STATE workers earn £10,000 a year more than those in the private sector, shock figures show.
And cash from tax increases supposed to be spent on schools and hospitals has instead been blown on a massive public sector jobs splurge.
Labour’s pledge to slash state posts has been a miserable failure.
A staggering 23,000 new jobs with pay totalling nearly £800million were advertised this year.
That is virtually no change from 2003, when ministers promised a cull.
The average salary is £35,000 — while the private sector average is £25,000.
Campaign group the TaxPayers’ Alliance fumed last night: “Politicians have completely forgotten that public sector workers rely on ordinary taxpayers to fund their generous salaries, pensions and working hours.”
Six million people now work in the public sector, 650,000 more than when Labour came to power in 1997 — a rise of 13 per cent.
The private sector employs 23million. Many cushy state posts have a 37-hour maximum week, up to 31 days holiday, and £1,000 loyalty bonuses after 12 months.
Experts fear the state jobs explosion could cripple the economy as future generations of taxpayers have to fund giant pension bills.
Two years ago, Chancellor Gordon Brown vowed to cut civil servants after he imposed a 1p national insurance hike to pay for world-class schools and hospitals.
But union chiefs have strong-armed wage rises. And town halls have started to hire more pen-pushers. Public sector productivity has slumped as salaries soar with no extra efficiency.
Critics say many posts advertised are pointless.
Peter Cuthbertson, whose TaxPayers’ Alliance carried out a study of ads, said: “Taxpayers’ money is being wasted on non-jobs rather than more frontline staff such as nurses or teachers.”
Job ads included a £50,000 Director of Understanding and Enjoyment in the New Forest, a £25,000 Street Scene Outreach Officer for Enfield Council and a £26,000 Compost Development Officer in Scotland.
From George Pascoe-Watson Deputy Political Editor at The Sun
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Some 4,000 NES enforcement officers to be given new powers to search and arrest
A new National Enforcement Service (NES) will be piloted for a year from April in north-west England, before being extended to other parts of the UK.
Some 4,000 NES enforcement officers will be given new powers to search and arrest the "hardcore" of people who refuse to pay court fines.
The service will also crack down on those who skip bail and fail to turn up at court, said the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA).
In January the DCA announced plans to dock pay and benefits, or clamp the cars, of those who refused to pay court fines.
Ed: How does an individual become a "hardcore" fine refuser? One fine, two fines? Why do we need another quasi-police force? What are the official-police doing about people with multi-fines? If the officials can't find them how will the quasi manage it? Still it's comforting to know that there are yet more people in uniform. Perhaps there will soon be one for ordinary people.
Some 4,000 NES enforcement officers will be given new powers to search and arrest the "hardcore" of people who refuse to pay court fines.
The service will also crack down on those who skip bail and fail to turn up at court, said the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA).
In January the DCA announced plans to dock pay and benefits, or clamp the cars, of those who refused to pay court fines.
Ed: How does an individual become a "hardcore" fine refuser? One fine, two fines? Why do we need another quasi-police force? What are the official-police doing about people with multi-fines? If the officials can't find them how will the quasi manage it? Still it's comforting to know that there are yet more people in uniform. Perhaps there will soon be one for ordinary people.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
New Labour make all offences arrestable
The police's powers of arrest will be dramatically boosted from this Sunday, it has been announced.
New laws which make all offences arrestable come into force, marking a major departure from the traditional patchwork of arrestable and non-arrestable offences in England and Wales.
At present, officers can generally arrest a member of the public if they suspect them of committing an offence which carries at least five years' imprisonment. However, the situation is made more complicated by a number of exemptions which have been introduced in recent years.
Current non-arrestable offences include impersonating a police officer, failing to stop a vehicle when ordered to do so, manufacturing or selling an offensive weapon, failing to hand over a passport to a court and unauthorised access or modification of computer material, which deals with some more minor hacking offences.
Under the new rules, officers will have to apply a "necessity test" which sets out the criteria for whether it is necessary to arrest someone.
A new code for officers says they should "consider if the necessary objectives can be met by other, less intrusive means".
It adds: "Arrest must never be used simply because it can be used. Absence of justification for exercising the powers of arrest may lead to challenges should the case proceed to court. When the power of arrest is exercised it is essential that it is exercised in a non-discriminatory and proportionate manner."
Home Office minister Hazel Blears said: "The introduction of a single rationalised power of arrest simplifies arrest powers and requires the police officer to consider the 'necessity' of the arrest.
"This means that the officer has to focus on the individual circumstances of the case and the needs of the investigation."
Originally proposed in August last year by former home secretary David Blunkett, the change is contained in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
Ed: Tony's Third Way is obviously an authoritarian police state
New laws which make all offences arrestable come into force, marking a major departure from the traditional patchwork of arrestable and non-arrestable offences in England and Wales.
At present, officers can generally arrest a member of the public if they suspect them of committing an offence which carries at least five years' imprisonment. However, the situation is made more complicated by a number of exemptions which have been introduced in recent years.
Current non-arrestable offences include impersonating a police officer, failing to stop a vehicle when ordered to do so, manufacturing or selling an offensive weapon, failing to hand over a passport to a court and unauthorised access or modification of computer material, which deals with some more minor hacking offences.
Under the new rules, officers will have to apply a "necessity test" which sets out the criteria for whether it is necessary to arrest someone.
A new code for officers says they should "consider if the necessary objectives can be met by other, less intrusive means".
It adds: "Arrest must never be used simply because it can be used. Absence of justification for exercising the powers of arrest may lead to challenges should the case proceed to court. When the power of arrest is exercised it is essential that it is exercised in a non-discriminatory and proportionate manner."
Home Office minister Hazel Blears said: "The introduction of a single rationalised power of arrest simplifies arrest powers and requires the police officer to consider the 'necessity' of the arrest.
"This means that the officer has to focus on the individual circumstances of the case and the needs of the investigation."
Originally proposed in August last year by former home secretary David Blunkett, the change is contained in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
Ed: Tony's Third Way is obviously an authoritarian police state
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Labour government censors the press
The Government has gagged the media to stop them revealing the identity of a British spy reported to have helped torture terror suspects held in Greece.
A leading Greek paper has named a man it claims is the MI6 station chief in Athens.
He and another British official are alleged to have helped the Greek authorities arrest and then interrogate 28 Pakistani-born detainees seized in connection with the July 7 London bombings.
The paper, Proto Thema, reported the men had been seized in July, held in secret and hooded.
One claimed to have had a gun forced in his mouth and another claims to have been hit "very hard" on the head.
Following the questioning, the British officers told the captives their families in Pakistan and the UK faced reprisals if they spoke of their ordeal.
Today a spokeswoman for the Foreign Office said that it would not confirm or deny the allegations.
A Government D-notice has been issued, prohibiting the UK media from naming the man.
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw previously told MPs the allegations were "complete nonsense".
Proto Thema said the suspects, who were all migrant workers, were questioned over mobile phone calls linked to the suicide bombers and another man in Pakistan wanted for questioning about the attacks. The detainees said they were convinced their interrogators were British, though they spoke fluent Greek.
A leading Greek paper has named a man it claims is the MI6 station chief in Athens.
He and another British official are alleged to have helped the Greek authorities arrest and then interrogate 28 Pakistani-born detainees seized in connection with the July 7 London bombings.
The paper, Proto Thema, reported the men had been seized in July, held in secret and hooded.
One claimed to have had a gun forced in his mouth and another claims to have been hit "very hard" on the head.
Following the questioning, the British officers told the captives their families in Pakistan and the UK faced reprisals if they spoke of their ordeal.
Today a spokeswoman for the Foreign Office said that it would not confirm or deny the allegations.
A Government D-notice has been issued, prohibiting the UK media from naming the man.
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw previously told MPs the allegations were "complete nonsense".
Proto Thema said the suspects, who were all migrant workers, were questioned over mobile phone calls linked to the suicide bombers and another man in Pakistan wanted for questioning about the attacks. The detainees said they were convinced their interrogators were British, though they spoke fluent Greek.
Saturday, December 24, 2005
New Labour exaggerate terrorist problem
A lawyer who represented one of the men acquitted in a terror trial earlier this year has accused the Government of misusing the justice system to justify passing anti-terror legislation.
Addressing a meeting organised by multi-faith group Peace and Justice in east London at Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church, Solicitor Julian Hayes recalled how those cleared in a terror trial lasting nine months earlier this year were re-arrested at the time when the latest anti-terror legislation was launched in Parliament.
“The Government introduced the legislation and then there were the arrests – they were cynically saying this is why we need the legislation,” said Mr Hayes.
The lawyer led a discussion following a screening of the Panorama programme Blair versus Blair which examined the case which became known as the ricin trial, though no ricin was found and the men were acquitted.
Mr Hayes told how after the trial the Government and prosecution claimed there was intelligence evidence that they were unable to bring forward. However, he revealed that the defence had attempted to get much of this evidence into open court earlier in the case but were blocked by the prosecution itself.
Mr Hayes described this ploy adopted by the prosecution “as at best disingenuous and at worst dishonest.” Mr Hayes described the way in which the terrorist threat has been hyped up as ridiculous.
“It is not as though the threat of terrorism is not something that this country has dealt with before without resorting to such draconian legislation,” said Mr Hayes.
Mr Hayes paid tribute to the work of Peace and Justice in east London in supporting innocent people at the ricin and other trials. “It has become a powerful lobby group on anti-terror legislation,” said Mr Hayes.
Adrienne Burrows of Peace and Justice in east London, who attended the ricin trial, said she had had the privilege of meeting the people detained without trial. “Nothing could be further from the truth than this depiction of these individuals as preachers of hate.
The question that constantly came up at the trial was ‘where is the evidence?’ and of course there was none,” said Mr Hayes.
Addressing a meeting organised by multi-faith group Peace and Justice in east London at Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church, Solicitor Julian Hayes recalled how those cleared in a terror trial lasting nine months earlier this year were re-arrested at the time when the latest anti-terror legislation was launched in Parliament.
“The Government introduced the legislation and then there were the arrests – they were cynically saying this is why we need the legislation,” said Mr Hayes.
The lawyer led a discussion following a screening of the Panorama programme Blair versus Blair which examined the case which became known as the ricin trial, though no ricin was found and the men were acquitted.
Mr Hayes told how after the trial the Government and prosecution claimed there was intelligence evidence that they were unable to bring forward. However, he revealed that the defence had attempted to get much of this evidence into open court earlier in the case but were blocked by the prosecution itself.
Mr Hayes described this ploy adopted by the prosecution “as at best disingenuous and at worst dishonest.” Mr Hayes described the way in which the terrorist threat has been hyped up as ridiculous.
“It is not as though the threat of terrorism is not something that this country has dealt with before without resorting to such draconian legislation,” said Mr Hayes.
Mr Hayes paid tribute to the work of Peace and Justice in east London in supporting innocent people at the ricin and other trials. “It has become a powerful lobby group on anti-terror legislation,” said Mr Hayes.
Adrienne Burrows of Peace and Justice in east London, who attended the ricin trial, said she had had the privilege of meeting the people detained without trial. “Nothing could be further from the truth than this depiction of these individuals as preachers of hate.
The question that constantly came up at the trial was ‘where is the evidence?’ and of course there was none,” said Mr Hayes.
Friday, December 23, 2005
Police rebel against Blair government plans
All police authorities in England and Wales rebelled against Home Secretary Charles Clarke and refused to submit full plans for controversial police force mergers.
Association of Police Authorities chairman Bob Jones accused Mr Clarke of seeking to "divide and rule" leaders of the 43 forces.
No police authority had submitted a full business case in time for today's Home Office deadline, despite Mr Clarke's offer of financial incentives to agree on creating as few as 12 "strategic forces", he said.
Mr Jones said: "Police authorities have unanimously rejected the Home Secretary's plans to force these proposals through with indecent haste, and we believe there are also credible alternative options which should be considered very seriously.
"No police authorities have submitted full business cases to the Home Office.
"Charles Clarke's offer of financial inducements to police authorities that agree before Christmas to voluntary mergers was an attempt to divide and rule and it discriminated against those police authorities who believe this complex matter should not be rushed."
He added: "We are keen for further talks with the Home Secretary, aimed at ensuring financial support is available to all police authorities able to show their preferred option will enhance policing.
"We are also urgently seeking to establish that the costs of restructuring will not fall on council taxpayers."
The APA launched a major rebellion over the plans last week, accusing Mr Clarke of trying to "bribe" forces into submission.
The organisation estimated mergers would cost £600 million to enforce.
Association of Police Authorities chairman Bob Jones accused Mr Clarke of seeking to "divide and rule" leaders of the 43 forces.
No police authority had submitted a full business case in time for today's Home Office deadline, despite Mr Clarke's offer of financial incentives to agree on creating as few as 12 "strategic forces", he said.
Mr Jones said: "Police authorities have unanimously rejected the Home Secretary's plans to force these proposals through with indecent haste, and we believe there are also credible alternative options which should be considered very seriously.
"No police authorities have submitted full business cases to the Home Office.
"Charles Clarke's offer of financial inducements to police authorities that agree before Christmas to voluntary mergers was an attempt to divide and rule and it discriminated against those police authorities who believe this complex matter should not be rushed."
He added: "We are keen for further talks with the Home Secretary, aimed at ensuring financial support is available to all police authorities able to show their preferred option will enhance policing.
"We are also urgently seeking to establish that the costs of restructuring will not fall on council taxpayers."
The APA launched a major rebellion over the plans last week, accusing Mr Clarke of trying to "bribe" forces into submission.
The organisation estimated mergers would cost £600 million to enforce.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Record UK current account deficit of £10.2bn
The third quarter of 2005 saw the UK's current account deficit soar to a record high of £10.2bn ($17.7bn).
The Office for National Statistics(ONS) said the deficit is the biggest since records began in 1955.
The main reasons for the deterioration were the Katrina-related insurance claims and increased oil imports.
The deficit is equivalent to 3.4% of the UK's GDP, the highest level since the fourth quarter of 2004.
The insurance costs related to Katrina helped reduce the UK's usual surplus in services trade by £2.1bn compared to the second quarter of 2005.
Foreign-owned firms also removed huge profits, made on the back of soaring oil prices, from the UK during the third quarter.
News of the record deficit helped push the pound to a two-week low against the dollar in the currency markets.
Analysts expect the deficit to narrow sharply early next year because oil prices have retreated and the insurance losses from Hurricane Katrina are one-offs.
But the figures were still worrying, according to Philip Shaw, an economist at Investec.
"The current account deficit was very disappointing, we'd known about the insurance payouts on the back of Hurricane Katrina, but what we hadn't factored in was the greater outflow due to overseas earnings from the UK."
The ONS also said its estimated GDP growth rate for the UK economy in the third quarter of 2005 would be left unchanged at 0.4%
The Office for National Statistics(ONS) said the deficit is the biggest since records began in 1955.
The main reasons for the deterioration were the Katrina-related insurance claims and increased oil imports.
The deficit is equivalent to 3.4% of the UK's GDP, the highest level since the fourth quarter of 2004.
The insurance costs related to Katrina helped reduce the UK's usual surplus in services trade by £2.1bn compared to the second quarter of 2005.
Foreign-owned firms also removed huge profits, made on the back of soaring oil prices, from the UK during the third quarter.
News of the record deficit helped push the pound to a two-week low against the dollar in the currency markets.
Analysts expect the deficit to narrow sharply early next year because oil prices have retreated and the insurance losses from Hurricane Katrina are one-offs.
But the figures were still worrying, according to Philip Shaw, an economist at Investec.
"The current account deficit was very disappointing, we'd known about the insurance payouts on the back of Hurricane Katrina, but what we hadn't factored in was the greater outflow due to overseas earnings from the UK."
The ONS also said its estimated GDP growth rate for the UK economy in the third quarter of 2005 would be left unchanged at 0.4%
Friday, December 16, 2005
Violent career criminal, who stabbed to death family man, allowed out against advice
Following his conviction for stabbing banker John Monckton to death, questions have been asked about the early release from prison and subsequent supervision of Damien Hanson. A public inquiry is expected to be ordered next week.
Hanson, 24, of no fixed address, was released three months before he murdered Mr Monckton. He was seven years into a 12-year jail sentence for shooting a youth three times after he had stolen a Rolex watch from his victim.
Hanson - as someone sentenced to four or more years in jail - was entitled to apply for release on parole - or licence - once half of his sentence had been served.
The Parole Board is required to balance the risk of further offences being committed... against any benefits to the public and the offender of a longer period of resettlement in the community
The Parole Board for England and Wales said the safety of the public was "the overriding issue" in deciding whether prisoners could be released on parole at this stage.
"When handling applications for parole release, the Parole Board is required to balance the risk of further offences being committed during the parole period, against any benefits to the public and the offender of a longer period of resettlement in the community," it said in a statement.
Decisions are based on the offender's background and their crimes, what led them to commit their crimes, their progress in prison and reports from agencies that had regular contact with them during their sentence.
In the case of Hanson, his first application to be released on parole - six years into his 12 year sentence - was refused.
Under parole rules, Hanson was entitled to a review after a year.
At the second attempt, he was granted parole and was released on 27 August 2004 - three months before he murdered Mr Monckton.
It emerged on Friday that Hanson had been let out of jail on licence despite an official assessment calculating that his chances of committing another violent offence were 91%.
Anything above 75% is considered high risk.
It has also emerged that, on his release, he was dealt with solely by the Probation Service rather than with the multi-agency approach usually used to monitor the most dangerous offenders.
This was despite the fact that he has spent most of his life since the age of 14 in prison for a string of convictions including burglary, unlawful wounding, attempted burglary and attempted murder.
Hanson was late for a curfew on the day of Mr Monckton's murder
The Parole Board said on Friday it had already reviewed the case of Hanson.
It would work closely with the police and probation service "to ensure that processes are strengthened", it said in the statement.
"We wish to hold an inter-agency case review here to ascertain what further lessons can be learned and whether there should be more research into the causes of re-offending on licence," the statement added.
On the day of his release Hanson moved into a bail hostel in Streatham, south London, as one of the conditions of his parole - or licence.
Those conditions vary from case to case.
They can include receiving psychiatric or medical treatment, not to undertake particular kinds of work and not to communicate with named people.
Prosecutors in the Monckton murder case revealed in court that Hanson's conditions included that he must be at his bail hostel between 11pm and 6am.
The court heard that, on the day of Mr Monckton's murder and after he had changed his clothes and gone for a meal, Hanson had arrived at his hostel a few minutes late for his 11pm curfew.
Another condition was that he must not enter the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham - the scene of a number of crimes he had committed in the past.
Breaking a condition would have meant his parole would have been revoked and he would have been returned to jail.
Inquiry call
Martin Wargent, of the Probation Boards Association said there should have been "very tight checks" on Hanson by the Probation Service.
"He would be supervised by a probation officer, he would be seen very regularly, there would be visits at home, and in some cases where the risk is assessed as very high, there would be police surveillance as well," he told BBC News.
If things work well then there are very tight checks on how people are behaving and what people are doing but no system is foolproof
Probation Boards Association
But he called for an "immediate inquiry" into how Hanson had been allowed to commit such a brutal crime while under supervision.
"If things work well then there are very tight checks on how people are behaving and what people are doing but no system is foolproof.
"This is a very sad reflection of that."
The Home Office said it could not comment until the case of Hanson's co-defendant Elliot White is concluded.
It is expected to order a public inquiry after Hanson and White are sentenced.
Hanson, 24, of no fixed address, was released three months before he murdered Mr Monckton. He was seven years into a 12-year jail sentence for shooting a youth three times after he had stolen a Rolex watch from his victim.
Hanson - as someone sentenced to four or more years in jail - was entitled to apply for release on parole - or licence - once half of his sentence had been served.
The Parole Board is required to balance the risk of further offences being committed... against any benefits to the public and the offender of a longer period of resettlement in the community
The Parole Board for England and Wales said the safety of the public was "the overriding issue" in deciding whether prisoners could be released on parole at this stage.
"When handling applications for parole release, the Parole Board is required to balance the risk of further offences being committed during the parole period, against any benefits to the public and the offender of a longer period of resettlement in the community," it said in a statement.
Decisions are based on the offender's background and their crimes, what led them to commit their crimes, their progress in prison and reports from agencies that had regular contact with them during their sentence.
In the case of Hanson, his first application to be released on parole - six years into his 12 year sentence - was refused.
Under parole rules, Hanson was entitled to a review after a year.
At the second attempt, he was granted parole and was released on 27 August 2004 - three months before he murdered Mr Monckton.
It emerged on Friday that Hanson had been let out of jail on licence despite an official assessment calculating that his chances of committing another violent offence were 91%.
Anything above 75% is considered high risk.
It has also emerged that, on his release, he was dealt with solely by the Probation Service rather than with the multi-agency approach usually used to monitor the most dangerous offenders.
This was despite the fact that he has spent most of his life since the age of 14 in prison for a string of convictions including burglary, unlawful wounding, attempted burglary and attempted murder.
Hanson was late for a curfew on the day of Mr Monckton's murder
The Parole Board said on Friday it had already reviewed the case of Hanson.
It would work closely with the police and probation service "to ensure that processes are strengthened", it said in the statement.
"We wish to hold an inter-agency case review here to ascertain what further lessons can be learned and whether there should be more research into the causes of re-offending on licence," the statement added.
On the day of his release Hanson moved into a bail hostel in Streatham, south London, as one of the conditions of his parole - or licence.
Those conditions vary from case to case.
They can include receiving psychiatric or medical treatment, not to undertake particular kinds of work and not to communicate with named people.
Prosecutors in the Monckton murder case revealed in court that Hanson's conditions included that he must be at his bail hostel between 11pm and 6am.
The court heard that, on the day of Mr Monckton's murder and after he had changed his clothes and gone for a meal, Hanson had arrived at his hostel a few minutes late for his 11pm curfew.
Another condition was that he must not enter the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham - the scene of a number of crimes he had committed in the past.
Breaking a condition would have meant his parole would have been revoked and he would have been returned to jail.
Inquiry call
Martin Wargent, of the Probation Boards Association said there should have been "very tight checks" on Hanson by the Probation Service.
"He would be supervised by a probation officer, he would be seen very regularly, there would be visits at home, and in some cases where the risk is assessed as very high, there would be police surveillance as well," he told BBC News.
If things work well then there are very tight checks on how people are behaving and what people are doing but no system is foolproof
Probation Boards Association
But he called for an "immediate inquiry" into how Hanson had been allowed to commit such a brutal crime while under supervision.
"If things work well then there are very tight checks on how people are behaving and what people are doing but no system is foolproof.
"This is a very sad reflection of that."
The Home Office said it could not comment until the case of Hanson's co-defendant Elliot White is concluded.
It is expected to order a public inquiry after Hanson and White are sentenced.
What is going on in Northern Ireland?
A veteran Sinn Fein figure expelled from the party has said he was a British agent for two decades.
Denis Donaldson headed the party's administration office at Stormont before his October 2002 arrest over an alleged spy ring led to its collapse.
Mr Donaldson said he was recruited in the 1980s as a paid agent and deeply regretted his activities.
Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams claimed he was about to be "outed" by the same "securocrats" who set him up as a spy.
Northern Ireland's power-sharing executive collapsed in October 2002 following the arrests of three men, who had all charges against them dropped "in the public interest" last week.
The government said on Friday that the Stormont raid more than three years ago was solely to prevent paramilitary intelligence gathering.
The Northern Ireland Office said it "completely rejected any allegation that the police operation in October 2002 was for any reason other than to prevent paramilitary intelligence gathering".
It said "the fact remains that a huge number of stolen documents were recovered by the police".
In a statement on Friday, Mr Donaldson said: "I was a British agent at the time. I was recruited in the 1980s after compromising myself during a vulnerable time in my life.
"Since then I have worked for British intelligence and the RUC/PSNI Special Branch. Over that period, I was paid money."
Mr Donaldson said the "so-called Stormontgate affair" was "a scam and a fiction invented by (police) Special Branch".
At a news conference on Friday, Mr Adams claimed Mr Donaldson had been approached by police officers earlier this week and told he was about to be "outed" as an informer.
He said Mr Donaldson was not under any threat from the republican movement.
Police sources earlier reiterated that the "Stormontgate" affair began because a paramilitary organisation was involved in the systematic gathering of information and targeting or individuals.
Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern said if "one of Sinn Fein's top administrators in Stormont turns out to be a British spy, this is as bizarre as it gets".
The BBC understands that the mole whose information prompted the Stormont raids was not Mr Donaldson, nor was it the other two men against whom the charges were dropped.
DUP leader Ian Paisley said there "must be no attempt at further cover-up".
"The democratic right of the people to be informed must be honoured," he added.
Last week, the Director of Public Prosecutions would not be drawn on why the charges were dropped, only saying that it was "in the public interest".
Other parties have demanded that Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain or Attorney General Lord Goldsmith must clarify what were these public interest reasons.
The three men were arrested following a police raid on Sinn Fein's offices at Parliament Buildings on 4 October 2002, when documents and computer discs were seized.
Following the arrests, Ian Paisley's Democratic Unionists and the Ulster Unionists, led at that time by then First Minister David Trimble, threatened to collapse the executive with resignations.
The British government then suspended devolution in the province, embarking on direct rule for the last three years.
Ed: And I thought Tony and his gang were mates of the Sinn Fein. Some friend.
Denis Donaldson headed the party's administration office at Stormont before his October 2002 arrest over an alleged spy ring led to its collapse.
Mr Donaldson said he was recruited in the 1980s as a paid agent and deeply regretted his activities.
Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams claimed he was about to be "outed" by the same "securocrats" who set him up as a spy.
Northern Ireland's power-sharing executive collapsed in October 2002 following the arrests of three men, who had all charges against them dropped "in the public interest" last week.
The government said on Friday that the Stormont raid more than three years ago was solely to prevent paramilitary intelligence gathering.
The Northern Ireland Office said it "completely rejected any allegation that the police operation in October 2002 was for any reason other than to prevent paramilitary intelligence gathering".
It said "the fact remains that a huge number of stolen documents were recovered by the police".
In a statement on Friday, Mr Donaldson said: "I was a British agent at the time. I was recruited in the 1980s after compromising myself during a vulnerable time in my life.
"Since then I have worked for British intelligence and the RUC/PSNI Special Branch. Over that period, I was paid money."
Mr Donaldson said the "so-called Stormontgate affair" was "a scam and a fiction invented by (police) Special Branch".
At a news conference on Friday, Mr Adams claimed Mr Donaldson had been approached by police officers earlier this week and told he was about to be "outed" as an informer.
He said Mr Donaldson was not under any threat from the republican movement.
Police sources earlier reiterated that the "Stormontgate" affair began because a paramilitary organisation was involved in the systematic gathering of information and targeting or individuals.
Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern said if "one of Sinn Fein's top administrators in Stormont turns out to be a British spy, this is as bizarre as it gets".
The BBC understands that the mole whose information prompted the Stormont raids was not Mr Donaldson, nor was it the other two men against whom the charges were dropped.
DUP leader Ian Paisley said there "must be no attempt at further cover-up".
"The democratic right of the people to be informed must be honoured," he added.
Last week, the Director of Public Prosecutions would not be drawn on why the charges were dropped, only saying that it was "in the public interest".
Other parties have demanded that Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain or Attorney General Lord Goldsmith must clarify what were these public interest reasons.
The three men were arrested following a police raid on Sinn Fein's offices at Parliament Buildings on 4 October 2002, when documents and computer discs were seized.
Following the arrests, Ian Paisley's Democratic Unionists and the Ulster Unionists, led at that time by then First Minister David Trimble, threatened to collapse the executive with resignations.
The British government then suspended devolution in the province, embarking on direct rule for the last three years.
Ed: And I thought Tony and his gang were mates of the Sinn Fein. Some friend.
Violent crime arrests leap 20%- Bad news released on a Fridy
The number of people arrested for violence against the person leapt by a fifth last year, new Home Office figures show.
A total of 395,800 people were detained by police for assaults and other serious violent crime in 2004/5, compared with 332,100 the previous year.
Five years earlier, arrests for violence came to 255,500, meaning the number held has jumped by 55% since 1999/2000.
In all, 1.35 million people were arrested in England and Wales in 2004-05, up 2% year-on-year.
Across all types of violent crime - including sexual offences and robbery - there was a 16% increase to 460,000 arrests.
The figures also revealed a significant leap in the number of stop and searches carried out by police.
This was thought to be as a result of the heightened security threat, even though the latest figures did not cover the period after the July 7 terror bombings.
Stop and search was used on 851,200 individuals and vehicles in the year, up 14%.
Of the 42 police forces, 31 used the controversial tactic more often.
The number of people stopped for "other" reasons - which includes on suspicion of terrorism - rose 32% in 2004-05 to 58,700. The proportion arrested as a result of a stop and search fell 2% to 11%, indicating that police officers were using the tactic less appropriately.
Ed: Tony up to tricks again. Figures showing his abject failure to deal with serious crime just happen to get released on the Friday afternoon before Christmas Week. The man is a disgrace
A total of 395,800 people were detained by police for assaults and other serious violent crime in 2004/5, compared with 332,100 the previous year.
Five years earlier, arrests for violence came to 255,500, meaning the number held has jumped by 55% since 1999/2000.
In all, 1.35 million people were arrested in England and Wales in 2004-05, up 2% year-on-year.
Across all types of violent crime - including sexual offences and robbery - there was a 16% increase to 460,000 arrests.
The figures also revealed a significant leap in the number of stop and searches carried out by police.
This was thought to be as a result of the heightened security threat, even though the latest figures did not cover the period after the July 7 terror bombings.
Stop and search was used on 851,200 individuals and vehicles in the year, up 14%.
Of the 42 police forces, 31 used the controversial tactic more often.
The number of people stopped for "other" reasons - which includes on suspicion of terrorism - rose 32% in 2004-05 to 58,700. The proportion arrested as a result of a stop and search fell 2% to 11%, indicating that police officers were using the tactic less appropriately.
Ed: Tony up to tricks again. Figures showing his abject failure to deal with serious crime just happen to get released on the Friday afternoon before Christmas Week. The man is a disgrace
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Unemployment figure rises by 72,000
The number of people claiming unemployment-related benefit has increased for the tenth month in a row, figures show.
The so-called claimant count rose by 10,500 to 902,000 last month, an increase of 70,100 over the year and taking it to its highest level since December 2003.
Total unemployment, including people not eligible for benefit, rose by 72,000 over the quarter to October to 1.49 million. This left the unemployment rate at 4.9%, compared with 4.7% previously.
However, the number of people in work rose by 58,000 over the quarter to 28.81 million.
The number of people classed as economically inactive, including those on early retirement, students, or those with caring responsibilities, fell by 22,000 to 7.9 million.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) also showed that average earnings, including bonuses, lifted 3.6% during the year to October, down by 0.5 percentage points on the September rate.
This was mainly due to substantial one-off bonuses in October 2004 from a small number of companies in the financial sector, which were not repeated this year.
Wage growth in the public sector was 4.1%, including bonuses, down 0.1 percentage point, while the private sector saw wages grow by 3.5% - down 0.6 percentage points.
Manufacturing job losses continued, with employment in the sector falling to 3.1 million in the three months to October, down 115,000 on the same period last year and the lowest level since comparable records began in 1978.
The so-called claimant count rose by 10,500 to 902,000 last month, an increase of 70,100 over the year and taking it to its highest level since December 2003.
Total unemployment, including people not eligible for benefit, rose by 72,000 over the quarter to October to 1.49 million. This left the unemployment rate at 4.9%, compared with 4.7% previously.
However, the number of people in work rose by 58,000 over the quarter to 28.81 million.
The number of people classed as economically inactive, including those on early retirement, students, or those with caring responsibilities, fell by 22,000 to 7.9 million.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) also showed that average earnings, including bonuses, lifted 3.6% during the year to October, down by 0.5 percentage points on the September rate.
This was mainly due to substantial one-off bonuses in October 2004 from a small number of companies in the financial sector, which were not repeated this year.
Wage growth in the public sector was 4.1%, including bonuses, down 0.1 percentage point, while the private sector saw wages grow by 3.5% - down 0.6 percentage points.
Manufacturing job losses continued, with employment in the sector falling to 3.1 million in the three months to October, down 115,000 on the same period last year and the lowest level since comparable records began in 1978.
New Labour ex-minister fined for being drunk
Ex-minister Stephen Twigg has been given a £50 fixed penalty notice after being arrested for being drunk.
Mr Twigg was arrested at 1915 GMT on Monday in central London for being drunk and incapable in a public place and taken to Marylebone police station.
He was given a fixed penalty notice and released just before 2330 GMT.
The former schools minister, who lost his seat in May, and was best known for toppling Michael Portillo at the 1997 election, said he "felt like an idiot".
A spokeswoman for Scotland Yard said: "At 7.19pm a 38-year-old was arrested in Orchard Street, W1, for being drunk and incapable in a public place.
"He was taken to Marylebone Police Station. He was issued with a fixed penalty notice for being drunk in a public place."
Mr Twigg said he had been at an office Christmas party where "rather a lot of wine was consumed".
"I had had a lot to drink and I think it [the police action] was sensible. I have no complaints whatsoever. I take full responsibility for my actions," he said.
"I think I will be a lot more careful in the future. I feel like an idiot today. I very much regret it."
Mr Twigg said police officers had taken him to the station after seeing him "stumble" on his way home.
After his surprise victory over Mr Portillo in 1997, which came to be seen as a symbol of Tony Blair's landslide victory, Mr Twigg rose through the ranks to be schools minister.
But earlier this year, he narrowly lost his Enfield South seat to Conservative candidate David Burrowes.
He has been working as the chairman of Blairite think tank Progress and is director of the Foreign Policy Centre.
Mr Twigg was arrested at 1915 GMT on Monday in central London for being drunk and incapable in a public place and taken to Marylebone police station.
He was given a fixed penalty notice and released just before 2330 GMT.
The former schools minister, who lost his seat in May, and was best known for toppling Michael Portillo at the 1997 election, said he "felt like an idiot".
A spokeswoman for Scotland Yard said: "At 7.19pm a 38-year-old was arrested in Orchard Street, W1, for being drunk and incapable in a public place.
"He was taken to Marylebone Police Station. He was issued with a fixed penalty notice for being drunk in a public place."
Mr Twigg said he had been at an office Christmas party where "rather a lot of wine was consumed".
"I had had a lot to drink and I think it [the police action] was sensible. I have no complaints whatsoever. I take full responsibility for my actions," he said.
"I think I will be a lot more careful in the future. I feel like an idiot today. I very much regret it."
Mr Twigg said police officers had taken him to the station after seeing him "stumble" on his way home.
After his surprise victory over Mr Portillo in 1997, which came to be seen as a symbol of Tony Blair's landslide victory, Mr Twigg rose through the ranks to be schools minister.
But earlier this year, he narrowly lost his Enfield South seat to Conservative candidate David Burrowes.
He has been working as the chairman of Blairite think tank Progress and is director of the Foreign Policy Centre.
No inquiry into 7 July bombings evokes thoughts of coverup
There will be no public inquiry into the 7 July London bombings which killed 52 people, the Home Office has said.
Ministers will instead publish a definitive account of what happened in a written narrative.
The account will include material gathered from intelligence and security agencies and the police.
But some Muslim groups and victims' relatives have expressed anger, saying a wider public inquiry is essential for understanding what happened.
The attacks by four suicide bombers on three Tube trains and a bus on 7 July killed 52 people and injured hundreds.
After the bombings there were calls for a public inquiry and, in September, Home Secretary Charles Clarke said one had not been ruled out.
But ministers have decided it would divert attention and resources away from pressing security and community issues, and take too long.
The government has acknowledged, however, that the public requires a complete picture about the events, and details about the four men who carried out the attacks.
The remit of the inquests into their deaths does not extend that far and the information will not emerge at a criminal trial - because there will not be one as the bombers also died in the attacks.
Instead, a senior civil servant will compile a narrative, drawing together intelligence and police material.
It will be signed off by the home secretary.
BBC Home affairs correspondent Margaret Gilmore said: "I understand the home secretary sent a letter earlier this week to Tony Blair outlining his plans, which have backing from Downing Street, police and the intelligence agencies."
Leading Muslims who have been lobbying for an inquiry say such a straight narrative would not be enough.
"There has to be a fully comprehensive public inquiry that will provide us the information we need as to what actually happened on the day, how it happened and why it happened so that we will be better prepared to prevent such tragedy happening again," Sir Iqbal Sacranie, of the Muslim Council of Britain, told the BBC.
Lawyer for some of the victims Colin Ettinger told the BBC he would like to see a more wide-ranging enquiry to ensure other sources of evidence come to light, and for interested parties to be able to question that evidence.
And Saba Mozakka, whose mother Behnaz died in the Piccadilly Line bomb blast near King's Cross, said it was "unacceptable" not to hold a public inquiry.
"The families will be campaigning for there to be a full public inquiry," she said.
"A narrative of events will not satisfy anybody. This is not something we will go away on."
Opposition MPs want to know if key intelligence questions on the bombings will be fully answered.
They want to find out why there was no intelligence of the planned attack, whether officers should have followed up an earlier sighting of the alleged ringleader, and why the UK threat level was reduced.
Shadow homeland affairs minister Patrick Mercer said: "I don't think a straight narrative is exactly what we want.
"We need to know what the links were with the various different individuals, whether they had links abroad. And why the government reduced the level of warning a mere five weeks before the attack."
It is expected that the document will be submitted for publication to two Parliamentary committees which are conducting their own inquiries.
(from the BBC)
Ed: A shadow was placed ove an entire community and Tony Blair does not think an open inquiry will help them. What is the man thinking?
Ministers will instead publish a definitive account of what happened in a written narrative.
The account will include material gathered from intelligence and security agencies and the police.
But some Muslim groups and victims' relatives have expressed anger, saying a wider public inquiry is essential for understanding what happened.
The attacks by four suicide bombers on three Tube trains and a bus on 7 July killed 52 people and injured hundreds.
After the bombings there were calls for a public inquiry and, in September, Home Secretary Charles Clarke said one had not been ruled out.
But ministers have decided it would divert attention and resources away from pressing security and community issues, and take too long.
The government has acknowledged, however, that the public requires a complete picture about the events, and details about the four men who carried out the attacks.
The remit of the inquests into their deaths does not extend that far and the information will not emerge at a criminal trial - because there will not be one as the bombers also died in the attacks.
Instead, a senior civil servant will compile a narrative, drawing together intelligence and police material.
It will be signed off by the home secretary.
BBC Home affairs correspondent Margaret Gilmore said: "I understand the home secretary sent a letter earlier this week to Tony Blair outlining his plans, which have backing from Downing Street, police and the intelligence agencies."
Leading Muslims who have been lobbying for an inquiry say such a straight narrative would not be enough.
"There has to be a fully comprehensive public inquiry that will provide us the information we need as to what actually happened on the day, how it happened and why it happened so that we will be better prepared to prevent such tragedy happening again," Sir Iqbal Sacranie, of the Muslim Council of Britain, told the BBC.
Lawyer for some of the victims Colin Ettinger told the BBC he would like to see a more wide-ranging enquiry to ensure other sources of evidence come to light, and for interested parties to be able to question that evidence.
And Saba Mozakka, whose mother Behnaz died in the Piccadilly Line bomb blast near King's Cross, said it was "unacceptable" not to hold a public inquiry.
"The families will be campaigning for there to be a full public inquiry," she said.
"A narrative of events will not satisfy anybody. This is not something we will go away on."
Opposition MPs want to know if key intelligence questions on the bombings will be fully answered.
They want to find out why there was no intelligence of the planned attack, whether officers should have followed up an earlier sighting of the alleged ringleader, and why the UK threat level was reduced.
Shadow homeland affairs minister Patrick Mercer said: "I don't think a straight narrative is exactly what we want.
"We need to know what the links were with the various different individuals, whether they had links abroad. And why the government reduced the level of warning a mere five weeks before the attack."
It is expected that the document will be submitted for publication to two Parliamentary committees which are conducting their own inquiries.
(from the BBC)
Ed: A shadow was placed ove an entire community and Tony Blair does not think an open inquiry will help them. What is the man thinking?
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Teachers at four schools on strike
Teachers at four schools in England will strike over changes to their pay, the National Union of Teachers (NUT) announced today, in what it says could be the start of widespread industrial action.
The schools in Calderdale, Greenwich, Newham and Doncaster are protesting about the change in payments for management responsibilities, which will become known as teaching and learning responsibility (TLR) payments as part of a review to be completed at the end of this month.
Every teacher with existing management responsibilities, including some pastoral roles, will have their workload reassessed and be awarded new TLR payments, but the NUT says these are smaller and some members could lose over £10,000 each as a result.
The payment review is happening in 18,000 schools in England. One hundred and eighty two indicative ballots to test the opinion of the workforce have so far taken place, with 16 formal ballots to follow the four schools which have already agreed action.
Steve Sinnott, the NUT's general secretary, said: "The NUT does not take industrial action lightly. The last widespread action was in the mid-1980s. But the union is determined to protect its members.
"The union is determined to act where members are threatened with pay loss. The first strikes this week could be followed by more next term if the disputes with individual schools remain unresolved. The union wants to settle these disputes and has emphasized to the schools concerned that we are ready to re-start negotiations to find settlements."
A spokesman for the Department for Education and Skills, said: "Strikes achieve only one thing - disruption to children's learning.
"The new payments allow heads and governors the flexibility they need to structure their schools as they see fit - to make best use of teachers' expertise - and reward those taking on significant additional responsibilities, in an open and fair way. They replace the outdated and often misused management allowances and are designed to reinforce the important progress made in focusing teachers on teaching and learning."
The four schools in which strike action will take place are: Hipperholme and Lighcliffe high school, Calderdale (December 12); Plumstead Manor secondary school, Greenwich (December 15); Shaftesbury primary school, Newham (December 15) and Northcliffe secondary school, Doncaster (December 15).
from Polly Curtis, education correspondent at The Guardian
The schools in Calderdale, Greenwich, Newham and Doncaster are protesting about the change in payments for management responsibilities, which will become known as teaching and learning responsibility (TLR) payments as part of a review to be completed at the end of this month.
Every teacher with existing management responsibilities, including some pastoral roles, will have their workload reassessed and be awarded new TLR payments, but the NUT says these are smaller and some members could lose over £10,000 each as a result.
The payment review is happening in 18,000 schools in England. One hundred and eighty two indicative ballots to test the opinion of the workforce have so far taken place, with 16 formal ballots to follow the four schools which have already agreed action.
Steve Sinnott, the NUT's general secretary, said: "The NUT does not take industrial action lightly. The last widespread action was in the mid-1980s. But the union is determined to protect its members.
"The union is determined to act where members are threatened with pay loss. The first strikes this week could be followed by more next term if the disputes with individual schools remain unresolved. The union wants to settle these disputes and has emphasized to the schools concerned that we are ready to re-start negotiations to find settlements."
A spokesman for the Department for Education and Skills, said: "Strikes achieve only one thing - disruption to children's learning.
"The new payments allow heads and governors the flexibility they need to structure their schools as they see fit - to make best use of teachers' expertise - and reward those taking on significant additional responsibilities, in an open and fair way. They replace the outdated and often misused management allowances and are designed to reinforce the important progress made in focusing teachers on teaching and learning."
The four schools in which strike action will take place are: Hipperholme and Lighcliffe high school, Calderdale (December 12); Plumstead Manor secondary school, Greenwich (December 15); Shaftesbury primary school, Newham (December 15) and Northcliffe secondary school, Doncaster (December 15).
from Polly Curtis, education correspondent at The Guardian
Monday, December 12, 2005
Blairs NHS faces 7bn deficit by 2010
The NHS faces a deficit of nearly £7 billion by 2010 unless a "productivity miracle" is achieved.
Think-tank Reform warned that cost pressures such as extra staffing, large building programmes and more expensive drugs would produce a funding gap.
Researchers said that an extra £18.2 billion of funding would be needed, but only £11.4 billion was available - a shortfall of £6.8 billion.
Report author Professor Nick Bosanquet, of Imperial College London, concluded: "The NHS has two options; either radical reform to improve productivity or local rationing, rising waiting lists and failing staff morale."
Among the reforms recommended were greater private sector involvement in health care and better financial management.
Hospitals should also be given greater autonomy so patients could have more choice.
The think-tank said building projects for the NHS which used private money were costing far more than planned and should be stopped if they were in the early stages.
It also called for a review of medical training with the number of trainees increasing much faster than the rate of retiring doctors. Medical unemployment was "all but inevitable in a very tight financial environment".
Last year Prof Bosanquet and Reform published a study which warned the NHS would barely be able to cover its costs by the end of the decade.
His new report, The NHS in 2010 - reform or bust, co-authored with Henry de Zoete and Emily Beuhler, of Reform, claimed the situation had worsened.
The report said the costs of existing programmes had increased and new costly programmes have been launched despite Chancellor Gordon Brown's announcement that NHS spending increases will slow after 2008.
The predicted £6.8 billion funding gap was a "minimum estimate", the researchers added.
"The Department of Health is digging a deeper hole by announcing numerous policy initiatives."
Think-tank Reform warned that cost pressures such as extra staffing, large building programmes and more expensive drugs would produce a funding gap.
Researchers said that an extra £18.2 billion of funding would be needed, but only £11.4 billion was available - a shortfall of £6.8 billion.
Report author Professor Nick Bosanquet, of Imperial College London, concluded: "The NHS has two options; either radical reform to improve productivity or local rationing, rising waiting lists and failing staff morale."
Among the reforms recommended were greater private sector involvement in health care and better financial management.
Hospitals should also be given greater autonomy so patients could have more choice.
The think-tank said building projects for the NHS which used private money were costing far more than planned and should be stopped if they were in the early stages.
It also called for a review of medical training with the number of trainees increasing much faster than the rate of retiring doctors. Medical unemployment was "all but inevitable in a very tight financial environment".
Last year Prof Bosanquet and Reform published a study which warned the NHS would barely be able to cover its costs by the end of the decade.
His new report, The NHS in 2010 - reform or bust, co-authored with Henry de Zoete and Emily Beuhler, of Reform, claimed the situation had worsened.
The report said the costs of existing programmes had increased and new costly programmes have been launched despite Chancellor Gordon Brown's announcement that NHS spending increases will slow after 2008.
The predicted £6.8 billion funding gap was a "minimum estimate", the researchers added.
"The Department of Health is digging a deeper hole by announcing numerous policy initiatives."
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Scandal of secret school exclusions
Confidential letter reveals that local education authorities are deliberately breaking the law to avoid paying for special needs children
Up to 20,000 of the most vulnerable children are being excluded from school every day. The reason? Local education authorities are trying to save money, it is claimed.
The Observer has seen a confidential letter by Ian Coates, head of the special educational needs and disability division at the Department for Education and Skills, admitting that authorities are guilty of deliberate breaches of the law.
After hearing of the letter, John Wright, of the Independent Panel For Special Educational Needs (Ipsea), said: 'It is very expensive for LEAs to provide special needs children with the support they need to take part in mainstream schooling, so they try to get out of supplying it in a variety of ways.
'When these children don't get the classroom support they need, their behaviour can become too disruptive and the children end up being sent home,' said Wright, who helped more than 3,000 parents to complain against special needs decisions by local authorities last year.
If a council considers a child to have special educational needs that cannot be met by their school, it has a legal obligation to assess that pupil and give them a Statement of Educational Need. This must define the type and frequency of help to be provided.
The Observer, however, has uncovered a number of loopholes. The most common is for the authority to produce statements that do not specify the care each child should receive from their school.
This is a tactic Coates admits in his letter is common: 'In some cases, authorities ... leave provision open to the school to determine ... without specifying the [specific] provision [necessary] to meet children's individual needs.'
Other councils introduce blanket definitions of special needs categories, such as one authority now being investigated for refusing to use the term 'dyslexic' for pupils unless their reading, writing and spelling are all five years below their chronological age.
Some are refusing to assess children at all. According to Chris Gravell, from the independent charity the Advisory Centre for Education, 36,200 children among its members were refused statements in 1998, against 26,000 in 2004.
Coates writes in the leaked letter, sent to all chief education officers and directors of children's services in England and Wales two weeks ago: 'Having a policy that assessments will not be undertaken for particular groups of children or certain types of needs, in our view constitutes a blanket policy that prevents the consideration of children's needs individually and on their merits.'
The Observer has discovered that children with statements of special educational need are nine times more likely to be excluded than those without. Pupils as young as five are regularly sent home for up to 45 days at a time.
The Commons Education and Skills Select Committee is investigating provision for children with special needs in schools, focusing on whether they should be taught in mainstream or in special schools.
But it has so far failed to address the scandal of exclusions affecting tens of thousands of children a year, a number that Ipsea says has exploded in the last five years and is continuing to increase.
Recent figures show two thirds of permanent exclusions involve children with special needs. Information gathered by Ipsea reveals that, while exclusions of pupils without special needs have fallen by 579 in the past year, exclusions of those with special needs have risen by 334, or 6 per cent.
There has been a sharp rise in parents' appeals against LEA decisions; from 30 per cent of all appeals in 1997-98 to over 40 per cent in 2002-03.
(from Amelia Hill, culture and society correspondent at The Observer)
Up to 20,000 of the most vulnerable children are being excluded from school every day. The reason? Local education authorities are trying to save money, it is claimed.
The Observer has seen a confidential letter by Ian Coates, head of the special educational needs and disability division at the Department for Education and Skills, admitting that authorities are guilty of deliberate breaches of the law.
After hearing of the letter, John Wright, of the Independent Panel For Special Educational Needs (Ipsea), said: 'It is very expensive for LEAs to provide special needs children with the support they need to take part in mainstream schooling, so they try to get out of supplying it in a variety of ways.
'When these children don't get the classroom support they need, their behaviour can become too disruptive and the children end up being sent home,' said Wright, who helped more than 3,000 parents to complain against special needs decisions by local authorities last year.
If a council considers a child to have special educational needs that cannot be met by their school, it has a legal obligation to assess that pupil and give them a Statement of Educational Need. This must define the type and frequency of help to be provided.
The Observer, however, has uncovered a number of loopholes. The most common is for the authority to produce statements that do not specify the care each child should receive from their school.
This is a tactic Coates admits in his letter is common: 'In some cases, authorities ... leave provision open to the school to determine ... without specifying the [specific] provision [necessary] to meet children's individual needs.'
Other councils introduce blanket definitions of special needs categories, such as one authority now being investigated for refusing to use the term 'dyslexic' for pupils unless their reading, writing and spelling are all five years below their chronological age.
Some are refusing to assess children at all. According to Chris Gravell, from the independent charity the Advisory Centre for Education, 36,200 children among its members were refused statements in 1998, against 26,000 in 2004.
Coates writes in the leaked letter, sent to all chief education officers and directors of children's services in England and Wales two weeks ago: 'Having a policy that assessments will not be undertaken for particular groups of children or certain types of needs, in our view constitutes a blanket policy that prevents the consideration of children's needs individually and on their merits.'
The Observer has discovered that children with statements of special educational need are nine times more likely to be excluded than those without. Pupils as young as five are regularly sent home for up to 45 days at a time.
The Commons Education and Skills Select Committee is investigating provision for children with special needs in schools, focusing on whether they should be taught in mainstream or in special schools.
But it has so far failed to address the scandal of exclusions affecting tens of thousands of children a year, a number that Ipsea says has exploded in the last five years and is continuing to increase.
Recent figures show two thirds of permanent exclusions involve children with special needs. Information gathered by Ipsea reveals that, while exclusions of pupils without special needs have fallen by 579 in the past year, exclusions of those with special needs have risen by 334, or 6 per cent.
There has been a sharp rise in parents' appeals against LEA decisions; from 30 per cent of all appeals in 1997-98 to over 40 per cent in 2002-03.
(from Amelia Hill, culture and society correspondent at The Observer)
Only 24 hours to save the NHS
The financial crisis gripping the NHS has been laid bare in an extraordinary email sent from a senior civil servant in the Department of Health, which tells officials to ignore ministers' promises on spending. It also threatens staff with disciplinary action if they disobey an order to freeze new investment.
The email - details of which have been obtained by The Observer - was sent at the end of last month from the office of Sir Liam Donaldson, the chief medical officer.
It promises to sound the death knell for a range of public health programmes set up to tackle everything from alcohol abuse and cancer screening to sexually-transmitted diseases and obesity. Health experts believe the spending freeze could even hit attempts to reduce deadly MRSA outbreaks in hospitals and affect contingency planning in the event of an outbreak of bird flu.
The email warns that any department staff failing to follow the orders will 'commit a disciplinary offence'.
Written by Sarndrah Horsfall, Donaldson's chief of staff, the email tells officials that NHS finance director Richard Douglas 'has imposed an embargo on all programme staff'. It orders an 'embargo on all new commitments' for this year and 'all future years' covering 'all programme budgets (capital and revenue)'.
The memo flies in the face of reassurances by the Health Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, and the NHS chief executive, Sir Nigel Crisp, over health funding. The government has said local hospital trusts must sort out their financial problems and that overall NHS care is improving.
Hewitt has been forced to defend staff lay-offs, mounting financial deficits in NHS hospital trusts and an official policy of delaying operations to save money. This week, she will urge hospital staff to tackle waste and inefficiency.
News of the spending freeze emerges as The Observer reveals widescale cutbacks in the NHS. These include:
· GPs not referring patients for routine surgery across Swindon in Wiltshire for the next month.
· No hernia operations for patients in Oxfordshire.
· A cut in the number of beds at Airedale hospital, near Skipton, North Yorkshire.
The mounting crisis has triggered an outbreak of buckpassing, with Downing Street said to be unhappy with the way the Department of Health has handled the problems.
But one paragraph of the leaked email will prove highly embarrassing for the government. It suggests that any public announcement by a minister promising extra funding should be disregarded. It was this that so angered an official at the department that details of its contents were passed to The Observer
The email states: 'Commitment to spend by virtue of an announcement, including ministerial announcements, is not considered a commitment in this context.'
Opposition politicians said the email proved that headline-grabbing proposals by ministers are worthless.
Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, said: 'What is disturbing about this disclosure is that key public health priorities will suffer. It appears pre- and post-election promises by ministers will prove not worth the paper they are printed on.' Lansley believes the email reveals the true state of NHS finances.
'Patricia Hewitt has been complacent about the scale of the financial problems facing the health service and this shows the problems are much greater than she has acknowledged,' he said.
Professor David Turner, chairman of the UK Public Health Association, said the contents of the email left him 'dispirited and depressed'. 'Despite promises by ministers that public health would be one of their top priorities,' he said, 'it seems once again it will be hit hard.'
The email also raises questions about existing spending commitments. It tells staff that, unless a contract is completely signed off, with all the finances finalised, then the investment should be stalled.
The department refused to give details of what programmes the spending freeze would hit or what ministerial announcements are to be ignored, although a spokeswoman confirmed the email had been sent.
Liam Byrne, the junior health minister responsible for community care, is understood to have been warned recently against making promises that could not be kept.
Last month, public health minister Caroline Flint announced a programme to deal with alcohol problems at an early age. Flint announced this to counter fears over binge drinking after the government's decision to relax licensing laws.
Insiders at the department have confirmed that this programme is now at risk. They also point to similar announcements by ministers to set up a programme to tackle the rapidly growing incidents of sexually transmitted diseases such as chlamydia.
This is now also thought to be at risk as is the plan to set up a national programme to screen for bowel cancer. One insider who received the email said the tone of the memo particularly annoyed officials. Under a paragraph entitled 'Discipline and Enforcement', it states that any staff 'entering into new contracts on contravention of the embargo' will 'commit a disciplinary offence'.
A spokeswoman for the department refused to comment on what she described as a 'leaked document'. She said: 'The Department of Health is reviewing spending plans for the year against available resources. It still remains the department's intention to meet its existing commitments.'
(from Antony Barnett and Solomon Hughes at The Observer )
The email - details of which have been obtained by The Observer - was sent at the end of last month from the office of Sir Liam Donaldson, the chief medical officer.
It promises to sound the death knell for a range of public health programmes set up to tackle everything from alcohol abuse and cancer screening to sexually-transmitted diseases and obesity. Health experts believe the spending freeze could even hit attempts to reduce deadly MRSA outbreaks in hospitals and affect contingency planning in the event of an outbreak of bird flu.
The email warns that any department staff failing to follow the orders will 'commit a disciplinary offence'.
Written by Sarndrah Horsfall, Donaldson's chief of staff, the email tells officials that NHS finance director Richard Douglas 'has imposed an embargo on all programme staff'. It orders an 'embargo on all new commitments' for this year and 'all future years' covering 'all programme budgets (capital and revenue)'.
The memo flies in the face of reassurances by the Health Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, and the NHS chief executive, Sir Nigel Crisp, over health funding. The government has said local hospital trusts must sort out their financial problems and that overall NHS care is improving.
Hewitt has been forced to defend staff lay-offs, mounting financial deficits in NHS hospital trusts and an official policy of delaying operations to save money. This week, she will urge hospital staff to tackle waste and inefficiency.
News of the spending freeze emerges as The Observer reveals widescale cutbacks in the NHS. These include:
· GPs not referring patients for routine surgery across Swindon in Wiltshire for the next month.
· No hernia operations for patients in Oxfordshire.
· A cut in the number of beds at Airedale hospital, near Skipton, North Yorkshire.
The mounting crisis has triggered an outbreak of buckpassing, with Downing Street said to be unhappy with the way the Department of Health has handled the problems.
But one paragraph of the leaked email will prove highly embarrassing for the government. It suggests that any public announcement by a minister promising extra funding should be disregarded. It was this that so angered an official at the department that details of its contents were passed to The Observer
The email states: 'Commitment to spend by virtue of an announcement, including ministerial announcements, is not considered a commitment in this context.'
Opposition politicians said the email proved that headline-grabbing proposals by ministers are worthless.
Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, said: 'What is disturbing about this disclosure is that key public health priorities will suffer. It appears pre- and post-election promises by ministers will prove not worth the paper they are printed on.' Lansley believes the email reveals the true state of NHS finances.
'Patricia Hewitt has been complacent about the scale of the financial problems facing the health service and this shows the problems are much greater than she has acknowledged,' he said.
Professor David Turner, chairman of the UK Public Health Association, said the contents of the email left him 'dispirited and depressed'. 'Despite promises by ministers that public health would be one of their top priorities,' he said, 'it seems once again it will be hit hard.'
The email also raises questions about existing spending commitments. It tells staff that, unless a contract is completely signed off, with all the finances finalised, then the investment should be stalled.
The department refused to give details of what programmes the spending freeze would hit or what ministerial announcements are to be ignored, although a spokeswoman confirmed the email had been sent.
Liam Byrne, the junior health minister responsible for community care, is understood to have been warned recently against making promises that could not be kept.
Last month, public health minister Caroline Flint announced a programme to deal with alcohol problems at an early age. Flint announced this to counter fears over binge drinking after the government's decision to relax licensing laws.
Insiders at the department have confirmed that this programme is now at risk. They also point to similar announcements by ministers to set up a programme to tackle the rapidly growing incidents of sexually transmitted diseases such as chlamydia.
This is now also thought to be at risk as is the plan to set up a national programme to screen for bowel cancer. One insider who received the email said the tone of the memo particularly annoyed officials. Under a paragraph entitled 'Discipline and Enforcement', it states that any staff 'entering into new contracts on contravention of the embargo' will 'commit a disciplinary offence'.
A spokeswoman for the department refused to comment on what she described as a 'leaked document'. She said: 'The Department of Health is reviewing spending plans for the year against available resources. It still remains the department's intention to meet its existing commitments.'
(from Antony Barnett and Solomon Hughes at The Observer )
Saturday, December 10, 2005
5,000 NHS deaths could be avoided
Almost five thousand deaths could be prevented each year if the country's worst managed hospitals achieved a small improvement in performance, according to a study.
A wide variation in hospital death rates across the NHS is disclosed in The Hospital Guide, compiled by independent health information provider Dr Foster. Some 17 patients die in poor performing hospitals for every 10 in the best, the study shows.
The majority of hospitals with the lowest death rates - seven out of ten - are in London and the South East.
The highest death rates are evenly spread across the country except for the South West and Yorkshire which have average, or lower than average, death rates.
The research shows that, nationally, mortality rates have been improving by between 2% and 3% in recent years.
But if all hospitals with above-average death rates improved their performance to achieve the average, 5,000 lives would be saved every year in England.
Roger Taylor, research director at Dr Foster, said this information was vital to patients making choices about where they went for treatment.
"From January next year, patients will have the right to chose where they are treated," he said. "They need detailed information about the services available in their local hospitals as well as overall performance indicators.
"The Dr Foster hospital guide provides the most comprehensive information about standards and services, free to the public."
The lowest standardised mortality ratios are 30% better than average while the highest are 20% better than average.
(thisislondon)
A wide variation in hospital death rates across the NHS is disclosed in The Hospital Guide, compiled by independent health information provider Dr Foster. Some 17 patients die in poor performing hospitals for every 10 in the best, the study shows.
The majority of hospitals with the lowest death rates - seven out of ten - are in London and the South East.
The highest death rates are evenly spread across the country except for the South West and Yorkshire which have average, or lower than average, death rates.
The research shows that, nationally, mortality rates have been improving by between 2% and 3% in recent years.
But if all hospitals with above-average death rates improved their performance to achieve the average, 5,000 lives would be saved every year in England.
Roger Taylor, research director at Dr Foster, said this information was vital to patients making choices about where they went for treatment.
"From January next year, patients will have the right to chose where they are treated," he said. "They need detailed information about the services available in their local hospitals as well as overall performance indicators.
"The Dr Foster hospital guide provides the most comprehensive information about standards and services, free to the public."
The lowest standardised mortality ratios are 30% better than average while the highest are 20% better than average.
(thisislondon)
New Labour stifle free speech
Arrested over demonstration at arms fair
The cases of Pennie Quinton and Kevin Gillan are due before the House of Lords next month as civil rights campaigners attempt to show that anti-terrorism laws to stop and search are being used unlawfully. Mr Gillan, 28, a postgraduate student from Sheffield, and Ms Quinton, 34, a freelance photo-journalist, were among about 140 people arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 at an arms fair at the Excel Centre in east London in 2003.
Lawyers for Liberty argued that the "draconian" powers were being used in a way that was never intended by Parliament and that they had unlawfully deterred members of the public from demonstrating peacefully. The Court of Appeal gave the police the benefit of the doubt.
Convicted over anti-corporate stunt
The self-styled George Fox Six burst into a lecture theatre at Lancaster University in September last year to protest at a corporate conference. They picked a conference attended by executives from BAE Systems, DuPont, GlaxoSmithKline and Shell to highlight what they believed were malign relationships between academic research and business.
In response to the protest, their own university insisted on pressing charges for aggravated trespass.
In October the six - two undergraduates, two postgraduates, a former student and a student from an affiliated college - were found guilty at Lancaster magistrates' court. A district judge gave each a conditional discharge and ordered them to pay £300 costs.
Detained for throwing a tea party
It started as a joke for Mark Barrett, a tour guide, and a few other protesters. Angered at the planned exclusion zone for unauthorised demonstrations around Parlia- ment Square, he went to aprotest in August.
He said: "There were various people there with placards. I said, 'Let's go and throw tea into the Thames as they did at the Boston Tea Party.' We had a bit of a laugh. Now we have a tea party protest every Sunday."
Thus was born the People of the Commons Picknickers, angered by Section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
Mr Barrett, 36, and 20 other activists were arrested. He is due in court next month. "The law is about the attempt to marginalise people's points of view," he said. "It is anti-democratic and an abuse of power."
Apprehended for 'offensive' T-shirt
John Catt, an 80-year-old peace campaigner, was stopped by police officers as a terrorist suspect in Brighton in September - for wearing a T-shirt with anti-Blair and Bush slogans.
Mr Catt, who served in the RAF during the Second World War, was stopped, searched by police and made to sign a form confirming he had been interviewed under the 2000 Terrorism Act.
The official record of the encounter confirms that the "purpose" of the search was "terrorism" and the "grounds for intervention" were "carrying plackard and T-shirt with anti-Blair info" (sic).
Mr Catt was offered a caution by police, but refused and plans to plead not guilty at a trial due to start in January. He had travelled into Brighton from his home in Withdean, on the outskirts of the city.
"I said I was going to voice my opposition to the Iraq War. He [the policeman] said: 'We're going to give you a copy of this form.'
"People should have the right to protest non-violently. The anti-terrorism laws should not be used to stop people doing that."
Threatened with jail for Iraq protest
Douglas Barker has adopted a new approach to resistance to the war, by withholding 10 per cent of his income tax in protest at Britain's involvement.
The former RAF serviceman, who is 72, owns a 200-acre estate in Wiltshire and describes himself as a lifelong socialist who was a firm supporter of Tony Blair until the war. On Wednesday, he was threatened with jail if he continued to refuse to pay the £1,142.58 the Inland Revenue says he owes.
When completing his tax return for the second half of this year, Mr Barker, 72, estimated that 10 per cent of all government expenditure went on the military. He said: "I came to the conclusion that by paying this, I was violating my conscience, because I felt it would have been used illegally to kill people in a sovereign state.
"If I have to go to jail, I will go to jail."
Held for shouting 'nonsense' at Jack Straw
Walter Wolfgang, 82, a Labour party member for 57 years, became a cause célèbre after he was bundled out of the Labour Party conference hall in Brighton in September.
His offence was to shout "nonsense" as Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, defended Britain's role in Iraq.
He was later stopped under anti-terrorist powers as he tried to re-enter the hall. The heavy-handed treatment of Mr Wolfgang revived criticism of the "control freakery" associated with Labour.
Mr Wolfgang fled Nazi Germany as a teenager for Britain. He said: "I shouted out 'nonsense'. That's all I said. Then these two toughies came round and wanted to manhandle me out ... Physically, I am not too well, so I said I would follow them."
The over-reaction by conference stewards backfired and turned into a public relations disaster for the party. The anti-terror law used to stop Mr Wolfgang was Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. It is supposed to be deployed against suspected terrorists, not protesters.
Convicted for reading the names of 97 war dead
Maya Evans, 25, this week became the first person to be convicted under the new laws banning demonstrations near Parliament. She was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £100 in costs after being found guilty of breaching Section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Her "serious" crime was to stand by the Cenotaph, close to Downing Street, reading aloud the names of the 97 British soldiers who have died in Iraq.
Ms Evans, a part-time vegan chef from Hastings, east Sussex, was considered such a threat that two police sergeants and 12 constables in two minibuses were sent to arrest her.
Following her conviction, which saddles her with a criminal record, she said: "I just think it's a shame that you cannot voice your freedom of speech. It sends out a message that you will be arrested for remembering the dead."
The cases of Pennie Quinton and Kevin Gillan are due before the House of Lords next month as civil rights campaigners attempt to show that anti-terrorism laws to stop and search are being used unlawfully. Mr Gillan, 28, a postgraduate student from Sheffield, and Ms Quinton, 34, a freelance photo-journalist, were among about 140 people arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 at an arms fair at the Excel Centre in east London in 2003.
Lawyers for Liberty argued that the "draconian" powers were being used in a way that was never intended by Parliament and that they had unlawfully deterred members of the public from demonstrating peacefully. The Court of Appeal gave the police the benefit of the doubt.
Convicted over anti-corporate stunt
The self-styled George Fox Six burst into a lecture theatre at Lancaster University in September last year to protest at a corporate conference. They picked a conference attended by executives from BAE Systems, DuPont, GlaxoSmithKline and Shell to highlight what they believed were malign relationships between academic research and business.
In response to the protest, their own university insisted on pressing charges for aggravated trespass.
In October the six - two undergraduates, two postgraduates, a former student and a student from an affiliated college - were found guilty at Lancaster magistrates' court. A district judge gave each a conditional discharge and ordered them to pay £300 costs.
Detained for throwing a tea party
It started as a joke for Mark Barrett, a tour guide, and a few other protesters. Angered at the planned exclusion zone for unauthorised demonstrations around Parlia- ment Square, he went to aprotest in August.
He said: "There were various people there with placards. I said, 'Let's go and throw tea into the Thames as they did at the Boston Tea Party.' We had a bit of a laugh. Now we have a tea party protest every Sunday."
Thus was born the People of the Commons Picknickers, angered by Section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
Mr Barrett, 36, and 20 other activists were arrested. He is due in court next month. "The law is about the attempt to marginalise people's points of view," he said. "It is anti-democratic and an abuse of power."
Apprehended for 'offensive' T-shirt
John Catt, an 80-year-old peace campaigner, was stopped by police officers as a terrorist suspect in Brighton in September - for wearing a T-shirt with anti-Blair and Bush slogans.
Mr Catt, who served in the RAF during the Second World War, was stopped, searched by police and made to sign a form confirming he had been interviewed under the 2000 Terrorism Act.
The official record of the encounter confirms that the "purpose" of the search was "terrorism" and the "grounds for intervention" were "carrying plackard and T-shirt with anti-Blair info" (sic).
Mr Catt was offered a caution by police, but refused and plans to plead not guilty at a trial due to start in January. He had travelled into Brighton from his home in Withdean, on the outskirts of the city.
"I said I was going to voice my opposition to the Iraq War. He [the policeman] said: 'We're going to give you a copy of this form.'
"People should have the right to protest non-violently. The anti-terrorism laws should not be used to stop people doing that."
Threatened with jail for Iraq protest
Douglas Barker has adopted a new approach to resistance to the war, by withholding 10 per cent of his income tax in protest at Britain's involvement.
The former RAF serviceman, who is 72, owns a 200-acre estate in Wiltshire and describes himself as a lifelong socialist who was a firm supporter of Tony Blair until the war. On Wednesday, he was threatened with jail if he continued to refuse to pay the £1,142.58 the Inland Revenue says he owes.
When completing his tax return for the second half of this year, Mr Barker, 72, estimated that 10 per cent of all government expenditure went on the military. He said: "I came to the conclusion that by paying this, I was violating my conscience, because I felt it would have been used illegally to kill people in a sovereign state.
"If I have to go to jail, I will go to jail."
Held for shouting 'nonsense' at Jack Straw
Walter Wolfgang, 82, a Labour party member for 57 years, became a cause célèbre after he was bundled out of the Labour Party conference hall in Brighton in September.
His offence was to shout "nonsense" as Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, defended Britain's role in Iraq.
He was later stopped under anti-terrorist powers as he tried to re-enter the hall. The heavy-handed treatment of Mr Wolfgang revived criticism of the "control freakery" associated with Labour.
Mr Wolfgang fled Nazi Germany as a teenager for Britain. He said: "I shouted out 'nonsense'. That's all I said. Then these two toughies came round and wanted to manhandle me out ... Physically, I am not too well, so I said I would follow them."
The over-reaction by conference stewards backfired and turned into a public relations disaster for the party. The anti-terror law used to stop Mr Wolfgang was Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. It is supposed to be deployed against suspected terrorists, not protesters.
Convicted for reading the names of 97 war dead
Maya Evans, 25, this week became the first person to be convicted under the new laws banning demonstrations near Parliament. She was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £100 in costs after being found guilty of breaching Section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Her "serious" crime was to stand by the Cenotaph, close to Downing Street, reading aloud the names of the 97 British soldiers who have died in Iraq.
Ms Evans, a part-time vegan chef from Hastings, east Sussex, was considered such a threat that two police sergeants and 12 constables in two minibuses were sent to arrest her.
Following her conviction, which saddles her with a criminal record, she said: "I just think it's a shame that you cannot voice your freedom of speech. It sends out a message that you will be arrested for remembering the dead."
Police warn author over gay comments
An author and broadcaster condemned as "sinister" yesterday an inquiry conducted by police over comments she made about homosexuals on a live radio programme.
Lynette Burrows, an author on children's rights and a family campaigner, took part in a discussion on the Victoria Derbyshire show on Radio Five Live about the new civil partnerships act.
During the programme, she said she did not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. She added that placing boys with two homosexuals for adoption was as obvious a risk as placing a girl with two heterosexual men who offered themselves as parents. "It is a risk," she said. "You would not give a small girl to two men."
A member of the public complained to the police and an officer contacted Mrs Burrows the following day to say a "homophobic incident" had been reported against her.
"I was astounded," she said. "I told her this was a free country and we are allowed to express opinions on matters of public interest. She told me it was not a crime but that she had to record these incidents.
"They were leaning on me, letting me know that the police had an interest in my views. I think it is sinister and completely unacceptable."
Scotland Yard confirmed last night that Fulham police had investigated a complaint over the radio programme.
A spokesman said it was policy for community safety units to investigate homophobic, racist and domestic incidents because these were "priority crimes".
It is standard practice for all parties to be spoken to, even if the incident is not strictly seen as a crime. "It is all about reassuring the community," said the spokesman. "We can confirm that a member of the public brought to our attention an incident which he believed to be homophobic.
"All parties have been spoken to by the police. No allegation of crime has been made. A report has been taken but is now closed."
Mrs Burrows, of Cambridge, the author of Fight For The Family, is the mother of six children and the sister of Victoria Gillick, who unsuccessfully campaigned for parents to have to consent before underage girls could be prescribed the contraceptive pill.
She said she would not allow the investigation to stop her expressing her views.
from Sally Pook Daily Telegraph
Lynette Burrows, an author on children's rights and a family campaigner, took part in a discussion on the Victoria Derbyshire show on Radio Five Live about the new civil partnerships act.
During the programme, she said she did not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. She added that placing boys with two homosexuals for adoption was as obvious a risk as placing a girl with two heterosexual men who offered themselves as parents. "It is a risk," she said. "You would not give a small girl to two men."
A member of the public complained to the police and an officer contacted Mrs Burrows the following day to say a "homophobic incident" had been reported against her.
"I was astounded," she said. "I told her this was a free country and we are allowed to express opinions on matters of public interest. She told me it was not a crime but that she had to record these incidents.
"They were leaning on me, letting me know that the police had an interest in my views. I think it is sinister and completely unacceptable."
Scotland Yard confirmed last night that Fulham police had investigated a complaint over the radio programme.
A spokesman said it was policy for community safety units to investigate homophobic, racist and domestic incidents because these were "priority crimes".
It is standard practice for all parties to be spoken to, even if the incident is not strictly seen as a crime. "It is all about reassuring the community," said the spokesman. "We can confirm that a member of the public brought to our attention an incident which he believed to be homophobic.
"All parties have been spoken to by the police. No allegation of crime has been made. A report has been taken but is now closed."
Mrs Burrows, of Cambridge, the author of Fight For The Family, is the mother of six children and the sister of Victoria Gillick, who unsuccessfully campaigned for parents to have to consent before underage girls could be prescribed the contraceptive pill.
She said she would not allow the investigation to stop her expressing her views.
from Sally Pook Daily Telegraph
Thursday, December 08, 2005
New Labour smear Shadow Chancellor
Labour MP Dennis Skinner has been banned from the Commons for the rest of Thursday for accusing shadow chancellor George Osborne of snorting cocaine.
The claim came as Mr Osborne took on ministers at Treasury questions.
Referring to the 1980s, Mr Skinner said: "The only thing that was growing then was the lines of coke in front of Boy George and the rest of the Tories."
Speaker Michael Martin told Bolsover MP Mr Skinner to leave the chamber when he refused to withdraw the remark.
The MP also said coalfield areas would have "thanked their lucky stars" for the 1.75% growth now being forecast for this year by Chancellor Gordon Brown.
Mr Martin demanded he withdraw his claim but the veteran MP referred to Sunday newspaper claims - denied by Mr Osborne - that he had taken cocaine.
Mr Skinner said: "That was in the News of the World and you know it."
He continued to refuse when Mr Martin repeated his demand, saying: "No, I'm not withdrawing it ... it's true".
The speaker told him to withdraw the comment or leave the chamber, eventually saying: "I order you to leave the chamber."
Mr Martin also officially "named" the MP but added - the first step towards punishment: "He's withdrawing, he's taken my advice... I know what I've done, he's moved and that's the main thing."
The speaker's office later confirmed that Mr Skinner would be unable to return to the Commons chamber for the rest of the day.
Mr Skinner has earned the nickname "the Beast of Bolsover" for his acerbic attacks on the Tories from his regular front row seat in the Commons chamber.
He has been upbraided in the Commons chamber before, and has been asked to leave nine times since 1979, including a five-day ban in 1981.
In 1992, he was thrown out for calling then Agriculture Minister John Gummer a "little squirt of a minister" and a "wart".
And he was banned for the rest of the day in 1995 when he accused ministers of a "crooked deal" to sell off the coal industry.
ED: If you you can't beat them then smear them.
The claim came as Mr Osborne took on ministers at Treasury questions.
Referring to the 1980s, Mr Skinner said: "The only thing that was growing then was the lines of coke in front of Boy George and the rest of the Tories."
Speaker Michael Martin told Bolsover MP Mr Skinner to leave the chamber when he refused to withdraw the remark.
The MP also said coalfield areas would have "thanked their lucky stars" for the 1.75% growth now being forecast for this year by Chancellor Gordon Brown.
Mr Martin demanded he withdraw his claim but the veteran MP referred to Sunday newspaper claims - denied by Mr Osborne - that he had taken cocaine.
Mr Skinner said: "That was in the News of the World and you know it."
He continued to refuse when Mr Martin repeated his demand, saying: "No, I'm not withdrawing it ... it's true".
The speaker told him to withdraw the comment or leave the chamber, eventually saying: "I order you to leave the chamber."
Mr Martin also officially "named" the MP but added - the first step towards punishment: "He's withdrawing, he's taken my advice... I know what I've done, he's moved and that's the main thing."
The speaker's office later confirmed that Mr Skinner would be unable to return to the Commons chamber for the rest of the day.
Mr Skinner has earned the nickname "the Beast of Bolsover" for his acerbic attacks on the Tories from his regular front row seat in the Commons chamber.
He has been upbraided in the Commons chamber before, and has been asked to leave nine times since 1979, including a five-day ban in 1981.
In 1992, he was thrown out for calling then Agriculture Minister John Gummer a "little squirt of a minister" and a "wart".
And he was banned for the rest of the day in 1995 when he accused ministers of a "crooked deal" to sell off the coal industry.
ED: If you you can't beat them then smear them.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Brown cooking the books
Gordon Brown was accused yesterday of moving his economic goalposts by the leading independent arbiter of the public finances.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said the Chancellor had fiddled with the dates of the economic cycle and that these should be set in future by an independent body, possibly the Office for National Statistics.
Gordon Brown has pushed back the end of the cycle by three years
The dates for the start and end of the cycle are crucial to assess whether Gordon Brown's two fiscal rules are met. "He has extended the seven-year economic cycle to 12 years - less a cycle than a stretch limo," said Robert Chote, the head of the IFS. "The goalposts have been moved so far that they are barely still on the pitch."
The Chancellor pushed back the end of the cycle by three years in Monday's pre-Budget report, to 2009. In July, he pushed forward the start date by two years, from 1999 to 1997.
Mr Chote said it was odd that the date change, which would have been "unremarkable if it was made at any point in the previous three years" was made in July, just as it looked as if the Golden Rule would be breached.
The Golden Rule calls for the books to be balanced over the cycle, to show that he has only borrowed money for investment and not to pay day-to-day bills. Mr Brown is now on course to meet this rule by a comfortable margin, thanks to the date changes.
However, a side effect of the earlier start date is that the Chancellor appears to have broken his other fiscal rule in his first year of office. The sustainable investment rule says government debt should be no more than 40pc of the size of the economy.
It was above this level until 1998-99, the old date for the beginning of the cycle. "This has certainly made me laugh," said Professor Peter Spencer, economic adviser to Ernst & Young.
Mr Chote said: "It is hard to argue that suddenly moving from a seven-year to a 12-year cycle is going to do anything to improve credibility and there are obviously going to be fears that this is going to be moved around in the future."
He suggested the Treasury adopts a two-year target for the current budget balance, much like the Bank of England has a two-year inflation target. The Treasury said the economic cycle was set based on "independent data from the independent ONS and audited by the independent National Audit Office".
A spokesman said: "A few months ago the IFS agreed that the assessment of the economic cycle beginning in 1997 was reasonable. They appear to have changed their view. The IFS also said that extending the economic cycle beyond 2006, as set out in the pre-Budget report, would make it more difficult for the Government to meet its fiscal rules."
Whether the Chancellor has plugged the £11billion hole in his public finances by tax rises and public spending cuts is still questionable. The IFS said it would deliver a verdict in January.
Mr Chote said he would be looking at whether the economy will grow as strongly as Mr Brown predicts. "He appears to have dug himself a deep hole to give himself something to climb out of," he said, adding that the projections might go awry if the Bank ''puts the brakes on". He also said the Chancellor's plan to cut £8billion from government budgets from 2007 to 2010 would put a "very tough squeeze" on civil servants.
From Malcolm Moore, Economics Correspondent of the Daily Telegraph
The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said the Chancellor had fiddled with the dates of the economic cycle and that these should be set in future by an independent body, possibly the Office for National Statistics.
Gordon Brown has pushed back the end of the cycle by three years
The dates for the start and end of the cycle are crucial to assess whether Gordon Brown's two fiscal rules are met. "He has extended the seven-year economic cycle to 12 years - less a cycle than a stretch limo," said Robert Chote, the head of the IFS. "The goalposts have been moved so far that they are barely still on the pitch."
The Chancellor pushed back the end of the cycle by three years in Monday's pre-Budget report, to 2009. In July, he pushed forward the start date by two years, from 1999 to 1997.
Mr Chote said it was odd that the date change, which would have been "unremarkable if it was made at any point in the previous three years" was made in July, just as it looked as if the Golden Rule would be breached.
The Golden Rule calls for the books to be balanced over the cycle, to show that he has only borrowed money for investment and not to pay day-to-day bills. Mr Brown is now on course to meet this rule by a comfortable margin, thanks to the date changes.
However, a side effect of the earlier start date is that the Chancellor appears to have broken his other fiscal rule in his first year of office. The sustainable investment rule says government debt should be no more than 40pc of the size of the economy.
It was above this level until 1998-99, the old date for the beginning of the cycle. "This has certainly made me laugh," said Professor Peter Spencer, economic adviser to Ernst & Young.
Mr Chote said: "It is hard to argue that suddenly moving from a seven-year to a 12-year cycle is going to do anything to improve credibility and there are obviously going to be fears that this is going to be moved around in the future."
He suggested the Treasury adopts a two-year target for the current budget balance, much like the Bank of England has a two-year inflation target. The Treasury said the economic cycle was set based on "independent data from the independent ONS and audited by the independent National Audit Office".
A spokesman said: "A few months ago the IFS agreed that the assessment of the economic cycle beginning in 1997 was reasonable. They appear to have changed their view. The IFS also said that extending the economic cycle beyond 2006, as set out in the pre-Budget report, would make it more difficult for the Government to meet its fiscal rules."
Whether the Chancellor has plugged the £11billion hole in his public finances by tax rises and public spending cuts is still questionable. The IFS said it would deliver a verdict in January.
Mr Chote said he would be looking at whether the economy will grow as strongly as Mr Brown predicts. "He appears to have dug himself a deep hole to give himself something to climb out of," he said, adding that the projections might go awry if the Bank ''puts the brakes on". He also said the Chancellor's plan to cut £8billion from government budgets from 2007 to 2010 would put a "very tough squeeze" on civil servants.
From Malcolm Moore, Economics Correspondent of the Daily Telegraph
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Oops Blunkett he did it again
David Blunkett has started his new job as a newspaper columnist without waiting for clearance from the anti-sleaze watchdog, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments.
Mr Blunkett was forced to resign from the Cabinet last month because he broke the ministerial code in taking a lucrative job with a DNA testing firm.
The former secretary of state for work and pensions failed to seek the advice of the advisory committee before joining DNA Bioscience, despite being warned of the rules.
He admitted that he should have been "much more methodical" in his dealings with the committee last week. In an interview to launch his column in The Sun, for which he is expected to receive around £190,000 a year, he said that he alone was responsible for ensuring he kept within the rules.
But Mr Blunkett has again failed to get clearance from the committee in starting work for the paper, the Independent on Sunday has learnt. Tony Blair's friend and ally did, on this occasion, ask the committee for its ruling - but then didn't wait for its reply.
A spokeswoman for the advisory committee said: "The committee received a request for general advice on 18 November and we gave that on 22 November. We subsequently received a request for particular advice on 25 November and we are currently considering that request."
Although Mr Blunkett can say that he observed the precise wording of the code - that "ministers should seek advice" on business appointments - he has certainly flouted its spirit in not waiting for a reply.
Sources close to the committee expressed dismay at Mr Blunkett's behaviour. "It's against the rules, even though there's not likely to be a problem."
A spokeswoman for Mr Blunkett admitted that he had failed to wait for the watchdog's advice. She denied, however, that this was a deliberate snub. "He's gone out of his way to seek their advice on not one but two occasions," said the spokeswoman.
The latest breach is an embarrassment, as Mr Blunkett seeks to relaunch himself as a pundit after his second exit from the Cabinet in a year.
His efforts to draw a line under the affair had already been undermined, as one of the principals in the drama spoke publicly for the first time last week.
Lucy Siddiqi, formerly a non-executive director of DNA Bioscience who, with her husband, Tariq, invited Mr Blunkett to join the board, said the couple "couldn't believe our luck" when he readily agreed.
In an interview with the Evening Standard, Mrs Siddiqi detailed dinners the couple had enjoyed with Mr Blunkett at Annabel's and the Groucho Club in London earlier this year.
The former minister had now broken off all contact, she said, and "it appeared he was almost blaming us".
"We were upset because we'd stayed silent for six weeks out of respect for him. If we'd wanted to, we could have said things where he could be potentially ridiculed."
The atmosphere of mutual recrimination thickened as she denied "setting up" the former cabinet minister with Sally Anderson, a 29-year-old estate agent who sold the story of her "dates" with Mr Blunkett.
It was at a fateful dinner party at Annabel's nightclub that the Siddiqis introduced him to Ms Anderson, a relationship that ended in the offices of the publicist Max Clifford.
"David did seem quite keen," recalls Mrs Siddiqi, adding that her former friend was "quite lonely". She added: " If one is going to start to speculate on his ability to do his job correctly while remaining emotionally unstable, that's something I can't comment on."
For his part, Mr Blunkett also suggested there was more to be revealed about his resignation. "I come from a background where people said what they meant and were very straight with each other. I forgot for a moment that this isn't always the case - and I paid the price for it."
The paper gave its new pundit star billing on Wednesday: "David Blunkett. He's tough, he's outspoken - and he's in The Sun."
David Blunkett has started his new job as a newspaper columnist without waiting for clearance from the anti-sleaze watchdog, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments.
Mr Blunkett was forced to resign from the Cabinet last month because he broke the ministerial code in taking a lucrative job with a DNA testing firm.
The former secretary of state for work and pensions failed to seek the advice of the advisory committee before joining DNA Bioscience, despite being warned of the rules.
He admitted that he should have been "much more methodical" in his dealings with the committee last week. In an interview to launch his column in The Sun, for which he is expected to receive around £190,000 a year, he said that he alone was responsible for ensuring he kept within the rules.
But Mr Blunkett has again failed to get clearance from the committee in starting work for the paper, the Independent on Sunday has learnt. Tony Blair's friend and ally did, on this occasion, ask the committee for its ruling - but then didn't wait for its reply.
A spokeswoman for the advisory committee said: "The committee received a request for general advice on 18 November and we gave that on 22 November. We subsequently received a request for particular advice on 25 November and we are currently considering that request."
Although Mr Blunkett can say that he observed the precise wording of the code - that "ministers should seek advice" on business appointments - he has certainly flouted its spirit in not waiting for a reply.
Sources close to the committee expressed dismay at Mr Blunkett's behaviour. "It's against the rules, even though there's not likely to be a problem."
A spokeswoman for Mr Blunkett admitted that he had failed to wait for the watchdog's advice. She denied, however, that this was a deliberate snub. "He's gone out of his way to seek their advice on not one but two occasions," said the spokeswoman.
The latest breach is an embarrassment, as Mr Blunkett seeks to relaunch himself as a pundit after his second exit from the Cabinet in a year.
His efforts to draw a line under the affair had already been undermined, as one of the principals in the drama spoke publicly for the first time last week.
Lucy Siddiqi, formerly a non-executive director of DNA Bioscience who, with her husband, Tariq, invited Mr Blunkett to join the board, said the couple "couldn't believe our luck" when he readily agreed.
In an interview with the Evening Standard, Mrs Siddiqi detailed dinners the couple had enjoyed with Mr Blunkett at Annabel's and the Groucho Club in London earlier this year.
The former minister had now broken off all contact, she said, and "it appeared he was almost blaming us".
"We were upset because we'd stayed silent for six weeks out of respect for him. If we'd wanted to, we could have said things where he could be potentially ridiculed."
The atmosphere of mutual recrimination thickened as she denied "setting up" the former cabinet minister with Sally Anderson, a 29-year-old estate agent who sold the story of her "dates" with Mr Blunkett.
It was at a fateful dinner party at Annabel's nightclub that the Siddiqis introduced him to Ms Anderson, a relationship that ended in the offices of the publicist Max Clifford.
"David did seem quite keen," recalls Mrs Siddiqi, adding that her former friend was "quite lonely". She added: " If one is going to start to speculate on his ability to do his job correctly while remaining emotionally unstable, that's something I can't comment on."
For his part, Mr Blunkett also suggested there was more to be revealed about his resignation. "I come from a background where people said what they meant and were very straight with each other. I forgot for a moment that this isn't always the case - and I paid the price for it."
The paper gave its new pundit star billing on Wednesday: "David Blunkett. He's tough, he's outspoken - and he's in The Sun."
From Francis Elliott, Whitehall Editor at The Independent
ED: Obviously when you are as important as David and you know Tony then the rules don't really apply to you
Mr Blunkett was forced to resign from the Cabinet last month because he broke the ministerial code in taking a lucrative job with a DNA testing firm.
The former secretary of state for work and pensions failed to seek the advice of the advisory committee before joining DNA Bioscience, despite being warned of the rules.
He admitted that he should have been "much more methodical" in his dealings with the committee last week. In an interview to launch his column in The Sun, for which he is expected to receive around £190,000 a year, he said that he alone was responsible for ensuring he kept within the rules.
But Mr Blunkett has again failed to get clearance from the committee in starting work for the paper, the Independent on Sunday has learnt. Tony Blair's friend and ally did, on this occasion, ask the committee for its ruling - but then didn't wait for its reply.
A spokeswoman for the advisory committee said: "The committee received a request for general advice on 18 November and we gave that on 22 November. We subsequently received a request for particular advice on 25 November and we are currently considering that request."
Although Mr Blunkett can say that he observed the precise wording of the code - that "ministers should seek advice" on business appointments - he has certainly flouted its spirit in not waiting for a reply.
Sources close to the committee expressed dismay at Mr Blunkett's behaviour. "It's against the rules, even though there's not likely to be a problem."
A spokeswoman for Mr Blunkett admitted that he had failed to wait for the watchdog's advice. She denied, however, that this was a deliberate snub. "He's gone out of his way to seek their advice on not one but two occasions," said the spokeswoman.
The latest breach is an embarrassment, as Mr Blunkett seeks to relaunch himself as a pundit after his second exit from the Cabinet in a year.
His efforts to draw a line under the affair had already been undermined, as one of the principals in the drama spoke publicly for the first time last week.
Lucy Siddiqi, formerly a non-executive director of DNA Bioscience who, with her husband, Tariq, invited Mr Blunkett to join the board, said the couple "couldn't believe our luck" when he readily agreed.
In an interview with the Evening Standard, Mrs Siddiqi detailed dinners the couple had enjoyed with Mr Blunkett at Annabel's and the Groucho Club in London earlier this year.
The former minister had now broken off all contact, she said, and "it appeared he was almost blaming us".
"We were upset because we'd stayed silent for six weeks out of respect for him. If we'd wanted to, we could have said things where he could be potentially ridiculed."
The atmosphere of mutual recrimination thickened as she denied "setting up" the former cabinet minister with Sally Anderson, a 29-year-old estate agent who sold the story of her "dates" with Mr Blunkett.
It was at a fateful dinner party at Annabel's nightclub that the Siddiqis introduced him to Ms Anderson, a relationship that ended in the offices of the publicist Max Clifford.
"David did seem quite keen," recalls Mrs Siddiqi, adding that her former friend was "quite lonely". She added: " If one is going to start to speculate on his ability to do his job correctly while remaining emotionally unstable, that's something I can't comment on."
For his part, Mr Blunkett also suggested there was more to be revealed about his resignation. "I come from a background where people said what they meant and were very straight with each other. I forgot for a moment that this isn't always the case - and I paid the price for it."
The paper gave its new pundit star billing on Wednesday: "David Blunkett. He's tough, he's outspoken - and he's in The Sun."
David Blunkett has started his new job as a newspaper columnist without waiting for clearance from the anti-sleaze watchdog, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments.
Mr Blunkett was forced to resign from the Cabinet last month because he broke the ministerial code in taking a lucrative job with a DNA testing firm.
The former secretary of state for work and pensions failed to seek the advice of the advisory committee before joining DNA Bioscience, despite being warned of the rules.
He admitted that he should have been "much more methodical" in his dealings with the committee last week. In an interview to launch his column in The Sun, for which he is expected to receive around £190,000 a year, he said that he alone was responsible for ensuring he kept within the rules.
But Mr Blunkett has again failed to get clearance from the committee in starting work for the paper, the Independent on Sunday has learnt. Tony Blair's friend and ally did, on this occasion, ask the committee for its ruling - but then didn't wait for its reply.
A spokeswoman for the advisory committee said: "The committee received a request for general advice on 18 November and we gave that on 22 November. We subsequently received a request for particular advice on 25 November and we are currently considering that request."
Although Mr Blunkett can say that he observed the precise wording of the code - that "ministers should seek advice" on business appointments - he has certainly flouted its spirit in not waiting for a reply.
Sources close to the committee expressed dismay at Mr Blunkett's behaviour. "It's against the rules, even though there's not likely to be a problem."
A spokeswoman for Mr Blunkett admitted that he had failed to wait for the watchdog's advice. She denied, however, that this was a deliberate snub. "He's gone out of his way to seek their advice on not one but two occasions," said the spokeswoman.
The latest breach is an embarrassment, as Mr Blunkett seeks to relaunch himself as a pundit after his second exit from the Cabinet in a year.
His efforts to draw a line under the affair had already been undermined, as one of the principals in the drama spoke publicly for the first time last week.
Lucy Siddiqi, formerly a non-executive director of DNA Bioscience who, with her husband, Tariq, invited Mr Blunkett to join the board, said the couple "couldn't believe our luck" when he readily agreed.
In an interview with the Evening Standard, Mrs Siddiqi detailed dinners the couple had enjoyed with Mr Blunkett at Annabel's and the Groucho Club in London earlier this year.
The former minister had now broken off all contact, she said, and "it appeared he was almost blaming us".
"We were upset because we'd stayed silent for six weeks out of respect for him. If we'd wanted to, we could have said things where he could be potentially ridiculed."
The atmosphere of mutual recrimination thickened as she denied "setting up" the former cabinet minister with Sally Anderson, a 29-year-old estate agent who sold the story of her "dates" with Mr Blunkett.
It was at a fateful dinner party at Annabel's nightclub that the Siddiqis introduced him to Ms Anderson, a relationship that ended in the offices of the publicist Max Clifford.
"David did seem quite keen," recalls Mrs Siddiqi, adding that her former friend was "quite lonely". She added: " If one is going to start to speculate on his ability to do his job correctly while remaining emotionally unstable, that's something I can't comment on."
For his part, Mr Blunkett also suggested there was more to be revealed about his resignation. "I come from a background where people said what they meant and were very straight with each other. I forgot for a moment that this isn't always the case - and I paid the price for it."
The paper gave its new pundit star billing on Wednesday: "David Blunkett. He's tough, he's outspoken - and he's in The Sun."
From Francis Elliott, Whitehall Editor at The Independent
ED: Obviously when you are as important as David and you know Tony then the rules don't really apply to you
Background to the Stockwell police execution
1. THE STORY
CLAIM - Police initially said Jean Charles de Menezes had come out of a house linked to failed 21 July attacks
FACT - The building in Tulse Hill was a three-storey block of nine flats. All residents used the same communal entrance
2. MISTAKEN IDENTITY
Surveillance officers had CCTV stills of the 21 July suspects, including Hussain Osman (right), who slightly resembled the victim. But no positive link was ever made because police failed to send images of Mr de Menezes (left) back to Scotland Yard
3. THE FATEFUL JOURNEY
CLAIM - Officers said Mr de Menezes behaved suspiciously by getting on and off the same bus and also wore a bulky coat
FACT - He did get off the bus but displayed no other "suspicious" behaviour. He was wearing a light denim jacket
4. THE COMMANDER
The IPCC has established, after initial confusion, that the officer in charge of operations on 22 July was Commander Cressida Dick, and that she was responsible for co-ordinating the surveillance team and gave the order for firearms officers to go to Stockwell station
5. THE TUBE STATION
CLAIM - Sir Ian Blair said Mr de Menezes defied a police challenge. Some witnesses said that he vaulted Tube barriers
FACT T- he Brazilian used his Oyster card at the barriers after picking up a free paper, unaware he was being followed
6. THE CARRIAGE
CLAIM - Witnesses said Mr de Menezes fled armed police on to the train platform and then on to a Northern line train
FACT - He did run part of the way to catch the train. But once in the carriage he walked calmly to his seat
7. THE SHOOTING
CLAIM - Mr de Menezes got to the floor when police pursued him on to the carriage and was then surrounded and shot
FACT - A surveillance officer sat near Mr de Menezes, who leapt up when grabbed. He wasshot eight times
8. THE AFTERMATH
CLAIM - Police believed he was a suicide bomber, maybe with explosives. Some witnesses saw 'wires' inhis jacket
FACT - Investigators found the victim was carrying no weapons, and merely had a wallet in his pockets
From Sophie Goodchild and Steve Bloomfield at The Independent
CLAIM - Police initially said Jean Charles de Menezes had come out of a house linked to failed 21 July attacks
FACT - The building in Tulse Hill was a three-storey block of nine flats. All residents used the same communal entrance
2. MISTAKEN IDENTITY
Surveillance officers had CCTV stills of the 21 July suspects, including Hussain Osman (right), who slightly resembled the victim. But no positive link was ever made because police failed to send images of Mr de Menezes (left) back to Scotland Yard
3. THE FATEFUL JOURNEY
CLAIM - Officers said Mr de Menezes behaved suspiciously by getting on and off the same bus and also wore a bulky coat
FACT - He did get off the bus but displayed no other "suspicious" behaviour. He was wearing a light denim jacket
4. THE COMMANDER
The IPCC has established, after initial confusion, that the officer in charge of operations on 22 July was Commander Cressida Dick, and that she was responsible for co-ordinating the surveillance team and gave the order for firearms officers to go to Stockwell station
5. THE TUBE STATION
CLAIM - Sir Ian Blair said Mr de Menezes defied a police challenge. Some witnesses said that he vaulted Tube barriers
FACT T- he Brazilian used his Oyster card at the barriers after picking up a free paper, unaware he was being followed
6. THE CARRIAGE
CLAIM - Witnesses said Mr de Menezes fled armed police on to the train platform and then on to a Northern line train
FACT - He did run part of the way to catch the train. But once in the carriage he walked calmly to his seat
7. THE SHOOTING
CLAIM - Mr de Menezes got to the floor when police pursued him on to the carriage and was then surrounded and shot
FACT - A surveillance officer sat near Mr de Menezes, who leapt up when grabbed. He wasshot eight times
8. THE AFTERMATH
CLAIM - Police believed he was a suicide bomber, maybe with explosives. Some witnesses saw 'wires' inhis jacket
FACT - Investigators found the victim was carrying no weapons, and merely had a wallet in his pockets
From Sophie Goodchild and Steve Bloomfield at The Independent
Is this what Blair took us to war for
TEARS flowed down the cheeks of Buthaina Ibrahim al-Hayess, 55, last week as she reflected on the suffering inflicted on her family by Iraq’s security forces.
First her two eldest sons were kidnapped and held for two months. Then her husband and her brother were shot. Now her two other sons have been taken away.
A diminutive figure dressed in black, al-Hayess is not a criminal and insists her family has no connections with any insurgent group. Her only “crime”, she says, is to be a Sunni Muslim in a country whose forces are dominated by Shi’ites.
Her story is one of many that have emerged in recent weeks of Sunni men seized by security forces without explanation and then either held for ransom or killed. Taken together they indicate an ugly campaign of sectarian reprisals against the minority Sunnis, who dominated the country under Saddam Hussein.
Al-Hayess’s nightmare began on June 10 when 30 soldiers from the National Guard arrived at her home in the predominantly Shi’ite Oore district of Baghdad. The men dragged her sons Omar, 32, and Ahmad, 34, from the roof where they had been sleeping.
Handcuffed and blindfolded, the pair were taken to a vehicle into which 11 other men from the same block were bundled before being taken to an unknown building. They were held with 100 others for a month. None was charged.
“They were all males of a certain age who attended the same Sunni mosque in our neighbourhood,” said al-Hayess.
For the next three weeks she and her husband, Haq Mohammed, 63, a teacher, heard nothing of their sons. Then came some good news. After lengthy negotiations with someone purporting to represent the “Scorpion” battalion of the Iraqi army, Mohammed struck a deal to buy their freedom for $2,000. Their captors had initially demanded $60,000.
Confident that they would soon be freed, he set off for the local mosque to pray. Al-Hayess, who had stayed at home, heard a muffled sound outside.
“It was like when the electric cables have a contact or when the generator plays up and chokes,” she said. When her two sons went outside they found their father lying in a pool of his own blood. Witnesses said he had been shot 15 times from a vehicle carrying National Guard soldiers.
“We did not even bring him home for fear of further retaliation,” said al-Hayess, sobbing more loudly. “He was taken straight from the morgue to the graveyard.”
Omar’s and Ahmad’s ordeal continued. Their captors repeatedly demanded to know which insurgent groups they belonged to. They were also blindfolded and filmed as they marched near a pile of weapons.
The film was broadcast on television and al-Hayess, who recognised her sons, was surprised to hear them described as part of a terrorist group captured by Iraqi security forces.
Following her husband’s murder, al-Hayess moved with her other sons and daughter to her mother’s house in al-Doura. Then, two months after their arrest, Omar and Ahmad were freed.
There were more horrors in store. On August 8, nearly two months after Mohammed’s shooting, al-Hayess’s brother, Mohammed Ibrahim, went to a meeting at the culture ministry. Ibrahim called his son, Saif, later that day to say that he was being held by kidnappers.
During the next few hours the kidnappers contacted Saif several times, initially demanding $100,000, but eventually agreeing to accept $10,000. Saif put the money in a bag and dropped it off at the agreed location.
“We cooked and planned a street celebration,” he said. But his father never returned. A day later the police called the family to say he had been shot and his body was in the morgue.
Just over two weeks ago came the final blow. Al-Hayess was woken by a crash as masked National Guards accompanied by American soldiers stormed the house. Her two younger sons, Ali, 29, and Youssef, 25, were arrested.
She hopes they will be freed. But her fear is that they will join the many Sunni men who have disappeared without trace or those who are tortured, killed and dumped by the roadside.
Sunni mosques and clerics keep files and pictures of men found dead, some with their eyes gouged out, others with drill holes in different parts of their bodies.
Colonel Montazar al-Samuraii, a senior Iraqi officer who fled to Amman a few weeks ago, said that a special force had been created by Bayan Jabr, the interior minister, with the power to detain and interrogate people without referring to the courts.
Last month American troops discovered more than 170 detainees — mainly Sunnis — locked in a ministry bunker in Baghdad. Many had been beaten, were malnourished and had apparently been tortured. Detainees’ bodies were also reportedly found in the bunker. Al-Samuraii claims to know of seven other locations with such bunkers. Jabr has dismissed the allegations as exaggerated.
Al-Hayess, meanwhile, can do little but mourn her husband and brother and pray for the safe return of her sons.
“I don’t know who to go to, who to plead to or who to report to any more,” she said, bursting into tears again. “Even our identity cards and ration cards were confiscated by soldiers.”
from Hala Jaber at The Sunday Times
First her two eldest sons were kidnapped and held for two months. Then her husband and her brother were shot. Now her two other sons have been taken away.
A diminutive figure dressed in black, al-Hayess is not a criminal and insists her family has no connections with any insurgent group. Her only “crime”, she says, is to be a Sunni Muslim in a country whose forces are dominated by Shi’ites.
Her story is one of many that have emerged in recent weeks of Sunni men seized by security forces without explanation and then either held for ransom or killed. Taken together they indicate an ugly campaign of sectarian reprisals against the minority Sunnis, who dominated the country under Saddam Hussein.
Al-Hayess’s nightmare began on June 10 when 30 soldiers from the National Guard arrived at her home in the predominantly Shi’ite Oore district of Baghdad. The men dragged her sons Omar, 32, and Ahmad, 34, from the roof where they had been sleeping.
Handcuffed and blindfolded, the pair were taken to a vehicle into which 11 other men from the same block were bundled before being taken to an unknown building. They were held with 100 others for a month. None was charged.
“They were all males of a certain age who attended the same Sunni mosque in our neighbourhood,” said al-Hayess.
For the next three weeks she and her husband, Haq Mohammed, 63, a teacher, heard nothing of their sons. Then came some good news. After lengthy negotiations with someone purporting to represent the “Scorpion” battalion of the Iraqi army, Mohammed struck a deal to buy their freedom for $2,000. Their captors had initially demanded $60,000.
Confident that they would soon be freed, he set off for the local mosque to pray. Al-Hayess, who had stayed at home, heard a muffled sound outside.
“It was like when the electric cables have a contact or when the generator plays up and chokes,” she said. When her two sons went outside they found their father lying in a pool of his own blood. Witnesses said he had been shot 15 times from a vehicle carrying National Guard soldiers.
“We did not even bring him home for fear of further retaliation,” said al-Hayess, sobbing more loudly. “He was taken straight from the morgue to the graveyard.”
Omar’s and Ahmad’s ordeal continued. Their captors repeatedly demanded to know which insurgent groups they belonged to. They were also blindfolded and filmed as they marched near a pile of weapons.
The film was broadcast on television and al-Hayess, who recognised her sons, was surprised to hear them described as part of a terrorist group captured by Iraqi security forces.
Following her husband’s murder, al-Hayess moved with her other sons and daughter to her mother’s house in al-Doura. Then, two months after their arrest, Omar and Ahmad were freed.
There were more horrors in store. On August 8, nearly two months after Mohammed’s shooting, al-Hayess’s brother, Mohammed Ibrahim, went to a meeting at the culture ministry. Ibrahim called his son, Saif, later that day to say that he was being held by kidnappers.
During the next few hours the kidnappers contacted Saif several times, initially demanding $100,000, but eventually agreeing to accept $10,000. Saif put the money in a bag and dropped it off at the agreed location.
“We cooked and planned a street celebration,” he said. But his father never returned. A day later the police called the family to say he had been shot and his body was in the morgue.
Just over two weeks ago came the final blow. Al-Hayess was woken by a crash as masked National Guards accompanied by American soldiers stormed the house. Her two younger sons, Ali, 29, and Youssef, 25, were arrested.
She hopes they will be freed. But her fear is that they will join the many Sunni men who have disappeared without trace or those who are tortured, killed and dumped by the roadside.
Sunni mosques and clerics keep files and pictures of men found dead, some with their eyes gouged out, others with drill holes in different parts of their bodies.
Colonel Montazar al-Samuraii, a senior Iraqi officer who fled to Amman a few weeks ago, said that a special force had been created by Bayan Jabr, the interior minister, with the power to detain and interrogate people without referring to the courts.
Last month American troops discovered more than 170 detainees — mainly Sunnis — locked in a ministry bunker in Baghdad. Many had been beaten, were malnourished and had apparently been tortured. Detainees’ bodies were also reportedly found in the bunker. Al-Samuraii claims to know of seven other locations with such bunkers. Jabr has dismissed the allegations as exaggerated.
Al-Hayess, meanwhile, can do little but mourn her husband and brother and pray for the safe return of her sons.
“I don’t know who to go to, who to plead to or who to report to any more,” she said, bursting into tears again. “Even our identity cards and ration cards were confiscated by soldiers.”
from Hala Jaber at The Sunday Times
Blair's Rail czar accused of assaulting train steward
BRITAIN’S rail czar has been questioned by police over allegations that he assaulted a restaurant steward on an inter-city express service.
Dr Mike Mitchell, director-general of railways at the Department for Transport, has been accused of “common assault and abusive behaviour” while travelling on a GNER train between London and Newcastle.
The senior civil servant, who has been dubbed the nation’s “fat controller” and draws a salary of £150,000, could be charged as early as this week, according to sources close to the investigation. If convicted he faces a maximum sentence of six months in prison.
The allegations come nine months after he was appointed by Alistair Darling, the transport secretary, and at a time when the rail industry has been campaigning to protect its workforce. Assaults on staff have more than doubled over the past seven years.
Mitchell, 57, was interviewed by British Transport police last month and provided a statement while accompanied by a solicitor.
The alleged assault took place on June 14 on the 8pm service between King’s Cross and Newcastle. It is believed that Mitchell was trying to get off the train at Peterborough when his exit was unwittingly blocked by a GNER employee serving passengers in the restaurant car.
An argument between the two men broke out which subsequently escalated. “He [Mitchell] didn’t throw a punch or anything, but he is alleged to have pushed him [the GNER employee] and that’s what the common assault is,” said a police source.
“It wasn’t just a case of verbal abuse. There was some manhandling involved,” said another insider.
The altercation took place in front of several passengers, including an off-duty policeman, who have provided witness statements.
Even after Mitchell got off the train, it is alleged, he continued banging on the window from the station platform and swearing at the GNER customer services assistant.
After receiving advice from the Crown Prosecution Service, British Transport police are now understood to be considering serving Mitchell with a court summons.
Mitchell’s appointment followed the government’s decision to scrap the Strategic Rail Authority, an industry quango, bringing control of the railways under the transport department earlier this year.
Having worked with British Rail for 16 years and then at FirstGroup, the privately run train and bus operator, Mitchell earned a reputation as a “cost-cutter”. In his new role he oversees strategy and funding of the rail network and his team is responsible for awarding train franchises. He is on a three-year contract.
Trumpeting Mitchell’s appointment in February, Darling said: “He has worked in transport for more than 30 years and has the skills necessary to ensure that the department can carry out its new role within a streamlined rail industry.”
Last night Bob Crow, general secretary of the Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers’ union, said: “Every person is innocent until proven guilty . . . However, if the head of railways is charged and found guilty it will be time for him to stand to one side.”
from Dipesh Gadher, Transport Correspondent at The Sunday Times
Dr Mike Mitchell, director-general of railways at the Department for Transport, has been accused of “common assault and abusive behaviour” while travelling on a GNER train between London and Newcastle.
The senior civil servant, who has been dubbed the nation’s “fat controller” and draws a salary of £150,000, could be charged as early as this week, according to sources close to the investigation. If convicted he faces a maximum sentence of six months in prison.
The allegations come nine months after he was appointed by Alistair Darling, the transport secretary, and at a time when the rail industry has been campaigning to protect its workforce. Assaults on staff have more than doubled over the past seven years.
Mitchell, 57, was interviewed by British Transport police last month and provided a statement while accompanied by a solicitor.
The alleged assault took place on June 14 on the 8pm service between King’s Cross and Newcastle. It is believed that Mitchell was trying to get off the train at Peterborough when his exit was unwittingly blocked by a GNER employee serving passengers in the restaurant car.
An argument between the two men broke out which subsequently escalated. “He [Mitchell] didn’t throw a punch or anything, but he is alleged to have pushed him [the GNER employee] and that’s what the common assault is,” said a police source.
“It wasn’t just a case of verbal abuse. There was some manhandling involved,” said another insider.
The altercation took place in front of several passengers, including an off-duty policeman, who have provided witness statements.
Even after Mitchell got off the train, it is alleged, he continued banging on the window from the station platform and swearing at the GNER customer services assistant.
After receiving advice from the Crown Prosecution Service, British Transport police are now understood to be considering serving Mitchell with a court summons.
Mitchell’s appointment followed the government’s decision to scrap the Strategic Rail Authority, an industry quango, bringing control of the railways under the transport department earlier this year.
Having worked with British Rail for 16 years and then at FirstGroup, the privately run train and bus operator, Mitchell earned a reputation as a “cost-cutter”. In his new role he oversees strategy and funding of the rail network and his team is responsible for awarding train franchises. He is on a three-year contract.
Trumpeting Mitchell’s appointment in February, Darling said: “He has worked in transport for more than 30 years and has the skills necessary to ensure that the department can carry out its new role within a streamlined rail industry.”
Last night Bob Crow, general secretary of the Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers’ union, said: “Every person is innocent until proven guilty . . . However, if the head of railways is charged and found guilty it will be time for him to stand to one side.”
from Dipesh Gadher, Transport Correspondent at The Sunday Times
Saturday, December 03, 2005
New Labour MP blocks anti-burglar
A New Labour MP has talked - and talked and talked - his way into the record books with a speech lasting 197 minutes.
Andrew Dismore's marathon oration - the longest this century - blocked a bill to clarify the degree of force a householder can use against intruders.
It beat the previous 181-minute record - already held by the eloquent Mr Dismore - Labour MP for Hendon.
But even his latest effort is well short of the all-time Commons record of six hours, by Henry Brougham in 1828.
'Vigilante law'
Mr Dismore, who started his speech at 1113 GMT, said the Criminal Law (Amendment) (Protection of Property) Bill amounted to "vigilante law".
He warned: "The bill is unclear, uncertain and will result in people facing prosecution where, at present, they do not."
Conservative backbencher Anne McIntosh, who proposed the legislation, said: "The time has come to redress the balance."
The present law allowing "reasonable force" was not satisfactory and a proper deterrent was needed.
But, armed only with a sheaf of papers and several reference books, he was still speaking as time ran out for the measure at 1430 GMT.
For fortification Mr Dismore - co-chairman of the All-Party Wine and Spirit Group - drank only from a cup of water.
Westminster tourists in a hurry should beware, as the 51-year-old MP claims he "speaks Greek and French to a reasonable conversational level".
The bill now stands no chance of becoming law. The practice employed by Mr Dismore is known as filibustering, or "talking out" legislation.
Ms McIntosh accused him of "negative behaviour" and said Labour was "out of touch" on crime.
However, Mr Dinmore said: "On a Friday, many bills are talked out, all the time, and bills which I very much agreed with have been talked out by Anne McIntosh's friends."
Andrew Dismore's marathon oration - the longest this century - blocked a bill to clarify the degree of force a householder can use against intruders.
It beat the previous 181-minute record - already held by the eloquent Mr Dismore - Labour MP for Hendon.
But even his latest effort is well short of the all-time Commons record of six hours, by Henry Brougham in 1828.
'Vigilante law'
Mr Dismore, who started his speech at 1113 GMT, said the Criminal Law (Amendment) (Protection of Property) Bill amounted to "vigilante law".
He warned: "The bill is unclear, uncertain and will result in people facing prosecution where, at present, they do not."
Conservative backbencher Anne McIntosh, who proposed the legislation, said: "The time has come to redress the balance."
The present law allowing "reasonable force" was not satisfactory and a proper deterrent was needed.
But, armed only with a sheaf of papers and several reference books, he was still speaking as time ran out for the measure at 1430 GMT.
For fortification Mr Dismore - co-chairman of the All-Party Wine and Spirit Group - drank only from a cup of water.
Westminster tourists in a hurry should beware, as the 51-year-old MP claims he "speaks Greek and French to a reasonable conversational level".
The bill now stands no chance of becoming law. The practice employed by Mr Dismore is known as filibustering, or "talking out" legislation.
Ms McIntosh accused him of "negative behaviour" and said Labour was "out of touch" on crime.
However, Mr Dinmore said: "On a Friday, many bills are talked out, all the time, and bills which I very much agreed with have been talked out by Anne McIntosh's friends."
New Labour NHS trusts delay treatment to save money
Hospitals have been told to delay operations to reduce debts faced by primary care trusts, it has emerged.
They are reportedly trying to postpone paying for operations until the new financial year in April.
But the Government has washed its hands of the practice, saying it was an "operational issue for the local NHS".
It comes a day after Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt admitted the health service could be facing a deficit of £620 million.
A letter leaked to the Times newspaper reveals hospitals within Harrow Primary Care Trust, which is reportedly facing an £8-12 million deficit, have been told to delay surgery. The document, written by Dr Ken Walton, chairman of the trust's Professional Executive Committee, tells GPs it has "reluctantly" asked hospitals to "do the minimum required to meet national targets". It says: "This means that patients sent for outpatient appointments will only be seen at 10-13 weeks (national target 13 weeks) and elective surgery will be delayed until the sixth month (national target six months)."
In a statement to the newspaper the trust defended its policy. It said: "Harrow PCT is taking action to control its expenditure that will not affect the quality of care given to its patients. All patients in Harrow will be seen within national targets."
The Guardian reported similar practices being taken to save money at trusts elsewhere in the country. The newspaper said the University Hospital of North Staffordshire in Stoke-on-Trent had been told it must stop operating on women needing gynaecological treatment who had been on its waiting lists for only two months. Peter Blythin, chief executive of the hospital, told the newspaper: "The PCTs have asked us not to treat any of their patients whose surgery was due to go ahead sooner than the target."
The Guardian also reported that in London, Hammersmith and Fulham Primary Care Trust had agreed a business plan that slowed down treatment.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Health said it did not take a view on whether the primary care trusts should be saving money in this way.
In a statement, the department said: "This is an operational issue for the local NHS. The NHS has made substantial progress in reducing waiting times for most types of hospital referral. Investment and reform are working - the waiting list is at a record low and patients are experiencing the fastest ever access to NHS treatment. By the end of this year no one will wait longer than six months for any operation and the NHS is on track to meet the commitment that by 2008 no one will wait for than 18 weeks from GP referral to operation."
They are reportedly trying to postpone paying for operations until the new financial year in April.
But the Government has washed its hands of the practice, saying it was an "operational issue for the local NHS".
It comes a day after Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt admitted the health service could be facing a deficit of £620 million.
A letter leaked to the Times newspaper reveals hospitals within Harrow Primary Care Trust, which is reportedly facing an £8-12 million deficit, have been told to delay surgery. The document, written by Dr Ken Walton, chairman of the trust's Professional Executive Committee, tells GPs it has "reluctantly" asked hospitals to "do the minimum required to meet national targets". It says: "This means that patients sent for outpatient appointments will only be seen at 10-13 weeks (national target 13 weeks) and elective surgery will be delayed until the sixth month (national target six months)."
In a statement to the newspaper the trust defended its policy. It said: "Harrow PCT is taking action to control its expenditure that will not affect the quality of care given to its patients. All patients in Harrow will be seen within national targets."
The Guardian reported similar practices being taken to save money at trusts elsewhere in the country. The newspaper said the University Hospital of North Staffordshire in Stoke-on-Trent had been told it must stop operating on women needing gynaecological treatment who had been on its waiting lists for only two months. Peter Blythin, chief executive of the hospital, told the newspaper: "The PCTs have asked us not to treat any of their patients whose surgery was due to go ahead sooner than the target."
The Guardian also reported that in London, Hammersmith and Fulham Primary Care Trust had agreed a business plan that slowed down treatment.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Health said it did not take a view on whether the primary care trusts should be saving money in this way.
In a statement, the department said: "This is an operational issue for the local NHS. The NHS has made substantial progress in reducing waiting times for most types of hospital referral. Investment and reform are working - the waiting list is at a record low and patients are experiencing the fastest ever access to NHS treatment. By the end of this year no one will wait longer than six months for any operation and the NHS is on track to meet the commitment that by 2008 no one will wait for than 18 weeks from GP referral to operation."
New Labour tax credit system suffers massive fraud
Online applications for tax credits have been shut down because of abuse by organised crime.
HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) shut down its online portal for the tax credit system late on 1 December after finding a number of fraudulent claims.
As BBC News reported in October, organised gangs have targeted the online tax credit system because they see it as an easy target.
Tax credits are intended to help people on low incomes or with families.
The identities of staff had also been abused, HMRC said.
The staff in question work for the Department of Work and Pensions, raising questions about whether DWP systems have been hacked or whether insiders have been assisting in the fraud.
A helpline has been set up to counsel staff who think they have been affected.
"As soon as we noticed there was fraud taking place, we brought the system down," an HMRC spokeswoman said.
"Like any big organisation, we take fraud very seriously." Applications in person, by post or over the phone are still being accepted.
BBC News learned in October of widespread fraud by organised crime, with multiple online applications being made from internet cafes using false identities.
The fraudsters then disappear before repayment can be demanded - leaving honest claimants to bear the brunt of overpayment recoveries.
The problems with fraud in the tax credit system are thought to result from the system's design, described by some fraud experts as "low-hanging fruit" for scammers.
In the past, most checks into error or fraud have been applied after an application is made, in order to claw back overpayment after the fact.
The clawback process has sparked criticism for leaving needy families short of cash.
But it also leaves the system open to abuse.
Overall, the tax credit system paid out £13.8bn in the financial year which finished in April 2005.
No figure is available for the proportion which was overpaid that year - either through error or fraud - but in the previous year, overpayments totalled £2.2bn.
BBC News
HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) shut down its online portal for the tax credit system late on 1 December after finding a number of fraudulent claims.
As BBC News reported in October, organised gangs have targeted the online tax credit system because they see it as an easy target.
Tax credits are intended to help people on low incomes or with families.
The identities of staff had also been abused, HMRC said.
The staff in question work for the Department of Work and Pensions, raising questions about whether DWP systems have been hacked or whether insiders have been assisting in the fraud.
A helpline has been set up to counsel staff who think they have been affected.
"As soon as we noticed there was fraud taking place, we brought the system down," an HMRC spokeswoman said.
"Like any big organisation, we take fraud very seriously." Applications in person, by post or over the phone are still being accepted.
BBC News learned in October of widespread fraud by organised crime, with multiple online applications being made from internet cafes using false identities.
The fraudsters then disappear before repayment can be demanded - leaving honest claimants to bear the brunt of overpayment recoveries.
The problems with fraud in the tax credit system are thought to result from the system's design, described by some fraud experts as "low-hanging fruit" for scammers.
In the past, most checks into error or fraud have been applied after an application is made, in order to claw back overpayment after the fact.
The clawback process has sparked criticism for leaving needy families short of cash.
But it also leaves the system open to abuse.
Overall, the tax credit system paid out £13.8bn in the financial year which finished in April 2005.
No figure is available for the proportion which was overpaid that year - either through error or fraud - but in the previous year, overpayments totalled £2.2bn.
BBC News
Rebate backfires on Blair
TONY Blair flew home empty-handed and friendless last night after his bid to reform EU spending ended in failure.
The PM offered to trim up to 1billion off Britain's annual rebate to clinch a deal with fellow leaders.
But after wafting taxpayers' cash under their noses in a two-day sprint across Europe, his efforts came to nothing.
In fact, his mission achieved little except to alienate new EU members and infuriate millions of voters back home.
Tories attacked him for surrendering the hard-won rebate without a deal to slash whopping subsidies for French, Spanish, Italian and Greek farmers.
And allies in new member states say Blair's cashback offer is too small to rebuild their countries.
Last night he was called 'Billy No Mates' as his hopes of making a mark on Europe collapsed.
Shadow Europe Minister Graham Brady said: 'Tony Blair has put billions on the bargaining table for nothing.
'He's proved that money can't buy him popularity or love. He's Billy No Mates.' Even Mr Blair admitted he was in a 'tight spot' with just two weeks until crunch Budget talks open in Brussels.
In a 3,750-mile trek he met leaders in Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Slovakia and the Czech Republic.
Hungarian leader Ferenc Gyurcsany warned they were 'far from agreement'.
Estonian PM Andrus Ansip said Blair's 'unacceptable' offer would cut their investment by 10 per cent.
As he flew home, Mr Blair admitted: 'It is going to be difficult to find an agreement.
'But it is in Britain's interests to find an agreement. Otherwise we will have a stalemate in Europe.'
The PM said he is ready to give up a slice of Britain's annual 3.8billion rebate, secured by Margaret Thatcher in 1984.
from DAVID WOODING Whitehall Editor at The Sun
The PM offered to trim up to 1billion off Britain's annual rebate to clinch a deal with fellow leaders.
But after wafting taxpayers' cash under their noses in a two-day sprint across Europe, his efforts came to nothing.
In fact, his mission achieved little except to alienate new EU members and infuriate millions of voters back home.
Tories attacked him for surrendering the hard-won rebate without a deal to slash whopping subsidies for French, Spanish, Italian and Greek farmers.
And allies in new member states say Blair's cashback offer is too small to rebuild their countries.
Last night he was called 'Billy No Mates' as his hopes of making a mark on Europe collapsed.
Shadow Europe Minister Graham Brady said: 'Tony Blair has put billions on the bargaining table for nothing.
'He's proved that money can't buy him popularity or love. He's Billy No Mates.' Even Mr Blair admitted he was in a 'tight spot' with just two weeks until crunch Budget talks open in Brussels.
In a 3,750-mile trek he met leaders in Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Slovakia and the Czech Republic.
Hungarian leader Ferenc Gyurcsany warned they were 'far from agreement'.
Estonian PM Andrus Ansip said Blair's 'unacceptable' offer would cut their investment by 10 per cent.
As he flew home, Mr Blair admitted: 'It is going to be difficult to find an agreement.
'But it is in Britain's interests to find an agreement. Otherwise we will have a stalemate in Europe.'
The PM said he is ready to give up a slice of Britain's annual 3.8billion rebate, secured by Margaret Thatcher in 1984.
from DAVID WOODING Whitehall Editor at The Sun
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Armed Police get the wrong man again
Sprinter James Ellington has made a complaint against the police
An international sprinter who was mistaken for an armed robber feared heavy-handed police tactics would end his Olympic dream.
Great Britain 100m runner James Ellington was dragged from his car and tied up by armed police in Bellingham because they thought he was a suspect.
Now the 20-year-old has told how he feared his career could have been at risk due to the "excessive force" used by the police officers.
Mr Ellington was on his way home from visiting a friend, in Bromley Road, Catford, when he saw five police cars on his tail.
The cars surrounded him as he got to the Beckenham Hill estate, ordering him to pull over.
The promising sprinter, who finished fifth in last year's European under-23 championships, was dragged from his car.
He claims he was then thrown to the ground and kneed in the back before having his hands tied.
Mr Ellington, who harbours ambitions of competing in the 2008 Olympics, suffered knee and back injuries.
He said: "It was horrible. I was thinking my career could be in danger.
"I have never been in trouble with the police in my life. I don't know why they went after me."
After his 20-minute ordeal on November 22, police realised they had the wrong man and released Mr Ellington.
The Bellingham resident claims the officers apologised and said they were "only doing their job" but he was not offered any first-aid care.
Mr Ellington, who has now made a formal complaint against the police, added: "I accept they have a job to do but they don't need to use excessive force.
"If they are not 100 per cent sure they shouldn't be dragging people from cars."
Scotland Yard say they will investigate any complaint received.
From Glenn Ebrey at This is Local London
Ed: Don't you just love the idea of every PC carrying a gun. Whoops!
An international sprinter who was mistaken for an armed robber feared heavy-handed police tactics would end his Olympic dream.
Great Britain 100m runner James Ellington was dragged from his car and tied up by armed police in Bellingham because they thought he was a suspect.
Now the 20-year-old has told how he feared his career could have been at risk due to the "excessive force" used by the police officers.
Mr Ellington was on his way home from visiting a friend, in Bromley Road, Catford, when he saw five police cars on his tail.
The cars surrounded him as he got to the Beckenham Hill estate, ordering him to pull over.
The promising sprinter, who finished fifth in last year's European under-23 championships, was dragged from his car.
He claims he was then thrown to the ground and kneed in the back before having his hands tied.
Mr Ellington, who harbours ambitions of competing in the 2008 Olympics, suffered knee and back injuries.
He said: "It was horrible. I was thinking my career could be in danger.
"I have never been in trouble with the police in my life. I don't know why they went after me."
After his 20-minute ordeal on November 22, police realised they had the wrong man and released Mr Ellington.
The Bellingham resident claims the officers apologised and said they were "only doing their job" but he was not offered any first-aid care.
Mr Ellington, who has now made a formal complaint against the police, added: "I accept they have a job to do but they don't need to use excessive force.
"If they are not 100 per cent sure they shouldn't be dragging people from cars."
Scotland Yard say they will investigate any complaint received.
From Glenn Ebrey at This is Local London
Ed: Don't you just love the idea of every PC carrying a gun. Whoops!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)