• Israel PM alarmed at new US stance on Palestine peace deal • Netanyahu seeks return to George Bush’s 2004 commitment Barack Obama is to meet Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, at the White House in what is predicted to be a tense meeting after the US president’s speech in which he called for Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders in any peace agreement. Netanyahu issued a strongly worded statement shortly after Obama finished speaking on Thursday, containing an unusually clear rebuke to the president. “Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of US commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both houses of Congress,” it said. “Among other things, those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines.” He was referring to a letter signed by George Bush, which gave US backing to Israel’s claim to retain the big settlement blocks in the West Bank when drawing borders between it and a future Palestinian state. Netanyahu was also alarmed at Obama’s reference to a future Palestinian state’s borders with Israel, Jordan and Egypt. Israel has long argued that it must keep a military presence along the Jordan River as a security buffer. Obama appeared to reject that. According to reports in the Israeli media, Netanyahu considered an even harsher response to Obama’s speech. What was issued was a “softened” version. An alarm sounded within the Israeli establishment as soon as it was announced that Obama would deliver a speech on events in the Middle East just days before Netanyahu was scheduled to address Congress. They feared he would set out his vision of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal, thus severely limiting Netanyahu’s room for manoeuvre when his turn comes on Tuesday. But consultations between Washington and Jerusalem reassured Israeli officials that there would be no game-changing element in Obama’s speech. Now they feel they were misled. The issue of 1967 has figured large in speculation over what Netanyahu might say in his Congress speech, and whether he would mention the key date. To do so would be a significant step and might help unblock the talks, but it would concede an important red line for Israel and cause the prime minister severe difficulties with his fragile rightwing coalition. In the event, Obama uttered the numbers first, thereby possibly backing Netanyahu into a corner. “Obama’s speech comes as a major blow to [Netanyahu's] policy,” wrote Nahum Barnea, a columnist for Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel’s biggest-selling newspaper. “First because of [Obama's] explicit determination that the future border will be based on the 1967 borders. Netanyahu knows that if an agreement is ever signed, these will in fact be the borders – but he believed, and still believes, that ambiguity on this issue served him best.” Ben Caspit, a Ma’ariv columnist, wrote: “[Netanyahu] has heard, for the first time in history, an American president explicitly mention the 1967 borders as the basis for an arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians … This president, who now looks like a strong president, has crushed Netanyahu’s worldview, according to which there is no partner … [Obama] looks straight at Israel, looks it right in the eye, and tells it the truth to its face: the US is forever committed to the security and prosperity of the state of Israel but the US is not interested in continuing to lie to Israel and to itself. Everyone knows what the solution is, everyone is familiar with the formula, here it is before us. Let Israel kindly sign here, here and here, and start implementing.” An analysis by Simon Shiffer, also in Yedioth, said: “No amount of whitewashing can succeed in changing the bitter taste of the pill served by Obama to the Israeli prime minister … Obama is the first American president who has defined in such a clear and geographic manner the outline of the arrangement that is supposed to end the conflict, in his opinion.” The irony for many is that most of the international community has accepted for a long time that the pre-1967 lines must serve as the basis for any future negotiated border. A senior official in Netanyahu’s bureau was quoted by Israel Radio as saying that, following Obama’s speech, there was a sense in Jerusalem “that Washington fails to understand reality”. In terms of what happens next, there is no clear indication of how the US intends to follow up Obama’s statement with action to force the parties back to the negotiating table. That may become clearer as the two leaders meet on Friday, and in a series of speeches by both over the next few days. But few people anticipate a return to talks any time soon. The Palestinians have yet to respond to Obama’s speech. The president, Mahmoud Abbas, is consulting Palestinian and Arab leaders. They will not be happy with Obama’s dismissal of their efforts to win recognition of a Palestinian state at the United Nations general assembly in September. Meanwhile the construction of approximately 1,500 new housing units in East Jerusalem settlements was approved by a government committee on Thursday, and permits for a further 300-plus units in West Bank settlements were approved by the defence minister, Ehud Barak. Israel Binyamin Netanyahu Barack Obama Palestinian territories Middle East United States Harriet Sherwood guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Superinjunctions: Modern technology is completely out of control, says lord chief justice
May 20, 2011 No Comment
Lord Judge: People who defy legal restrictions and ‘peddle lies’ over the internet should have to pay damages Modern technology is totally out of control, the lord chief justice has warned in a call for action to be taken against those who defy court injunctions and “peddle lies” on social media and websites. Lord Judge welcomed a report by an influential judicial committee on privacy orders that called for superinjunctions to be granted only in “very limited circumstances” and normally for short periods of time. But he admitted that many bloggers and sites such as Twitter were publishing information that traditional newspapers and television stations were prevented from revealing by court orders. There is no mention in the report of the impact of Twitter or the internet on the enforcement of court orders, but the lord chief justice said readers placed greater trust in the contents of traditional media than in those “who peddle lies” on websites. The internet had “by no means the same degree of intrusion into privacy as the story being emblazoned on the front pages of newspapers”, which “people trust more”, he said. The names of those people who had taken out anonymity orders have been circulating, sometimes inaccurately, on Twitter. Anybody can put anything on [such sites],” he said. Lord Judge said he believed that ways would be found to curtail the “misuse of modern technology” in the same way that those involved with online child pornography were pursued by the police. “Are you really going to say that someone who has a true claim for protection perfectly well made has to be at the mercy of modern technology?” he asked. “I’m not giving up on the possibility that people who peddle lies about others through using technology may one day be brought under control, maybe through damages, very substantial damages, maybe even injunctions to stop them peddling lies.” In a report that repeatedly stresses the importance of “open justice”, the study headed by the master of the rolls, Lord Neuberger, proposes giving the media advance notice of applications for gagging orders. Dismissing allegations that judges have been creating new laws beyond the authority of parliament, the committee on superinjunctions nonetheless states that “there was justifiable concern [last year] … that superinjunctions were being applied for, and granted, far too readily”. The report also says that media reports of comments made in parliament which set out to contravene injunctions may be in contempt of court. Reports of statements in the Commons and Lords are protected by parliamentary privilege only if they are published “in good faith and without malice”. Addressing the media at the royal courts of justice in central London, the lord chief justice: “It is, of course, wonderful for you if a member of parliament stands up in parliament and says something which in effect means an order of the court on anonymity is breached. “But you do need to think whether it’s a good idea for our lawmakers to be flouting a court order just because they disagree with a court order or they disagree with the privacy law created by parliament.” On Thursday the Liberal Democrat MP Lord Stoneham of Droxford asked a question in the Lords revealing details of an injunction obtained by the former Royal Bank of Scotland boss Sir Fred Goodwin preventing coverage of details of his private life – which later led to the order being part-lifted. Lord Judge said senior judges would be holding talks with the speakers of the Commons and the Lords over the issue. “It will take quite an effort for parliament to get a grip on this,” he said. The study will be scrutinised carefully by ministers, who have sent out mixed signals about whether they believe a privacy law needs to be introduced to provide clearer guidance for judges. David Cameron’s official spokesman said the government would consider Lord Neuberger’s report before deciding whether to legislate on privacy issues. The spokesman told reporters at a regular daily briefing: “We think it is important to find the right balance between individual rights of privacy on the one hand and the right to freedom of expression on the other. We think this is a very useful report and it is something we will be considering very carefully.” While no one knows the precise number of privacy injunctions in circulation, the committee says it is only aware of two genuine superinjunctions – those whose existence cannot even be revealed – having been granted since January 2010. One was set aside on appeal and the other was in force for only seven days. “The principle of open justice is a fundamental constitutional principle,” the report states, “although it is not an absolute principle. It applies to interim injunction applications as it does to trials. “… As they incorporate derogations from the principle of open justice, superinjunctions and anonymised injunctions can only be granted when they are strictly necessary. They cannot be granted so as to become in practice permanent.” The report sets out draft guidance on how applications should be processed in future, allowing third parties, including the media, to take part in or lodge objections to privacy proceedings. It is hoped the presence of other parties in such complex cases will provide reassurance that the cause of justice is being served and that the law is not being exploited by the wealthy to close down debate about matters of public interest. It is acknowledged that new legal procedures will be required to ensure that those who attend such hearings do not divulge details until they are reportable. “It will be a very rare case where advance notice of such applications to media organisations, which are likely to be affected by any order, can justifiably be withheld.” Lord Neuberger, who is the head of the civil judiciary, said: “Our starting point was the maintenance of the fundamental principles of open justice and freedom of speech. Where privacy and confidentiality are involved, a degree of secrecy is often necessary to do justice. “However, where secrecy is ordered it should only be to the extent strictly necessary to achieve the interests of justice. And where it is ordered, the facts of the case and the reason for the secrecy should be explained, as far as possible, in an openly available judgment.” In a clear rebuff to politicians who have accused judges of inventing novel legal precedents without reference to parliament, Lord Judge welcomed the report and observed: “Contrary to some commentary, unelected judges in this country did not create privacy rights. They were created by parliament [through enactment of the 1998 Human Rights Act]. “Now that they have been created, judges cannot ignore or dispense with them: they must apply the law relating to privacy matters as created by parliament – including those relating to the enforcement of privacy rights by injunctive relief, balancing them with the rights … of freedom of expression. “The relationship between parliament and the courts has, for generations, been predicated on mutual understanding and respect. Judges have never asserted, and they are not now asserting, any authority or jurisdiction over parliamentary proceedings or debate, which are exclusively matters for parliament.” Superinjunctions Privacy Social networking Twitter Privacy & the media Media law Newspapers Newspapers & magazines Facebook Internet Owen Bowcott guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Ahead of the Bafta TV awards on Sunday, photographer Phil Fisk shares his extraordinary portfolio of television stars Alice Fisher Eva Wiseman Tom Lamont
Continue reading …
Government vows to ‘suffocate environmental crime’ after 27% rise in Amazon deforestation in a year Hundreds of environmental protection officers are being deployed in the Brazilian Amazon after government satellites detected a sudden, unexpected surge in deforestation. On Wednesday, Brazil’s environment minister Izabella Teixeira announced the creation of a “crisis cabinet” to crackdown on illegal logging in the world’s largest tropical rainforest, after satellites registered a 27% hike in Amazon deforestation between August 2010 and April this year compared with the previous year. “The order is to suffocate environmental crime,” said Teixeira, following the release of images that showed at least 1,848 sq km of rainforest had been destroyed, compared with 1,455 sq km a year earlier. Satellite data painted an even more disturbing picture of deforestation in March and April this year when nearly 593 sq km of forest were lost – an increase of over 470% compared with the same period in 2010. Officials said the most dramatic situation was in the soy-growing state of Mato Grosso, where farmers are said to be using tractors and giant chains to rip up vast tracts of native forest. Brazil’s environmental protection agency, Ibama, this week vowed to launch 200 operations in the region by the end of the year, with support from armed federal police operatives. Illegal cattle and timber would be seized, it said. This week’s announcement comes after successive years in which Amazon deforestation fell dramatically. Last December Teixeira publicly celebrated reaching “the lowest level of deforestation in the history of Amazonia”. On Wednesday, however, Teixeira admitted the sudden reversal was “scary” and “atypical”. “Until this deforestation is reduced, none [of our agents] will leave the field,” she said. Brazil’s environment minister said it was too early to know what had caused the sudden spike in destruction. But many environmentalists are convinced it is linked to an ongoing and highly controversial debate over changes to Brazil’s forest code that Amazon farmers and ranchers hope will enable them to expand their properties, and boost economic development. Under the new proposals, the amount of rainforest that Amazon landowners are required to protect, currently set at 80%, could be reduced. Andre Muggiati, an Amazon-based campaigner for environmental group Greenpeace, said anticipation of such changes had sparked a “deforestation frenzy”. Many ranchers and deforesters were convinced they would be forgiven for newly razed areas, he said. “They are opening large areas right now and it is not even deforestation season because it is raining in the Amazon region,” he said. “If the bill is approved then we are going to have the largest deforestation [levels] in the Amazon and in Brazil in general in many years this year.” “It looked like the country was going one way – a good way for forest conservation – meeting targets, carbon emission reduction. We were really doing fine. But we decided to take a U-turn and go the other way. It is really bad what is happening,” Muggiati added. “The country is going backwards in terms of forest conservation, definitely.” Brazil’s Congress is expected to vote on changes to the forest code by the end of this month. Deforestation Conservation Forests Brazil Tom Phillips guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Twitter user claims to have mounted egg and shoe attack on Fang Binxing at Wuhan University Chinese police are seeking a man who said he threw eggs and shoes at the architect of China’s “great firewall”, the world’s most sophisticated and extensive online censorship system. The claims were cheered by many internet users, in a reflection of growing anger among them about increasingly stringent controls. Admirers showered the anonymous young man with flippant promises of everything from Nike trainers to replace his lost footwear, to iPads, sex and jobs. The office of Fang Binxing – who is known as the father of the great firewall – denied the attack had happened, while Wuhan University in Hubei province, where the incident reportedly happened, told the Guardian it was not aware of it. No photographs have surfaced of the event. But Associated Press said police were sent to the university to investigate a shoe-throwing incident targeting Fang on Thursday, citing an officer at the Luojiashan public security bureau. A Hong Kong activist had posted a message noting that Fang, the president of Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, was giving a speech at Wuhan and urging students to “prepare”. The Twitter user who claimed to have pelted him, who posts under the pseudonym @hanunyi , wrote: “The egg missed the target. The first shoe hit the target. The second shoe was blocked by a man and a woman. “I didn’t think this little thing would get such a big response,” he added several hours later, following the online outpouring of glee. @hanunyi, who said he was not a student at the university, was still tweeting on Friday. Responding to one comment warning he might be detained, he noted: “So far, not yet. Just woke up. Thank you.” Other students appeared to have planned similar protests, but backed out. One Twitter user wrote: “We noticed that our professor and our graduate supervisor were there and immediately lost courage.” While many of China’s estimated 477 million internet users appear largely indifferent to the firewall because they use almost solely domestic sites and services, a growing number of young people are frustrated by curbs that not only prevent them accessing foreign news and social media sites, but increasingly make it hard or even impossible to use apparently uncontroversial sites, such as the Internet Movie Database ( IMDb ). Earlier this year Fang closed a microblog within days of opening it after thousands of Chinese internet users left comments, almost all of them deriding him. They attacked him as “a running dog for the government” and “the enemy of netizens”. He later told the Global Times newspaper: “I regard the dirty abuse as a sacrifice for my country.” Fang told the state-run newspaper that internet controls were not tough enough, a comment that presaged increasingly tight controls . He complained in particular of the use of virtual private networks to evade censorship technology – saying he had six VPNs at home so that he could test the strength of the firewall. Shortly afterwards, addressing graduating students in a speech that focused on patriotism and western hegemony, he warned: “Political chaos in north Africa and the Middle East has enticed the great expectations of anti-China forces … More than ever, democracy activists abroad are taking advantage of the internet. They are inciting netizens to take up planned, step-by-step action and bring about political chaos in China, accomplishing their goal through the work of others. “Now the question is, Who is it that wants turmoil in China after all? Who is it that wants China to sink into the mire of chaos?” China Censorship Internet Tania Branigan guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Former environment minister sentenced at Southwark crown court after pleading guilty to claiming more than £30,000 in bogus mortgage payments Elliot Morley has been jailed for 16 months, becoming the first former minister to be sentenced in the Westminster expenses scandal. Morley, a former environment minister, was sentenced at Southwark crown court, in London. Last month, he pleaded guilty to claiming more than £30,000 in bogus mortgage payments. He entered two guilty pleas for false accounting relating to his home in Winterton, near Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire, between 2004 and 2007. His barrister accepted it was not a question of “if but how long” he faced behind bars. Morley, whose conviction was the most high-profile since the expenses scandal broke, pocketed £30,428 by claiming for a phantom mortgage and inflating the amount he was previously paying. He wrongly filled out a total of 40 forms relating to payments for his home. In total, he claimed £16,800 on a phantom mortgage and £15,200 after inflating the amount he was previously paying, for which he should have been entitled to only £1,572. Speaking after Morley had entered his pleas, Simon Clements, the reviewing lawyer for the Crown Prosecution Service, said: “Mr Morley had claimed he was unaware the mortgage had been paid off. For most of us, paying off the mortgage is a red letter day, and members of the public have found it difficult to comprehend his explanation that he was not aware that had happened. “The parliamentary expenses system exists to assist the public’s representatives in carrying out their duties, but Mr Morley used it to line his own pockets with just over £30,000 – more than an average household’s annual income. Such behaviour is blatantly dishonest, and cannot be excused.” Morley’s prosecution overshadows a political career spanning more than 20 years. An MP for Scunthorpe from 1987 to 2010, the former teacher was one of Labour’s most prominent voices on agricultural issues and the environment. He was the party’s spokesman on rural affairs and animal welfare from 1989 until the 1997 election victory, and served under Tony Blair as environment minister from 2003 to 2006. MPs’ expenses House of Commons Crime guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Russian tycoon to join Putin’s All-Russia People’s Front Alexander Lebedev, owner of the Independent and Evening Standard newspapers, has announced he is quitting business in Russia to join Vladimir Putin’s latest political initiative as the country gets ready for presidential elections. Lebedev said security service pressure on his banking business had become so great it was impossible to continue. Yet he failed to explain why, after years of positioning himself as an opposition figure, he had decided to side with the powers-that-be. “I don’t think it’s possible to continue the banking business,” Lebedev said in an interview with Gazeta.ru , Russia’s most respected online news portal. “Within two months, I plan to leave the field and become an ordinary citizen.” The tycoon posted a statement on his website on Friday saying his Our Capital movement had decided to join the All-Russia People’s Front created by Putin earlier this month. The move comes after pressure has been building on National Reserve Bank, the jewel in Lebedev’s empire. Its headquarters were raided by masked police late last year, allegedly as part of an investigation into fraud at a small failed bank acquired by NRB in 2008. Lebedev has blamed the pressure on his public statements. The announcement came one day after Lebedev released a video detailing the raid and alleged corruption by the Federal Security Service officers involved. He later said the video had been uploaded to his website “by mistake” and would be re-released once it was finished. “That version was meant for closed viewing by the government, Central Bank and FSB,” he said. Lebedev has been allowed to acquire great wealth in Russia despite his oft-critical statements of the country’s leadership. Novaya Gazeta, the newspaper he co-owns with former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, is Russia’s leading opposition newspaper. He once proposed outfitting its journalists with guns, following the latest in a line of high-profile killings of journalists at the paper. Lebedev said in a statement that Our Capital, a social organisation he founded to oppose the politics of ousted Moscow mayor Yury Luzhkov, had decided to join Putin’s new movement. “Today we are ready not only to co-operate with the [new] Moscow leadership but also to support the People’s Front created upon Vladimir Putin’s initiative,” Lebedev said, adding that he hoped to focus on the fight against corruption. Putin announced the creation of the All Russia People’s Front on 6 May at a congress of the increasingly unpopular ruling United Russia party, saying it would unite social organisations like NGOs, trade unions and youth groups. Many analysts took the move as a sign Putin was seeking to build popular support ahead of parliamentary elections at the end of the year. The movement could also provide a new base of support should Putin seek to distance himself from United Russia, whose approval ratings have fallen to near record lows, should he decide to return to the presidency next year. Alexander Lebedev Russia Europe Vladimir Putin Miriam Elder guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Russian tycoon to join Putin’s All-Russia People’s Front Alexander Lebedev, owner of the Independent and Evening Standard newspapers, has announced he is quitting business in Russia to join Vladimir Putin’s latest political initiative as the country gets ready for presidential elections. Lebedev said security service pressure on his banking business had become so great it was impossible to continue. Yet he failed to explain why, after years of positioning himself as an opposition figure, he had decided to side with the powers-that-be. “I don’t think it’s possible to continue the banking business,” Lebedev said in an interview with Gazeta.ru , Russia’s most respected online news portal. “Within two months, I plan to leave the field and become an ordinary citizen.” The tycoon posted a statement on his website on Friday saying his Our Capital movement had decided to join the All-Russia People’s Front created by Putin earlier this month. The move comes after pressure has been building on National Reserve Bank, the jewel in Lebedev’s empire. Its headquarters were raided by masked police late last year, allegedly as part of an investigation into fraud at a small failed bank acquired by NRB in 2008. Lebedev has blamed the pressure on his public statements. The announcement came one day after Lebedev released a video detailing the raid and alleged corruption by the Federal Security Service officers involved. He later said the video had been uploaded to his website “by mistake” and would be re-released once it was finished. “That version was meant for closed viewing by the government, Central Bank and FSB,” he said. Lebedev has been allowed to acquire great wealth in Russia despite his oft-critical statements of the country’s leadership. Novaya Gazeta, the newspaper he co-owns with former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, is Russia’s leading opposition newspaper. He once proposed outfitting its journalists with guns, following the latest in a line of high-profile killings of journalists at the paper. Lebedev said in a statement that Our Capital, a social organisation he founded to oppose the politics of ousted Moscow mayor Yury Luzhkov, had decided to join Putin’s new movement. “Today we are ready not only to co-operate with the [new] Moscow leadership but also to support the People’s Front created upon Vladimir Putin’s initiative,” Lebedev said, adding that he hoped to focus on the fight against corruption. Putin announced the creation of the All Russia People’s Front on 6 May at a congress of the increasingly unpopular ruling United Russia party, saying it would unite social organisations like NGOs, trade unions and youth groups. Many analysts took the move as a sign Putin was seeking to build popular support ahead of parliamentary elections at the end of the year. The movement could also provide a new base of support should Putin seek to distance himself from United Russia, whose approval ratings have fallen to near record lows, should he decide to return to the presidency next year. Alexander Lebedev Russia Europe Vladimir Putin Miriam Elder guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Experts fear pod of 100 whales circling off Loch Carnan in Scotland will attempt to beach themselves Animal welfare experts are battling to prevent about 100 pilot whales being stranded in a sea loch in the Western Isles. The large pod of whales is circling off Loch Carnan in South Uist and up to 20 appear to have severe head injuries, raising fears they have already struck the rocky foreshore of the loch. Experts in whale strandings from the British Divers Marine Life Rescue (BDMLR) and a senior inspector from the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SSPCA) are travelling to the scene in case the whales attempt to beach themselves. The rescuers fear that if some injured animals attempt to beach themselves, many others in the pod will follow them onto the shore, almost certainly leading to mass mortalities. Alistair Jack, BDMLR’s Scottish co-ordinator, said the charity’s team in South Uist already had several sets of pontoons and the charity has 12 sets of the whale floatation devices across the UK: all of them were being despatched to South Uist. “We first became aware of the incident late yesterday and have immediately responded,” Jack said. “We anticipate having trained medics and rescue equipment on the scene by mid morning. This is one of the largest events of this kind ever in the country.” Calum Watt, the SSPCA’s senior inspector for the Western Isles, is en route to the loch. He said: “When pilot whales come inshore there is a very strong chance some among the group are sick or injured. “We believe around 20 of these whales have severe head injuries but at this stage we aren’t sure of the cause. One possibility is these injuries were sustained during a previous attempt to strand themselves. “Pilot whales have extremely strong social bonds, which sadly means healthy whales within the pod will follow sick and injured whales on to the shore.” A pod of around 35 pilot whales were involved in a similar emergency at Loch Carnan, a small and narrow loch near the north eastern corner of the island, last October . After being closely watched by the BDMLR, the SSPCA and the coastguard, they went back to sea. But less then a week later the same pod is believed to have been involved in a mass stranding in County Donegal in Ireland, when 33 pilot whales were found dead on a beach . Pilot whales are among the most common cetaceans, and the adult male can grow to 20 feet long. Watt said the largest number they have tried to refloat was seven, in 1993, but all seven returned to the shore and died. He was very worried about the prospects of saving so many whales if the new pod at Loch Carnan became stranded. “At this stage we remain hopeful they will not strand themselves but our concern is the injured whales will come onshore and be followed by the rest of the pod,” he said. “Attempting to refloat so many whales would be a huge task and if they do become stranded we’ll need to decide upon the best course of action.” “It is incredible that a second pod, this time probably more than twice the size, has arrived in the same area. There is no reason we know of why they would have come to the same location.” Whales Marine life Animals Conservation Scotland Severin Carrell guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Experts fear pod of 100 whales circling off Loch Carnan in Scotland will attempt to beach themselves Animal welfare experts are battling to prevent about 100 pilot whales being stranded in a sea loch in the Western Isles. The large pod of whales is circling off Loch Carnan in South Uist and up to 20 appear to have severe head injuries, raising fears they have already struck the rocky foreshore of the loch. Experts in whale strandings from the British Divers Marine Life Rescue (BDMLR) and a senior inspector from the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SSPCA) are travelling to the scene in case the whales attempt to beach themselves. The rescuers fear that if some injured animals attempt to beach themselves, many others in the pod will follow them onto the shore, almost certainly leading to mass mortalities. Alistair Jack, BDMLR’s Scottish co-ordinator, said the charity’s team in South Uist already had several sets of pontoons and the charity has 12 sets of the whale floatation devices across the UK: all of them were being despatched to South Uist. “We first became aware of the incident late yesterday and have immediately responded,” Jack said. “We anticipate having trained medics and rescue equipment on the scene by mid morning. This is one of the largest events of this kind ever in the country.” Calum Watt, the SSPCA’s senior inspector for the Western Isles, is en route to the loch. He said: “When pilot whales come inshore there is a very strong chance some among the group are sick or injured. “We believe around 20 of these whales have severe head injuries but at this stage we aren’t sure of the cause. One possibility is these injuries were sustained during a previous attempt to strand themselves. “Pilot whales have extremely strong social bonds, which sadly means healthy whales within the pod will follow sick and injured whales on to the shore.” A pod of around 35 pilot whales were involved in a similar emergency at Loch Carnan, a small and narrow loch near the north eastern corner of the island, last October . After being closely watched by the BDMLR, the SSPCA and the coastguard, they went back to sea. But less then a week later the same pod is believed to have been involved in a mass stranding in County Donegal in Ireland, when 33 pilot whales were found dead on a beach . Pilot whales are among the most common cetaceans, and the adult male can grow to 20 feet long. Watt said the largest number they have tried to refloat was seven, in 1993, but all seven returned to the shore and died. He was very worried about the prospects of saving so many whales if the new pod at Loch Carnan became stranded. “At this stage we remain hopeful they will not strand themselves but our concern is the injured whales will come onshore and be followed by the rest of the pod,” he said. “Attempting to refloat so many whales would be a huge task and if they do become stranded we’ll need to decide upon the best course of action.” “It is incredible that a second pod, this time probably more than twice the size, has arrived in the same area. There is no reason we know of why they would have come to the same location.” Whales Marine life Animals Conservation Scotland Severin Carrell guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …