Category: UK

  • Jobcentre staff ‘sent guidelines on how to deal with claimants’ suicide threats’

    Jobcentre staff ‘sent guidelines on how to deal with claimants’ suicide threats’

    Employees ‘receive six-point plan telling them to take each threat seriously’ as clamp on benefits takes effect

    job centre plus
    According to a senior Jobcentre employee, staff have been sent guidelines advising them on how to cope with clients who say will kill themselves. Photograph: David Sillitoe for the Guardian

    Staff working for jobcentres and other Department for Work and Pensions contractors have been given guidelines on how to deal with suicide threats from claimants as the squeeze on benefits takes hold.

    A document sent to jobcentre staff in April details what it calls a “new policy for all DWP businesses to help them manage suicide and self-harm declarations from customers”.

    The guidelines include a “six-point plan” for staff to follow which says: “Some customers may say they intend to self-harm or kill themselves as a threat or a tactic to ‘persuade’, others will mean it. It is very hard to distinguish between the two … For this reason, all declarations must be taken seriously.”

    The internal document was sent to the Guardian by a senior jobcentre employee who has worked for the DWP for more than 20 years. It was accompanied by a letter from the source that said: “Absolutely nobody has ever seen this guidance before, leading staff to believe it has been put together ahead of the incapacity benefit and disability living allowance cuts.”

    The employee, who asked to remain anonymous, said: “We were a bit shocked. Are we preparing ourselves to be like the Samaritans? The fact that we’ve dealt with the public for so many years without such guidance has made people feel a bit fearful about what’s coming.”

    The DWP said that the new guidelines were not related to any recent policy changes and had been in development since 2009. “This guidance is about supporting our staff and ensuring we can help our customers.

    “It is right that a customer-facing organisation that serves over 20 million, including the most vulnerable in our society, has guidance such as this in place.”

    The team leader said the guidance had alarmed people in their team: “We’ve suddenly got this new aspect to our job. The bigger picture is people here are wondering how savage these cuts are going to be. And we’re the frontline staff having to deal with the fallout from these changes. ”

    Julie Tipping, an appeals officer for Disability Solutions, represents claimants who try to overturn decisions made following work capability assessment tests that they are fit for work.

    She says that in the last year, two of her clients have made “real attempts” at suicide after a decision was made that they were fit for work. Both were taken to hospital and subsequently sectioned.

    “It’s real and true. A lot of people think these people are crying wolf to get their money, but that’s not the case. They are suffering from real problems and can’t face it any more.”

    Tipping said the pressure on vulnerable clients was “the cumulative effect of all these welfare changes. The test is simply not fit for purpose for assessing mental health problems. That’s on top of moving people on to jobseeker’s allowance, and all of the conditionality and risk of sanctions that goes with that.”

    The Guardian revealed last month that some jobcentres were setting targets for advisers to stop people’s benefits for not meeting conditions attached to their jobseeker’s allowance.

    A whistleblower said that the pressure on staff was leading to vulnerable claimants being targeted for sanctions. The targets have since been removed. But thousands of claimants of incapacity benefit and employment support allowance are being reassessed to see if they should be considered fit for work and moved on to jobseeker’s allowance.

    Another jobcentre adviser said: “People have been coming off sickness benefits and thrown onto jobseeker’s allowance. It’s problematic because some customers are clearly not fit to work, and they are clearly very distressed. When you sense this you feel really upset because the system is allowing them to get like this and you feel part of the processing machine.”Eleanor Lisney, of Disabled People Against Cuts, said that the thought of being moved on to jobseeker’s allowance was like a sword hanging over the heads of disabled groups and she feared an increase in related suicides.

    www.guardian.co.uk, 8 May 2011

     

  • Wasn’t Bin Laden the reason we went to war?

    Wasn’t Bin Laden the reason we went to war?

    Patrick Cockburn: Wasn’t Bin Laden the reason we went to war?

    The killing of the al-Qa’ida leader offers an opportunity to make long overdue progress on Afghanistan

    Does the death of Osama bin Laden open the door for the US and UK to escape from the trap into which they have fallen in Afghanistan? At first sight, the presumed weakening of al-Qa’ida ought to strength the case for an American and British withdrawal. When President Obama ordered the dispatch of an extra 30,000 troops to Afghanistan in 2009, he declared that the goal was “to deny safe-haven to al-Qa’ida and to deny the Taliban the ability to overthrow the Afghan government”.

    This justification for stationing 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan and for Washington spending $113bn (£69bn) a year always looked thin. By the US army’s own estimate there are about 100 members of al-Qa’ida in Afghanistan compared with an estimated 25,000 Taliban. Even on the Pakistan side of the border, al-Qa’ida probably only has a few hundred fighters.

    A problem for the US and Britain is how to dump this convenient but highly misleading explanation as to why it was essential for the safety of their own countries to fight a war in Afghanistan. This has required pretending that al-Qa’ida was in the country in significant force and that a vast US and UK military deployment was necessary to defend the streets of London or the little house on the prairie.

    The death of Bin Laden reduces this highly exaggerated perception of al-Qa’ida as a threat. People, not unreasonably, ask what we are doing in Afghanistan, and why soldiers are still being killed. One spurious argument has been to conflate al-Qa’ida and the Afghan Taliban, and say they are much the same thing. But it is difficult to think of a single Afghan involved in bomb attacks against targets in the US and Britain before and after 9/11. Al-Qa’ida’s leadership was mainly Egyptian and Saudi as were all the 9/11 bombers.

    The problem for Washington and London is that they have got so many people killed in Afghanistan and spent so much money that it is difficult for them to withdraw without something that can be dressed up as a victory. Could the death of Bin Laden be the sort of success that would allow Obama to claim that America’s main objective has been achieved? For the moment, at least, it will be more difficult for the Republicans to claim that a disengagement is a betrayal of US national security. Could not this be the moment for the US, with Britain tagging along behind, to cut a deal and get out?

    Unfortunately, it probably isn’t going to happen. It will not be Obama’s decision alone. In 2009, he was dubious about what a temporary surge in US troop numbers would achieve and keen not to be sucked into a quagmire in Afghanistan just as the US was getting out of one in Iraq. Endless discussions took place in the offices of the White House about whether or not to send reinforcements.

    But the outcome of these repeated meetings was predictable given the balance of power between different institutions in Washington. Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA and the next US Secretary for Defence, said that the decision to send more troops should have been made in a week, because the political reality is that “no Democratic president can go against military advice, especially if he has asked for it. So just do it. Do what they [the generals] said.”

    The US military is not going to eat its optimistic words of late last year when they were claiming that it was finally making headway against the Taliban. Insurgent mid-level commanders were being assassinated in night raids by US Special Forces, and survivors were fleeing to Pakistan. If the Taliban were increasing their strength in northern Afghanistan, they were losing their grip on their old strongholds in Helmand and Kandahar.

    Such reports of progress appear to have been largely propaganda or wishful thinking. At the start of this year’s fighting season the Taliban have been able to launch as many attacks as last year and replace its casualties. In Kandahar last month, they were able to free 500 prisoners from the city jail by digging a tunnel 1,000 feet long over five months without anybody finding out about it. An organisation that can do this is scarcely on its last legs. The message of the last few months is that the “surge” in Afghanistan, of which so much was expected, has not worked.

    The Americans and British are meant to be training Afghan military and police units to take the place of foreign forces. It is never quite explained how Taliban fighters, without any formal military training, are able to battle the best-equipped armies in the world, while Afghan government troops require months of training before they can carry out the simplest military task.

    One escaped Taliban prisoner in Kandahar has said that their plan was helped by the fact in the evening the prison guards always fell into a drug-induced stupor.

    Official bromides about building up the strength of the Afghan government ignore an ominous trend: the governing class is detested by the rest of the population as a gang of thieves and racketeers. I was struck in a recent visit to Kabul by the venom with which well-educated professional people and businessmen, who are not doing badly, condemn Hamid Karzai’s government. This does not mean that they support the Taliban, but it does show that Karzai’s support, aside from cronies busily engaged in robbing the state, is very small.

    When negotiations do start they should be between the four main players: the US, the Afghan government, the Taliban, and Pakistan. For all the rude things being said about the Pakistan military after Bin Laden was discovered so close to their main military academy in Abbottabad, nothing is going to be decided without their say-so.

    Only the Pakistani army can deliver the Taliban whose great strategic advantage in the war is that under pressure they can always withdraw across the border into Pakistan. It is the highly permeable border, as long as the distance from London to Moscow, which prevented the Soviet Union from defeating Afghan rebels in the 1980s. Pakistan is not going to try to close this border and could not do so even if it wanted to.

    It would not be difficult for the Taliban to renounce al-Qa’ida and other jihadi groups. The killing of Bin Laden as the icon of evil should make this easier for the US to accept.

    Obviously there is going to be no military solution to the Afghan conflict, and negotiations with the Taliban will have to begin sooner or later, so why not now?

    www.independent.co.uk8 May 2011

    Showing 10 comments
    Sort by      Subscribe by email    Subscribe by RSS  anna 21 minutes ago afghanistan has untold mineral wealth and the Unicla pipeline goes through it – that’s why they are thereGetit? the Taliban can’t get hold of that, right?

  • Netanyahu’s Military Adviser Skips Visit to U.K. Over Fears He’d Be Arrested on “War Crimes” Charges…

    Netanyahu’s Military Adviser Skips Visit to U.K. Over Fears He’d Be Arrested on “War Crimes” Charges…

    LockerLockedOutPrime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s military secretary, Maj.-Gen. Yohanan Locker, did not accompany Netanyahu on his trip to London last week, out of concern he might be arrested there, Channel 1 reported.
    Locker is a permanent member of Netanyahu’s entourage, but he was warned that since the British law on universal jurisdiction had not yet been changed, he might be detained upon landing in the UK over alleged war crimes that human rights groups have accused Israel of committing during Operation Cast Lead.
    Locker – who accompanies Netanyahu everywhere he goes, inside Israel and out – opted out of the Prime Minister’s entourage after he received a recommendation to do so. Locker was the chief of staff of the Israel Air Force in operation Cast Lead and would therefore be a prime target for anti-Israeli “lawfare” abroad.
    In 2009, Tzipi Livni reportedly canceled a trip to England out of similar concerns. Livni was foreign minister during Cast Lead.
    British law allows private citizens to secure arrest warrants for visiting foreign officials whom they accuse of war crimes or crimes against humanity. Pro-Hamas activists have been trying to use this law to harass Israeli officials who travel to London.
    The British government under Prime Minister David Cameron has begun to enact legislation to curb British magistrates’ powers of “universal jurisdiction,” making it impossible for a private British citizen to have a foreign official arrested without government cooperation. An amendment to this effect was approved by the House of Commons in April and has been sent to the House of Lords for final approval.
    (IsraelNationalNews.com)

     

  • Real IRA threatens more ‘executions’ of police and disrupt the Queen’s historic visit

    Real IRA threatens more ‘executions’ of police and disrupt the Queen’s historic visit

    By Rob Hastings

    A member of the Real IRA reads a statement during a 1916 Easter Rising memorial at Cregan Cemetery in Londonderry yesterday
    A member of the Real IRA reads a statement during a 1916 Easter Rising memorial at Cregan Cemetery in Londonderry yesterday

     

    The Real IRA warned yesterday that it planned to kill more police in Northern Ireland and disrupt the Queen’s historic visit to Ireland. At a rally in Londonderry to mark the anniversary of the 1916 Easter Rising against British rule, a masked member of the dissident republican group told supporters that police would be considered “as liable for execution as anyone, regardless of their religion, cultural background or motivation”. In a statement, the group also branded the Queen a war criminal ahead of her first visit to the Republic from 17 to 20 May.

     

    It called on “any young nationalist who may have been sold the lie” that the Police Service of Northern Ireland had been reformed and was non-political to think again. “Those who think they are serving their community are in fact serving the occupation and will be treated as such,” the statement said.

    The rally, held by the 32 County Sovereignty Movement, came three weeks after PC Ronan Kerr, 25, was killed by a nationalist car bomb in Omagh, Co Tyrone. The masked Real IRA man formed part of a colour party of seven people, all dressed in full paramilitary uniform. Between 200 and 300 people attended the event, which was monitored by a police helicopter.

    The Real IRA statement said the Queen’s visit was an insult that should be resisted by “all self-respecting Irishmen and women”, and was an attempt to “further the selfish interests of a self-serving elite”. “The Irish people will not capitulate,” it added. “The Queen of England is wanted for war crimes in Ireland and not wanted on Irish soil. We will do our best to ensure she and the gombeen [usurer] class that act as her cheerleaders get that message.”

    Mark Durkan, the MP for Foyle and former leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), condemned the speech, saying: “The Real IRA … is morally and politically bankrupt when they are driven to attack and threaten nationalists who want to serve the community and their country.”

    Police aross the province were kept on high alert all weekend. They fear an attack is imminent and have urged the public to remain vigilant. Dissident groups are said to be keen to use the royal visit to Dublin to their advantage, invoking hatred of the monarchy as a way to stir up deep-seated resentment at political division of the island.

    Earlier, three men appeared in court in Newry, Co Down, charged with possessing guns and preparing for terrorism. Brian Sheridan, 34, Brian Cavlan, 35, and Dominic Dines, 39, were held on Friday in South Armagh. In later searches in the same area, police found explosives and bomb-making equipment.

    The İndependent

  • Royal wedding: Police probe racist attack at Middletons’ local pub party (UK)

    Royal wedding: Police probe racist attack at Middletons’ local pub party (UK)

    chasing evil logo1

    Royal wedding: Police probe racist attack at Middletons’ local pub party (UK): “A party to celebrate the royal ­wedding at the Middletons’ local pub ended in a punch-up when a drunken gatecrasher attacked three guests.

    Landlord of the Old Boot Inn John Hayley, 55, held the £15-a-head bash for 350 regulars after returning from Westminster Abbey, where he had been a wedding guest.

    But a fight broke out after a thug is said to have called an Asian ­woman a “f***ing P***” when she sat in someone else’s seat.

    The attacker then grabbed her and threw her to the floor before ­attacking her sister-in-law and a male pal outside. The Asian ­woman was left with a cut face and black eye. The thug fled before police arrived.

    The pub, in Bucklebury, Berks, is a regular haunt of Kate’s parents, Carole and Michael Middleton, who have lived nearby for the past 10 years. Kate and Wills have also popped in.

    Charlie Hewitt, 47, whose girlfriend Liza Simpson, 39, was attacked by the thug, said: “They were having a delightful day and ­really enjoying the party. When they got to the Boot it all got a bit unsavoury and some not nice things were said. It really upset her, though, and it’s a real shame to end such a lovely day like that.”

    A police spokesman said they were investigating.

    Mr Hayley organised the party months ago and he had employed bouncers to stop trouble.

    Speaking outside the Abbey after the wedding, he said: “I was sat right at the front. Kate walked so close, I could have touched her dress.”

    Chasing Evil

  • David Cameron’s Statement on the death of Usama bin Laden, and counter terrorism

    David Cameron’s Statement on the death of Usama bin Laden, and counter terrorism

    cameron2

    Prime Minister David Cameron’s statement to the House of Commons on the death of Usama bin Laden and counter-terrorism.

    Read the statement

    The death of Usama bin Laden will have important consequences for the security of our people at home and abroad and for our foreign policy, including our partnership with Pakistan, our military action in Afghanistan and the wider fight against terrorism across the world.

    Last night I chaired a meeting of COBR to begin to address some of these issues.

    The National Security Council has met this morning.

    And I wanted to come to the House this afternoon, to take the first opportunity to address these consequences directly and answer Hon Members’ questions.

    Mr Speaker, at 3am yesterday I received a call from President Obama. He informed me that US Special Forces had successfully mounted a targeted operation against a compound in Abbottabad, in Pakistan.

    Usama bin Laden had been killed, along with four others: bin Laden’s son, two others linked to him, and a female member of his family entourage. There was a ferocious firefight, and a US helicopter had to be destroyed but there was no loss of American life.

    I am sure the whole House will join me in congratulating President Obama and praising the courage and skill of the American Special Forces who carried out this operation.

    It is a strike at the heart of international terrorism, and a great achievement for America and for all who have joined in the long struggle to defeat Al Qaeda.

    We should remember today in particular the brave British servicemen and women who have given their lives in the fight against terrorism across the world.

    And we should pay tribute especially to those British forces who have played their part over the last decade in the hunt for bin Laden.

    He was the man who was responsible for 9/11 – which was not only an horrific killing of Americans, but remains to this day, the largest loss of British life in any terrorist attack.

    A man who inspired further atrocities including in Bali, Madrid, Istanbul and of course, here in London on 7/7.

    …and, let us remember, a man who posed as a leader of Muslims but was actually a mass murderer of Muslims all over the world. Indeed he killed more Muslims than people of any other faith.

    Mr Speaker, nothing will bring back the loved ones who have been lost and of course no punishment at our disposal can remotely fit the many appalling crimes for which he was responsible.

    But I hope that at least for the victims’ families there is now a sense of justice being served, as a long dark chapter in their lives is finally closed.

    As the head of a family group for United Airlines Flight 93, put it – we are “raised, obviously, never to hope for someone’s death” but we are “willing to make an exception in this case … He was evil personified, and our world is a better place without him.”

    Mr Speaker, Britain was with America from the first day of the struggle to defeat Al Qaeda. Our resolve today is as strong as it was then. There can be no impunity and no safe-refuge for those who kill in the name of this poisonous ideology.

    Security

    Mr Speaker, our first focus must be our own security.

    While bin Laden is gone, the threat of Al Qaeda remains.

    Clearly there is a risk that Al Qaeda and its affiliates in places like Yemen and the Mahgreb will want to demonstrate they are able to operate effectively.

    And, of course, there is always the risk of a radicalised individual acting alone, a so-called lone-wolf attack.

    So we must be more vigilant than ever – and we must maintain that vigilance for some time to come.

    The terrorist threat level in the UK is already at Severe – which is as high as it can go without intelligence of a specific threat.

    We will keep that threat level under review – working closely with the intelligence agencies and the police.

    In terms of people travelling overseas, we have updated our advice and encourage British nationals to monitor the media carefully for local reactions, remain vigilant, exercise caution in public places and avoid demonstrations.

    And we have ordered our embassies across the world to review their security.

    Pakistan

    Mr Speaker, let me turn next to Pakistan.

    The fact that bin Laden was living in a large house in a populated area suggests that he must have had a support network in Pakistan.

    We don’t currently know the extent of that network, so it is right that we ask searching questions about it. And we will.

    But let’s start with what we do know.

    Pakistan has suffered more from terrorism than any other country in the world.

    As President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani said to me when I spoke to them yesterday, as many as 30,000 innocent civilians have been killed. And more Pakistani soldiers and security forces have died fighting extremism than international forces killed in Afghanistan.

    Usama Bin Laden was an enemy of Pakistan. He had declared war against the Pakistani people. And he had ordered attacks against them.

    President Obama said in his statement: “counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding.”

    Continued co-operation will be just as important in the days ahead.

    I believe it is in Britain’s national interest to recognise that we share the same struggle against terrorism.

    That’s why we will continue to work with our Pakistani counterparts on intelligence gathering, tracing plots and taking action to stop them.

    It’s why we will continue to honour our aid promises – including our support for education as a critical way of helping the next generation of Pakistanis to turn their back on extremism and look forward to a brighter and more prosperous future.

    But above all, it’s why we were one of the founder members of the Friends of Democratic Pakistan. Because it is by working with the democrats in Pakistan that we can make sure the whole country shares the same determination to fight terror.

    Afghanistan

    Mr Speaker, I also spoke yesterday to President Karzai in Afghanistan.

    We both agreed that the death of bin Laden provides a new opportunity for Afghanistan and Pakistan to work together to achieve stability on both sides of the border.

    Our strategy towards Afghanistan is straightforward and has not changed.

    We want an Afghanistan capable of looking after its own security without the help of foreign forces.

    We should take this opportunity to send a clear message to the Taleban: now is the time for them to separate themselves from Al Qaeda and participate in a peaceful political process.

    Mr Speaker, the myth of Bin Laden was one of a freedom fighter, living in austerity and risking his life for the cause as he moved around in the hills and mountainous caverns of the tribal areas.

    The reality of Bin Laden was very different: a man who encouraged others to make the ultimate sacrifice while he himself hid in the comfort of a large, expensive villa in Pakistan, experiencing none of the hardship he expected his supporters to endure.

    Libya

    Mr Speaker, finally let me briefly update the House on Libya.

    In recent weeks we have stepped up our air campaign to protect the civilian population.

    Every element of Qadhafi’s war machine has been degraded.

    Over the last few days alone, NATO aircraft have struck 35 targets including tanks and armoured personnel carriers, as well as bunkers and ammunition storage facilities.

    We have also made strikes against his command and control centres which direct his operations against civilians.

    Over the weekend there were reports that in one of those strikes Colonel Qadhafi’s son, Saif al-Arab Qadhafi, was killed.

    All the targets chosen were clearly within the boundaries set by UN Resolutions 1970 and 1973.

    These Resolutions permit all necessary measures to protect civilian life – including attacks on command and control bases.

    Mr Speaker, this weekend also saw attacks on the British and Italian embassies.

    We utterly deplore this.

    The Qadhafi regime is in clear beach of the Vienna convention to protect diplomatic missions. We hold them fully to account. And we have already expelled the Libyan Ambassador from London.

    The British embassy was looted as well as destroyed.

    The World War Two Memorial was desecrated.

    And the UN have felt obliged to pull their people out for fear of attack.

    Qadhafi made much of his call for a ceasefire.

    But at the very moment Qadhafi claimed he wanted to talk, he had in fact been laying mines in Misurata harbour to stop humanitarian aid getting in and continuing his attacks on civilians, including attacks across the border in neighbouring Tunisia.

    Mr Speaker, we must continue to enforce the UN resolutions fully until such a time as they are completely complied with.

    And that means continuing the NATO mission until there is an end to all attacks on – and threats to – civilians.

    Conclusion

    Mr Speaker, bin Laden and Qadhafi were said to have hated each other. But there was a common thread running between them.

    They both feared the idea that democracy and civil rights could take hold in the Arab world.

    While we should continue to degrade, dismantle and defeat the terrorist networks a big part of the long term answer is the success of democracy in the Middle East and the conclusion of the Arab-Israeli peace process.

    For twenty years, bin Laden claimed that the future of the Muslim world would be his.

    But what Libya has shown – as Egypt and Tunisia before it – is that people are rejecting everything that bin Laden stood for.

    Instead of replacing dictatorship with his extremist totalitarianism, they are choosing democracy.

    Ten years on from the terrible tragedy of 9/11, with the end of bin Laden and the democratic awakening across the Arab world, we must seize this unique opportunity to deliver a decisive break with the forces of Al Qaeda and its poisonous ideology which has caused so much suffering for so many years.

    And I commend this statement to the House.

    The Prime Ministers Office

    Number 10