-->
Showing posts with label The Guardian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Guardian. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

THERE IS A CONTEXT TO LONDON'S RIOTS THAT CAN'T BE IGNORED

Those condemning the events in north London and elsewhere would do well to take a step back and consider the bigger picture

  • guardian.co.uk,
  • Police in riot gear in Enfield, north London, on Sunday night
    Police in riot gear in Enfield, north London, on Sunday night. Photograph: Stefan Wermuth/Reuters

    Since the coalition came to power just over a year ago, the country has seen multiple student protests, occupations of dozens of universities, several strikes, a half-a-million-strong trade union march and now unrest on the streets of the capital (preceded by clashes with Bristol police in Stokes Croft earlier in the year). Each of these events was sparked by a different cause, yet all take place against a backdrop of brutal cuts and enforced austerity measures. The government knows very well that it is taking a gamble, and that its policies run the risk of sparking mass unrest on a scale we haven't seen since the early 1980s. With people taking to the streets of Tottenham, Edmonton, Brixton and elsewhere over the past few nights, we could be about to see the government enter a sustained and serious losing streak.

    The policies of the past year may have clarified the division between the entitled and the dispossessed in extreme terms, but the context for social unrest cuts much deeper. The fatal shooting of Mark Duggan last Thursday, where it appears, contrary to initial accounts, that only police bullets were fired, is another tragic event in a longer history of the Metropolitan police's treatment of ordinary Londoners, especially those from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, and the singling out of specific areas and individuals for monitoring, stop and search and daily harassment.

    One journalist wrote that he was surprised how many people in Tottenham knew of and were critical of the IPCC, but there should be nothing surprising about this. When you look at the figures for deaths in police custody (at least 333 since 1998 and not a single conviction of any police officer for any of them), then the IPCC and the courts are seen by many, quite reasonably, to be protecting the police rather than the people.

    Combine understandable suspicion of and resentment towards the police based on experience and memory with high poverty and large unemployment and the reasons why people are taking to the streets become clear. (Haringey, the borough that includes Tottenham, has the fourth highest level of child poverty in London and an unemployment rate of 8.8%, double the national average, with one vacancy for every 54 seeking work in the borough.)

    Those condemning the events of the past couple of nights in north London and elsewhere would do well to take a step back and consider the bigger picture: a country in which the richest 10% are now 100 times better off than the poorest, where consumerism predicated on personal debt has been pushed for years as the solution to a faltering economy, and where, according to the OECD, social mobility is worse than any other developed country.

    As Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett point out in The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone, phenomena usually described as "social problems" (crime, ill-health, imprisonment rates, mental illness) are far more common in unequal societies than ones with better economic distribution and less gap between the richest and the poorest. Decades of individualism, competition and state-encouraged selfishness – combined with a systematic crushing of unions and the ever-increasing criminalisation of dissent – have made Britain one of the most unequal countries in the developed world.

    Images of burning buildings, cars aflame and stripped-out shops may provide spectacular fodder for a restless media, ever hungry for new stories and fresh groups to demonise, but we will understand nothing of these events if we ignore the history and the context in which they occur.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/08/context-london-riots

Monday, July 4, 2011

BRIDGEND PLANS 'McPATH' BETWEEN SCHOOL AND FAST FOOD OUTLET

Supporters back safe route for children but dietitians worry it will encourage unhealthy eating

  • guardian.co.uk,
  • A McDonalds Happy Meal with Disney toy
    Happy meal? Bridgend borough council is considering building a footway that will link a school with a local branch of McDonald's. Photograph: Alamy

    The children seem keen but the champions of health eating are less so. For a local authority is considering building a half-mile footway that will link a school with a McDonald's restaurant used by scores of pupils every day.

    Inevitably nicknamed McPath, the link between the school and the burger bar could cost up to £100,000.

    Supporters say it will create a safe route to the McDonald's and also to a residential area. Critics, however, believe it could prompt more pupils to shun healthy school meals in favour of burgers, chips and fizzy drinks.

    The proposed path linking Brynteg School in Bridgend, south Wales, to a retail park and homes is being discussed by councillors and the school.

    At the moment pupils tend to walk along a grassy verge next to a busy A road and headteacher David Jenkins wrote: "The road, as a major route, is extremely busy and presents a significant hazard for our pupils. The establishment of a footpath along the proposed route would significantly enhance the safety of our pupils."

    A spokesman for Bridgend borough council, which is discussing the project with Bridgend town council, emphasised that Jenkins was not keen on the project because it linked his school to McDonald's. "The path would also lead to a residential area and the retail park," he said.

    But British Dietetic Association spokeswoman Melissa Little said children would "benefit far more" by being encouraged to stay in school to eat balanced meals. "It's clearly not the best option for children having fast food every day," she said. "They should be encouraged to have a varied diet.

    "If they're eating at McDonald's every day, they risk obesity and heart disease, as well as feeling sluggish, not being able to focus on schoolwork and not being able to get through the day."

    Town council spokeswoman Barbara Parish said: "We are not encouraging them to go to McDonald's. Maybe one or two more might go because of this, but the good of the majority has got to come first."

    Teenagers interviewed inside the restaurant also supported the money being spent on the McPath.

    One said: "It's really dangerous. Nearly everyone in my year goes down at lunch and the sixth formers are always there. Let's face it, school dinners are rubbish."

    One parent there said: "It's nice for them to get out of school and, as long as they eat healthily at home, it's fine."

NORTHERN IRELAND'S DECOMMISSIONED ARMS TO STAY SECRET

Inventory of weapons put beyond use by paramilitaries during peace process will not be made public, says disarmament body

  • , Ireland correspondent guardian.co.uk,
  • Decommissioned arms Northern Ireland
    Northern Ireland’s decommissioned arms will remain a secret to avoid discouraging future acts of decommissioning by other terror groups. Photograph: Peter Morrison/AP

    The inventory of every gun, bullet, rocket launcher, grenade and explosive put beyond use by the IRA and loyalist paramilitaries will not be made public, the body that oversaw the disarmament process in Northern Ireland has said.

    In the final report of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, it said files on the weapons and explosives decommissioned by the paramilitary organisations will instead be held by the US state department in Washington.

    The commission said part of the reason behind its decision was to avoid discouraging future acts of decommissioning by other terror groups in Ireland. This would include those anti-ceasefire republicans such as the Real IRA who are still engaged in "armed struggle".

    The final report published on Monday by the Irish and British governments reflects on the body's work since it was established in 1997 to facilitate the destruction of weapons and explosives belonging to paramilitary organisations on ceasefire.

    It provides an account of decommissioning events and a summary of key factors that enabled the commission to deliver its objectives, and highlights the lessons learnt.

    In a statement, Northern Ireland's secretary of state, Owen Paterson, said the commission's task had been difficult and that the commissioners had worked tirelessly to achieve their goal. With the acts of decommissioning secured they had contributed to making the North a more peaceful and stable society, he added.

    Paterson admitted that despite the destruction of paramilitary arms some organisations still posed a threat. He said: "As the IMC themselves note, while the commission has completed its remit, the security position In Northern Ireland is far from ideal. As the violence in a part of east Belfast recently revealed, there remain those who have rejected peace and politics and who actively work to undermine it.

    "The government remains committed to doing all it can to end violence and to enable all the people of Northern Ireland to live peacefully and safely as is their right. I am conscious that parliament and the public will wish to be kept informed of progress on a regular basis. I therefore intend to make statements to parliament every six months summarising the threat, in keeping with the timescales on which the IMC used to issue its reports."

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2011

WOE IN WOLLONGONG AS MINING CITY PREPARES FOR AUSTRALIA'S NEW CARBON TAX

City of coal and steel exemplifies hostility to a pollution levy, which has made prime minister Julia Gillard very unpopular

  • in Wollongong guardian.co.uk,
  • Protesters hold placards during a rally in Sydney against carbon tax
    Protesters hold placards during a rally in Sydney against prime minister Julia Gillard's plans to introduce a carbon tax. Photograph: Greg Wood/AFP/Getty Images

    Locals call this city "carbon central". But in the polarised Australian climate change debate, this mining hub is not central at all, but firmly positioned at one extreme.

    Wollongong, 50 miles south of Sydney in New South Wales, is home to 300,000 people and millions of tonnes of coal.

    The steep hills around Wollongong afford views of endless queues of ships on the watery horizon, waiting for their cargo of black gold. Coal has been the lifeblood of the city for 150 years and the backbone of its steel industry.

    Regardless of the climate extremes, the droughts, wildfires, cyclones and floods that are ravaging Australia, locals do not want to give it up.

    "It's all right for greenies to say this carbon tax has to happen, but we can't all hug trees for a living," said Brett Withers, who has worked as an industrial cleaning contractor in the steelworks for 20 years. "It might just be the straw that breaks the camel's back. If the tax comes in, this area will be devastated. It's not just the steel industry - it's the butcher, the hairdresser and the baker. Everyone will suffer."

    Withers' remarks illustrate a furious backlash against imminent government plans to introduce a carbon tax. Labor prime minister Julia Gillard plans to announce the level of tax to be levied on pollution on Sunday 10 July.

    The levy was proposed by Gillard, who needed support from Greens in a hung parliament. But the plan has divided Australia like no other issue of recent years.

    An opinion poll on Tuesday 28 June showed Gillard's disapproval rating at 62%. Another poll suggested barely one in four Australians would vote for her, making her government the most unpopular in 40 years.

    Cities such as Wollongong have led the assault, as blue collar voters - who have done well on the back of the mining boom - desert the prime minister in droves.

    Australia is the world's largest producer of iron ore and coal, much of it bound for China's hungry construction industry. As commodity prices have skyrocketed, so have profits.

    Australia's commodity export earnings are expected to rise 18% to a record $270bn (£180bn) in the next year. It is an industry that sustains a lot of livelihoods, and a lot of voters.

    "If the polls as they stand now persist, then Labor will suffer a landslide thrashing in two years' time," said Nick Economou, senior lecturer in politics at Melbourne's Monash University. "They're in terrible, terrible trouble."

    Gillard is not the first Australian leader to be unsettled by the climate and carbon debate. Her predecessor, Kevin Rudd, dropped his planned emissions trading scheme after failing to get it through parliament. It was the beginning of the end of his tenure.

    In last year's election campaign, Gillard promised there would be no carbon tax if she was elected. But then came the hung parliament, with a majority of just one. With her political survival suddenly based on support from the Greens, she quickly changed her mind.

    "You're really going to test the credulity of the electorate if you say one thing on a carbon tax and then do another," said Economou.

    Post-election, Gillard set up a multi-party committee to hammer out details of the carbon tax. The scheme will start with a government-fixed price on carbon, moving to a market-set price after three years. The committee is expected to finalise the details of the tax within days but negotiations have dragged on for months, further damaging the government's credibility.

    Over the weekend, Gillard announced that petrol would not be included in the tax but there is still no certainty on what the price of carbon will be under the scheme, which industries will be in or out and, crucially, what the compensation to households will be.

    Gillard's standing has taken a battering and many voters have stopped listening to her.

    The conservative opposition - led by climate sceptic, Tony Abbott, who once described human-induced climate change as "crap" - has capitalised on the uncertainty and on Gillard's flip-flop.

    His slogan about a "great big new tax on everything" has been drilled home, along with the message that a carbon tax will hurt ordinary Australians.

    His party has proposed "direct action" to meet the bipartisan agreed target of reducing CO² emissions by 5% by 2020 (based on 1990 levels). Abbott's voluntary scheme includes, among other things, planting 20m trees.

    Rightwing shock jocks have also rammed home the anti-tax message, arguing that whatever Australia does will make little difference to the world's climate.

    They have called Gillard "Ju-liar" and launched scathing personal attacks on senior government advisers on climate change as well as scientists. Some have even been subjected to death threats.

    The growing number of climate change deniers put recent events like this year's devastating floods in Queensland and the most powerful cyclone in Australia's history (cyclone Yasi in February 2011 was as powerful as hurricane Katrina) down to freaks of nature rather than climate change.

    From his inner city veggie patch stocked with lettuce, beetroot and cabbage, Sydney resident Greg Bearup despairs at the government's handling of the carbon tax debate. "I just can't see how we went from 60-70% support for action on climate change to a position where Gillard looks like she could lose her job over it," he said. "It's unbelievable it could have been handled so badly."

    Bearup's street is just 15 minutes from the centre of the city, but a world away from the glistening blue of the harbour. The area has been gentrified but remains a concrete jungle with first world war era houses.

    Two years ago Bearup and his neighbours dug up the concrete in front of their homes and planted gardens. He says the concrete was acting as a heat bank. Removing it has lowered the temperature in the summer, reducing the need for air conditioning.

    He said a carbon tax will make sure heavy polluting industries like mining pay their fair share for the damage they are causing to the environment. "Everyone should be making an individual contribution to tackling climate change," he said.

AFGHANISTAN: SOLDIER'S DEATH IS TERRIBLE REMINDER OF LACK OF PROGRESS ON SECURITY

Plan to withdraw British troops will go ahead, but the difficult balance between success and defeat has yet to be struck

  • british soldiers afghanistan
    All British combat troops are due to be withdrawn from Afghanistan by 2014. Photograph: Gaz Faulkner/PA

    No 10 insisted the death of the British soldier in Helmand would have no impact on David Cameron's plans to reduce the number of UK troops in Afghanistan next year, saying its overall assessment remains that security in Helmand is improving. But the confluence of a visit designed to pave the way for troop withdrawals and the death of the soldier was a dreadful reminder of the lack of progress.

    The possibility that the soldier was double-crossed by a Taliban fighter in an Afghan army uniform weakens Cameron's central case that the Afghan army and police force are improving not only in numbers, but in reliability. Britain's planned withdrawal of all 11,000 combat troops by the end of 2014 is predicated on the Afghan security forces being strong enough to govern the state, with only mentoring back-up and funding from western forces.

    Few British politicians think Nato is beating the Taliban, either politically or militarily, so the unspoken goal is a UK military exit with dignity intact by the end of 2014.

    Liam Fox, the defence secretary, has set the bar for withdrawal relatively low. He has repeatedly said the aim is not to install "a Jeffersonian democracy" in Afghanistan, but simply to ensure that the state can no longer be a secure haven for Al-Qaida to terrorise the west as it did on 9/11, the original cause of invasion.

    Fox has never been a nation-builder in Afghanistan, but at the same time he is influenced by UK generals who argue that a large withdrawal now, simply to mimic the decisions of Barack Obama, would be premature. Obama last month announced a planned withdrawal of 33,000 US troops by September 2012, a decision that the US military says could embolden the Taliban.

    Cameron, like Obama, has become exasperated with the UK generals, who have pressed publicly for extra cash and for the reopening of the strategic defence review. He has also become wary of excessive military optimism over operations such as the UK deployment in Helmand – the deployment of 3,000 troops in Helmand in 2006 was based on the view that they would not meet fierce resistance. Four years later, there are 20,000 US Marines and three times as many UK forces in the area and the British death toll is more than 300.

    Cameron is now determined not to budge from his 2014 withdrawal date, months before a 2015 general election, arguing the Afghans will only rise to the challenge of governing their country if they must rely on their own resources.

    So the Foreign Office details that by the end of March the Afghan army stood at 159,000, and the police at 125,000. By October the target is 171,600 and 134,000 respectively.

    These Afghan forces are now better paid, and attrition rates and illiteracy are down. Currently, around 85% of ANSF recruits are illiterate on entry. But the proportion of Pashtun speakers from southern Afghanistan, the home of the insurgency, is tiny. Few will join if they believe the Taliban will take over the villages in three years time.

    The Conservative benches, though instinctively loyal to the military, are with Cameron, as opposed to the generals.

    There is little public enthusiasm for a war where the only political imperative is for the British army to leave with dignity intact after the shambles of the withdrawal from Basra in Iraq. Senior Conservative figures such as Bernard Jenkin think the war cannot continue indefinitely. The shadow defence secretary, Jim Murphy, concurs.

    There is a small, rival, more traditional army school, led by James Arbuthnot, the defence select committee chairman, that contends withdrawal should be based on facts on the ground and not a pre-determined largely political timetable. A report from his committee due next month will urge caution.

    The temptation for the Taliban is just to wait this out, and for Cameron the collapse of Kabul to the Taliban weeks before a May 2015 election would hardly be an electoral springboard. It looks as if Cameron has been persuaded to make modest withdrawals in his commons statement tomorrow. In evidence to Arbuthnot's committtee General Sir David Richards, the chief of defence staff, repeatedly suggested that decisions on troop withdrawals should be delayed. Asked if the Afghan army could take over soon, he replied: "You can grow numbers, but can you institutionalise the necessary qualities to sustain it beyond 2014? The jury is out on that. It will be a difficult thing to be certain of until about the end of next year." Or again in the same session: "It will not be until September, October, November, after this full year of the surge on the back of a pretty active winter campaign, that we will really be able to see whether it is beginning to come good."

    On the political side, there is equally little sign of progress. Talks between the US and the Taliban, now officially confirmed, are barely at a preliminary stage, and relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan are worse, leaving the eastern Afghan border as porous and dangerous as ever. The killing of Osama bin Laden does not seem to have damaged the insurgency, or Al-Qaida.

    Patrick Wintour

QUESTIONS REMAIN OVER FATE OF BRITISH SOLDIER FOUND DEAD IN AFGHANISTAN

Military sources 'baffled' about events surrounding disappearance of soldier, despite Taliban capture claims

  • and in Islamabad guardian.co.uk,
  • british soldier helmand
    The MOD is unclear about circumstances surrounding the disappearance and death of the British soldier in Helmand. Photograph: Omar Sobhani/REUTERS

    The British soldier who went missing on Monday was stationed at a new base in the Nahr-e Saraj district of Helmand province, which recently came under sustained attack by insurgents.

    He had been on sentry duty at Checkpoint Salaang on Sunday night and early Monday, and had just finished his shift.

    It would most likely have been quiet at that time, but still warm: in Helmand at this time of year, the temperature rarely falls below 25C.

    His colleagues from 4th Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland, and those from the Afghan army who are also at the heavily fortified compound had expected him to return to quarters. Instead he appears to have left the base on his own. Within hours stories were circulating about what happened to him next.

    The Taliban claimed he had been captured by insurgents and killed in a skirmish as Nato forces tried to rescue him. Another report said he had been seen walking to the nearby Nahr-e Bughra canal, perhaps to go for a swim.

    Without having complete clarity themselves, military officials in London were as certain as they could be that these stories were untrue.

    But his disappearance was considered serious enough for David Cameron to cancel a trip to the British base at Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand, and for the full might of Nato forces – surveillance planes, helicopters and hundreds of extra troops – to flood into the area to seek him.

    Sources in London said they were baffled by what had happened and were still trying to establish what had encouraged the soldier to leave his post without telling colleagues.

    Just days ago, a patrol of Royal Marines from 45 Commando came under attack from insurgents hiding just 300 metres from the base, so security would have been at its highest level.

    "He had been on 'Stag' [sentry duty] at a small vehicle checkpoint and had just finished his shift," said one source.

    "And then, for whatever reason, he walked off. Instead of going back into the base where the other soldiers were, he headed out of the base – and that was the last that was seen of him.

    "We are trying to work out exactly what has happened. There was no battle or fight or anything like that as far as we know."

    The Ministry of Defence was told that the soldier was seen heading down the road away from the checkpoint by Afghan soldiers, who then reported him missing.

    As the search got under way, the International Security and Assistance Force (Isaf) issued a brief notice stating that a soldier had "been listed as duty status whereabouts unknown in southern Afghanistan. There is an active search effort in progress."

    Reporters travelling with the prime minister were told too, as the entourage was diverted – at Cameron's request – away from Helmand to the capital, Kabul.

    The Taliban were quick to claim responsibility for the soldier's disappearance. Speaking to the Guardian, Qari Yousuf Ahmadi, a Taliban spokesman, gave one detailed account.

    "Yesterday afternoon ... our mujahideen ambushed some soldiers and captured a British soldier. At 8pm, the foreign forces operation began to rescue him and continued until 3am.

    "During that operation, the British soldier was killed, along with four to six other foreigners. Now the foreigners are saying that he was alone. But he was not alone.

    "They are not brave enough to come even two steps out of their base alone. His body was left in the battlefield. I don't know where it is now." Ahmadi said he did not know how the soldier was killed.

    The MoD said this account was not true. "There are always claims of responsibility for incidents," said one Whitehall official. "But we can only work with what we know. And all we know is that he has gone.

    "At the moment, we cannot even be absolutely sure he is in the hands of the Taliban. There are criminal gangs operating in this area too. A huge search operation is under way. That has to be our focus right now."

    The reports from Afghanistan also prompted the defence secretary, Liam Fox, to address MPs. "I recognise there will be many questions, but speculation on an issue of this nature is unhelpful. I would urge restraint from colleagues and the media and assure the house the United Kingdom and Isaf are taking all necessary and appropriate action." Two hours after that statement, officials confirmed that the soldier's body had been found and he had become the 375th British serviceman to die on duty in Afghanistan.

    If the insurgents have claimed another victim, it will serve as a chilling reminder that the fighting in Afghanistan is far from over and the Taliban – despite the pounding they took over the winter months – are still capable and resilient.

    Isaf commanders repeatedly warned that insurgents would seek publicity over the summer months with high-profile international targets, and so far they have been proved right.

    Last week suicide bombers attacked the Intercontinental hotel in Kabul and before that targeted a hospital in Logar. Two months ago the Taliban orchestrated an audacious escape from Kandahar prison.

    Monday's incident comes during a particularly difficult time for UK forces in Afghanistan. Eight British soldiers have died on duty in the past five weeks as the Taliban seeks to reassert itself in areas where it had apparently lost control.

    Commanders have also been at odds with their political masters over whether British and American forces are being pulled out of the country too soon. This latest episode could not have been timed better from the insurgents' point of view. In just over a fortnight the "transition" process – Nato forces handing over control of parts of the country to the Afghan army and police – is due to begin.

    The safest districts are to be in the first tranche of transition, and those currently under British control are included in this first wave. The improvement in security at Lashkar Gah is often cited as a British success story and the district is scheduled to be transferred to the Afghan authorities on 21 July.

    Adopting the counterinsurgency doctrine that has become synonymous with US general David Petraeus, British commanders have taken a high-profile role in the city, spending time with locals and working with Afghan police and army officers to keep the peace.

    But even here there has been trouble. In May the Taliban attacked a number of Afghan checkpoints – one rocket exploded near a police station and killed the daughter of a police commander. The compound of the governor, Gulab Mangal, was also hit.

    The military would argue that the security situation is better, and there is some evidence to back the claim. In May 2010 British troops in Helmand had "contact" with insurgents 160 times in four weeks (15 in the first week of May, 30 in the second, 50 in the third and 65 in the fourth). In May 2011 the total was 96 "contacts" (11, 10, 45, 30). If the established pattern continues, the figures for June are likely to be higher.

    But military officials know that impressions count and if insurgents appear able to target British troops, local people will question whether they are ready to put their security in the hands of the less experienced Afghans.

    The total number of security incidents across the country may not reassure Afghans either, with the number of incidents barely changing year on year, despite the best efforts of the American "surge". Commanders argued that this lack of improvement was predictable as the Taliban attempted to regain lost influence and territory.

    They have also insisted the surge should only be judged after two full years. But this is a luxury they no longer have. Barack Obama has ordered all 30,000 extra US soldiers sent to Afghanistan last year back home by autumn 2012. Cameron, meanwhile, is expected to announce that the British will withdraw another 500 troops next year, in addition to the 450 leaving this year.

    Nato countries now have a blueprint to get out of the country and an end goal – by December 2014 they will be in Afghanistan for training and overseeing purposes only, not for fighting. The entire process is predicated on the belief that Afghanistan will be comparatively stable by then, with their security forces able to take over. But those are two very big assumptions in a country where Nato has learned not to assume anything.

    Additional reporting by Saeed Shah

    in Islamabad

MISSING MILLY DOWLER'S VOICEMAIL WAS HACKED BY NEWS OF THE WORLD

• Deleted voicemails gave family false hope
• Hacking interfered with police hunt
• Family lawyer: actions 'heinous and despicable'

  • and guardian.co.uk,
  • Milly Dowler
    Milly Dowler was last seen alive on 21 March 2002. Photograph: Surrey police/PA

    The News of the World illegally targeted the missing schoolgirl Milly Dowler and her family in March 2002, interfering with police inquiries into her disappearance, an investigation by the Guardian has established.

    Scotland Yard is investigating the episode, which is likely to put new pressure on the then editor of the paper, Rebekah Brooks, now Rupert Murdoch's chief executive in the UK; and the then deputy editor, Andy Coulson, who resigned in January as the prime minister's media adviser.

    The Dowlers' family lawyer, Mark Lewis, this afternoon issued a statement describing the News of the World's activities as "heinous" and "despicable". He said this afternoon the Dowler family was now pursuing a damages claim against the News of the World.

    Milly Dowler disappeared at the age of 13 on her way home in Walton-on-Thames, Surrey, on 21 March 2002.

    Detectives from Scotland Yard's new inquiry into the phone hacking, Operation Weeting, are believed to have found evidence of the targeting of the Dowlers in a collection of 11,000 pages of notes kept by Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator jailed for phone hacking on behalf of the News of the World.

    In the last four weeks the Met officers have approached Surrey police and taken formal statements from some of those involved in the original inquiry, who were concerned about how News of the World journalists intercepted – and deleted – the voicemail messages of Milly Dowler.

    The messages were deleted by journalists in the first few days after Milly's disappearance in order to free up space for more messages. As a result friends and relatives of Milly concluded wrongly that she might still be alive. Police feared evidence may have been destroyed.

    The Guardian investigation has shown that, within a very short time of Milly vanishing, News of the World journalists reacted by engaging in what was standard practice in their newsroom: they hired private investigators to get them a story.

    Their first step was simple, albeit illegal. Paperwork seen by the Guardian reveals that they paid a Hampshire private investigator, Steve Whittamore, to obtain home addresses and, where necessary, ex-directory phone numbers for any families called Dowler in the Walton area. The three addresses Whittamore found could be obtained lawfully on the electoral register. The two ex-directory numbers, however, were "blagged" illegally from British Telecom's confidential records by one of Whittamore's associates, John Gunning, who works from a base in Wiltshire. One of the ex-directory numbers was attributed by Whittamore to Milly's family home.

    Then, with the help of its own full-time private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, the News of the World started illegally intercepting mobile phone messages. Scotland Yard is now investigating evidence that the paper hacked directly into the voicemail of the missing girl's own phone. As her friends and parents called and left messages imploring Milly to get in touch with them, the News of the World was listening and recording their every private word.

    But the journalists at the News of the World then encountered a problem. Milly's voicemail box filled up and would accept no more messages. Apparently thirsty for more information from more voicemails, the paper intervened – and deleted the messages that had been left in the first few days after her disappearance. According to one source, this had a devastating effect: when her friends and family called again and discovered that her voicemail had been cleared, they concluded that this must have been done by Milly herself and, therefore, that she must still be alive. But she was not. The interference created false hope and extra agony for those who were misled by it.

    The Dowler family then granted an exclusive interview to the News of the World in which they talked about their hope, quite unaware that it had been falsely kindled by the newspaper's own intervention. Sally Dowler told the paper: "If Milly walked through the door, I don't think we'd be able to speak. We'd just weep tears of joy and give her a great big hug."

    The deletion of the messages also caused difficulties for the police by confusing the picture when they had few leads to pursue. It also potentially destroyed valuable evidence.

    According to one senior source familiar with the Surrey police investigation: "It can happen with abduction murders that the perpetrator will leave messages, asking the missing person to get in touch, as part of their efforts at concealment. We need those messages as evidence. Anybody who destroys that evidence is seriously interfering with the course of a police investigation."

    The paper made little effort to conceal the hacking from its readers. On 14 April 2002 it published a story about a woman allegedly pretending to be Milly Dowler who had applied for a job with a recruitment agency: "It is thought the hoaxer even gave the agency Milly's real mobile number … the agency used the number to contact Milly when a job vacancy arose and left a message on her voicemail … it was on March 27, six days after Milly went missing, that the employment agency appears to have phoned her mobile."

    The newspaper also made no effort to conceal its activity from Surrey police. After it had hacked the message from the recruitment agency on Milly's phone, the paper informed police about it.

    It was Surrey detectives who established that the call was not intended for Milly Dowler. At the time, Surrey police suspected that phones belonging to detectives and to Milly's parents also were being targeted.

    One of those who was involved in the original inquiry said: "We'd arrange landline calls. We didn't trust our mobiles."

    However, they took no action against the News of the World, partly because their main focus was to find the missing schoolgirl and partly because this was only one example of tabloid misbehaviour. As one source close to the inquiry put it: "There was a hell of a lot of dirty stuff going on." Two earlier Yard inquiries had failed to investigate the relevant notes in Mulcaire's logs.

    In a statement, the family's lawyer said the Dowlers were distressed at the revelation. "It is distress heaped upon tragedy to learn that the News of the World had no humanity at such a terrible time. The fact that they were prepared to act in such a heinous way that could have jeopardised the police investigation and give them false hope is despicable," Lewis said.

    The News of the World's investigation was part of a long campaign against paedophiles championed by the then editor, Rebekah Brooks. The Labour MP Tom Watson last week told the House of Commons that four months after Milly Dowler's disappearance the News of the World had targeted one of the parents of the two 10-year-old Soham girls, Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells, who were abducted and murdered on 4 August 2002.

    The behaviour of tabloid newspapers became an issue in the trial of Levi Bellfield, who last month was jailed for life for murdering Milly. A second charge, that he had attempted to abduct another Surrey schoolgirl, Rachel Cowles, had to be left on file after premature publicity by tabloids was held to have made it impossible for the jury to reach a fair verdict. The tabloids, however, focused their anger on Bellfield's defence lawyer, complaining that the questioning had caused unnecessary pain to Milly Dowler's parents.

    Surrey police referred all questions on the subject to Scotland Yard, who said they could not discuss it.

    The News of the World's parent company News International, part of Murdoch's media empire, said: "We have been co-operating fully with Operation Weeting since our voluntary disclosure in January restarted the investigation into illegal voicemail interception. This particular case is clearly a development of great concern and we will be conducting our own inquiry as a result. We will obviously co-operate fully with any police request on this should we be asked."

NORTH CAROLINA'S REPARATION FOR THE DARK PAST OF AMERICAN EUGENICS

North Carolina's compensation to victims of forced sterilisation is a chance to illuminate a gruesome US tradition of racial 'science'

Monday, June 27, 2011

WORLD'S RICHEST 1% OWN 40% OF ALL WEALTH, UN REPORT DISCOVERS

· First ever study of global household assets
· 50% of world's adults own just 1% of the wealth

Slum, Nairobi
Children playing in Kibera, Africa's biggest slum. Global levels of inequality are 'grotesque', Oxfam says. Photograph: David Levene

The richest 1% of adults in the world own 40% of the planet's wealth, according to the largest study yet of wealth distribution. The report also finds that those in financial services and the internet sectors predominate among the super rich.

Europe, the US and some Asia Pacific nations account for most of the extremely wealthy. More than a third live in the US. Japan accounts for 27% of the total, the UK for 6% and France for 5%.

The UK is also third in terms of per capita wealth. UK residents are found to have on average $127,000 (£64,000) each in assets, with Japanese and American citizens having, respectively, $181,000 and $144,000. All data relate to the year 2000.

The global study - from the World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations - is the first to chart wealth distribution in every country as opposed to just income, for which more comprehensive date is available. It included all the most significant components of household wealth, including financial assets and debts, land, buildings and other tangible property. Together these total $125 trillion globally.

Anthony Shorrocks, director of the research institute at the United Nations University, in New York, led the study. He affirmed that the existence of a nest egg provided an insurance policy that helped people cope with unforeseen events such as ill health or a lost job. Capital allowed people to drag themselves out of poverty, he added. "In some ways, wealth is more important to people in poorer countries than in richer countries." It was more difficult in developing countries to set up a business because it was harder to borrow start-up funds, he said.

His team used detailed data from 38 countries, but had to rely on incomplete information from the rest.

The report found the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total of global assets. Half the world's adult population, however, owned barely 1% of global wealth. Near the bottom of the list were India, with per capita wealth of $1,100, and Indonesia with assets per head of $1,400.

Many African nations as well as North Korea and the poorer Asia Pacific nations were places where the worst off lived.

"These levels of inequality are grotesque," said Duncan Green, head of research at Oxfam. "It is impossible to justify such vast wealth when 800 million people go to bed hungry every night. The good news is that redistribution would only have to be relatively small. Such are the vast assets of the rich that giving up a small part of their wealth could transform the lives of millions."

Madsen Pirie, director of the Adam Smith Institute, a free-market thinktank, disagreed that distribution of global wealth was unfair. He said: "The implicit assumption behind this is that there is a supply of wealth in the world and some people have too much of that supply. In fact wealth is a dynamic, it is constantly created. We should not be asking who in the past has created wealth and how can we get it off them." He said that instead the question should be how more and more people could create wealth.

Ruth Lea, director of the Centre for Policy Studies, a thinkthank set up by Margaret Thatcher, said that although she supported the goal of making poverty history she did not think increasing aid to poorer countries was the answer. "It's no use throwing lots of aid at countries that are basically dysfunctional," she said.

The UN report was issued as the Swiss magazine Bilan released a list of the richest Swiss residents. Ingvar Kamprad, the founder of Ikea, topped the list with an estimated fortune of $21bn.

Friday, June 17, 2011

EISENHOWER'S WORST FEARS CAME TRUE. WE INVENT ENEMIES TO BUY THE BOMBS


Britain faces no serious threat, yet keeps waging war. While big defence exists, glory-hungry politicians will use it

Why do we still go to war? We seem unable to stop. We find any excuse for this post-imperial fidget and yet we keep getting trapped. Germans do not do it, or Spanish or Swedes. Britain's borders and British people have not been under serious threat for a generation. Yet time and again our leaders crave battle. Why?

Last week we got a glimpse of an answer and it was not nice. The outgoing US defence secretary, Robert Gates, berated Europe's "failure of political will" in not maintaining defence spending. He said Nato had declined into a "two-tier alliance" between those willing to wage war and those "who specialise in 'soft' humanitarian, development, peacekeeping and talking tasks". Peace, he implied, is for wimps. Real men buy bombs, and drop them.

This call was echoed by Nato's chief, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who pointed out how unfair it was that US defence investment represented 75% of the Nato defence expenditure, where once it was only half. Having been forced to extend his war on Libya by another three months, Rasmussen wanted to see Europe's governments come up with more money, and no nonsense about recession. Defence to him is measured not in security but in spending.

Joe Magee Missi9le Toon Joe Magee: Guardian

The call was repeated back home by the navy chief, Sir Mark Stanhope. He had to be "dressed down" by the prime minister, David Cameron, for warning that an extended war in Libya would mean "challenging decisions about priorities". Sailors never talk straight: he meant more ships. The navy has used so many of its £500,000 Tomahawk missiles trying to hit Colonel Gaddafi (and missing) over the past month that it needs money for more. In a clearly co-ordinated lobby, the head of the RAF also demanded "a significant uplift in spending after 2015, if the service is to meet its commitments". It, of course, defines its commitments itself.

Libya has cost Britain £100m so far, and rising. But Iraq and the Afghan war are costing America $3bn a week, and there is scarcely an industry, or a state, in the country that does not see some of this money. These wars show no signs of being ended, let alone won. But to the defence lobby what matters is the money. It sustains combat by constantly promising success and inducing politicians and journalists to see "more enemy dead", "a glimmer of hope" and "a corner about to be turned".

Victory will come, but only if politicians spend more money on "a surge". Soldiers are like firefighters, demanding extra to fight fires. They will fight all right, but if you want victory that is overtime.

On Wednesday the Russian ambassador to Nato warned that Britain and France were "being dragged more and more into the eventuality of a land-based operation in Libya". This is what the defence lobby wants institutionally, even if it may appal the generals. In the 1980s Russia watched the same process in Afghanistan, where it took a dictator, Mikhail Gorbachev, to face down the Red Army and demand withdrawal. The west has no Gorbachev in Afghanistan at the moment. Nato's Rasmussen says he "could not envisage" a land war in Libya, since the UN would take over if Gaddafi were toppled. He must know this is nonsense. But then he said Nato would only enforce a no-fly zone in Libya. He achieved that weeks ago, but is still bombing.

It is not democracy that keeps western nations at war, but armies and the interests now massed behind them. The greatest speech about modern defence was made in 1961 by the US president Eisenhower. He was no leftwinger, but a former general and conservative Republican. Looking back over his time in office, his farewell message to America was a simple warning against the "disastrous rise of misplaced power" of a military-industrial complex with "unwarranted influence on government". A burgeoning defence establishment, backed by large corporate interests, would one day employ so many people as to corrupt the political system. (His original draft even referred to a "military-industrial-congressional complex".) This lobby, said Eisenhower, could become so huge as to "endanger our liberties and democratic processes".

I wonder what Eisenhower would make of today's US, with a military grown from 3.5 million people to 5 million. The western nations face less of a threat to their integrity and security than ever in history, yet their defence industries cry for ever more money and ever more things to do. The cold war strategist, George Kennan, wrote prophetically: "Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial complex would have to remain, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented."

The devil makes work for idle hands, especially if they are well financed. Britain's former special envoy to Kabul, Sherard Cowper-Coles, echoed Kennan last week in claiming that the army's keenness to fight in Helmand was self-interested. "It's use them or lose them, Sherard," he was told by the then chief of the general staff, Sir Richard Dannatt. Cowper-Coles has now gone off to work for an arms manufacturer.

There is no strategic defence justification for the US spending 5.5% of its gross domestic product on defence or Britain 2.5%, or for the Nato "target" of 2%.

These figures merely formalise existing commitments and interests. At the end of the cold war soldiers assiduously invented new conflicts for themselves and their suppliers, variously wars on terror, drugs, piracy, internet espionage and man's general inhumanity to man. None yields victory, but all need equipment. The war on terror fulfilled all Eisenhower's fears, as America sank into a swamp of kidnapping, torture and imprisonment without trial.

The belligerent posture of the US and Britain towards the Muslim world has fostered antagonism and moderate threats in response. The bombing of extremist targets in Pakistan is an invitation for terrorists to attack us, and then a need for defence against such attack. Meanwhile, the opportunity cost of appeasing the complex is astronomical. Eisenhower remarked that "every gun that is made is a theft from those who hunger" – a bomber is two power stations and a hospital not built. Likewise, each Tomahawk Cameron drops on Tripoli destroys not just a Gaddafi bunker (are there any left?), but a hospital ward and a classroom in Britain.

As long as "big defence" exists it will entice glory-hungry politicians to use it. It is a return to the hundred years war, when militaristic barons and knights had a stranglehold on the monarch, and no other purpose in life than to fight. To deliver victory they demanded ever more taxes for weapons, and when they had ever more weapons they promised ever grander victories. This is exactly how Britain's defence ministry ran out of budgetary control under Labour.

There is one piece of good news. Nato has long outlived its purpose, now justifying its existence only by how much it induces its members to spend, and how many wars irrelevant to its purpose it finds to fight. Yet still it does not spend enough for the US defence secretary. In his anger, Gates threatened that "future US leaders … may not consider the return on America's investment in Nato worth the cost". Is that a threat or a promise?

Sunday, December 5, 2010

PAYPAL JOINS INTERNET BACKLASH AGAINST WIKILEAKS

Auction website freezes WikiLeaks account a day after Sweden issued fresh arrest warrant for Julian Assange

Mark Townsend guardian.co.uk,
    PayPal
    A PayPal employee walks past the company's logo at its headquarters. The auction website has cut access for donations to WikiLeaks. Photograph: Wong Maye-E/AP

    The backlash against WikiLeaks intensifed today after payments site PayPal revealed it had frozen WikiLeaks' account, saying it was being used to "encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity".

    The company, owned by auction website eBay, revealed it had cut access for donations to WikiLeaks amid unsubstantiated speculation that the decision may have been inspired by heavy political pressure. Last week Amazon.com stopped hosting WikiLeaks only 24 hours after being contacted by the staff of Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland security.

    The latest action is likely to harm Wikileaks because PayPal is an important avenue for donations and arguably the most secure and convenient way to support the organisation.

    Paypal's decision comes a day after Swedish authorities, who want to question WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, 39, over sex offence allegations, issued a fresh arrest warrant to British police. However, amid speculation Assange is about to be picked up, his lawyer said it could be weeks before the Australian, who is understood to be in south-east England, is arrested.

    Mark Stephens said British police were still assessing the Swedish warrant and were in a position to contact Assange. "The new warrant has to go to Interpol and to Scotland Yard. Anything quicker than 10 days and you've got to think that Julian Assange is getting special attention.

    He also said that if the latest Swedish arrest warrant was not valid – the first was rejected last week for being incomplete – he would get the "court to quash it".

    Stephens said: "In these circumstances there is every likelihood of that occurring. Given the deficiencies in the process, it is going to be difficult for them to produce a warrant which is valid under international law. The process has been so comprehensively unfair. The police won't get in touch with me until they get a warrant they think they can get through."

    He said Scotland Yard had been aware of Assange's whereabouts since September when he arrived from Sweden after the allegations against him surfaced in August. Since then, Assange has repeatedly attempted to contact the Swedish prosecutors, even offering to meet at the Swedish embassy in London to discuss the allegations against him.

    "When I spoke to the police I think they were pretty surprised with the problems we had getting in touch them [Swedish prosecutors]. I told the chief inspector that my client been trying to get in touch with the prosecutor since August. Usually people are running in the opposite direction".

    Stephens said that on a wider point it was important to remember that WikiLeaks was not a "one man show" and that despite the mounting attacks against the site it had a large team dedicated to its survival.