutions. So you can imagine 10 institutions where the returns could be high, they could do a really good deal for our students.” The government has an estimated £1bn black hole in its finances following the decision by most universities to charge the maximum tuition fees. Shadow universities minister Gareth Thomas said the latest policy proposal was born out of desperation. “It’s now even clearer that the huge hole in the government’s higher education budget is driving policy on universities, as ministers look at ever more madcap plans to plug their funding gap,” he said. “I am all for more private finance in public services, but the banks deciding who gets a student loan or not is a recipe for a two-tier university system, helping a few lucky ones while leaving the majority to fend for themselves and quite clearly it hasn’t been thought through.” More controversial proposals will be aired next week. At present, universities are restricted to a quota of undergraduates in each intake and fined if they go beyond this. The government is expected to allow them to exceed quotas if they recruit the additional numbers from students who achieve grades AAB or higher at A-level in response to the outcry over high-attaining A-level pupils failing to get a place at their favoured university. University funding David Willetts Higher education Daniel Boffey guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media ( The Jackson 5 – with Michael in front. Before it all got very complicated ) ( In remembrance of the2nd anniversary of the passing of Michael Jackson, I’m reposting this interview which originally appeared in 2009 ). With the tragic death of Michael Jackson, and the reverberations of his passing echoing around the world, I ran across an interview Michael and his brothers did in 1973. They had just arrived in New York on the third leg of a world tour – they were playing Madison Square Garden that particular night – the night being July 22, 1973. It was a sold out concert, as so many of them were. The Jackson 5 were at the pinnacle of their success – the world in many ways was still their oyster. Michael was the wise old age of 13. So this hour, recorded at radio station WWRL in New York features Michael all the brothers talking and joking – optimistic about the future, with that cocky assurance everything is possible, before it all got very serious and very out of control. Before it all changed.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media ( The Jackson 5 – with Michael in front. Before it all got very complicated ) ( In remembrance of the2nd anniversary of the passing of Michael Jackson, I’m reposting this interview which originally appeared in 2009 ). With the tragic death of Michael Jackson, and the reverberations of his passing echoing around the world, I ran across an interview Michael and his brothers did in 1973. They had just arrived in New York on the third leg of a world tour – they were playing Madison Square Garden that particular night – the night being July 22, 1973. It was a sold out concert, as so many of them were. The Jackson 5 were at the pinnacle of their success – the world in many ways was still their oyster. Michael was the wise old age of 13. So this hour, recorded at radio station WWRL in New York features Michael all the brothers talking and joking – optimistic about the future, with that cocky assurance everything is possible, before it all got very serious and very out of control. Before it all changed.
Continue reading …
enlarge No, not Newt’s glossy, white mane. No, we’re talking about Callista’s : Hair has struck again. Superficial, to be sure, it somehow manages to work its way into almost every campaign, and this season is no different. Even this early in the 2012 presidential race, a hair-related scandal has erupted (and Donald Trump’s not even running). In case you’re just joining the situation: Most of Newt Gingrich’s top staffers resigned this month, in part, NBC reported, because his wife, Callista, allegedly refused early-morning campaign flights because she needed time to get her platinum hair done.[..] The Globe asked several local hairdressers for a professional assessment. How much time would Callista Gingrich need in the morning before she could comfortably hit the campaign trail? Almost to a stylist, they said the “helmet’’ look doesn’t come quickly. “It takes at least 45 minutes to an hour to do that kind of blow-dry,’’ said Clifford Bouvier, artistic director of Crew International, in Brookline. “She’s really bleached out, and to smooth out over-processed hair you have to do a lot of work. You have to use products that put moisture back in the hair.’’ Helena Cohen, owner of Ardan Medspa + Salon, in Wellesley, said that Gingrich’s hair appears to be teased, and that would add time to the morning routine. “She does that bump on the top that gives it height.’’ Time taken away from kissing babies: about 15 minutes. I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but it seems that if Newtie was really in control over his campaign and if he really was “in it to win it,” he’d be able to avoid these kind of articles. Because if the reason your staff quits is because of the time your wife requires to achieve that bizarro helmet hair, you are probably not White House material. Just sayin’…
Continue reading …
enlarge No, not Newt’s glossy, white mane. No, we’re talking about Callista’s : Hair has struck again. Superficial, to be sure, it somehow manages to work its way into almost every campaign, and this season is no different. Even this early in the 2012 presidential race, a hair-related scandal has erupted (and Donald Trump’s not even running). In case you’re just joining the situation: Most of Newt Gingrich’s top staffers resigned this month, in part, NBC reported, because his wife, Callista, allegedly refused early-morning campaign flights because she needed time to get her platinum hair done.[..] The Globe asked several local hairdressers for a professional assessment. How much time would Callista Gingrich need in the morning before she could comfortably hit the campaign trail? Almost to a stylist, they said the “helmet’’ look doesn’t come quickly. “It takes at least 45 minutes to an hour to do that kind of blow-dry,’’ said Clifford Bouvier, artistic director of Crew International, in Brookline. “She’s really bleached out, and to smooth out over-processed hair you have to do a lot of work. You have to use products that put moisture back in the hair.’’ Helena Cohen, owner of Ardan Medspa + Salon, in Wellesley, said that Gingrich’s hair appears to be teased, and that would add time to the morning routine. “She does that bump on the top that gives it height.’’ Time taken away from kissing babies: about 15 minutes. I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but it seems that if Newtie was really in control over his campaign and if he really was “in it to win it,” he’d be able to avoid these kind of articles. Because if the reason your staff quits is because of the time your wife requires to achieve that bizarro helmet hair, you are probably not White House material. Just sayin’…
Continue reading …
Bill Maher on Friday once again spent a good amount of his HBO program bashing Sarah Palin and her family. In the concluding segment, the “Real Time” host actually said of Bristol, “The s–t doesn't fall far from the bat” (video follows with transcript and commentary, vulgarity warning): BILL MAHER: In Bristol’s new memoir “Not Afraid of Life” – working title, “Whoops, There's a Dick in Me” – Bristol claims that the night she lost her virginity she had accidentally gotten drunk on wine coolers that she didn't know contained alcohol and then blacked out and didn't remember a thing. Oh, the Palins. I tell you, the shit doesn't fall far from the bat. [Applause] Bristol, just admit it. You were horny, and while we're at it stop claiming that you were on birth control pills that didn't work when you got pregnant. Here's a tip, hon: they're not birth control pills if they're shaped like Fred Flintstone. Pleasant, isn't it? This came moments after Maher referred to Bristol's mother as a “ditzy beauty queen” with “uninformed opinions.” Are the sexist attacks on female conservatives by members of the media ever going to end?
Continue reading …
Law Society and former DPP Lord Macdonald voice alarm at proposal undermining ‘cornerstone’ of British justice A “cornerstone” of the legal system, the universal right to a solicitor upon arrest, could be jettisoned in favour of means-testing under controversial plans drawn up by the Ministry of Justice. Legal experts including Lord Ken Macdonald QC, a former director of public prosecutions, have expressed alarm at the proposal and questioned how it would work in practice. Legal aid charities said the new measure, which was quietly slipped into the legal aid, sentencing and punishing of offenders bill, had taken them completely by surprise and predicted that it would be subject to fierce debate in parliament. The proposal would effectively set a bar that would see people who are earning above a certain amount of money or who have access to a particular level of savings forced to pay for legal representation. “There are issues of principle here,” said Richard Miller, head of legal aid policy at the Law Society. “When someone is arrested they are in the power of the state, subject to the mercies of the police officers involved. “The purpose of having a solicitor acting for them is to ensure their rights are respected, that they are not physically abused, that their confessions are not forged and they are not detained for longer than legally allowed. “It’s been a cornerstone of our justice system for the last 25 years and the idea that it should be changed is entirely wrong.” The universal right to representation by a solicitor at a police station was enshrined in the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act (Pace) in response to a series of serious miscarriages of justice in the 1970s and 80s involving unrepresented defendants. However, the government, which has already signalled its determination to cut some £350m from the legal aid budget, is keen to look for further savings. While a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Justice said it currently had “no plans” to introduce means-testing for legal representation upon arrest, she confirmed the new clause would give the government the power to introduce it if circumstances dictated. “The provision in the bill to permit means-testing ensures future flexibility over the operation of the legal aid system should it be needed,” the spokeswoman said. The confirmation drew a sharp response from Macdonald. “This is a critical part of the apparatus of protection that we have,” he said. “The presence of a lawyer doesn’t just protect the defendant from police, it protects the police from a defendant making up allegations about what happened, for instance during the course of an interrogation. I think the government should be very cautious about interfering in any way with the absolute right to representation in police stations. It’s there for a very good reason. When we didn’t have it ,we saw the consequences.” Legal bodies are concerned that the government plans to fast-track the legislation, which they claim will disadvantage the poor, through parliament. They complain that a second reading of the bill has been scheduled for Wednesday, which allows little time for adequate scrutiny of the details of the legislation. The justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, insists that urgent cuts are necessary because England and Wales have “the most expensive legal aid system in the world”. However, Sound off for Justice, a campaign run by the Law Society, claims the figures are misleading and has outlined alternative ways to save money. Macdonald questioned whether the government’s plans would save the taxpayer money in the long run. “Often it is more expensive to administer means-testing than operate it. Who’s going to ask you what your earnings are or how much your mortgage is? We are talking about having to ask these questions in stressful situations. The whole thing would be very unwieldy.” Legal aid Solicitors Police UK criminal justice Jamie Doward guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Karl Rove Asks Juan Williams: How Can an Obscure Guy Who Did Diddly Squat in the Senate Become President?
June 25, 2011 No Comment
Karl Rove and Juan Williams had quite a lively debate Friday evening about politics, the economy, and who can beat Barack Obama in 2012. With Williams acting as substitute host on “The O'Reilly Factor,” guest Rove asked the question that has been plaguing conservatives for approaching three years – “How can an obscure United States senator from Illinois who had done diddly squat in the senate become the nominee of the Democratic Party and the President of the United States?” (video follows with transcript and commentary): JUAN WILLIAMS, SUBSTITUTE HOST: The question I had for you that I want to get back to is, beat Obamawith, what? Here is a full screen. And it's going to show you Obama matched up against Romney, against Pawlenty, against all of them, even generic Republican. Not one of them beat President Obama. (CROSSTALK) KARL ROVE: He is — he is the incumbent president of the United States. And he's 45 percent against a generic Republican in one poll, against Pawlenty who nobody in America knows who was only five percent of in the Republican primary he gets to 50 percent, against Romney, again — this is one poll where's it's 49 percent — 43 percent. But there are other polls where it's flipped; it's 48 percent, 46 percent Romney. And I repeat. He is the President. He ought to have a bigger lead right now than he does particularly against people who — whose name awareness is so much less than his. I mean, who knows Tim Pawlenty outside of the State of Minnesota. Not a whole a heck of a lot of people. WILLIAMS: It doesn't matter if none of them can beat him. (CROSSTALK) ROVE: Yes — it matters if you can't get above 50 percent. He can't get above 50 percent against — he can't get above 50 percent against people whom nobody knows. WILLIAMS: Ok. (CROSSTALK) ROVE: That's a — that — just trust me, Juan. If I was sitting here and saying a Republican president was getting 50 percent against no named Democrats, I would say — I would be worried if I was sitting there in the West Wing. WILLIAMS: Ok and let me just say to you I would be worried if I was setting on the Republican side and I said as you seem to be indicating oh, well look at Mitt Romney he is the closest of any of these Republicans, he can beat President Obama. Look at Mitt Romney. (CROSSTALK) ROVE: No I'm just saying — WILLIAMS: Hang on — ROVE: Hey, hey. You are just — Juan, with all due respect, you're distorting what I said. WILLIAMS: Right. ROVE: I was pointing out that in a public poll Mitt Romney is beating — (CROSSTALK) WILLIAMS: I don't know what kind of poll that is. ROVE: And you — and you — well, it's — I hate to say it. WILLIAMS: It's sure isn't “Wall Street Journal” and NBC. ROVE: It's “The Washington Post”/ABC. WILLIAMS: Yes that was — and that was a while back. But anyway — ROVE: No, no it's like two weeks ago, Juan. Please, keep your facts straight. (CROSSTALK) WILLIAMS: No that's two weeks ago it's a while back because NBC/Wall Street Journal poll is good. ROVE: That's 10 days ago. Juan, what's the difference between 10 days and two weeks. For the record, the ABC News/Washington Post poll which found Romney with a three point lead over Obama was published June 7. The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finding Obama with a six point lead over Romney came out June 16. But who's counting? WILLIAMS: All right, but let just say, here is what would worry me if I was Karl Rove — are you backing Romney by the way. ROVE: No, I'm not. I'm not backing anybody. But here — here is my point. WILLIAMS: Ok. ROVE: It's early in the Republican primary process. We don't know who the nominee is going to be. WILLIAMS: Ok. ROVE: And I don't — and I don't — but the price is — (CROSSTALK) WILLIAMS: It's early — it's early for President Obama and he has the pulpit. The economy could get better. ROVE: It could. WILLIAMS: The economy could get better, gas prices have been going down. ROVE: You tell me, hey, 10 cents a gallon. WILLIAMS: 21 cents in the last two weeks. (CROSSTALK) ROVE: The price of gasoline is still twice what it was when he came in office. And Juan, are you going to sit there with a straight face and tell me — (CROSSTALK) WILLIAMS: Yes. ROVE: — that you think the economy next year is going to be going and blowing and we're going to have millions of people with jobs? Because, if you are, you are the only person in America who thinks that. (CROSSTALK) WILLIAMS: No. ROVE: The Federal Reserve this week dropped its forecast for growth and jobs next year. WILLIAMS: Correct. ROVE: This week the — the — the blue chip forecast dropped its estimates for growth this year. You know what the administration is thinking? That we're going to have growth next year of 4.5 percent. And the Federal Reserve is saying we're going to have three percent or less. (CROSSTALK) WILLIAMS: And here's what — let me tell you. (CROSSTALK) ROVE: So if you think the economy is going to be — all right, let's have a bet right now, Juan, who is going to be — who's going to be — you take the administration's estimate for economic growth and I will take Federal Reserve's. WILLIAMS: In fact, when you ask Americans is the economy getting better they're saying no, no. But then, you ask them about their personal finances and they are much more optimistic — (CROSSTALK) ROVE: 48 percent of Americans — 48 percent of Americans think that the economy is going to be in a great depression next year. WILLIAMS: No filibuster Dr. Rove, just hang on let me just — ROVE: No, I'm just — I'm just setting the record straight I know it's painful for you. WILLIAMS: No it's not for me, it's not — I'm just saying don't get overly optimistic. ROVE: I'm not. WILLIAMS: Because what you're doing is saying oh, you know, this guy can't win and he may surprise you. ROVE: Juan, I'm saying he is likely — I wish you would read my columns. I said he is likely to lose. (CROSSTALK) WILLIAMS: Yes that's what you're saying. ROVE: And I didn't say he will lose. I said he is likely to lose. In fact, let me read you. Let me read you — (CROSSTALK) WILLIAMS: Wait, wait. We only have 30 seconds, Karl — Karl — (CROSSTALK) ROVE”: “Objective circumstances like an anemic economy and bad decisions not only matter they become very nearly (INAUDIBLE).” WILLIAMS: Karl. ROVE: “Mr. Obama is now at the mercy of policies and events he set in motion. He can't — WILLIAMS: All right. But Karl — ROVE: He is not done yet but it will be tough to recover. (CROSSTALK) WILLIAMS: But Karl, how do you recover if you are Mitt Romney and you have health care. How do you recover if you're Tim Pawlenty and nobody knows you? How do you recover if you are Michele Bachmann and everybody thinks you extremist? (CROSSTALK) ROVE: Look, there is a presidential primary campaign and the cream tends to rise to the top. How can an obscure United States senator from Illinois who had done diddly squat in the senate become the nominee of the Democratic Party and the President of the United States by running a good campaign in the primary? By running a good campaign in the primary. WILLIAMS: Karl doesn't want me to talk. You know why he doesn't want me to talk? I love him, I respect him and I don't want you disappointed but I'm afraid you may be setting yourself up. Thanks so much for joining us. Well, I think it was more than just running a good campaign. Obama had more assistance from the media than likely any presidential candidate in the modern era. But who's counting?
Continue reading …
• Coalition split over new proposals on funding of social care • Review urges insurance policies to cover costs The middle classes should pay the first £35,000 of their old age care and be encouraged to take out insurance to cover that cost, according to a government-commissioned review into the future funding of social care to be published next week. The proposal will ignite the “death tax” row that led to a war of words between the Tories and the Labour government before the last election. The recommendations from economist Andrew Dilnot, which have been seen by the cabinet, are already causing a split within the coalition government, with one senior Liberal Democrat claiming chancellor George Osborne wants to “strangle the proposals at birth”. It is understood that the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, is in favour of the proposals but a source said that David Cameron and, in particular, Osborne appeared keen to “park the report in the long grass” because of the potential political pitfalls, and the financial commitments it would involve. There are growing fears that the prime minister will back his chancellor against the Liberal Democrats – including health minister Paul Burstow – who are broadly in favour of the proposals. Before the election last year there was a furious row about funding of care for the elderly after proposals about how much people should pay was agreed between the three parties before the Conservatives reneged, describing it as a Labour “death tax”. All parties agree that the black hole in funding for the elderly, which is expected to reach £6bn by 2020, needs a solution that will also take into account the growing numbers of older people. Currently, social care provided by councils is means tested. If someone needs residential care and has more than £23,250 in savings, capital or assets they have to pay for their care in full. Under the Dilnot proposals, there would be greater investment and, it is believed, a more generous means test would be brought in so that more people would be eligible for cover from the state. However, those with better than modest assets – the middle classes – would be required to cover costs. The amount they would need to pay would, however, be capped – which, it is believed, would encourage insurers to offer cover. But it is unclear how the problem of the middle classes moving their assets around so that they pass a means test would be resolved. Dilnot will say that there should be government investment of up to £3bn and that people should pay between £35,000 and £50,000 towards the costs of their care before the state steps in. But, crucially, the report will set out how conditions could be created in which a market for insurance would thrive, and the system would rely on the middle classes being encouraged to purchase cover for care costs. Under the current system, it is claimed, there are 800,000 older people who need care but do not receive it from the state, a figure that will increase to one
Continue reading …