Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has confirmed that his government will not cooperate with an International Criminal Court investigation, saying the Hague-based body has no authority to investigate Israel or its officials.
The ICC’s chief prosecutor announced on March 3 that she had opened a full investigation into the situation in the Israeli-occupied territories, infuriating Israel, which not a member of The Hague-based court.
The ICC sent a deferral notice on March 9, giving Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) a month to inform judges whether they are investigating crimes similar to those being probed by the ICC.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Thursday that his government would not cooperate with an International Criminal Court probe into possible war crimes committed in the Palestinian territories.
Netanyahu’s office said in a statement that the Hague-based court “had no authority to open an investigation” against Israel.
“Israel is committed to the rule of law and will continue to investigate any charges against it regardless of the source, and it expects the tribunal to refrain from violating its authority and sovereignty,” the statement said.
The Israeli government claims it would set out its objections in a formal letter to the ICC on Friday, the ICC’s deadline for a response. On Wednesday, Netyanahu branded the move as “absurd”
Had Israel informed the court that it was in fact carrying out its own probe into alleged war crimes perpetrators, it could have asked for a deferral.
The Palestinians have welcomed the investigation and said they will not seek any deferral.
The world’s only permanent war crimes tribunal, the ICC was set up in 2002 to try humanity’s worst crimes where local courts are unwilling or unable to step in.
ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda has said her probe will cover the situation since 2014 in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Israeli-annexed east Jerusalem.
It will mainly focus on the 2014 Gaza war but also look at the deaths of Palestinian demonstrators from 2018 onwards.
After a five-year preliminary probe, Bensouda said there was a “reasonable basis” to believe crimes were committed by both sides — by the Israeli military, Hamas Islamists who have controlled Gaza since 2007 and Palestinian armed groups.
Hamas has welcomed the ICC probe and argued that its attacks on Israel were justified acts of “resistance”.
Netanyahu, a vocal critic of the ICC, on Thursday accused the court of “hypocrisy” for targeting Israel troops who “fight with high moral conduct against terrorists”.
The long-serving premier has previously lambasted the decision to open the probe as the “essence of anti-Semitism” and declared Israel was “under attack”.
Thursday’s statement marked the first time that Netanyahu had made it clear Israel would not directly engage with the ICC.
The United States has also criticised the ICC investigation and voiced support for its ally Israel.
The ICC last week welcomed US President Joe Biden’s lifting of sanctions imposed by Donald Trump on Bensouda, saying it signalled a new era of cooperation with Washington.
The Trump administration imposed financial sanctions and visa ban on Bensouda last year after she launched an investigation into alleged war crimes by US military personnel in Afghanistan.
Why Israel fears the ICC war crimes investigation
Netanyahu is facing his own legal woes in the shape of a corruption case
Tensions escalated rapidly: Israel would within weeks launch its third war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip while Palestinian militants would launch rockets into Israel.
It was one of the deadliest conflicts between the two sides in decades. On the Palestinian side, more than 2,100 people – including civilians – were killed during 50 days of fighting. On the Israeli side, 67 Israeli soldiers and five civilians were killed.
If this conflict was different from previous wars, however, it was in the immediate recognition by some Israeli officials that there was a serious risk of investigation by the ICC that could ultimately lead to Israeli soldiers and politicians in the chain of command being investigated for war crimes.
That realisation prompted the Israeli military to quickly launch investigations by its military advocate’s department into some of the most controversial incidents in the conflict – a move that some critics suggested was designed to show that Israel had in effect investigated allegations even though it is not party to the international court.
The reality, however, is that the issue never went away – for reasons of both international politics and jurisprudence. Read more…
What is the current state of play in the peace process?
From Amnesty International: Israel continued to impose institutionalized discrimination against Palestinians living under its rule in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). It displaced hundreds of Palestinians in Israel and the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as a result of home demolitions and imposition of other coercive measures. Israeli forces continued to use excessive force during law enforcement activities in Israel and the OPT. Israeli forces killed 31 Palestinians, including nine children, in the OPT; many were unlawfully killed while posing no imminent threat to life. Israel maintained its illegal blockade on the Gaza Strip, subjecting its residents to collective punishment and deepening the humanitarian crisis there. It also continued to restrict freedom of movement of Palestinians in the OPT through checkpoints and roadblocks. The Israeli authorities arbitrarily detained in Israel thousands of Palestinians from the OPT, holding hundreds in administrative detention without charge or trial. Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees, including children, were committed with impunity. The authorities used a range of measures to target human rights defenders, journalists and others who criticized Israel’s continuing occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Syrian Golan Heights. Violence against women persisted, especially against Palestinian citizens of Israel. The authorities denied asylum-seekers access to a fair or prompt refugee status determination process. Conscientious objectors to military service were imprisoned.
Israel captured the West Bank, east Jerusalem and Gaza in the 1967 war, territories the Palestinians want for their future state.
Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 but imposed a blockade after the Islamic militant group Hamas seized power there two years later.
The two sides have fought three wars and numerous smaller skirmishes since then.
Most of the international community views the West Bank and East Jerusalem as occupied territory whose final status should be decided in peace talks.
The Duke of Edinburgh – Prince Philip – has died, Buckingham Palace has said.
Buckingham Palace said: “It is with deep sorrow that Her Majesty The Queen has announced the death of her beloved husband, His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.
“His Royal Highness passed away peacefully this morning at Windsor Castle.”
Boris Johnson said he “inspired the lives of countless young people”.
Speaking at Downing Street, the prime minister added: “He helped to steer the Royal Family and the monarchy so that it remains an institution indisputably vital to the balance and happiness of our national life.”
Mr Johnson said he received the news of the duke’s death “with great sadness”.
“Prince Philip earned the affection of generations here in the United Kingdom, across the Commonwealth, and around the world,” he said.
Paying tribute to the duke’s role as the longest serving consort in history, Mr Johnson also remembered Prince Philip as one of the last surviving people to have fought in World War II.
“From that conflict he took an ethic of service that he applied throughout the unprecedented changes of the post-War era,” Mr Johnson said.
“Like the expert carriage driver that he was, he helped to steer the Royal Family and the monarchy so that it remains an institution indisputably vital to the balance and happiness of our national life.”
The statement from Buckingham Palace reads:
“It is with deep sorrow that Her Majesty The Queen announces the death of her beloved husband, His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.
His Royal Highness passed away peacefully this morning at Windsor Castle.
Further announcements will be made in due course.
The Royal Family join with people around the world in mourning his loss.”
It is with deep sorrow that Her Majesty The Queen has announced the death of her beloved husband, His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.
“He was a great patriot, a humanitarian, a loyal friend – provided of course he really is dead.” – Voltaire Fabulous satire of how we speak of the dead
The news of Prince Philip’s death was announced by Buckingham Palace on Friday. It came after he was admitted to King Edward VII’s hospital in London on 16 February. He was moved to St Bartholomew’s hospital in the City of London where he underwent the heart procedure on 3 March and was discharged nearly two weeks later.
Prince Charles made the 100-mile trip from his home in Highgrove, Gloucestershire, to visit his father at the hospital on Saturday afternoon for about 30 minutes.
Prior to that, the duke had last been admitted to hospital in December 2020, for four nights, on the advice of his doctor as a precautionary measure due to a “pre-existing condition”. He was discharged on Christmas Eve.
Philip retired from public duties in 2017 at the age of 96, although he continued to attend occasional public events. He stepped back after undertaking 22,191 solo engagements and giving 5,493 speeches. He once described himself as “the world’s most experienced plaque unveiler”.
His last official engagement was in July last year, when he handed over his role of colonel-in-chief of The Rifles to Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, in a ceremony at Windsor.
Prince Philip at his last official engagement in July last year. Photograph: Reuters
Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said she was “saddened” by the death of the duke.
She tweeted: “I send my personal and deepest condolences – and those of scotgov and the people of Scotland – to Her Majesty The Queen and her family.”
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said the UK had lost an “extraordinary public servant”, adding he would be remembered most of all for his most “extraordinary commitment and devotion to the Queen”.
Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said: “He consistently put the interests of others ahead of his own and, in so doing, provided an outstanding example of Christian service.”
The archbishop added: “As we recover and rebuild after the terrible trial of the coronavirus pandemic, we will need fortitude and a deep sense of commitment to serving others.”
The prince married Princess Elizabeth in 1947, five years before she became Queen, and was the longest-serving royal consort in British history.
In March, the Duke of Edinburgh left hospital after a month-long stay for treatment.
He underwent a procedure for a pre-existing heart condition at another London hospital – St Bartholomew’s.
Philip is seen at Sandringham on Christmas Day in 2015
The Queen has described Prince Philip as her “constant strength and stay”.
They had four children – Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward – and he was a much loved grandfather and great-grandfather.
He saw himself as a moderniser within the British monarchy, orchestrating the first royal walkabout – but he was also known for his forthright views and off-the-cuff remarks.
Prince Philip’s concern for young people inspired him to create the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award Scheme, and he supported more than 800 charities and good causes – focusing on his interests in wildlife conservation, technology and sport.
Since the 1940s Prince Philip was an ever present figure in the life of the UK and leaves behind his own considerable legacy.
There are of course some very controversial moments in Prince Philips life along with a number of racist and insulting remarks made over his years as the Duke of Edinburg, those we are sure will come out in the wash very soon.
ECHR rules obligatory vaccination may be necessary
The ruling is the first time that the European Court of Human Rights has weighed in on the issue of compulsory vaccinations. The decision could play a role in efforts to end the coronavirus pandemic.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg ruled on Thursday that compulsory vaccinations would not contravene human rights law — and may be necessary in democratic societies.
The ruling came following the evaluation of a complaint brought to the court by Czech families regarding compulsory jabs for children.
“The measures could be regarded as being ‘necessary in a democratic society,'” the court judgment read.
Although the ruling did not deal directly with COVID-19 vaccines, experts believe it could have implications for the vaccination drive against the virus, especially for those who have so far stated a refusal to accept the jab.
This judgment “reinforces the possibility of a compulsory vaccination under conditions of the current COVID-19 epidemic,” Nicolas Hervieu, a legal expert specializing in the ECHR, told AFP news agency.
Grand Chamber judgment Vavricka and Others v. Czech Republic – obligation to vaccinate children against diseases that were well known to medical sciencehttps://t.co/hXrZAfQn5P#ECHR#CEDH#ECHRpress
The decision said that the compulsory vaccines administered by Czech health authorities were in line with the “best interests” of children.
“The objective has to be that every child is protected against serious diseases, through vaccination or by virtue of herd immunity,” it added.
The court ruled that the Czech health policy was not in violation of Article 8 on the right to respect for private life in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights.
By Czech law, children must be vaccinated against nine diseases including diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, hepatitis B and measles.
The case was brought to the court by families who had been fined, or whose children had been refused access to a nursery for failing to comply with their legal vaccination duty.
A precedent for COVID-19 vaccination drives
More than 100,000 cases of measles were recorded in the World Health Organisation‘s European region between January and October 2019, exceeding the 83,540 cases reported in 2018 and more than three times the amount observed in 2017.
Countries across Europe have seen a swell of disinformation regarding the coronavirus pandemic. This has led people to not only be sceptical about the coronavirus itself, but also about the COVID-19 vaccines.
Anti-vaxxers — people who refuse to receive vaccines, or to vaccinate their children — have spread various conspiracy theories about why governments want to vaccinate their populations.
As a result, governments may be contending with large segments of society who refuse to be vaccinated, making the goal of herd immunity that much more difficult.
Although the ruling by the ECHR may have set the precedent that obligatory vaccinations do not contravene the European Convention on Human Rights, this does not mean European countries will force people to be vaccinated. Yet!
Violence has again resumed on the streets of Belfast ahead of an emergency meeting of the Northern Ireland Assembly, with a bus hijacked and set on fire and a photographer attacked.
The scenes on Wednesday evening followed several nights of unrest in loyalist communities amid tensions over the controversial Northern Ireland Protocol in the UK and EU’s Brexit deal and the police’s handling of alleged lockdown breaches by Sinn Fein at the funeral of republican Bobby Storey.
A decision not to prosecute anyone for alleged breaches of COVID regulations at an IRA funeral was the tipping point.
The Democratic Unionist party has expressed fury over the decision, with Foster, its leader, saying it reflects one rule for Sinn Féin and another for ordinary voters who have lost loved ones during the pandemic and have been unable to attend funerals.
No prosecutions have been recommended over alleged breaches of Covid-19 regulations last year at the funeral of senior republican Bobby Storey.
The DUP publicly undermining PSNI was very unwise. Sinn Fèin going back to the old method of using funerals as propaganda also shameful.
All parties have spent three years refusing to have dialogue in Stormont and appeals to have dialogue now are very very hollow.
All of them just exploit divisions and tensions all the time. Not a single one of them is with the people.
Simmering for months over the Brexit Protocol, establishing a trade border in the Irish Sea.
Others have put the blame on people’s anger with Brexit, with Stormont’s justice minister, Naomi Long, saying Boris Johnson’s “dishonesty” over Brexit border checks has inflamed the situation.
Front-line police officers are bearing the brunt of failures in politics and policing, according to a former deputy chief constable.
Jim Gamble said: “They’re the ones that will be standing in front of the angry crowds, they’re the ones that are going to be sitting in the back of Land Rovers that are on fire.
“This is not the fault of the front-line police officer. This is a failure of politics and I believe there are questions to be asked at the most senior level in policing about their ability to lead in a consistent manner and the only thing that should govern policing is the rule of law.”
Many people expressed concern about the potential for republican violence if there was a hard border on the island of Ireland after Brexit.
But few seem to have considered the potential for loyalist violence in the event of a border in the Irish Sea.
A summer of disruption looms
A 13-year-old boy was one of nine people arrested when trouble flared in loyalist parts of Greater Belfast and Londonderry earlier this week and over the weekend.
Police said the bus was pelted with petrol bombs at the junction of Lanark Way and Shankill Road in west Belfast, meanwhile, stones were thrown at officers while a press photographer was assaulted nearby.
First Minister Arlene Foster condemned the attack on Twitter, saying: “There is no justification for violence. It is wrong and should stop.”
She later added: “This is not protest. This is vandalism and attempted murder. These actions do not represent unionism or loyalism.
“They are an embarrassment to Northern Ireland and only serve to take the focus off the real law breakers in Sinn Fein. My thoughts are with the bus driver.”
This is not protest. This is vandalism and attempted murder. These actions do not represent unionism or loyalism. They are an embarrassment to Northern Ireland and only serve to take the focus off the real law breakers in Sinn Fein. My thoughts are with the bus driver. https://t.co/2JRcOb6s8C
— Arlene Foster #WeWillMeetAgain (@DUPleader) April 7, 2021
Boris Johnson tweeted: “I am deeply concerned by the scenes of violence in Northern Ireland, especially attacks on PSNI who are protecting the public and businesses, attacks on a bus driver and the assault of a journalist. The way to resolve differences is through dialogue, not violence or criminality.”
I am deeply concerned by the scenes of violence in Northern Ireland, especially attacks on PSNI who are protecting the public and businesses, attacks on a bus driver and the assault of a journalist. The way to resolve differences is through dialogue, not violence or criminality.
Remember when Dennis Skinner was thrown out of the House of Commons for twice refusing to withdraw the ‘Dodgy Dave’ jibe, he should now get an apology.
In 2016 former Labour MP Dennis Skinner was thrown out of Parliament for labelling the then Prime Minister David Cameron ‘Dodgy Dave’ over his personal finances.
The member for Bolsover was asked twice to withdraw the jibe, made during a House of Commons statement on the Panama Papers revelations, by the speaker John Bercow.
But Mr Skinner twice declined, leading Mr Bercow to ask Mr Skinner to withdraw from the chamber for the rest of Monday, on the ground of unparliamentary language.
It seems to most people now if not then Dennis Skinner is owed a public apology by the house. The Beast of Bolsover not only called it right if listened to he could have saved the taxpayer a lot of public money.
Greensill Capital collapse exposes the cronyism within The Palace of Varieties
Greensill Capital promised a win-win for buyers and sellers, until it all fell apart, igniting concerns about opaque accounting practices.
Greensill’s dazzlingly fast failure is one of the most spectacular collapses of a global finance firm in over a decade. It has entangled SoftBank and Credit Suisse and threatens the business empire of the British steel tycoon Sanjeev Gupta, who employs 35,000 workers throughout the world. Greensill’s problems extend to the United States, where the governor of West Virginia and his coal mining company have sued Greensill Capital for “a continuous and profitable fraud” over $850 million in loans.
At the centre of it is Lex Greensill, an Australian farmer turned banker who in 2011 founded his company in London as a solution to a problem: Companies want to wait as long as possible before paying for their supplies, while the companies making the supplies need their cash as soon as possible.
It’s called supply chain finance, and it’s a traditional form of lending in the business world.
But Mr Greensill added an extra layer of complexity. He took the supplier invoices, turned them into short-term assets and put them into funds, similar to money market funds, that investors could buy. The funds were sold through Credit Suisse, the big Swiss lender, and a Swiss asset management firm called GAM. The money from investors helped to pay back suppliers.
Mr Greensill was brought in as an unpaid adviser when Mr Cameron was Prime Minister.
During this time, he was also given security passes to various Government departments, according to the Sunday Times.
The reports suggest Mr Greensill was able to promote a financial product for pharmacists that he had been working on during this period.
After leaving Downing Street in 2016, Mr Cameron himself went to work for Greensill Capital as an adviser two years later.
Greensill turned a mundane finance practice into an ultra-lucrative business in part because it was able to shuffle around the risk, pushing some of it onto insurance companies and other financial firms. It has echoes of the asset-backed securitization that was at the heart of the 2008 financial crisis.
As his company grew, Mr Greensill collected well-connected friends — and private jets. He helped Prime Minister David Cameron’s government set up a supply chain finance program in 2012. He told the newspaper The Australian that he had done the same for President Barack Obama in the United States.
Along with Cameron becoming an adviser to Greensill. Julie Bishop, Australia’s former foreign minister, also joined the company as an adviser.
Cameron came under fire when reports emerged that he had sent texts to Chancellor Rishi Sunak ‘s private phone to plead for financial support through the Government’s Covid Corporate Financing Facility.
The company subsequently went bust after its application for support was rejected.
The former prime minister David Cameron was cleared of breaching lobbying rules by allegedly asking the Chancellor for emergency Covid loans worth millions for a firm he advised.
The ex-Tory leader faced a probe over text messages he was reported to have sent to Rishi Sunak and senior civil servants on behalf of Greensill Capital before it went into administration.
His activities were investigated by Harry Rich, the registrar of consultant lobbyists – a post set up in legislation passed by Mr Cameron’s Government in 2014.
However, many are not satisfied and Labour have asked for a deeper enquiry.
David Cameron reportedly lobbied Chancellor Rishi Sunak about support for Greensill Capital (Image: Getty Images)
Downing Street’s dodgy dealings with Citigroup and Greensill show just how far the British government is willing to go to line the pockets of banks and other financial firms while bleeding taxpayers dry.
Nick Corbishley from Naked Capitalism laid out the cost of the collapse of UK-based supply chain finance firm Greensill Capital continues to reverberate. In Germany, the private banking association has paid out around €2.7 billion to more than 20,500 Greensill Bank customers as part of its deposit guarantee scheme after the bank collapsed in early March. But the deposits of institutional investors such as other financial institutions, investment firms, and local authorities are not covered. Fifty municipalities are believed to be nursing losses of at least €500 million.
Greensill’s biggest source of funds, Credit Suisse, has seen its share price plunge by almost a quarter. This is due not only to the fallout from Greensill’s collapse but also the impact of losses at its prime brokerage division caused by the stricken U.S. hedge fund Archegos, which are expected to reach €4 billion. The lender has warned of “considerable uncertainty” regarding the valuation of its supply chain finance fund. More than $5 billion of the roughly $10 billion invested in the fund remains outstanding.
Credit Suisse had assured clients in marketing documents that the debt in the supply chain fund was “low risk”. In one factsheet, it also said: “The underlying credit risk of the notes is fully insured by highly rated insurance companies.” At the beginning of March, that turned out not to be true. Some clients whose money remains trapped in the fund have threatened to sue.
Greensill’s biggest client, Anglo-Indian steel magnate Sanjeev Gupta, is on the verge of bankruptcy. Gupta’s GFG Alliance reportedly owes Greensill more than €3 billion. It began defaulting on its obligations after Greensill stopped lending to the group at the beginning of March. At the end of March Gupta requested a £170 million emergency loan from the UK government, which was duly rejected. Greensill’s administrator, Grant Thornton, has been unable to verify invoices underpinning some of the loans to Gupta. Companies listed on the documents denied ever having done business with the metals magnate.
Now the fallout is beginning to splatter the British government, which invited Greensill to participate in its Coronavirus Large Business Interruption Loan Scheme (CLBILS). This is despite the fact the company: a) wasn’t a bank; and b) was quite clearly already in deep financial trouble. Greensill’s participation in CLBILS allowed it to extend even more loans, this time government backed, to Gupta’s empire. Taxpayers will now probably end up holding the bag for those loans.
Special Treatment, Frantic Lobbying
Greensill Capital was the only non-bank financial firm to administer the emergency coronavirus loan schemes. The Treasury has admitted that Greensill was exempt from the capital adequacy and stress tests that would safeguard the public from risk when using other lenders. The apparent reason for this special treatment was that former UK Prime Minister David Cameron, who had joined Greensill as an advisor in 2018, was frantically lobbying Chancellor of Exchequer Rishi Sunak to hand government loans to the embattled financial firm even as it spiralled toward bankruptcy.
Cameron is believed to have held share options in Greensill Capital worth tens of millions of pounds. Now they’re worth nothing.
Cameron’s ties with Greensill’s eponymous founder, Lex Greensill, date all the way back to 2011, when Cameron’s then-cabinet secretary, Jeremy Heywood, brought Greensill — then the head of Citi’s supply chain finance division — into 10 Downing Street as a special advisor. Greensill was still on Citi’s payroll when he joined the government. As an expose in The Sunday Times reveals, his brief was to convince ministers and senior civil servants to hire Citi to extend early payment to many of the government’s biggest suppliers.
Citigroup’s pitch was to pay the state’s suppliers in sectors where it apparently paid late, such as pharmacists awaiting NHS prescription fees. [Maurice Thompson, the British boss of Citigroup who would later become chairman of Greensill Capital’s supervisory board] claimed this would help business owners — offering them an alternative to expensive loans — and the government. It would also be a smart investment for Citi: paying tens of billions of pounds in invoices on behalf of the most reliable of clients, the state, and taking a cut along the way. This was not about finding a solution to a government problem, but rather a government problem that would fit Citi’s — and later Greensill’s — particular solution. The plan met stiff opposition in certain quarters. Given that government can borrow at ultra-low interest rates, some began asking why it needed to bring in Citigroup, or any investment bank for that matter, to pay its bills. Surely it made more sense to find a way to expedite its payments to suppliers rather than pay an intermediary to do so on its behalf.
Citi aimed to start small, by paying pharmacists that supplied the NHS, but its ambition was sweeping. It sought to roll out supply chain finance across the UK’s public sector, “paying invoices covering GPs, dentists, opticians, physiotherapists, the Ministry of Defence, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), Royal Mail and even the BBC.”
Dodgy Dealings
A group of civil servants tried to thwart the plan. But Greensill enjoyed the backing of Heywood, Britain’s “most powerful civil servant” at the time. Heywood gave Greensill his own team and access to any department he wished to address. He also made him a senior advisor and crown representative to Her Majesty’s Government on supply chain finance.
What really irked some civil servants was the ambiguity of Greensill’s position. After Greensill had left Citibank, months after joining Downing Street, and set up his own supply chain finance firm (Greensill Capital) “it was unclear whose interests he was advancing: his former employer’s, his own firm’s or, as one would expect, the taxpayer’s.” Even more dubious was the way in which the government assigned projects to Citi (and later Greensill Capital), reports the Sunday Times.
At the time the pharmacy scheme was announced, there was no detail about who would benefit from it. The government never formally announced or published details of the policy.
It is only thanks to the legal small print sent to pharmacists that details have emerged. For the first five years the scheme was operated by Citigroup. Then it was awarded to Greensill Capital, which ran it until the company’s collapse last month. The scheme has since been nationalised.
The precise circumstances in which the work was awarded to Citigroup remain unclear. The law states that unless the government is procuring services in an emergency, such as buying PPE during a pandemic or a helicopter in the middle of a war, it must create open and fair competition for companies that hope to deliver them.
However, last night the government admitted it did not sign a contract for Citigroup’s services. Nor did it create an open competition so that other banks could bid for the work. Despite the warnings of Peilow, it was handed out directly to Citi via an existing and secretive relationship between the bank and the Government Banking Service.
This chimes with an email sent by Greensill on November 12, 2012. He wrote: “It is important to note that there is no formal contract with Citibank with respect to the provision of supply chain finance.” He added: “This situation is entirely normal in the private sector as the bank is providing financing to our suppliers, not us.”
What is not normal is that a Wall Street bank was allowed to handle billions of pounds of NHS cash without a contract. Even by the government’s own standards it was exceptional: in 2018 it created a formal procurement process before handing the scheme to Greensill.
The evidence points to a stark conclusion: in the face of staunch opposition from civil servants, the government secretly gave a scheme to Citigroup, which came up with the idea, after its former head of supply chain finance, Greensill, drove the policy through Whitehall.
The only point of this scheme was to create easy money for financiers while bleeding taxpayers dry. As such, this scandal is not just about the losses taxpayers will have to bear as a result of the government’s underwriting of Greensill’s emergency loans to Gupta; it’s about the money that’s already been squandered by the government’s wholly unnecessary use of supply chain finance in the first place.
Reminiscent of the disastrous Private Finance Initiative
It’s all eerily reminiscent of the disastrous Private Finance Initiative (PFI). Over decades successive Tory and Labour governments signed off on hundreds of debt-financed projects for which the rate of interest could be as much as 2 to 3.75 percentage points higher than the cost of government borrowing. It was a giant cash cow for the government’s corporate and banking partners. In 2018 it was estimated that the government would end up paying private companies £199 billion, including interest, between April 2017 until the 2040s for existing deals, in addition to some £110 billion already paid — for 700 projects worth around £60 billion!
The senior politicians and civil servants get rewarded for their loyalty later down the line. The civil servant in charge of all the government’s commercial contracts during Cameron’s administration, Bill Crothers, became a director at Greensill in 2016, a year after leaving government. In 2017 Lex Greensill was awarded the CBE for services to the British economy in Queen Elizabeth II’s 2017 Birthday Honours. A year later his company won a juicy government contract.
Lex Greensill was awarded the CBE for services to the British economy
The London-based GFG Alliance, Mr Gupta’s string of companies, has now lost its main financier. The future of the companies, and their 35,000 jobs, remains uncertain.
“Greensill’s difficulties have created a challenging situation,” GFG said in a statement. The companies have “adequate funding” for current operations but are looking for other sources of long-term financing, it said. Even though steel prices are relatively high, GFG has been hampered by the pandemic, with some mills shut or operating intermittently.
In Britain, where Mr Gupta’s companies employ 5,000, trade unions are concerned about job losses. For some, Mr Gupta is still seen as a job saver for buying unwanted plants. In France, where about 2,000 jobs are in jeopardy, the finance minister, Bruno Le Maire, said the government would be ready to intervene to prevent job losses.
Main contribution from Nick Corbishley Naked Capitalism
Reporting was contributed by Eshe Nelson, Michael J. de la Merced, Stanley Reed, Matthew Goldstein and Raphael Minder, Jack Ewing, Liz Alderman from there article in the NYT
Oxford University announced on Tuesday that it was suspending a trial of the Covid-19 vaccine that it developed with AstraZeneca on children and teenagers while regulators investigate a potential blood clot link in adults.
Researchers say they are awaiting further information about the side-effect of the jab, developed alongside drug company AstraZeneca.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is investigating a potential link between the jab and a rare form of blood clot.
The university said in a statement that it has paused a trial into the effectiveness of the vaccine on children and teenagers until the MHRA reports back.
“Whilst there are no safety concerns in the paediatric clinical trial, we await additional information from the MHRA on its review of rare cases of thrombosis/thrombocytopaenia that have been reported in adults, before giving any further vaccinations in the trial,” the university said in a statement.
“Parents and children should continue to attend all scheduled visits and can contact the trial sites if they have any questions.”
The Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA) revealed on Saturday that seven people in the country had died from rare blood clots after getting the shot out of a total of 30 identified cases, while more than 18 million doses were administered in the country.
After all the fights over contracts and deliveries, the latest challenge is one facing European regulators: Whether to recommend that national governments don’t give the vaccine to younger people, citing a rare but sometimes fatal form of blood clotting.
Several countries have already taken that step and on Tuesday, the head of the European Medicines Agency’s vaccine strategy spoke out on the situation.
“It’s clear that there’s a link,” Marco Cavaleri told Italian newspaper il Messaggero when asked if the vaccine causes the low platelet count and blood clots found in some people who have received the vaccine.
“What causes this reaction, however, we don’t know yet,” Cavaleri said.
The EMA is expected to make a more official announcement about the safety of the vaccine on Wednesday or Thursday.
The comments from Cavaleri were a notable shift from the EU regulator, which has spent the past two months insisting there was no reason for EU countries to restrict or stop using the vaccine — first in February when concerns were raised that there was not enough data to use the vaccine in older people, and again in March over early concerns about serious blood disorders.
The U.K., which has boasted an enviable vaccination rate thanks in part to doses of the vaccine, is also seeing increasing reports of rare but serious blood clots. Channel 4 reported Monday that British regulators are considering restricting the vaccine in young people, a potentially huge blow to the U.K. vaccination campaign, although the agency said it has not made any changes to its advice … “yet.”
Regulators are reluctant to limit the use of the vaccine because, as Cavaleri pointed out, although there could very well be a link between blood clots and the vaccine, its benefits still outweigh its risks.
Germany has stopped giving the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab to people aged under 60, while Canada has done the same for everyone aged under 55.
Boris Johnson and ministers have sought to reassure Britons and foreign governments about the vaccine, insisting it is safe.
Vaccine minister Nadhim Zahawi said issues with the jab were “very rare”
Vaccines minister Nadhim Zahawi said earlier today that the MHRA looked “very closely” at reports of adverse reactions to the vaccines.
Asked about reports that regulators are considering proposals to restrict the use of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine in younger people, Mr Zahawi told BBC Breakfast: “The regulators absolutely look at, very closely, any adverse incidents through the yellow card system.
“And June Raine, who is the chief executive of the MHRA, our independent regulator, said last night that if you get the invite for the vaccine to take that invitation and get the vaccine and get protected.
“At the same time, they are looking at these very rare instances of blood clotting. To put it in perspective, we have done almost 20 million vaccinations using the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine.
“Both vaccines have saved something like 6,300 lives between December and the end of February, so it’s important to continue to follow what the clinicians, the scientists, the regulators tell us. And we will absolutely do exactly as they say.”
A UK Government spokesman said on Monday: “The Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is safe, effective and has already saved thousands of lives in this country.
“As the UK’s independent regulator has said, when people are called forward, they should get the jab.
“Over 37 million jabs overall have already been administered and we are on track to offer jabs to all over 50s by 15 April and all adults by the end of July.”
The Labour Party never seem to have issues trolling back years to find a negative comment on a members social media but couldn’t even Google the church they were going to.
Starmer has been criticised after visiting a church that has been widely condemned for its attitudes towards homosexuality.
The Labour leader went to Jesus House in Brent Cross, north-west London, on Friday and praised it as a “wonderful example” of a church serving its community during the pandemic, including acting as a vaccination centre.
In a video uploaded on Twitter, after a backlash including from his party’s LGBT+ members, Sir Keir Starmer called it a mistake and deleted the clip where he said: “From rolling out the vaccine to running the local food bank, Jesus House, like many other churches across the UK, has played a crucial role in meeting the needs of the community.”
On the face of things there was nothing wrong in his statement and a perfect photo opportunity for a flagging political Leader, however, the church in question holds a more traditional view that opposes LBGT rights. The church’s senior pastor, Agu Irukwu, has spoken out against same-sex marriage and equality legislation, leading to condemnation from LGBTQ+ groups, it’s nothing new and has been well documented.
The churches views are not a secret and just takes a little research, something it appears neither Starmer nor his team is capable of doing.
Some major religions have views on LGBT rights that don’t comply with modern thinking the relationship between religion and LGBT has varied greatly across time and place, within and between different religions and denominations, with regard to different forms of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgender identity. The present-day doctrines of the world’s major religions and their denominations vary vastly in their attitudes toward these sexual orientations.
Among the religious denominations which generally reject these orientations, there are many different types of opposition, ranging from quietly discouraging homosexual activity, explicitly forbidding same-sex sexual practices among their adherents and actively opposing social acceptance of homosexuality, supporting criminal sanctions up to capital punishment. Both religion and LGBT rights have a long way to travel in reconciling their differences but where some churches are silent Pastor Agu Irukwu is very outspoken and that should have been flagged by Starmer’s team.
In 2006, Pastor Agu Irukwu signed a letter to the Daily Telegraph opposing laws that would protect LGBT+ people from discrimination and, in 2013, he was one of the signatories on another letter to the Telegraph opposing same-sex marriage legislation.
Church Pastor Agu Irukwu represents the more traditional outlook of the Church that runs along the same lines as the Catholic church who still see homosexuality as a sin. It’s very obvious his views are strong and well known within the LGBT community, a community Starmer is supposed to not only represent but be fighting for.
An example of pastor Agu Irukwu views can be understood in the letter the pastor submitted where he claimed: “The latest discrimination against Christians is the new law called the Sexual Orientation Regulations, said to combat the problem of homophobia in Britain. “The regulations force Christians in churches, businesses, charities and informal associations to accept and even promote the idea that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality.”
The pastor and his church along with more traditional churches including most religions that follow the ‘Old book’ still hold views that bring them into a controversial position when it comes to LGBT rights.
“Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.”― Edmund Burke
Theresa May meets members of the Jesus House Church, in Brent, west London (Twitter/Theresa May)
The most concerning aspect is the fact Sir Keir Starmer with all his forensic skills could not remember or Google the church to understand his visit would not go down well and create conflict with groups he claims to represent.
In 2017 the then Prime minister Theresa May was condemned in much the same way for the same visit with pastor Agu Irukwu and Jesus House. The visit was splashed all of the news and social media, Pink News also carried the article condemning May’s visit. It was described as an insult to the whole LGBT community but especially to black LBGT people,” said Peter Tatchell.
“His church has been involved in exorcisms of gay people in the belief that they are possessed by demons. Its parent church in Nigeria backed the draconian anti-laws passed in 2014, which are some of the harshest in the world. Jesus House preaches against the human rights of LGBT people in the UK and Africa. LINK
“These teachings fuel prejudice. They contribute to self-hatred and mental ill-health in black African LGBT communities.”
The same veteran LGBT rights campaigner Peter Tatchell had also condemned the London Mayor in 2009 at the time Boris Johnson, after visiting the church Tatchell said:
“Boris should investigate the people who invite him before accepting their invitations. He should not attend this church, for the same reason that he should not attend a church where the pastor preaches against black or Jewish people or against equal rights for women or Muslims”.
Starmer apologises over visit to church with controversial LGBT+ views
I completely disagree with Jesus House’s beliefs on LGBT+ rights, which I was not aware of before my visit. I apologise for the hurt my visit caused and have taken down the video. It was a mistake and I accept that.
The Labour Campaign for LGBT+ Rights had branded Sir Keir’s visit and subsequent social media endorsement of the church’s work as “unacceptable”.
Following Sir Keir’s visit, the LGBT+ Labour group called it “unacceptable” and said they had contacted Sir Keir to ask for an apology. It said the church was known for its “broadly anti-LGBT+ views”.
However, the group said it believed the explanation that it was a “genuine mistake” where “research had mistakenly not been carried out in advance of the visit”.
After Sir Keir apologised, the group tweeted their thanks and added: “We are pleased that you have recognised and apologised for this mistake. We look forward to working with you to end conversion therapy and achieve equality for LGBT+ people.”
Our full statement in light of comments today from a Shadow Cabinet Member that attempt to justify Keir Starmer's visit to Jesus House.
The video should be deleted and a public apology made by the Leader himself. We also expect him to attend our meeting with his team this week. pic.twitter.com/HVXYCWkw1P
LGBT+ Labour published a fresh statement this afternoon detailing the conversation held with the leader’s office – including an admission that research of the church had not been carried out – and Reeves’ comments.
The group explained that it had given the office the opportunity to “fix their mistake”, yet “they chose not to take up that opportunity”, and concluded that its trust in Starmer and Labour had been “damaged”.
A year of Starmer is like reading the fall of Rome.
Sir Keir Starmer’s first year has been as dull and mediocre as we first predicted on his winning the Leadership competition.
It seems Starmer’s greatest ability is to create apathy through boredom this can only be matched with his ability to disappoint.
From the very beginning of his race to the leadership Starmer has shown a certain dishonesty we have come to expect amongst the political grifters that inhabit Westminster today. Throughout the Labour leadership election, Starmer consistently refused to name the full list of those who donated to his campaign.
Even when other candidates and Labour MP’s asked for transparency Starmer used the rules to hide his donors, those rules say you don’t have to officially accept a donation for 30 days and then you don’t have to declare it for another 28 days, so it can be up to 58 days until it’s declared on the register, those 58 days came after the leadership election was over.
At the time Labour MP Jon Trickett wrote: “If we’re actually serious about financial transparency, political donations need to be published by campaigns themselves in real-time, rather than waiting for the register. Delaying publishing donations until people have voted is anti-democratic. Voters deserve to know what lies behind the candidates they are being asked to vote for, before they cast their vote, not afterwards.”
Starmer certainly was hiding something, the fact his sponsors were the very same people that had funded other centrist groups opposed to Corbyn and the Left was more than telling it was a marker for the civil war to come, a list of these anti-Corbyn pressure groups can be found here
It’s time that we put an end to secrecy in political donations. People want to know what lies behind who they are being asked to vote for. This applies to both general elections and inner party elections. -Jon Trickett MP
If it had got out that Sir Keir Starmer’s campaign was being bankrolled by right-wingers with a history of vehement opposition to that progressive programme, his credibility could have been seriously undermined. Members might have concluded that the radical image Starmer was projecting was just a cynical approach of an opportunist manoeuvre to secure their votes and that once elected he would steer the party firmly back towards the right.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened those believing Starmer to be the unity candidate were soon to be disappointed.
While Starmer was appealing to Labour Party members on the basis and some assurance that he would uphold the progressive policies adopted by Labour under Corbyn’s leadership policies he embodied in the 10 pledges that appeared on the back of his campaign poster and now all broken that can be broke.
Starmer’s unity is anyone but the Left.
#LabourLeaks
“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed — if all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth.”- George Orwell 1984
Immediately after Starmer’s election a deeply controversial internal report was leaked to journalists and then distributed on social media.
They would rather lose an election than see Corbyn in No. 10
The report is the result of an internal investigation into the work of Labour’s governance and legal unit in relation to antisemitism. Created by party staff, it pulls together an 860-page document that suggested that Labour Party staffers worked against the party and to lose the 2017 general election rather than see Jeremy Corbyn become Prime minister.
The Dossier – dated March 2020 and leaked in April 2020 – claimed some Labour Party workers did not want Jeremy Corbyn to win the 2017 general election and in reading the Whatsapp messages suggested they used their positions in the Labour Party to undermine the election.
The 860-page document has unearthed a plethora of party horrors, allegations of misuse of funds, the continued undermining of the 2017 electoral campaign and the then-leader Jeremy Corbyn’s attempts to investigate anti-Semitism in the party, as well as vicious criticism of leading Labour figures by staff members in private messages.
The report was the result of an internal investigation into the work of Labour’s governance and legal unit in relation to antisemitism. Created by party staff, it pulls together an estimated 10,000 emails, thousands of messages exchanged on work accounts, and the contents of two WhatsApp group chats apparently created by senior management in Labour headquarters.
Starmer closed down talk on the report making it against party rules to discuses or read the report.
Opening up the Forde enquiry he put it in the long grass. After the release date of the enquiry was put back twice it was then announced the enquiry and its findings would be indefinitely delayed.
The chair of the Forde Inquiry looking into the ‘Labour leaks’ report announced that its conclusion is now delayed indefinitely as it has “recently been made aware” that the Information Commissioner’s Office is investigating the same leaks.
Labour’s general secretary David Evans read out a letter from Martin Forde QC to the national executive committee (NEC) at the meeting. It said the inquiry’s findings could have the potential to prejudice the ICO’s work. The reality is it could have greater potential to undermine what little trust people have in our democracy and the Labour Party. How could people trust a party that works to lose an election because its officers don’t like democratic socialist policies?
Rebecca Long-Bailey has been sacked from the shadow cabinet by Keir Starmer. Photograph: Sean Smith/The Guardian
Starmer sacks Long-Bailey
Starmer sacking Long-Bailey was warning enough there was no place on the front-bench for former Corbyn allies the measly excuse for sharing an article from the Independent Newspaper titled ‘People who couldn’t vote Labour because of Corbyn? They voted Tory as far as I’m concerned. was has ridiculous an excuse as could be imagined.
The article an opinion piece had one small section that Ms Peake claimed US police had been trained to kneel on people’s necks by Israeli authorities. The quote from the article in the Independent suggested:
“Systemic racism is a global issue,” she adds. “The tactics used by the police in America, kneeling on George Floyd’s neck, that was learnt from seminars with Israeli secret services.” (A spokesperson for the Israeli police has denied this, stating that “there is no tactic or protocol that calls to put pressure on the neck or airway”.)
Rebecca Long-Bailey tweeted the very long article that in the main did nothing but garner support for the Labour Party but it was just the excuse and enough for Starmer to hit out and sack Long-Bailey. Many had suggested that the real issue was Starmer did not like to be contradicted, Long-Bailey had backed the Teachers union over School shutdowns while Starmer backed the government on keeping schools open during the covid restrictions, a policy that was later to prove a massive cause spreading the virus
It soon became apparent the largest age groups testing positive and carrying the virus ’10-19 and 20-29′ school, college and university age
ONS figures show infection rates in secondary schools are 50 times higher than they were in September 2020.
Teaching unions where calling for schools to be closed as part of England’s second lockdown, claiming they are a “major contributor to the spread of coronavirus”.
However Starmer backed Boris Johnson demanding and went a step further trying to out Tory the Tories, a theme that has continued throughout Starmer’s tenure as Labour Leader.
My message to the Prime Minister: I don’t just want all children back at school next month, I expect them back at school.
Throughout the Coronavirus pandemic, Starmer has played capitulation. His lack of opposition he claims comes from the idea of national unity, a copout that ‘NOW’ is not the time to challenge the government. Meanwhile, the Tories have presided over a shocking coronavirus death toll exceeding 150k poor souls and the blatant cronyism that has witnessed billions of our public money leaving the treasure never seen the likes since the Huns sacked Rome. Starmer should have been calling this out from the very beginning and demanding greater scrutiny of public money, not just a half-backed inquiry into the Tories handling of the pandemic but a full audit of the books and an explanation of where the billions in public money has gone.
Labour haemorrhaging members
When Starmer was elected to the leadership position after Jeremy Corbyn stood down, there were 552,835 registered Labour party members.
It was reviled that Party membership number had been falling by around 250 a day since Sir Keir Starmer’s election as leader in April 2019 a drop of 57,000 people, or 10%, in his first seven months as Party Leader and that was before he suspended Jeremy Corbyn.
Open Warfare: Sir Keir Starmer suspends Jeremy Corbyn from the Labour Party
Corbyn suspended
Labour civil war
In October 2020, Sir Keir Starmer suspended the former leader Jeremy Corbyn pending an investigation following Corbyn’s comments responding to the Equality and Human Rights Commission report that was released that day.
Jeremy Corbyn had made a statement reacting to the EHRC report, which found Labour was responsible for “unlawful acts”, Corbyn claimed that “the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents”.
The former leader posted on social media: “Anyone claiming there is no antisemitism in the Labour Party is wrong. Of course there is, as there is throughout society, and sometimes it is voiced by people who think of themselves as on the left.
My statement following the publication of the EHRC report: “Antisemitism is absolutely abhorrent, wrong and responsible for some of humanity’s greatest crimes. As Leader of the Labour Party, I was always determined to eliminate all forms of racism and root out the cancer of antisemitism. I have campaigned in support of Jewish people and communities my entire life and I will continue to do so.
“The EHRC’s report shows that when I became Labour leader in 2015, the Party’s processes for handling complaints were not fit for purpose.
Reform was then stalled by an obstructive party bureaucracy. But from 2018, Jennie Formby and a new NEC that supported my leadership made substantial improvements, making it much easier and swifter to remove antisemites. My team acted to speed up, not hinder the process.
“Anyone claiming there is no antisemitism in the Labour Party is wrong. Of course there is, as there is throughout society, and sometimes it is voiced by people who think of themselves as on the left.“
Jewish members of our party and the wider community were right to expect us to deal with it, and I regret that it took longer to deliver that change than it should.“One antisemite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media.
That combination hurt Jewish people and must never be repeated. “My sincere hope is that relations with Jewish communities can be rebuilt and those fears overcome. While I do not accept all of its findings, I trust its recommendations will be swiftly implemented to help move on from this period.”
Labour reinstating Jeremy Corbyn after 19 days
A meeting of five panel members from Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) met and decided Corbyn should be reinstated as a Labour member
At this point Starmer blunders again and bows down to what can only be explained as external pressure and refuses to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn despite the NEC ruling.
Sir Keir Starmer tweeted that evening that today’s decision marked ‘another painful day for the Jewish community and those Labour members who have fought so hard to tackle antisemitism’.
I know that this has been another painful day for the Jewish community and those Labour members who have fought so hard to tackle antisemitism.
I know the hurt that has been caused and the trauma people have felt.
He added: ‘I will not allow a focus on one individual to prevent us from doing the vital work of tackling antisemitism. When I stood as Leader of the Labour Party, I was clear that my first priority would be to root out antisemitism. It still is.’
Graffiti in Easton. Photo: Kirsty Hall / Flickr / CC BY 2.0, license and original photo linked at bottom of article
Sir Keir Starmer cause more division within the Party over his handling of some controversial bills namely the Spycops bill that a bill which would allow undercover agents to commit crimes while infiltrating criminal gangs.
Starmer’s policy of appeasement over opposition is a dangerous approach in democracy. It was exactly that policy of abstention and appeasement that allowed the controversial #SpyCops Bill to pass the commons. It was at that point Dan Carden felt he could no longer be part of Starmer’s front bench, after being ordered to abstain on the bill he resigned his post.
The bill will give any undercover intelligence source, including civilians, to commit any crime in the pursuit of intel and is widely expected to be used against unions and left groups, as well as giving a free hand to security forces for a repeat of behaviour like that which led to the ‘spycops’ scandal.
In a statement, Carden cited concerns about the impact on human rights of the ‘abuse of state power’:
“As a Liverpool MP and trade unionist, I share the deep concerns about this legislation from across the labour movement, human rights organisations, and so many who have suffered the abuse of state power, from blacklisted workers to the Hillsborough families and survivors.
Of course, there are many other instances, Starmer’s lack of opposition, his own pledge breaking opposition to corporation tax hacks the unwillingness to back the full 15% pay rise for nurses but as the reader can see for one year it’s much too much to articulate in this article.
Of course, there is more from ‘The Liverpool Mayor Elections’ to the continued civil war and his fallouts with the unions.
The reality is Starmer’s first year has been a disaster, no excuses of Covid, after all this Tory government have been appalling the silent witness of 150k souls is proof enough but still, Starmer’s approval ratings have tanked from record highs to his first negative ratings in the last few weeks. Last June, Ipsos Mori found Starmer enjoyed a rating of +31%, the joint highest for any leader of the opposition since the polling company began tracking opposition leaders in the 1970s.
Sir Keir Starmer is an inexperienced member of parliament promoted too soon and lost in lack of vision, he really has made politics mediocre and only stands in the shadow of Corbyn.
The best thing Labour can do is to drop Starmer as a lost cause now before they end up losing in 2024 giving the Tories another clear 5 years. Starmer’s lack of experience and the teams he has put around him are turning this country into a one Party state.
Editor & founder of Labour Heartlands.
𝙁𝙧𝙚𝙚𝙗𝙤𝙧𝙣 𝙀𝙣𝙜𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙝 𝙍𝙖𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙎𝙤𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩.
Citizen journalist and veteran writing from the working-class coalface challenging the corruption, liberal elitism, and political complacency that dominate Britain today. Dyslexic but driven… I write because silence serves the powerful. Defender of free speech, civil liberties, and real democracy.
Committed to an open, accountable democracy, not the manufactured version handed down from party machines, think tanks, or the Westminster bubble.
The police, crime, sentencing and courts bill, which passed its second reading in parliament last month, will modify existing public order legislation to make it easier for police to ban or shut down peaceful protests if they are considered too disruptive or likely to lead to disorder.
This means an individual holding a placard with a megaphone could be fined up to £2,500 if they refuse police direction.
Additionally, criminal damage to statues and memorials, like those witnessed during the Black Lives Matter protests last year or the fule protest in 2007 that brought motorways to a halt would be punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
In London, thousands of protesters rallied at Speakers’ Corner from midday onwards before marching down Park Lane, towards Westminster. Marching to the beat of a samba band, crowds chanted: “Kill the bill” and “The UK is not innocent.”
Speaking in Parliament Square in central London, Mr Corbyn invoked figures such as the suffragettes and Nelson Mandela as he urged the crowd to oppose the bill.
“Stand up for the right to protest, stand up for the right to have your voice heard,” he said.
Jeremy Corbyn spoke about how it was”perfectly correct and proper vigil” for Sarah Everard, who was killed as she walked home in south London
“I want a society where it is safe to walk the streets, where you can speak out, you can demonstrate and you don’t have to seek the permission from the police or the home secretary to do so,” he said.
https://youtu.be/kvcj4cs7VK0
Several women addressed the crowd and shared personal experiences of abuse and being drugged.
Protesters carried anti-sexism placards and chanted “women scared everywhere, police and Government do not care” as they marched past Downing Street.
The Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy was among the speakers who addressed the crowd in the park. She said: “The police, crime, sentencing and courts bill should come as no surprise: it’s part of an authoritarian drive from this government. We can see it in everything they have been doing recently, from voter ID registration to anti-union laws and now anti-protest laws. They want to strip away our hard-fought, hard-won democratic rights and we must stop them.”
Other speakers included the Labour MPs Apsana Begum, Clive Lewis and Zarah Sultana, and the civil rights campaigners Peter Tatchell and Lee Jasper.
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”- John F. Kennedy
1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual
1984 Orwellian Dystopia
There is an inevitable truth in the words of JFK, its not a justification of violence but it is a warning of more protest and a rejection of a system that has overstretched in its intrusions onto peoples liberties and lives.
This is not a Left or Right issue, this is an issue that affects all people of all persuasions. Thomas Paine once said: “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression.” in that light it’s understood ensuring our liberties are not taken from us or restricted in any way is ‘common cause’.
We will always defend the right to demonstrate against injustice. Proud to address today's #KillTheBill demonstration – together we will stop Boris Johnson's protest ban pic.twitter.com/R3TTzy1NlY
The British people are many things and have many layers of complexities but the one thing that binds us all is our freedoms, those hard fought battles from the Magna Carta of 1215 to the Human Rights Act 1998, were not given they were won.
Freedom of speech and the right to protest peacefully are protected by the law both the common law and the Human Rights Act 1998 cover these fundamental rights.
Common law stipulates our rights: personal security, personal liberty and private property, and auxiliary rights necessary to secure them, such as access to justice. Rights to a fair trial, right to open justice and to freedom of speech are recognised both in the common law and in the Convention of Human rights.
The British people will and must guard their freedoms fiercely, lest they be taken away.
Further protests are scheduled to take place in London as demonstrators continue to vent their anger at the Government’s new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.
Jeremy Corbyn has announced he will be addressing the protesters at the London protest on the 3rd of April taking place at speakers corner Hyde Park but due to present circumstances, the locations may change.
“The right to protest is precious.” Ahead of @JeremyCorbyn addressing tomorrow’s London #KillTheBill protest, watch this video, spread the word, and help build the movement to defend our democratic rights.
— Peace and Justice Project (@corbyn_project) April 2, 2021
Fight for your rights…
Last week former police chief Michael Barton warned that new protest laws move Britain dangerously towards “paramilitary policing” and that UK ministers are “flexing their muscles via their police forces” like repressive regimes around the world.
Scenes of officers grappling with women led to outrage triggering a U-turn from the Labour Party who were planning to abstain on the Police Crime Sentencing and Courts Bill. the scenes also prompted calls for the resignation of the commissioner, Cressida Dick.
Following the passing of the bill at its second reading two weeks ago, there has been increased scrutiny of the extra powers that would be awarded to the police.
This bill infringes on our civil liberties and both our Human and common Law rights. The greatest changes made in British social history have come about through protest, from the Magana carter to the Poll tax riots and all in between from the Chartist to suffrage the very reasons we have the right to vote comes from protest. We are never given rights we have always had to fight for the right.
Many on the right have suggested its a just law, no one wants to be stopped by protesters while they go about their normal business these same right-wingers that felt it ok to stop motorways from movement and held the government to ransomed until they got their demands of a fuel price/tax dropped people with short memories are often guilty of hypocrisy
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”- John F. Kennedy
There is an inevitable truth in the words of JFK, its not a justification of violence but it is a warning of more protest and a rejection of a system that has overstretched in its intrusions onto peoples liberties and lives.
This is not a Left or Right issue, this is an issue that affects all people of all persuasions. Thomas Paine once said: “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression.” in that light it’s understood ensuring our liberties are not taken from us or restricted in any way is ‘common cause’.
The British people are many things and have many layers of complexities but the one thing that binds us all is our freedoms, those hard fought battles from the Magna Carta of 1215 to the Human Rights Act 1998, were not given they were won.
Freedom of speech and the right to protest peacefully are protected by the law both the common law and the Human Rights Act 1998 cover these fundamental rights.
Common law stipulates our rights: personal security, personal liberty and private property, and auxiliary rights necessary to secure them, such as access to justice. Rights to a fair trial, right to open justice and to freedom of speech are recognised both in the common law and in the Convention of Human rights.
The British people will and must guard their freedoms fiercely, lest they be taken away.
“We cannot allow these powers to pass We’re urging all those who are concerned about what is happening to basic civil liberties in this country to come together to stand up for our democratic values.”
Under the plans, police chiefs will be able to impose a start and finish time on demonstrations, set noise limits and apply the rules to just one person.
This means an individual holding a placard with a megaphone could be fined up to £2,500 if they refuse police direction.
Additionally, criminal damage to statues and memorials, like those witnessed during the Black Lives Matter protests last year, would be punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
KNOW YOUR RIGHTS
If you are attending a protest, please stay safe. You can find region-specific bustcards from @GBCLegal here: LINK
We have created an interactive map of all the #KillTheBill protests happening this Friday to Sunday, across the UK. We are at 36 and counting! Link: https://t.co/gmrqn1mZuR
— Collective Action LDN (@collectiveactuk) March 31, 2021
There have been a number of protests across the country in an effort to ‘Kill the Bill’, with protesters attempting to stop the bill from becoming law.
When you visit any web site, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. Control your personal Cookie Services here.
