University vice-chancellors warn banning nonviolent Islamists from addressing students will drive problem underground University vice-chancellors have warned the home secretary, Theresa May, that banning nonviolent Islamist “extremists” from speaking on college campuses is a simplistic solution that will drive the problem underground. The National Union of Students also told ministers “wild sensationalism” over claims about radicalisation on campuses would “only serve to unfairly demonise Muslim students”. They were reacting to May’s claim, in an interview with the Daily Telegraph , that universities have treated the issue of extremism with complacency. May told the paper: “I don’t think they have been sufficiently willing to recognise what can be happening on their campuses and the radicalisation that can take place. I think there is more that universities can do.” Downing Street has yet to confirm the final details of the revised counter-terrorism strategy known as Prevent , but an announcement of the policy is expected tomorrow. The Daily Mail reports that the much delayed update will identify 40 English universities where there could be a “particular risk” of radicalisation or recruitment on campus. The home secretary has particularly targeted groups associated with the Federation of Student Islamic Societies : “They need to be prepared to stand up and say that organisations that are extreme or support extremism, or have extremist speakers, should not be part of their grouping,” said May. But university vice-chancellors rejected the charge that they had been complacent, pointing to a report earlier this year that showed two-thirds of colleges had engaged with Prevent officers. Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of Universities UK , told the BBC: “I simply don’t recognise this description of universities as being complacent about terrorism. The report that Universities UK published earlier this year showed the extent to which universities are engaging with the police and security services and working with student unions to deal with unlawful external speakers.” She said it was important to draw a distinction between speakers who expressed disagreeable views and speakers who were unlawful in terms of inciting violence or terrorism. “There is absolutely no place in universities for speakers who encourage violence or who in some way breach race relations legislation, whatever it may be: they should be stopped. But what we are talking about here is speakers whose views we may not agree with. They may express extreme views. We may find their views repulsive or offensive, but we say those views need to be expressed so that students may challenge these views. If we ban those speakers not only do we compromise freedom of speech in a significant way but we drive the whole issue underground, and that is not the way to deal with it.” Dandridge said bans would fail: “There is a complex and fine line to be drawn between unlawful speech that should be banned, and views that we do not agree with [but which] we have to challenge. There is no room for rhetoric for easy, simplistic solutions that will not work.” She was backed by the National Union of Students. The president, Aaron Porter, said: “Given that the law requires universities to provide freedom of speech, and the government refuses to ban the hardline group Hizb ut-Tahrir despite promises to do so, it appears irresponsible of Theresa May to try to shift the blame for nonviolent extremism on to universities or students. “Facing up to the challenges that nonviolent extremism brings to campus life requires careful support and guidance from government, not wild sensationalism that only serves to unfairly demonise Muslim students.” Higher education UK security and terrorism Islam Theresa May Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …University vice-chancellors warn banning nonviolent Islamists from addressing students will drive problem underground University vice-chancellors have warned the home secretary, Theresa May, that banning nonviolent Islamist “extremists” from speaking on college campuses is a simplistic solution that will drive the problem underground. The National Union of Students also told ministers “wild sensationalism” over claims about radicalisation on campuses would “only serve to unfairly demonise Muslim students”. They were reacting to May’s claim, in an interview with the Daily Telegraph , that universities have treated the issue of extremism with complacency. May told the paper: “I don’t think they have been sufficiently willing to recognise what can be happening on their campuses and the radicalisation that can take place. I think there is more that universities can do.” Downing Street has yet to confirm the final details of the revised counter-terrorism strategy known as Prevent , but an announcement of the policy is expected tomorrow. The Daily Mail reports that the much delayed update will identify 40 English universities where there could be a “particular risk” of radicalisation or recruitment on campus. The home secretary has particularly targeted groups associated with the Federation of Student Islamic Societies : “They need to be prepared to stand up and say that organisations that are extreme or support extremism, or have extremist speakers, should not be part of their grouping,” said May. But university vice-chancellors rejected the charge that they had been complacent, pointing to a report earlier this year that showed two-thirds of colleges had engaged with Prevent officers. Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of Universities UK , told the BBC: “I simply don’t recognise this description of universities as being complacent about terrorism. The report that Universities UK published earlier this year showed the extent to which universities are engaging with the police and security services and working with student unions to deal with unlawful external speakers.” She said it was important to draw a distinction between speakers who expressed disagreeable views and speakers who were unlawful in terms of inciting violence or terrorism. “There is absolutely no place in universities for speakers who encourage violence or who in some way breach race relations legislation, whatever it may be: they should be stopped. But what we are talking about here is speakers whose views we may not agree with. They may express extreme views. We may find their views repulsive or offensive, but we say those views need to be expressed so that students may challenge these views. If we ban those speakers not only do we compromise freedom of speech in a significant way but we drive the whole issue underground, and that is not the way to deal with it.” Dandridge said bans would fail: “There is a complex and fine line to be drawn between unlawful speech that should be banned, and views that we do not agree with [but which] we have to challenge. There is no room for rhetoric for easy, simplistic solutions that will not work.” She was backed by the National Union of Students. The president, Aaron Porter, said: “Given that the law requires universities to provide freedom of speech, and the government refuses to ban the hardline group Hizb ut-Tahrir despite promises to do so, it appears irresponsible of Theresa May to try to shift the blame for nonviolent extremism on to universities or students. “Facing up to the challenges that nonviolent extremism brings to campus life requires careful support and guidance from government, not wild sensationalism that only serves to unfairly demonise Muslim students.” Higher education UK security and terrorism Islam Theresa May Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Business secretary heckled as he tells GMB conference that widespread action would increase pressure for tightening of anti-strike laws The business secretary, Vince Cable, was booed and heckled as he warned unions that widespread industrial action over spending cuts could ratchet up pressure on the government to make it harder for workers to strike. Cable’s comments – backed by the chancellor, George Osborne – prompted a furious reaction from union leaders, who accused the government of issuing “veiled threats” to deny workers the basic right to strike by tightening what they say is already among the developed world’s toughest strike legislation. The Liberal Democrat minister gave a keynote address to the GMB’s annual conference in Brighton, in which he laid out the government’s desire to have a “mature relationship” with trade unions. But he warned the “usual suspects” calling for general strikes and widespread disruption in response to the cuts. Cable told the conference there was currently no “compelling” reason to reform the laws – an action some rightwingers, including the London mayor, Boris Johnson, have called for. However, he said this could change if a wave of strikes caused “serious damage” to the country’s economic and social fabric. It was the first explicit acknowledgment by a coalition minister that the government could legislate to prevent widespread strikes. Other ministers refrained amid fears of increasing tensions at a crucial point in talks designed to avoid a mass walkout across the public sector. Cable said: “Later this month, we may very well witness a day of industrial action across significant parts of the public sector. “The usual suspects will call for general strikes and widespread disruption. This will excite the usual media comments about a summer or an autumn of discontent, and another group of the usual suspects will exploit the situation to call for the tightening of strike law. “We are undoubtedly entering a difficult period. Cool heads will be required all round. Despite occasional blips, I know that strike levels remain historically low, especially in the private sector. On that basis, and assuming this pattern continues, the case for changing strike law is not compelling. “However, should the position change … the pressure on us to act would ratchet up. That is something which both you, and certainly I, would wish to avoid.” The minister’s trailed comments had been endorsed by Osborne as “absolutely right” earlier in the day. “Vince Cable … speaks for the government, of course, and I agree with him,” the chancellor told the BBC News Channel. “Of course we want a constructive relationship with the public sector unions. We have got important negotiations under way, for instance on pensions. What Vince is saying is if we go into a cycle of destructive strikes we would have to think again – but let’s hope we don’t get there.” Sarah Veale, the TUC’s head of equalities and employment rights, said: “The UK already has some of the toughest strike legislation in the developed world, so there is no justification for further curbs, as the minister himself acknowledges. “Restricting the right to withhold labour would also be completely at odds with the coalition’s commitment to civil liberties. Disputes are always better settled through negotiation with unions, rather than veiled threats to rig the law in the employers’ favour.” Mark Serwotka, the leader of the Public and Commercial Services union, said: “The right to strike is a basic human right. “Public sector workers are currently facing unprecedented ideological attacks on their jobs, pensions, pay and conditions which will throw the economy into further recession. “This government, and the bankers who caused the economic crisis, are inflicting the greatest damage to our economic and social fabric by cutting public sector jobs, axing vital services and attacking communities.” The Unite leader, Len McCluskey, accused Cable of cracking down on workers’ human rights, saying: “It is no coincidence that the government is engineering this fight now. All eyes have been on our comatose economy and the government’s colossal failure to address this. “Talking tough about cracking down on working people is a circus engineered by a government that is clueless about the real problems facing this country – how do we breathe life back into our shops, businesses and high streets and how do we get the millions on the dole back to work?” Cable’s comment about the “usual suspects” calling for legislation to be strengthened appeared to be aimed at Johnson, who critics say is pressing the government to beef up anti-strike laws because of his failure to make progress on a no-strike agreement with London’s tube unions. Johnson has called for a legislative change that would only allow strikes to go ahead if supported by a majority vote of a union’s membership rather than only those opting to take part in a ballot. Talks with the unions to negotiate a new pension deal for state employees – the only issue all the public sector unions have in common, and therefore the only one in which they could launch joint industrial action – are ongoing. It is understood the discussions are making little headway, with ministers refusing to back down on increasing workers’ contributions. Other unions representing up to six million public sector workers could then edge towards industrial action. One breakaway group of unions representing 500,000 state employees – including the PCS civil service union and some of the teaching unions – is currently preparing to strike on 30 June. Schools, courts, ports and Whitehall could all come to a standstill. The developments come amid warnings over the government’s economic strategy, with a group of leading economists calling for a “plan B” alternative to the coalition’s spending cuts Osborne insisted there was no need for a plan B and said his austerity measures would provide credibility and stability for the UK economy. Vince Cable Trade unions George Osborne Economic policy Liberal-Conservative coalition Public sector cuts Public services policy Public finance Public sector pay Hélène Mulholland Polly Curtis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Business secretary heckled as he tells GMB conference that widespread action would increase pressure for tightening of anti-strike laws The business secretary, Vince Cable, was booed and heckled as he warned unions that widespread industrial action over spending cuts could ratchet up pressure on the government to make it harder for workers to strike. Cable’s comments – backed by the chancellor, George Osborne – prompted a furious reaction from union leaders, who accused the government of issuing “veiled threats” to deny workers the basic right to strike by tightening what they say is already among the developed world’s toughest strike legislation. The Liberal Democrat minister gave a keynote address to the GMB’s annual conference in Brighton, in which he laid out the government’s desire to have a “mature relationship” with trade unions. But he warned the “usual suspects” calling for general strikes and widespread disruption in response to the cuts. Cable told the conference there was currently no “compelling” reason to reform the laws – an action some rightwingers, including the London mayor, Boris Johnson, have called for. However, he said this could change if a wave of strikes caused “serious damage” to the country’s economic and social fabric. It was the first explicit acknowledgment by a coalition minister that the government could legislate to prevent widespread strikes. Other ministers refrained amid fears of increasing tensions at a crucial point in talks designed to avoid a mass walkout across the public sector. Cable said: “Later this month, we may very well witness a day of industrial action across significant parts of the public sector. “The usual suspects will call for general strikes and widespread disruption. This will excite the usual media comments about a summer or an autumn of discontent, and another group of the usual suspects will exploit the situation to call for the tightening of strike law. “We are undoubtedly entering a difficult period. Cool heads will be required all round. Despite occasional blips, I know that strike levels remain historically low, especially in the private sector. On that basis, and assuming this pattern continues, the case for changing strike law is not compelling. “However, should the position change … the pressure on us to act would ratchet up. That is something which both you, and certainly I, would wish to avoid.” The minister’s trailed comments had been endorsed by Osborne as “absolutely right” earlier in the day. “Vince Cable … speaks for the government, of course, and I agree with him,” the chancellor told the BBC News Channel. “Of course we want a constructive relationship with the public sector unions. We have got important negotiations under way, for instance on pensions. What Vince is saying is if we go into a cycle of destructive strikes we would have to think again – but let’s hope we don’t get there.” Sarah Veale, the TUC’s head of equalities and employment rights, said: “The UK already has some of the toughest strike legislation in the developed world, so there is no justification for further curbs, as the minister himself acknowledges. “Restricting the right to withhold labour would also be completely at odds with the coalition’s commitment to civil liberties. Disputes are always better settled through negotiation with unions, rather than veiled threats to rig the law in the employers’ favour.” Mark Serwotka, the leader of the Public and Commercial Services union, said: “The right to strike is a basic human right. “Public sector workers are currently facing unprecedented ideological attacks on their jobs, pensions, pay and conditions which will throw the economy into further recession. “This government, and the bankers who caused the economic crisis, are inflicting the greatest damage to our economic and social fabric by cutting public sector jobs, axing vital services and attacking communities.” The Unite leader, Len McCluskey, accused Cable of cracking down on workers’ human rights, saying: “It is no coincidence that the government is engineering this fight now. All eyes have been on our comatose economy and the government’s colossal failure to address this. “Talking tough about cracking down on working people is a circus engineered by a government that is clueless about the real problems facing this country – how do we breathe life back into our shops, businesses and high streets and how do we get the millions on the dole back to work?” Cable’s comment about the “usual suspects” calling for legislation to be strengthened appeared to be aimed at Johnson, who critics say is pressing the government to beef up anti-strike laws because of his failure to make progress on a no-strike agreement with London’s tube unions. Johnson has called for a legislative change that would only allow strikes to go ahead if supported by a majority vote of a union’s membership rather than only those opting to take part in a ballot. Talks with the unions to negotiate a new pension deal for state employees – the only issue all the public sector unions have in common, and therefore the only one in which they could launch joint industrial action – are ongoing. It is understood the discussions are making little headway, with ministers refusing to back down on increasing workers’ contributions. Other unions representing up to six million public sector workers could then edge towards industrial action. One breakaway group of unions representing 500,000 state employees – including the PCS civil service union and some of the teaching unions – is currently preparing to strike on 30 June. Schools, courts, ports and Whitehall could all come to a standstill. The developments come amid warnings over the government’s economic strategy, with a group of leading economists calling for a “plan B” alternative to the coalition’s spending cuts Osborne insisted there was no need for a plan B and said his austerity measures would provide credibility and stability for the UK economy. Vince Cable Trade unions George Osborne Economic policy Liberal-Conservative coalition Public sector cuts Public services policy Public finance Public sector pay Hélène Mulholland Polly Curtis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Poll: We asked for your suggestions for the best goal scored in Europe this season, now it’s your chance to vote
Continue reading …Poll: We asked for your suggestions for the best goal scored in Europe this season, now it’s your chance to vote
Continue reading …
Man under guard in hospital after incident police are treating as double murder in Braintree A woman and a child have been found shot dead in Essex and a man is under guard in hospital. A police spokeswoman said the shootings had taken place at an address in Braintree, and the incident was being treated as a double murder. Police were not searching for anyone else in connection with the deaths. Officers were called to the address shortly before 3am. Essex police said in a statement: “Officers were called to an address at Bartram Avenue, Braintree, in the early hours of today, where they found the bodies of a woman and a child. “A man is currently in hospital under police guard and police are not seeking anyone else in connection with this incident at this time. “Officers from the Kent and Essex Serious Crime Directorate are at the scene and inquiries are continuing into the circumstances leading up to this incident.” Police request that anyone with information about the incident should call 0300 333 4444. Crime guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Outgoing speaker arrested by anti-corruption agency on suspicion of fraud after four-hour standoff at his home in Abuja Nigeria’s anti-corruption agency has arrested one of the country’s leading politicians on suspicion of defrauding the country, an official said. Officers arrested outgoing speaker of the house of representatives, Dimeji Bankole, at his home in Abuja on Sunday, after he resisted arrest for more than four hours, said Femi Babafemi, a spokesman for the economic and financial crimes commission. Babafemi gave no additional details about the allegations facing Bankole, other than to say that he would be held “in custody to enable him to have sufficient time to answer questions on the numerous fraud allegations against him”. Bankole apparently refused several requests by officials to be interviewed. “An intelligence report … showed that the former speaker was planning to leave Abuja for Lagos on Sunday evening and thereafter flee the country through an illegal route,” a statement from Babafemi read. It was not immediately clear if Bankole had a lawyer. His spokesman, Idowu Bakare, previously issued a statement saying Bankole “never benefited” from his position, including taking a more than $66m (£40m) loan from United Bank for Africa PLC for his office. That was on top of his annual salary and money already budgeted for his office, which runs into the millions of dollars. Positions in Nigeria’s national assembly are highly lucrative, where even low-ranking members earn more than $1m in salaries and benefits, plus the ability to direct a swollen budget in a nation where billions in oil revenues routinely go missing. Bankole conceded defeat to an opposition party candidate in Nigeria’s April elections, one of a number of prominent politicians who lost their seats in the national assembly. Many pointed to Bankole’s defeat as a sign that Nigeria’s elections, typically marred by fraud and thuggery, had improved over the country’s 12 years as a democracy. However, ballot-box stuffing and violence dominated later polls, with more than 800 people dying in religious rioting after the presidential election. Nigeria, one of the top crude oil suppliers to the US, has a long history of corruption, with one officials once estimating the country has lost more than $380bn to corruption since gaining its independence from Britain in 1960. Corruption trickles down from corrupt politicians in Abuja to the lowest police officer shaking down bribes from motorists at one of the country’s many traffic checkpoints. Bankole’s detention is the highest profile case in many months for the economic and financial crimes commission, founded by former President Olusegun Obasanjo in 2003. While critics say Obasanjo used the agency to go after his opponents, officers did make major arrests under then-chief Nuhu Ribadu. After late President Umaru Yar’Adua’s administration forced Ribadu out of office in 2008, the agency largely fell quiet. A US diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks shows diplomats have questioned new agency leader Farida Waziri’s preparedness and willingness to take on the country’s powerful political elite. Waziri has been slow to prosecute many of the high-ranking politicians once under heavy scrutiny – even after Yar’Adua’s death last year. Nigeria Africa guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Tales of the City, Armistead Maupin’s love letter to gay San Francisco, is now a musical – with songs by Scissor Sister Jake Shears. Hadley Freeman watches it come together at rehearsals One day in 1991, when Jake Shears was 13 years old and so far from being “Jake Shears of the Scissor Sisters ” that he was Jason Sellards and as yet unaware he was gay, he was hanging out with a gay couple, who had taken the youngster under their wing. “I think they knew I was gay before I did,” he recalls. “So, you know, they would turn me on to cool music.” One of them handed him a book, saying: “I think you’ll like this.” It was Tales of the City , Armistead Maupin ‘s much-loved saga set in 1970s San Francisco , involving a hugely diverse group of characters who are all (often unknowingly) linked, and many of whom live in a large guesthouse run by the mysterious Mrs Madrigal . The book is full of stories of bath houses and break-ups, all told in Maupin’s genial tone. “It was the first thing I’d ever read that had a positive gay perspective,” says Shears, “and two years later, I came out. Make of that what you will.” Twenty years later, Shears is repaying his debt to Tales. As he relates this story, backstage at American Conservatory Theater in San Francisco , rehearsals are going on across the hall for the musical version of Tales of the City, for which he and fellow Scissor Sister John Garden have written the music and lyrics. The libretto is by Jeff Whitty , who won a Tony for Avenue Q , and it’s directed by Jason Moore, who also worked on the coming-of-age puppet parable. “Yes, your name has to begin with J to work here,” the press officer dryly confirms. The four Js make a charmingly symmetrical double double act, with the bright-eyed and loquacious Shears and the quieter Garden in one corner; and the adorably excited Whitty and the calmer Moore in the other. “It’s been extraordinary to see the books come to life on stage,” says Maupin, “but the really moving thing has been to see how well they all get along – they are 28 Barbary Lane.” This was the address of Madrigal’s house, where the characters meet, fall in love and form lifelong friendships. In fact, the genesis of the musical could have come from the pages of Tales itself. Whitty came up with the idea five years ago on a flight to London. He called Moore who instantly said yes. “Jeff was passionate about it, and that’s all I needed.” Whitty then made a mixtape of songs that sounded like the kind of music he and Moore wanted; the only contemporary piece was by the Scissor Sisters, so he called up Shears. How did he get his number so quickly? “Oh, we met about 11 years ago when we were both go-go dancers,” Shears recalls airily. “He enjoyed pulling his clothes off and dancing on bar tops. The first time we met in New York, I was probably off my face and we both had half our clothes off.” “That,” Whitty says, “pretty much describes it. And we’ve turned it into art! No regrets ever!” The other person Whitty had to convince was his literary idol, Maupin. “I read Tales when I was 21, when I first moved to New York ,” he smiles. “I was so lonely. Those characters were my company.” So, nervously, he flew to San Francisco, where the writer lives. But instead of the “big box of crazy” he was worried about finding, “Armistead was so welcoming. We just got stoned within the first five minutes and that was it.” Maupin puts it somewhat more euphemistically: “Oh, we instantly clicked and spent about five hours gabbing.” Maupin took to Shears right away, “although it took a while to get past the eyes”. Had he been a Scissors fan? “Well, I’d heard Filthy/Gorgeous before, which I thought was grabby and fun.” On the day we meet, Shears happens to be wearing a loose vest top featuring a design by Tom of Finland , inventor of the macho gay image; he looks more like a Tales characters than the currently dressed-down actors do. “It’s always been my ambition to make a musical,” he says. “When Jeff said Tales, my heart started racing, and I thought, ‘I
Continue reading …
Chancellor defends his polices despite stuttering economy, saying he is providing ‘credibility, flexibility and stability’ George Osborne strongly defended his austerity measures on Monday, saying they would provide much-needed credibility and stability for the UK economy, amid growing criticism of his drastic spending cuts . The chancellor’s comments came ahead of an eagerly awaited verdict from the International Monetary Fund on the government finances at 1.30pm. The Confederation of British Industry will also deliver its verdict. In November, the IMF said the economy was “on the mend” and backed the deficit reduction programme, a mix of spending cuts and tax rises. But since then official figures have shown the economy flatlining over the fourth quarter of 2010 and first quarter of this year. Osborne defended his plans on BBC Radio 4′s Today programme, expressing confidence in the future of the British economy. “We have flexibility built into our plan. But what our plan provides is credibility where there was no credibility, stability where there was no stability, confidence that actually the British economy is getting its act together.” Some of Britain’s leading economists, including two former Whitehall advisers and two experts who had previously publicly backed the coalition’s cuts, have warned that the economy is too fragile to withstand the government’s deficit-cutting plans. But Osborne shrugged off the letter from more than 50 left-leaning academics to the Observer, which demands that the government pursue a plan B to boost jobs and growth. You can always assemble “leftwing academics” to criticise the government, he said, but they don’t necessarily represent “the consensus of opinion”. The OECD’s chief economist too has suggested that the chancellor should slow the pace of deficit reduction, having previously broadly backed the measures. Osborne claimed the remarks had been “overinterpreted” and insisted the head of the OECD had said Britain should not change course. The letter to the Observer was signed by experts including Jonathan Portes, the director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, who until February was chief economist at the Cabinet Office and Vicky Pryce, who was head of the government’s economic service before becoming a director at FTI Consulting. The signatories also include Professor John Muellbauer of Oxford University, an expert on the housing market who signed a letter to the Sunday Times last year supporting the Conservatives’ approach, and Tim Besley, a former Bank of England monetary policy committee member who orchestrated the letter. Budget deficit Economic growth (GDP) Economics George Osborne Economic policy IMF Julia Kollewe guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …