Warning comes amid concerns over blurring of boundaries between school staff’s professional and private lives Teachers are being warned not to “friend” pupils on Facebook amid concerns over the blurring of boundaries between school staff’s professional and private lives. In a fringe meeting at the National Union of Teachers’ annual conference on Sunday, teachers were told that pupils are getting access to potentially embarrassing information about teachers on their Facebook pages, while headteachers and school governors are increasingly using information posted on social networking sites to screen candidates for jobs. Teachers were also warned about the rise of a new site, Formspring , which enables users to post comments and questions without identifying themselves. Bullying posts appeared on the site before the suicide last year of 17-year-old Alexis Pilkington, from Long Island, New York, though her parents have played down suggestions of a link. Karl Hopwood, an internet safety consultant and former headteacher, told the NUT fringe meeting: “The line between private life and professional life is blurred now because of social media.” He urged the audience to watch for unguarded comments that could have damaging consequences. In one case, Hopwood said, a teacher posted the status update: “OMG must stop pissing about and get my maths boosters planned as I go to teach kids it in about one and a half hours!!!!” He also gave the example of a deputy head of a school, who found that photographs of him in a Superman outfit were put up on the school’s bulletin board. The pictures, taken by a colleague who was a fellow guest at a birthday party, had then spread through his Facebook friendships with pupils, Hopwood said. The NUT has recently issued guidance warning teachers not to befriend pupils on social networking sites, and to let school management know if they befriend parents or ex-pupils. Teachers at schools in Kent were advised by the council to close down social networking profiles after a headteacher at a college in Dartford was criticised for posting a photograph with a caption boasting about the size of her breasts. Hopwood said a headteacher in Wiltshire had banned staff from keeping a Facebook profile, but added: “I don’t think that’s the way forward.” Instead he urged teachers to be more sophisticated in their internet use. “Don’t friend pupils on social networking sites. Set up a group to link up with the orchestra or the rugby team.” There is also concern over the misuse of online information by potential employers. In one case, a female teacher was advised by a head to look at her page on a social networking site – where she had a picture of herself balancing a pint glass on her head – after she struggled to find work. After she changed her settings and removed photos she got a job, he said. The internet safety expert also said that he had been on an interview panel when the chair of governors handed him an envelope of printouts from Google searches of every candidate. Amanda Brown, NUT assistant secretary for employment, conditions and rights, said there was “definite concern” that there had been an increase in schools looking for information online. In the public sector there are rigorous appointment procedures, she said, adding: “If that’s going to be undermined by headteachers and governors going on to Google to see what else they can find then that would be a problem.” An increasing proportion of young children are signed up to social networking sites. Last year, over a third of children aged eight to 12 had a profile on sites such as Facebook, Bebo or MySpace that require users to register as being 13 or over, according to an Ofcom survey. The figure has risen from a quarter in 2009. A website used by schoolchildren to spread anonymous gossip was closed down earlier this year, after what its owners said was abuse by a “minority of irresponsible people.” Little Gossip, which started in November, had been criticised for failing to remove schools from a list of institutions users could gossip about. Hopwood expressed concern about the potential misuse of the Formspring site, which he said had a “much bigger user base” than Little Gossip. He said: “They think they can say anything on Formspring, but their online reputation can be damaged just as quickly as yours or mine can.” However he also praised social networking sites as a space for sharing positive information, giving the example of a memorial page for a teacher on Facebook. “Some of the stuff on there was wonderful.” Teaching Facebook Schools Internet Social networking Privacy Trade unions Children Jeevan Vasagar guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
US attorney charges poker firms’ executives with ‘profiting from illegal gambling’, but action is as much about taxation as morality For Mark Buchan , it was a bit of extra income to supplement his writing and teaching. Most people lose when they play poker online, but not this classics professor. On a good day, he says, he could make hundreds of dollars an hour from the comfort of his New York home. But the FBI has ended his fun. A major crackdown on poker sites operating in the US has left British-born Buchan and many thousands of others with frozen gaming accounts. Buchan noticed the action when he couldn’t log on to his usual site. Popular sites – fulltiltpoker.com, pokerstars.com and absolutepoker.com – all have notices stating : “This domain name has been seized by the FBI.” Buchan said: “Something had to happen at some point. But for them to do it like this was really, really surprising.” Gaming is, and always has been, a hot topic in the US. Sports betting online is illegal and last year David Carruthers, former chief executive of London’s BetOnSports, was jailed for 33 months for “racketeering conspiracy”. Online poker seemed to inhabit a greyer area. Not any more. Preet Bharara , the US attorney for New York, has charged Raymond Bitar, Full Tilt’s Ireland-based chief executive, and other online poker execs at rival sites, including Isle of Man-based PokerStars and Costa Rica’s Absolute Poker, with bank fraud and money laundering . He followed it up with a civil suit seeking to recover $3bn (£1.8bn) in allegedly ill-gotten gains. The defendants “concocted an elaborate criminal fraud scheme”, said Bharara, “tricking” some US banks and “bribing” others to assure the continued flow of billions in illegal gambling profits. In their “zeal to circumvent the gambling laws”, the defendants were flouting the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, brought in by George Bush, and had engaged in massive money laundering and bank fraud, he said. “Foreign firms that choose to operate in the United States are not free to flout the laws they don’t like simply because they can’t bear to be parted from their profits,” added Bharara. In a statement, Full Tilt said: “Mr Bitar and Full Tilt Poker believe online poker is legal – a position also taken by some of the best legal minds in the United States. Full Tilt Poker is, and has always been committed to preserving the integrity of the game and abiding by the law.” Angry poker players – who argue that their game is one of skill, not luck, so it is not gambling – took to the web to express themselves. The attorney general’s Wikipedia entry was changed: “Bharara is a naturalized American citizen who spends what little free time he has bullying the homeless on the streets on NYC. Furthermore, he is wasting time and money chasing down poker sites to compensate for his small genitalia,” it read. But for Buchan the game is over, online at least. He said other sites would step in and offer poker online in the US, even if it is illegal, but he would not be playing them. Poker and gambling experts say two forces are driving the crackdown: morality and a desire to collect tax dollars. “Sure people are worried about the effects of online gambling,” said Michael Burke, the author of Never Enough: One Lawyer’s True Story of How He Gambled His Career Away . Burke, a self-decribed gambling addict, who lectures on gaming addiction, said he had noticed a huge increase in the numbers of people who want to talk about problems with online gambling. “The real issue the government has is that they don’t know how to tax it,” Burke added. He said studies had shown that social isolation and the constant availability of online poker was creating a new generation of potential problem gamblers, lured by stories of fortunes to be made. The “myth”, he said, was reinforced by the $8.5m Joe “the kid” Cada won at the 2009 World Series Poker championship. “What about the thousands of others who lost money?” said Burke. “A very small percentage of gamblers becomes addicted but it’s still a very large number of people,” he said. “I believe if it’s legalised there will be real problems.” Mark Griffiths, professor of gaming studies at of Nottingham Trent University, said online gambling has specific problems: the frequency of opportunity, anonymity and “disinhibition” that people experience online can lead to a loss of control but, he added, online games are unlikely to present problems for the majority. “There are severe alcoholics out there and nobody is suggesting we return to prohibition,” said Buchan, the classics professor, who condeded: “I was playing a little too much anyway.” He is writing a guide to the classics and a book on death bed love scenes. “Now I can get on with some work,” he said. New York Poker Internet Gambling US sport US taxation United States Dominic Rushe guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Donald Trump may end up in the Republican Party’s 2012 primary, but he has not voted in any primaries for 21 years, reports the AP . According to the New York City Board of Elections, Trump last cast a primary ballot in 1989 in the New York City mayoral race, when…
Continue reading …There is “divine reason” behind creation and humanity, said Pope Benedict XVI in his Easter Vigil homily yesterday. “Are irrationality, lack of freedom, and pure chance the origin of everything, or are reason, freedom, and love at the origin of being?” he asked. “If man were merely a random product…
Continue reading …
Downing Street’s chief mouser snares his first prey after two months in the job It’s a good job his political masters don’t do targets any more, because otherwise Larry the cat must surely have failed. After two months in the job, Downing Street’s “chief mouser” – as cats who catch government rats are called – finally snared his first prey. On Good Friday, Larry appeared through a window from the Downing Street garden with a mouse in his mouth. He is supposed to have dropped his swag at the feet of No 10′s secretaries. Recruited to deal with a rodent problem – black rats have been seen bolting across the Downing Street lawn – Larry has preferred hanging out in the corridors of power to stalking in the grass. Announcing his new hire in February, the prime minister’s spokesman said Larry had been “highly recommended”. The four-year-old tabby cat, who came from the Battersea dogs and cats home, had a “very strong predatory drive and high chase-drive and hunting instinct”, the spokesman said. But whether vegetarian, pacifist or just more a political anorak than a trained killer, Larry failed to deliver in his first two months in power. Staff resorted to training Larry by giving him a toy mouse to play with. In Margaret Thatcher’s period as PM, a stray called Humphrey was adopted after wandering into No 10. Humphrey was kept on in the post by John Major, but was sacked when Tony Blair entered office in 1997, with Cherie Blair thought to be responsible for blackballing him. David Cameron Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Downing Street’s chief mouser snares his first prey after two months in the job It’s a good job his political masters don’t do targets any more, because otherwise Larry the cat must surely have failed. After two months in the job, Downing Street’s “chief mouser” – as cats who catch government rats are called – finally snared his first prey. On Good Friday, Larry appeared through a window from the Downing Street garden with a mouse in his mouth. He is supposed to have dropped his swag at the feet of No 10′s secretaries. Recruited to deal with a rodent problem – black rats have been seen bolting across the Downing Street lawn – Larry has preferred hanging out in the corridors of power to stalking in the grass. Announcing his new hire in February, the prime minister’s spokesman said Larry had been “highly recommended”. The four-year-old tabby cat, who came from the Battersea dogs and cats home, had a “very strong predatory drive and high chase-drive and hunting instinct”, the spokesman said. But whether vegetarian, pacifist or just more a political anorak than a trained killer, Larry failed to deliver in his first two months in power. Staff resorted to training Larry by giving him a toy mouse to play with. In Margaret Thatcher’s period as PM, a stray called Humphrey was adopted after wandering into No 10. Humphrey was kept on in the post by John Major, but was sacked when Tony Blair entered office in 1997, with Cherie Blair thought to be responsible for blackballing him. David Cameron Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Downing Street’s chief mouser snares his first prey after two months in the job It’s a good job his political masters don’t do targets any more, because otherwise Larry the cat must surely have failed. After two months in the job, Downing Street’s “chief mouser” – as cats who catch government rats are called – finally snared his first prey. On Good Friday, Larry appeared through a window from the Downing Street garden with a mouse in his mouth. He is supposed to have dropped his swag at the feet of No 10′s secretaries. Recruited to deal with a rodent problem – black rats have been seen bolting across the Downing Street lawn – Larry has preferred hanging out in the corridors of power to stalking in the grass. Announcing his new hire in February, the prime minister’s spokesman said Larry had been “highly recommended”. The four-year-old tabby cat, who came from the Battersea dogs and cats home, had a “very strong predatory drive and high chase-drive and hunting instinct”, the spokesman said. But whether vegetarian, pacifist or just more a political anorak than a trained killer, Larry failed to deliver in his first two months in power. Staff resorted to training Larry by giving him a toy mouse to play with. In Margaret Thatcher’s period as PM, a stray called Humphrey was adopted after wandering into No 10. Humphrey was kept on in the post by John Major, but was sacked when Tony Blair entered office in 1997, with Cherie Blair thought to be responsible for blackballing him. David Cameron Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Support for royals remains constant but royal wedding greeted by tolerant scepticism, Guardian/ICM poll finds Britain is a nation made up of moderate monarchists and reluctant republicans, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today. More people are looking forward to an extra day off work than watching the royal wedding – but support for the monarchy has nonetheless climbed notably since the crisis following Princess Diana’s death. The country is in no mood for a revolution. The poll shows a large majority think the monarchy is still relevant to national life, makes Britain more respected around the world and is better than any alternative. But there seems to be tolerant scepticism rather than royalist hysteria around the wedding itself. Only 37% agree that they are genuinely interested in the wedding, while 46% say they are not. Women are much more likely to be interested than men, but only 18% of all people questioned say they are strongly interested in the event. Even so, 47% agree they will probably watch it on television this Friday, including a majority of women and people aged 18-24. Almost the same proportion, 49%, say they are more excited by the idea of an extra bank holiday than the wedding – only 31% disagree. The poll includes some questions proposed by Guardian readers online, among them the suggestion that the wedding will boost the nation’s feelgood factor at a time of economic uncertainty. Almost everyone, monarchist or not, agrees that the wedding will cheer Britain up: 75% say yes, only 17% no. That may be one reason why the poll seems to dash republican hopes that the monarchy is becoming an outmoded institution. Instead support for the crown, if anything, is growing. More people think the monarchy is a unifying national institution than one that divides the country and reinforces the class system. Almost half those questioned, 47%, say it is a unifying force, against 36% who think it a divisive one. Only among Labour supporters do more people think it divisive than unifying. And despite all the celebrity hype surrounding the wedding, only 32% think the event is more about glamour and celebrity than British values (52%). More people think the crown should pass directly to Prince William, rather than Prince Charles, 46% to 40%. But most people also think there is nothing wrong with having to call a member of the royal family “your highness”: 64% approve of the practice and only 29% do not. So the age of deference is not quite dead. There’s a strong shared national belief, too, that the monarchy is something that improves Britain’s image around the world. While 60% say it does, only 2% think it definitely does the opposite, with 36% saying it makes little difference either way. More significant, perhaps, are changing attitudes to the monarchy’s place in British life. A strong majority among people of all political persuasions and social groups think that Britain would be worse off without the monarchy. While just 26% think the country would be better off getting rid of the royal family, 63% say the opposite. There has been a small regrowth in royalist support since the nadir following Princess Diana’s death. In August 1997 a Guardian/ICM poll found that only 48% thought the country would be worse off without the crown, 15 points lower than today. By August 1998, that had risen to 62%, one point lower than now. Despite massive political and economic shifts in the decade since then, attitudes to the monarchy seem almost static. There is hope, though, for republicans in the fact that the most enthusiastic supporters of the monarchy are pensioners, and young people are less keen. Among 19-24s, 37% think Britain would be better off without the monarchy, 10 points higher than the average. Even so, 67% of all people – including 73% of women and 57% of 18-24s – think the monarchy is relevant to life in Britain today. Only 32% disagree. Again, there has been almost no shift in opinion over the last 10 years. In May 2002 a Guardian/ICM poll found that 66% saw the monarchy as relevant and 33% thought not – figures almost identical to the ones in this month’s poll. As for the future, the Queen’s death could make a big difference to attitudes. Almost everyone, 89%, thinks Britain will still have a monarch in 10 year’s time – but that belief drops sharply when people are asked about the next 50 and 100 years. A narrow majority, 57%, think there will be a place for a British monarch in 50 years but only 40% think William and Kate’s descendants will still be on the throne in 2111. Even so, confidence in the future of the monarchy has grown since 1997: then only 38% thought there would be a monarch in 50 years time and just 26% thought the crown would survive the next century, 14 points lower than today. There’s also a widespread feeling that a monarch such as the Queen should retire rather than cling on if they cease to be mentally or physically capable. While 64% think the monarch should retire, only 31% do not. ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1,003 adults across the United Kingdom aged 18 and over by telephone on 15-17 April 2011. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Monarchy Republicanism Prince William Kate Middleton Royal wedding Diana, Princess of Wales Prince Charles Julian Glover guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Support for royals remains constant but royal wedding greeted by tolerant scepticism, Guardian/ICM poll finds Britain is a nation made up of moderate monarchists and reluctant republicans, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today. More people are looking forward to an extra day off work than watching the royal wedding – but support for the monarchy has nonetheless climbed notably since the crisis following Princess Diana’s death. The country is in no mood for a revolution. The poll shows a large majority think the monarchy is still relevant to national life, makes Britain more respected around the world and is better than any alternative. But there seems to be tolerant scepticism rather than royalist hysteria around the wedding itself. Only 37% agree that they are genuinely interested in the wedding, while 46% say they are not. Women are much more likely to be interested than men, but only 18% of all people questioned say they are strongly interested in the event. Even so, 47% agree they will probably watch it on television this Friday, including a majority of women and people aged 18-24. Almost the same proportion, 49%, say they are more excited by the idea of an extra bank holiday than the wedding – only 31% disagree. The poll includes some questions proposed by Guardian readers online, among them the suggestion that the wedding will boost the nation’s feelgood factor at a time of economic uncertainty. Almost everyone, monarchist or not, agrees that the wedding will cheer Britain up: 75% say yes, only 17% no. That may be one reason why the poll seems to dash republican hopes that the monarchy is becoming an outmoded institution. Instead support for the crown, if anything, is growing. More people think the monarchy is a unifying national institution than one that divides the country and reinforces the class system. Almost half those questioned, 47%, say it is a unifying force, against 36% who think it a divisive one. Only among Labour supporters do more people think it divisive than unifying. And despite all the celebrity hype surrounding the wedding, only 32% think the event is more about glamour and celebrity than British values (52%). More people think the crown should pass directly to Prince William, rather than Prince Charles, 46% to 40%. But most people also think there is nothing wrong with having to call a member of the royal family “your highness”: 64% approve of the practice and only 29% do not. So the age of deference is not quite dead. There’s a strong shared national belief, too, that the monarchy is something that improves Britain’s image around the world. While 60% say it does, only 2% think it definitely does the opposite, with 36% saying it makes little difference either way. More significant, perhaps, are changing attitudes to the monarchy’s place in British life. A strong majority among people of all political persuasions and social groups think that Britain would be worse off without the monarchy. While just 26% think the country would be better off getting rid of the royal family, 63% say the opposite. There has been a small regrowth in royalist support since the nadir following Princess Diana’s death. In August 1997 a Guardian/ICM poll found that only 48% thought the country would be worse off without the crown, 15 points lower than today. By August 1998, that had risen to 62%, one point lower than now. Despite massive political and economic shifts in the decade since then, attitudes to the monarchy seem almost static. There is hope, though, for republicans in the fact that the most enthusiastic supporters of the monarchy are pensioners, and young people are less keen. Among 19-24s, 37% think Britain would be better off without the monarchy, 10 points higher than the average. Even so, 67% of all people – including 73% of women and 57% of 18-24s – think the monarchy is relevant to life in Britain today. Only 32% disagree. Again, there has been almost no shift in opinion over the last 10 years. In May 2002 a Guardian/ICM poll found that 66% saw the monarchy as relevant and 33% thought not – figures almost identical to the ones in this month’s poll. As for the future, the Queen’s death could make a big difference to attitudes. Almost everyone, 89%, thinks Britain will still have a monarch in 10 year’s time – but that belief drops sharply when people are asked about the next 50 and 100 years. A narrow majority, 57%, think there will be a place for a British monarch in 50 years but only 40% think William and Kate’s descendants will still be on the throne in 2111. Even so, confidence in the future of the monarchy has grown since 1997: then only 38% thought there would be a monarch in 50 years time and just 26% thought the crown would survive the next century, 14 points lower than today. There’s also a widespread feeling that a monarch such as the Queen should retire rather than cling on if they cease to be mentally or physically capable. While 64% think the monarch should retire, only 31% do not. ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1,003 adults across the United Kingdom aged 18 and over by telephone on 15-17 April 2011. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Monarchy Republicanism Prince William Kate Middleton Royal wedding Diana, Princess of Wales Prince Charles Julian Glover guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Support for royals remains constant but royal wedding greeted by tolerant scepticism, Guardian/ICM poll finds Britain is a nation made up of moderate monarchists and reluctant republicans, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today. More people are looking forward to an extra day off work than watching the royal wedding – but support for the monarchy has nonetheless climbed notably since the crisis following Princess Diana’s death. The country is in no mood for a revolution. The poll shows a large majority think the monarchy is still relevant to national life, makes Britain more respected around the world and is better than any alternative. But there seems to be tolerant scepticism rather than royalist hysteria around the wedding itself. Only 37% agree that they are genuinely interested in the wedding, while 46% say they are not. Women are much more likely to be interested than men, but only 18% of all people questioned say they are strongly interested in the event. Even so, 47% agree they will probably watch it on television this Friday, including a majority of women and people aged 18-24. Almost the same proportion, 49%, say they are more excited by the idea of an extra bank holiday than the wedding – only 31% disagree. The poll includes some questions proposed by Guardian readers online, among them the suggestion that the wedding will boost the nation’s feelgood factor at a time of economic uncertainty. Almost everyone, monarchist or not, agrees that the wedding will cheer Britain up: 75% say yes, only 17% no. That may be one reason why the poll seems to dash republican hopes that the monarchy is becoming an outmoded institution. Instead support for the crown, if anything, is growing. More people think the monarchy is a unifying national institution than one that divides the country and reinforces the class system. Almost half those questioned, 47%, say it is a unifying force, against 36% who think it a divisive one. Only among Labour supporters do more people think it divisive than unifying. And despite all the celebrity hype surrounding the wedding, only 32% think the event is more about glamour and celebrity than British values (52%). More people think the crown should pass directly to Prince William, rather than Prince Charles, 46% to 40%. But most people also think there is nothing wrong with having to call a member of the royal family “your highness”: 64% approve of the practice and only 29% do not. So the age of deference is not quite dead. There’s a strong shared national belief, too, that the monarchy is something that improves Britain’s image around the world. While 60% say it does, only 2% think it definitely does the opposite, with 36% saying it makes little difference either way. More significant, perhaps, are changing attitudes to the monarchy’s place in British life. A strong majority among people of all political persuasions and social groups think that Britain would be worse off without the monarchy. While just 26% think the country would be better off getting rid of the royal family, 63% say the opposite. There has been a small regrowth in royalist support since the nadir following Princess Diana’s death. In August 1997 a Guardian/ICM poll found that only 48% thought the country would be worse off without the crown, 15 points lower than today. By August 1998, that had risen to 62%, one point lower than now. Despite massive political and economic shifts in the decade since then, attitudes to the monarchy seem almost static. There is hope, though, for republicans in the fact that the most enthusiastic supporters of the monarchy are pensioners, and young people are less keen. Among 19-24s, 37% think Britain would be better off without the monarchy, 10 points higher than the average. Even so, 67% of all people – including 73% of women and 57% of 18-24s – think the monarchy is relevant to life in Britain today. Only 32% disagree. Again, there has been almost no shift in opinion over the last 10 years. In May 2002 a Guardian/ICM poll found that 66% saw the monarchy as relevant and 33% thought not – figures almost identical to the ones in this month’s poll. As for the future, the Queen’s death could make a big difference to attitudes. Almost everyone, 89%, thinks Britain will still have a monarch in 10 year’s time – but that belief drops sharply when people are asked about the next 50 and 100 years. A narrow majority, 57%, think there will be a place for a British monarch in 50 years but only 40% think William and Kate’s descendants will still be on the throne in 2111. Even so, confidence in the future of the monarchy has grown since 1997: then only 38% thought there would be a monarch in 50 years time and just 26% thought the crown would survive the next century, 14 points lower than today. There’s also a widespread feeling that a monarch such as the Queen should retire rather than cling on if they cease to be mentally or physically capable. While 64% think the monarch should retire, only 31% do not. ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1,003 adults across the United Kingdom aged 18 and over by telephone on 15-17 April 2011. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Monarchy Republicanism Prince William Kate Middleton Royal wedding Diana, Princess of Wales Prince Charles Julian Glover guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …