Richard O’Dwyer may face jail for copyright infringement in case echoing that of Gary McKinnon The mother of a British student who is facing extradition to the United States over alleged copyright offences online has spoken of her anguish that he could face a possible jail sentence. In a case carrying echoes of that of Gary McKinnon , the computer hacker who has spent years fighting US extradition, 23-year-old undergraduate Richard O’Dwyer was arrested late last month at the request of the US immigration and customs enforcement department. Until last year, when police and US officials first visited him at his student accommodation in Sheffield, O’Dwyer ran a website called TVShack which provided links to other sites where users could download pirated versions of films and television shows. He appeared before magistrates in the capital this week for a preliminary hearing into the planned extradition, which he is fighting. The case seemed “beyond belief”, said O’Dwyer’s mother, Julia, from Chesterfield. “The first he knew about it was this visit from the police and the American officials in November,” she said. “He shut the website down the very next day and I don’t think he expected it to go this far. But then in May he even had to spend a night in Wandsworth prison as the court was too slow for us to sort out his passport and bail. “Richard’s still studying in Sheffield. He’s doing his best not to think about it. But it’s a real strain for the family. I wake up every morning and think about it. What we can do? I’m no expert but I’ve read the extradition treaty from cover to cover.” It is the UK’s 2003 extradition agreement with the US, campaigners say, which is at the centre of the problem. Much criticised in the case of McKinnon, it currently contains no provision for what is known legally as forum, which would allow a UK judge to consider whether a case is best heard in the UK or abroad. O’Dwyer’s mother says she is baffled why a case with no direct links to the US – her son last went there aged five – should be heard in the US. Her lawyers agree. “The (computer) server was not based in the US at all,” O’Dwyer’s barrister, Ben Cooper, who has also been heavily involved in the McKinnon case, told Tuesday’s hearing at Westminster magistrates court. “Mr O’Dwyer did not have copyrighted material on his website; he simply provided a link. The essential contention is that the correct forum for this trial is in fact here in Britain, where he was at all times.” Some experts on digital law question whether providing links to illegal downloads rather than directly hosting them would even constitute an offence in the UK. In February last year charges involving fraud and copyright against a similar site, TV-Links, were dismissed after a judge ruled that linking alone was not illegal. “If it’s an offence under UK law, then it has to be prosecuted and tested under UK law,” said James Firth of the Open Digital Policy Organisation thinktank. “If there is no offence under UK law, then there is no ‘victim’ to copyright infringement and no case for extradition.” Civil liberties groups have also questioned why the government has not swiftly amended the extradition law by enacting a pre-existing but dormant forum clause, given that both coalition parties were heavily critical of it while in opposition. In September last year the home secretary, Theresa May, instead ordered a wider, year-long review of all extradition laws. “The government hasn’t acted in time. This is exactly what we warned against,” said Isabella Sankey, director of policy for Liberty. “Enacting the forum amendment would have been quite simple. It’s not that we’re arguing that in every case where activity has taken place here we shouldn’t allow people to be extradited. But we should at least be leaving our judges some discretion to look at the circumstances.” Extradition Filesharing UK criminal justice UK civil liberties Internet United States Peter Walker guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Opponents dismiss announcement by Assad supporter Rami Makhlouf as violence follows Friday prayers around Syria The announcement by Syria’s richest man, regime heavyweight Rami Makhlouf, that he will give most of the profits from his business empire to charity has been met with widespread scepticism in Damascus and beyond. Makhlouf has become a lightning rod for dissent against the Syrian regime as protesters again took to the streets in large numbers on Friday demanding an end to the excesses that they claim the 41-year-old tycoon represents and the ousting of the ruling family to which he is central. Makhlouf’s announcement is seen by some analysts as a sign that President Bashar al-Assad has become so concerned at the momentum of the protest movement that he is prepared to sacrifice his first cousin to retain power. Syrian opposition figures and some Damascus residents, however, interpreted it as mere window dressing. “What Rami is putting on the line is nothing new,” said opposition member Amr al-Azm, a professor at Shawnee University in Ohio. “This is not his fortune. He is the family banker and it was not their money to take in the first place.” A businessman in Damascus added: “This is a regime specialised in cosmetic change so I don’t believe anything they say and do. If they were sincere they would start real reform with changes to the constitution.” Syrian leaders are facing increasing economic sanctions from the US and Europe, which have indicated they may target Assad’s personal assets. “They have got rid of what assets could be grabbed [under sanctions] and are now clearing the decks of those that cannot,” said Azm. “They are trying to explain it in a way that is useful to them.” “It makes no difference to us,” said a Damascus office worker. “At this stage, people want the whole regime to go.” The announcement was made before Friday prayers, which for the past 12 weeks have been a precursor to demonstrations across the country. This Friday was no different, as security forces responded to protests with lethal force, reportedly killing at least 19 people. Demonstrations took place in Hama, the commercial hub of Aleppo and the north-eastern tribal area, including the town of Deir al-Azzor, which has been largely free of the violence seen elsewhere in the country. About 9,000 Syrians have now fled into southern Turkey in the face of the army’s assault on the town of Jisr al-Shughour and nearby enclaves. Turkish media reported that Ankara may deploy soldiers beyond its border in an effort to protect civilians, who continue to stream from north-west Syria. The rights group Avaaz said it had compiled a list of 73 residents in Jisr al-Shughour who had been detained this week when they returned to their homes. In a further sign that the instability in Syria is spreading, three people were killed in northern Lebanon on Friday as a standoff between Sunni Muslims and Allawites, who are from the ruling sect in Damascus, spiralled into violence. The Lebanese army sent in troops in an effort to calm the situation, which represents the most serious sectarian flare-up in Lebanon since the Syrian uprising began. In an interview last month with the New York Times, Makhlouf warned of instability in neighbouring Lebanon and Israel if pressure on the Assad regime continued. His unusually candid remarks are thought to have angered Assad, who has repeatedly characterised the most serious threat to the four-decade regime as a subversive plot from foreign-backed armed gangs. Assad’s reformist credentials have rapidly eroded over the past three months, in which security forces have repeatedly attacked protesters, killing as many as 1,400 people. The embattled leader has indicated he will soon deliver a landmark speech, which advisers say could change the tone of the past four months. An earlier speech he gave in late-March was poorly received outside of his power base and did nothing to quell the violence. Makhlouf’s purported move from the regime’s financial tsar to philanthropy is being seen as a preparation for the speech. “They needed to sacrifice something,” said Rami Nakhle, an opposition figure in Beirut. “So getting rid of Makhlouf was easy. But he isn’t really going. If they put him on trial instead that would bring a positive reaction from protesters. “So far it is just a new game, he was the symbol of corruption in Syria. He was managing the Assad family business. They need to prove to people through genuine signals that they are really moving towards reforms.” Nidaa Hassan is the pseudonym of a journalist working in Damascus Syria Middle East Lebanon Arab and Middle East unrest Bashar Al-Assad Nidaa Hassan Martin Chulov guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Former prime minister refuses to back David Cameron plans and urges George Osborne to show caution Tony Blair has distanced himself from claims that he is backing David Cameron’s public services changes and has urged George Osborne to show flexibility by cutting the deficit at a pace consistent with maintaining growth and jobs. At prime minister’s questions this week, Cameron three times claimed the support of Blair for his reforms, including his deficit reduction programme but, in a Guardian interview, the former prime minister reasserted his own political identity, saying: “I have not endorsed anything.” However, he urged the Labour party to be relaxed when there was a crossover in policy, saying it was happening the world over. The manner in which Blair’s recent interviews, coinciding with the publication of a paperback version of his book, The Journey, have painted him as supportive of Cameron, has hugely irritated the circle around the Labour leader Ed Miliband, and to a lesser extent Blair. But Blair stressed Labour goals would always differ from those of the Conservatives, even if there were policy overlaps. “The objectives of a Labour government are always going to focus on those who are most disadvantaged: that is what we did in government, and that is what we think now.” Speaking from Freetown, Sierra Leone, where he is pushing ahead with a pan-African drive to improve governance, he said: “I want to make it clear that I support the election of the Labour party and a Labour prime minister. “All I have said is that insofar as [the coalition] are continuing the reform programme that we did when I was in government, I cannot suddenly turn round and say I am not in favour of this. I am in favour of them.” But he refuses to accept that education secretary Michael Gove’s academies programme is the same as the one he developed. “We used the academies programme to help the poorest and most disadvantaged children, and I would still want the programme to achieve that.” Gove has broadened the academies programme to cover all types of schools, not just those in poor areas. On health, Blair said he agreed with the assessment given by the former Labour health secretary Alan Milburn, who this week dubbed the government’s redrawn health reforms as a train crash. He described Milburn’s intervention as “an extremely good critique” and said it would be wise for Labour “to follow it”. “I do agree with the introduction of different providers in the health service. That is what we did in government. If they [the coalition government] are now backing away, that would be a mistake.” He freely admits he is not across all the technicalities of current policy debates, but urges Labour to be relaxed. ” Some of the technicalities of reforms today will cross party lines and I think people have to got to get used to that – it is the same the world over.” He also denies he has endorsed the Conservative deficit plan and points to the plan of the Labour chancellor Alistair Darling to halve the deficit over four years. He urges the Conservatives to take a flexible non-ideological approach that takes into account its impact on jobs. “This to me is a right/wrong judgement, it is not a left/right judgement. You have got to reduce the deficit, but to do it in such a way that you do your best to restore confidence without damaging growth. “The question you ask is, what is the best way to get growth and jobs back into the economy? That is the question against which I would test everything. “You have got to reduce the deficit in order to restore confidence, but you have got to do it at a pace which is consistent with maintaining growth and jobs so that is a judgement and you calibrate. “That is all I am saying, so I am not backing them on that either. The guide is not an ideological one. If they are sensible they will leave themselves some room for manoeuvre.” He also said that, as envoy to the Quartet on the Middle East, he believes the crisis in the region created by the Arab spring can become an opportunity to restart peace talks. He is flying to Jerusalem this weekend and on Sunday will hold a joint meeting with the Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Lady Ashton, the European Union foreign policy chief. “We need to go back and talk about how we can establish a framework for future negotiations. We have got to use this crisis to push forward in talks,” Blair said. He also called for the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to be more openly discussed, and said the possibility of delaying elections needed to examined to give longer for the newer democratic parties to be established. On the Brotherhood, liable to be beneficiaries of early elections, he said: “The important thing is that we are working with modern democratic people who believe that with the freedom to vote comes freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Some parts of the Muslim Brotherhood would be happy with that, and some would not – that is why you have got to engage with everyone. But it is a real issue and you have got to surface it and be prepared to talk about it, and not think just because they have democracy that is enough in itself.” On the removal of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, he said: “You have just got to hang on in there and see it through. It is going to be difficult.” He doubted that President Bashar al-Assad could remain in power in Syria. “You cannot have a situation when hundreds and thousands of people die because they are exercising the right to protest. It is very hard now to see how he is going to pull back, and go in the right direction. It is not sustainable to go on like this. “Across the region leaders have got a choice: they can either have a steady process of evolution – which is the best thing – or they can have revolution. That is the way the world works now because people can see you don’t have to live like this. Sometimes the concern that we are imposing things is a far bigger worry for us than it is for them. If you are living under a brutal repressive regime you are quite glad of someone helping them.” Without making any direct reference to the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein, he said: “There is even in Iraq no one actually thinking it would be better if Saddam was still there.” Tony Blair David Cameron George Osborne Economic policy Middle East Arab and Middle East unrest Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Texas Tea Party leader, Rebecca Forrester says there are too many Hispanics in legislature to crack down on illegal immigration
June 17, 2011 No Comment
In January, Jeb Bush urged the GOP that they should reach out to the Latino community if they want to stay relevant. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is calling on conservatives to step up their outreach to Hispanic voters if they want to remain politically relevant. Former President George Bush in a speech said that the Tea Party suffers from nativism which drew the ire of Laura Ingraham. And other mainstream Republicans also began to make the same argument including Newt Gingrich: ‘Moderate’ Republicans try to do outreach with Latinos. Lots of luck with that. Newt Gingrich, a potential presidential candidate and a thought leader inside the party, talks about creating a zone between amnesty and mass deportation. It appears that that message has fallen on deaf ears. KTRH: Tea Party Leader Makes “Racist” Remarks, Says Texas Has Too Many Hispanic Lawmakers Rebecca Forrester the co-founder of “Women on the Wall” said that “part of the problem” behind the inability of the Texas legislature to pass a crack down on illegal immigrants is “because Texas has… 36 Hispanics in the legislature.” Too many, she suggests, to pass a meaningful reform bill as the matter is “too close to them.” It’s a remark that Luis Vera, the National General Counsel for LULAC says crosses the line.”There was no reason for that comment, we can disagree on being Democrat or Republican but she’s drawing it straight down racial lines and nothing else,” says Vera. The comments are also sparking condemnation from Hispanics in the legislature like State Representative Armando Walle. “We are proud Americans and many of us were born in this country and have generations and generations in this country and that type of mentality doesn’t deserve a response,” says Walle . Meanwhile Felicia Cravens with the Houston Tea Party says the comments made don’t reflect the Tea Party movement as a whole, as “Women on the Wall” is a fringe group. “When people start slapping a Tea Party label on things it causes confusion and it makes the message less clear,” she said. You can always count on Republicans to claim that the racists in their midst are fringers. If the Tea Party or the GOP was trying to engage on an honest level with the Hispanic community they would have willing partners in the Democratic Party to get a deal done, but FOX News and AM hate talk radio will never allow that to happen. Limbaugh and his pals torpedoed Bush’s push for immigration reform in 2007 . And Rebecca Forrester clearly is the wrong woman to help bridge the gap.The base of the GOP will never allow a meaningful dialogue on immigration reform and it’s too bad because America would benefit greatly along with millions of Latinos. Click here to view this media George Bush has infuriated the Tea Party faction of the GOP when he spoke out January 24 at Southern Methodist University in Dallas against what he perceives is a historic shift back to the olden days of isolationism, protectionism and its demon-seed hellspawn, Nativism. Laura Ingraham filled in for O’Reilly and was furious at the president she once held so dear to her heart. Ingraham: Last November President Bush remarked that the Tea Party is good for the country. But why did he attack a key priority for many Tea Partiers, namely, getting our borders under control and preventing mass amnesty for illegal immigrants? Bush: What’s interesting about our country, if you study history, is that there are some ‘isms’ that occasionally pop up — pop up. One is isolationism and its evil twin protectionism and its evil triplet nativism. So if you study the ’20s, for example, there was — there was an American first policy that said who cares what happens in Europe?…And there was an immigration policy that I think during this period argued we had too many Jews and too many Italians; therefore we should have no immigrants. And my point is that we’ve been through this kind of period of isolationism, protectionism and Nativism. I’m a little concerned that we may be going through the same period. ” Ingraham: Now as someone who was at the forefront in opposing the 2006 Bush immigration reform effort, I was saddened, but not all that surprised by the President’s insulting characterization…. To say that it’s all about hostility to foreigners is ludicrous. To back up her position she uses a Dallas Tea Party poll which showed over 95% in favor of Arizona’s hateful SB1070 law. I guess that’s irrefutable proof that Conservative opposition towards immigration reform is anything but Nativism, right? Ingraham uses the phony Conservative claim that this is all about “the rule of law” as a crutch to back up her Nativist position on immigration. Jeb Bush also got under her skin when he spoke out against Republicans and called their opposition “wrong and stupid.” Laura wasn’t happy being tag teamed by the Bush Brothers. Ingraham: Now that’s an interesting way to court future GOP voters given their overwhelming opposition to amnesty, Gov. Bush. maybe President Bush was right. We are suffering from an outbreak of ism’s. Elitism comes to mind. Calling George and Jeb Bush ‘elitists’ are fightin’ words , young lady, since that’s the exact opposite of how she viewed them when they were in office. Oh, how times have changed — because here I am, writing about something that I agree with George Bush on, and here Laura Ingraham is, attacking the president she once defended to the hilt. That’s how far right the GOP has moved. Click here to read more on the Limbaugh/Bush immigration fight.
Continue reading …Texas Tea Party leader, Rebecca Forrester says there are too many Hispanics in legislature to crack down on illegal immigration
June 17, 2011 No CommentIn January, Jeb Bush urged the GOP that they should reach out to the Latino community if they want to stay relevant. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is calling on conservatives to step up their outreach to Hispanic voters if they want to remain politically relevant. Former President George Bush in a speech said that the Tea Party suffers from nativism which drew the ire of Laura Ingraham. And other mainstream Republicans also began to make the same argument including Newt Gingrich: ‘Moderate’ Republicans try to do outreach with Latinos. Lots of luck with that. Newt Gingrich, a potential presidential candidate and a thought leader inside the party, talks about creating a zone between amnesty and mass deportation. It appears that that message has fallen on deaf ears. KTRH: Tea Party Leader Makes “Racist” Remarks, Says Texas Has Too Many Hispanic Lawmakers Rebecca Forrester the co-founder of “Women on the Wall” said that “part of the problem” behind the inability of the Texas legislature to pass a crack down on illegal immigrants is “because Texas has… 36 Hispanics in the legislature.” Too many, she suggests, to pass a meaningful reform bill as the matter is “too close to them.” It’s a remark that Luis Vera, the National General Counsel for LULAC says crosses the line.”There was no reason for that comment, we can disagree on being Democrat or Republican but she’s drawing it straight down racial lines and nothing else,” says Vera. The comments are also sparking condemnation from Hispanics in the legislature like State Representative Armando Walle. “We are proud Americans and many of us were born in this country and have generations and generations in this country and that type of mentality doesn’t deserve a response,” says Walle . Meanwhile Felicia Cravens with the Houston Tea Party says the comments made don’t reflect the Tea Party movement as a whole, as “Women on the Wall” is a fringe group. “When people start slapping a Tea Party label on things it causes confusion and it makes the message less clear,” she said. You can always count on Republicans to claim that the racists in their midst are fringers. If the Tea Party or the GOP was trying to engage on an honest level with the Hispanic community they would have willing partners in the Democratic Party to get a deal done, but FOX News and AM hate talk radio will never allow that to happen. Limbaugh and his pals torpedoed Bush’s push for immigration reform in 2007 . And Rebecca Forrester clearly is the wrong woman to help bridge the gap.The base of the GOP will never allow a meaningful dialogue on immigration reform and it’s too bad because America would benefit greatly along with millions of Latinos. Click here to view this media George Bush has infuriated the Tea Party faction of the GOP when he spoke out January 24 at Southern Methodist University in Dallas against what he perceives is a historic shift back to the olden days of isolationism, protectionism and its demon-seed hellspawn, Nativism. Laura Ingraham filled in for O’Reilly and was furious at the president she once held so dear to her heart. Ingraham: Last November President Bush remarked that the Tea Party is good for the country. But why did he attack a key priority for many Tea Partiers, namely, getting our borders under control and preventing mass amnesty for illegal immigrants? Bush: What’s interesting about our country, if you study history, is that there are some ‘isms’ that occasionally pop up — pop up. One is isolationism and its evil twin protectionism and its evil triplet nativism. So if you study the ’20s, for example, there was — there was an American first policy that said who cares what happens in Europe?…And there was an immigration policy that I think during this period argued we had too many Jews and too many Italians; therefore we should have no immigrants. And my point is that we’ve been through this kind of period of isolationism, protectionism and Nativism. I’m a little concerned that we may be going through the same period. ” Ingraham: Now as someone who was at the forefront in opposing the 2006 Bush immigration reform effort, I was saddened, but not all that surprised by the President’s insulting characterization…. To say that it’s all about hostility to foreigners is ludicrous. To back up her position she uses a Dallas Tea Party poll which showed over 95% in favor of Arizona’s hateful SB1070 law. I guess that’s irrefutable proof that Conservative opposition towards immigration reform is anything but Nativism, right? Ingraham uses the phony Conservative claim that this is all about “the rule of law” as a crutch to back up her Nativist position on immigration. Jeb Bush also got under her skin when he spoke out against Republicans and called their opposition “wrong and stupid.” Laura wasn’t happy being tag teamed by the Bush Brothers. Ingraham: Now that’s an interesting way to court future GOP voters given their overwhelming opposition to amnesty, Gov. Bush. maybe President Bush was right. We are suffering from an outbreak of ism’s. Elitism comes to mind. Calling George and Jeb Bush ‘elitists’ are fightin’ words , young lady, since that’s the exact opposite of how she viewed them when they were in office. Oh, how times have changed — because here I am, writing about something that I agree with George Bush on, and here Laura Ingraham is, attacking the president she once defended to the hilt. That’s how far right the GOP has moved. Click here to read more on the Limbaugh/Bush immigration fight.
Continue reading …
Royal College of Midwives brands withdrawal of central funding for 18-year campaign ‘disappointing’ The government has stepped back from a campaign launched 18 years ago to encourage new mothers to start and continue breastfeeding, in spite of the low proportion of women who breastfeed their babies in the UK for any length of time. National Breastfeeding Awareness Week, which begins on Monday, is no longer receiving central funds from the Department of Health. Events will take place around the country, organised by local hospitals or groups such as the National Childbirth Trust (NCT), but there will be no central co-ordination or national campaign, which the Royal College of Midwives said was “very disappointing”. The Department of Health, which has cut back on all forms of social marketing, is said to be reviewing the situation. But also worrying campaigners is the disappearance of a network of regional infant feeding co-ordinators who were based in the strategic health authorities which are now being abolished. Yet organisations involved with new mothers, such as the royal colleges of midwives and nurses as well as the NCT, say the battle to increase breastfeeding rates is far from won. New figures, to be published next week, are likely to show an increase in the number of women who start to breastfeed their baby, but are not expected to show a big shift in the numbers who continue to do so even close to the six months recommended by the World Health Organisation and endorsed by the UK government. The last official breastfeeding figures were published in 2007, and showed only a 2% increase over the previous 20 years. Less than half – 48% – of mothers were breastfeeding at six weeks. Only a quarter of mothers were breastfeeding at six months. Exclusive breastfeeding was highest among women from professional and managerial occupations, aged over 30 and with higher levels of education. Most women were willing to try – before the birth, 70% of women said they would like to breastfeed and 84% said they were aware of the health benefits. A new survey from Lansinoh, makers of breastfeeding products, appears to bear out the willingness of most women to attempt to breastfeed. Nearly 87% of the 1,400 women who responded to their online survey said they did or would breastfeed for “the health benefits of my baby” and almost all – 98% – thought “breast is best”. A substantial proportion – 40% – felt that they had received good support from midwives and health visitors. Some 30% had “early issues” that were overcome, but 20% felt they had to deal with it on their own. Unicef, which runs the Baby Friendly Initiative, accrediting hospitals and maternity units that offer good supportive breastfeeding care, says that more training is needed for health visitors and midwives. It has just accredited the first health visitor course, at Bolton University, which has a specific two-day training module on breastfeeding. Rosie Dodds, senior policy advisor at the NCT, said another issue is that some women are deterred still from breastfeeding in public, in spite of the Equality Act passed last year which specifically protects their right to feed in cafes and other public places. “Women are hesitant about it,” she said, “especially the youngest and least confident women.” The Department of Health said: “Due to reduced budgets this year, the department is unable to offer any funding for National Breastfeeding Week.” However, it said it valued and encouraged the support and information available to health professionals and parents through NHS Choices, the National Breastfeeding Helpline, Unicef UK Baby Friendly Initiative and peer support programmes. “The department recognises the importance of breastfeeding both for the mother and her baby and we continue to support breastfeeding through the Healthy Child Programme, as set out in the Public Health White Paper. The coalition government has made the challenging commitment to an extra 4,200 health visitors by 2015. Health visitors will be able to help support women who want to breastfeed but may find it difficult.” Breastfeeding Health policy Public services policy Parents and parenting Health Health & wellbeing Sarah Boseley guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Royal College of Midwives brands withdrawal of central funding for 18-year campaign ‘disappointing’ The government has stepped back from a campaign launched 18 years ago to encourage new mothers to start and continue breastfeeding, in spite of the low proportion of women who breastfeed their babies in the UK for any length of time. National Breastfeeding Awareness Week, which begins on Monday, is no longer receiving central funds from the Department of Health. Events will take place around the country, organised by local hospitals or groups such as the National Childbirth Trust (NCT), but there will be no central co-ordination or national campaign, which the Royal College of Midwives said was “very disappointing”. The Department of Health, which has cut back on all forms of social marketing, is said to be reviewing the situation. But also worrying campaigners is the disappearance of a network of regional infant feeding co-ordinators who were based in the strategic health authorities which are now being abolished. Yet organisations involved with new mothers, such as the royal colleges of midwives and nurses as well as the NCT, say the battle to increase breastfeeding rates is far from won. New figures, to be published next week, are likely to show an increase in the number of women who start to breastfeed their baby, but are not expected to show a big shift in the numbers who continue to do so even close to the six months recommended by the World Health Organisation and endorsed by the UK government. The last official breastfeeding figures were published in 2007, and showed only a 2% increase over the previous 20 years. Less than half – 48% – of mothers were breastfeeding at six weeks. Only a quarter of mothers were breastfeeding at six months. Exclusive breastfeeding was highest among women from professional and managerial occupations, aged over 30 and with higher levels of education. Most women were willing to try – before the birth, 70% of women said they would like to breastfeed and 84% said they were aware of the health benefits. A new survey from Lansinoh, makers of breastfeeding products, appears to bear out the willingness of most women to attempt to breastfeed. Nearly 87% of the 1,400 women who responded to their online survey said they did or would breastfeed for “the health benefits of my baby” and almost all – 98% – thought “breast is best”. A substantial proportion – 40% – felt that they had received good support from midwives and health visitors. Some 30% had “early issues” that were overcome, but 20% felt they had to deal with it on their own. Unicef, which runs the Baby Friendly Initiative, accrediting hospitals and maternity units that offer good supportive breastfeeding care, says that more training is needed for health visitors and midwives. It has just accredited the first health visitor course, at Bolton University, which has a specific two-day training module on breastfeeding. Rosie Dodds, senior policy advisor at the NCT, said another issue is that some women are deterred still from breastfeeding in public, in spite of the Equality Act passed last year which specifically protects their right to feed in cafes and other public places. “Women are hesitant about it,” she said, “especially the youngest and least confident women.” The Department of Health said: “Due to reduced budgets this year, the department is unable to offer any funding for National Breastfeeding Week.” However, it said it valued and encouraged the support and information available to health professionals and parents through NHS Choices, the National Breastfeeding Helpline, Unicef UK Baby Friendly Initiative and peer support programmes. “The department recognises the importance of breastfeeding both for the mother and her baby and we continue to support breastfeeding through the Healthy Child Programme, as set out in the Public Health White Paper. The coalition government has made the challenging commitment to an extra 4,200 health visitors by 2015. Health visitors will be able to help support women who want to breastfeed but may find it difficult.” Breastfeeding Health policy Public services policy Parents and parenting Health Health & wellbeing Sarah Boseley guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
High court rules against London secondary school after boy was refused entry for breaching ban on ‘gang-related’ hairstyles An 11-year-old boy who was turned away on his first day at secondary school for wearing his hair in cornrows, has won his case at the high court after a judge ruled the school’s policy resulted in “indirect racial discrimination”. The boy, now aged 13, was refused entry to St Gregory’s Catholic Science College in Kenton, Harrow, north London in September 2009 because his hairstyle did not comply with the strict uniform policy. The school only allowed a conservative “short back and sides” hairstyle for boys amid concerns that other styles could encourage “gang culture”. But at the high court in London on Friday , Mr Justice Collins said that although the school’s “short back and sides” policy was “perfectly permissible”, it should have taken into account individual pupils’ family traditions. “There are a number of Afro-Caribbeans for whom cutting their hair and wearing it in cornrows is a matter of their cultural background … and can work against them on the basis of their ethnicity,” said Collins. “There is no question of this school being in any way racist. This was an honest mistake … it was an error. But I am satisfied that if the policy is applied without the possibility of exception, then it is unlawful. I have decided that there was unlawful indirect racial discrimination that was not justified.” The court heard the boy, known only as G, had not cut his hair since birth and wore his hair in cornrows as part of a family tradition. In a statement to the court, he said he was shocked at the school’s decision, adding that all the male members of his family wore their hair in cornrows. “I really like my hair and it’s been that way all my life. This problem at school was the first time me and my mum ever talked about my hair, it’s so normal to us … I really like my hair, my brother and dad have cornrows and we all like it. I really don’t want to cut it off. This was the first time I had to ask the question, ‘what’s wrong with my hair?’” His mother told the court the style was “of great importance to his cultural and racial identity”, adding that her son, who had been looking forward to starting secondary school, suffered a “major blow to his self-esteem” after being turned away minutes after arriving. The school said the ban on the cornrows hairstyle was part of its strict uniform code designed to deter gang culture and create a safe environment for all its pupils. Andrew Prindiville, who has been headteacher at St Gregory’s since September 2008, defended the decision to adopt “a traditional schoolboy haircut or a ‘short back and sides’”, saying the school served an area where there was gun and knife crime, much of it gang-related, and haircuts were often “badges” of gang culture. “Our uniform and haircut policy for students other than sixth formers is a critical part of our strategy for maintaining excellent behaviour, for keeping gang mentality out of the school and for ensuring that students do not adopt attire or haircuts that may encourage that mentality,” he told the court. Prindiville said that although there was no specific connection between cornrows and gang culture, any exception to the strict rules on hairstyles could lead to a breakdown in discipline. “For example, the school ban on shaven heads is part of a conscious determination to avoid white boys, whether English or, say, eastern European, adopting any form of ‘skinhead’ styles with all the negative, and sometimes racist, connotations that go with this”. But Mr Justice Collins said the school, which is rated as excellent by Ofsted, must make exceptions in the future on the basis of ethnicity or cultural beliefs. The judge added that he would not rule if the boy’s banning from the school was unlawful, adding that an ongoing county court case, if the family chose to pursue it, would decide that. After the ruling, the family’s solicitor, Angela Jackman, from Maxwell Gillott, said: “This is an important decision. It makes clear that non-religious cultural and family practices associated with a particular race fall within the protection of equalities legislation.” She added: “For G, wearing his hair in cornrows is a fundamental cultural practice, which would have had no adverse impact upon the school. His wishes, however, were dismissed by the school without any consideration. Whilst schools face the challenges of maintaining good discipline, a community environment and their particular ethos, this case is a reminder that they must do so within the boundaries of the law.” In a statement after the ruling, Prindiville and chairman of governors Alloysius Frederick said the school had always tried to ensure that its uniform policy was fair, and offered its best wishes to G and his mother. “We believe that St Gregory’s is a happy and successful school with highly supportive parents and with a student body fully reflective of the racial diversity of the local community.” They added: “[We are] naturally disappointed by this decision of the high court. St Gregory’s is proud of its rich cultural and ethnic diversity, and is run on the belief that everyone at the school is equal and made in the image of God. “The school’s governing body will now consider whether to apply to the court of appeal for permission to appeal against the judge’s determination.” In a statement to the court, G, who is now at another school, said: “I love my [new] school, everyone is different and the teachers only care that I am learning – they don’t have a problem with the way I look.” London Schools Matthew Taylor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …High court rules against London secondary school after boy was refused entry for breaching ban on ‘gang-related’ hairstyles An 11-year-old boy who was turned away on his first day at secondary school for wearing his hair in cornrows, has won his case at the high court after a judge ruled the school’s policy resulted in “indirect racial discrimination”. The boy, now aged 13, was refused entry to St Gregory’s Catholic Science College in Kenton, Harrow, north London in September 2009 because his hairstyle did not comply with the strict uniform policy. The school only allowed a conservative “short back and sides” hairstyle for boys amid concerns that other styles could encourage “gang culture”. But at the high court in London on Friday , Mr Justice Collins said that although the school’s “short back and sides” policy was “perfectly permissible”, it should have taken into account individual pupils’ family traditions. “There are a number of Afro-Caribbeans for whom cutting their hair and wearing it in cornrows is a matter of their cultural background … and can work against them on the basis of their ethnicity,” said Collins. “There is no question of this school being in any way racist. This was an honest mistake … it was an error. But I am satisfied that if the policy is applied without the possibility of exception, then it is unlawful. I have decided that there was unlawful indirect racial discrimination that was not justified.” The court heard the boy, known only as G, had not cut his hair since birth and wore his hair in cornrows as part of a family tradition. In a statement to the court, he said he was shocked at the school’s decision, adding that all the male members of his family wore their hair in cornrows. “I really like my hair and it’s been that way all my life. This problem at school was the first time me and my mum ever talked about my hair, it’s so normal to us … I really like my hair, my brother and dad have cornrows and we all like it. I really don’t want to cut it off. This was the first time I had to ask the question, ‘what’s wrong with my hair?’” His mother told the court the style was “of great importance to his cultural and racial identity”, adding that her son, who had been looking forward to starting secondary school, suffered a “major blow to his self-esteem” after being turned away minutes after arriving. The school said the ban on the cornrows hairstyle was part of its strict uniform code designed to deter gang culture and create a safe environment for all its pupils. Andrew Prindiville, who has been headteacher at St Gregory’s since September 2008, defended the decision to adopt “a traditional schoolboy haircut or a ‘short back and sides’”, saying the school served an area where there was gun and knife crime, much of it gang-related, and haircuts were often “badges” of gang culture. “Our uniform and haircut policy for students other than sixth formers is a critical part of our strategy for maintaining excellent behaviour, for keeping gang mentality out of the school and for ensuring that students do not adopt attire or haircuts that may encourage that mentality,” he told the court. Prindiville said that although there was no specific connection between cornrows and gang culture, any exception to the strict rules on hairstyles could lead to a breakdown in discipline. “For example, the school ban on shaven heads is part of a conscious determination to avoid white boys, whether English or, say, eastern European, adopting any form of ‘skinhead’ styles with all the negative, and sometimes racist, connotations that go with this”. But Mr Justice Collins said the school, which is rated as excellent by Ofsted, must make exceptions in the future on the basis of ethnicity or cultural beliefs. The judge added that he would not rule if the boy’s banning from the school was unlawful, adding that an ongoing county court case, if the family chose to pursue it, would decide that. After the ruling, the family’s solicitor, Angela Jackman, from Maxwell Gillott, said: “This is an important decision. It makes clear that non-religious cultural and family practices associated with a particular race fall within the protection of equalities legislation.” She added: “For G, wearing his hair in cornrows is a fundamental cultural practice, which would have had no adverse impact upon the school. His wishes, however, were dismissed by the school without any consideration. Whilst schools face the challenges of maintaining good discipline, a community environment and their particular ethos, this case is a reminder that they must do so within the boundaries of the law.” In a statement after the ruling, Prindiville and chairman of governors Alloysius Frederick said the school had always tried to ensure that its uniform policy was fair, and offered its best wishes to G and his mother. “We believe that St Gregory’s is a happy and successful school with highly supportive parents and with a student body fully reflective of the racial diversity of the local community.” They added: “[We are] naturally disappointed by this decision of the high court. St Gregory’s is proud of its rich cultural and ethnic diversity, and is run on the belief that everyone at the school is equal and made in the image of God. “The school’s governing body will now consider whether to apply to the court of appeal for permission to appeal against the judge’s determination.” In a statement to the court, G, who is now at another school, said: “I love my [new] school, everyone is different and the teachers only care that I am learning – they don’t have a problem with the way I look.” London Schools Matthew Taylor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media What Tim Pawlenty is finding out–or maybe he already knew–is that the GOP has descended into a John Birch/John Galt party because of the FOXation of the party and some of its members reveling in racism. Mother Jones: During his recent swing through New Hampshire for CNN’s presidential debate, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty courted more than a hundred Republicans at a house party in the town of North Conway. But the Pawlenty campaign’s choice of a host for the event, which was arranged by the candidate’s regional field manager in the Granite State, was nothing if not controversial. The party took place at the home of Ray Shakir, a local Republican activist and retired construction executive, who calls President Obama a “jungle alien,” Hillary Clinton “Osama’s dream girl,” and once labeled certain disabled children “uneducatable” and thus undeserving of taxpayer-funded schooling. In an interview, Shakir says Pawlenty addressed tough issues at the house party, such as cutting subsidies for corn ethanol and implementing right-to-work legislation, which would allow employees to opt out of union membership but still receive union-won benefits. Shakir praises Pawlenty as “a real nice guy, very gregarious,” adding, “at this point in the game, Tim Pawlenty is my choice for president.” The Breitbarts of wingnutopia can scream the word racism as much and as loud as they want in an attempt to cheapen its meaning, but it doesn’t change the fact that that’s exactly what the party has embraced. We saw it during the August Townhall meeting during the health care debate and Pawlenty is actively courting them on his presidential run. Check out some of the other insane things Shakir has said in the past: You can call me a birther if you want.” Shakir claims the long-form birth certificate recently released by the Obama administration is merely a clever forgery. (The Pawlenty campaign did not respond to a request for comment.) Moving to other issues, Shakir called human-caused climate change “bullshit” and accused liberals of “trying to destroy this country.” “They’re brainwashing people,” he says Shakir has a history of rhetorical flamethrowing. He’s referred to President Obama as “Borat Hussein O’Bummer” and suggested he is “a radical, subversive, con-artist fraud.” — In response to a special education official who said there was “no such thing as an uneducatable person,” Shakir told a gym full of citizens: “I would dispute that fact. There are certainly individuals that are uneducateable. I am simply suggesting to you and everybody else that there should be a line drawn where the taxpayer is responsible to educate certain people.” Shakir’s statement drew a chorus of boos, calls to resign, and even a comparison to Hitler. To which Shakir responded, “If you don’t like it, that’s the way it is. You people are divorced from reality.” Andy Kroll asks a question in his great piece that he really doesn’t answer: Q) But why did the Pawlenty campaign, running on a “Time for Truth” message, turn to Shakir, an activist whose eyebrow-raising comments on a range of topics fly in the face of that theme? enlarge A) Because that’s who the GOP of today are. Simple.
Continue reading …