Author: Admin

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

A report published today by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) finds that, in many cases, England’s home care system breaches the human rights of the elderly it is supposed to serve. The Close to home: older people and human rights in home care report is the result of a twelve-month investigation into care generally provided by local authorities.

Approximately half of those receiving home care, plus friends and family, providing evidence to the inquiry were satisfied with the quality of care provided. However, the report stresses that there are “systemic problems” arising from “a failure to apply a human rights approach to home care provision”. The report asserts that it is generally not the fault of individuals providing care, but serious problems exist as local authorities seem unaware of their obligations under the Human Rights Act and fail to commission, procure, and monitor care accordingly.

The report says articles two, three and eight of the European Convention on Human Rights are frequently being breached. These, respectively, cover an individual’s right to life, protection from inhumane and degrading treatment, and respect for dignity and personal independence. Criticisms include that care is not provided in a common-sense manner, and funding of care for the elderly is at lower levels than for younger people with similar problems and needs.

The EHRC’s investigation highlights a range of recurring complaints and attempts to identify the underlying causes; cost is repeatedly mentioned, with use of the private-sector leading to some local authorities offering a “one size fits all” service leaving many elderly feeling they are “a task to be undertaken” and have “little or no choice” as to help received, or when care workers visit. A failure to invest in care workers is noted, with significant responsibility and the wide range of skills required being rewarded with low pay and status; this, the report states, adversely impacts staff retention and, a high turnover of care workers can put the security of care recipients at-risk.

Within the wider investigation, a commissioned independent social report by The Arndale Centre conducted in-depth interviews with a cross-section of 40 elderly individuals receiving home care. As-stressed in the report, those selected were not on the basis of good, or bad, experiences with their – mainly local authority-provided – care. It highlights a widespread feeling amongst those interviewed that they are treated “like a number”, and that aspects of the care provided lead to, or fail to resolve, feelings of social isolation.

The Manchester-based Arndale Centre report concludes that, “[t]he general picture is of a wider home care system in which older people are noteffectively involved: which they do not understand, and which does not often make the extra effort required to involve them in ways tailored to their state of health and other needs”.

A recurring theme in the responses of those interviewed is the social isolation that their home care is not adequately addressing. One male interviewee in his seventies who previously used a scooter to get about said in his interview, “I haven’t been out of the house now for about four weeks. I daren’t. The last time I went out on the scooter I hit the kerb and it frightened the living daylights out of me.” Another, an 85-year-old woman who lives alone, expressed sadness at her inability to do normal things, “I would love to go to town to do some shopping. I haven’t been to town for about two years… Wander round the town and have a cup of tea… I’d love that.”

The social isolation many elderly experience was summed up neatly by another woman in her eighties in her interview: “When you go now, I will maybe not talk to anybody till tomorrow; maybe the whole of tomorrow nobody to talk [to]… face to face. Nobody will knock on that door, that is it, a life of isolation.”

The EHRC, having commissioned this report in the face of funding changes and reform of the care system, intends to press for legislative changes to ensure those receiving care at home are given the same protections under the Human Rights Act as those in residential care. In the conclusions of their report they offer to work with, and support, local authorities in understanding and delivering care that respects peoples’ rights and dignity; and, recommend better guidance as to the choices available to the elderly, and their families, be made available.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced today that an Order in Council will be made tomorrow empowering the British Treasury to prevent the funding of those suspected of planning terror. Use will be made of forensic accounting and of methods similar to those employed by the code breakers at Bletchley Park. With the help of computing power to discover relations between bits of information, they cracked the German Enigma code during WWII. Gordon Brown ranks the impact of forensic accounting at the present time with the use of fingerprinting in the 19th century and of DNA in the late 20th Century.

Speaking to Chatham House, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, Brown defined the most dangerous sources of finance for terrorists as being charities, money service businesses and financial transactions such as bureaux de change, cheque cashers and money remitters. There will be a new licensing system requiring firms to keep more detailed records of transactions. Tougher action against non-compliance is promised. New proposals about money laundering are being prepared.

The new Order will empower the Treasury, for the first time, to use closed source evidence from classified intelligence to freeze the assets of suspects. A special advocate procedure will be put in place to ensure “fair and consistent hearing of cases”. If evidence shows it to be necessary, it is Brown’s opinion that suspects should be held, without a charge being brought, for more than the present 28 days.

The Government has been defeated once already in Parliament in an attempt, in the Terrorism Act 2006, to increase the present 28 days of detention without charge to 90 days. Public opinion was very divided on that proposal and feelings in Parliament ran high with talk of a police state and of the Government pandering to public opinion.

Monday, November 28, 2005

The Australian Government is currently building a “Guantanamo-style detention facility” – a $210 million, 800-bed Immigration Reception and Processing Centre – on Christmas Island, 1400km off Australia’s northwest coast. The project has residents concerned about the prospect of having imprisoned detainees and possible terrorism suspects as neighbours.

Christmas Islanders fear the remote detention facility will be Australia’s very own “Guantanamo Bay.”

The island’s Shire President, Gordon Thompson, says residents are also worried about the effects the controversial detention centre development will have on the island’s tourism industry. “We’re not building tourism based on a prison tour,” he said, also voicing fears that residents would be barred from areas on the northwest point of the island. He said locals were confused and did not know if the centre would just be used for refugees or as a Guantanamo-style prison. Another resident complained that access to popular fishing and snorkelling spots on the island would be limited.

Department of Immigration (DIMIA) said that when construction of the Christmas Island facility was finished, a review was likely to be taken to close some mainland detention centres such as Baxter in South Australia. “Its (Christmas Island) only use is as an immigration reception and processing centre,” said a DIMIA spokesperson.

Mr Thompson, who is opposed to the imprisonment of refugees, said the centre was being built on the island in an effort to avoid public scrutiny from mainland Australians. “It’s a long way from the mainland where the lawyers and trouble-makers are,” he said. “We’ll be kept away from it.”

A resident of eight years, two as shire president, Mr Thompson said he did not trust the federal Government because it ignored the concerns of the 1500-strong community. “There’s a sense the Commonwealth will do what it wants,” he said. “You’ve got to be a little suspicious of a government that lets its own people be held in Guantanamo Bay, like David Hicks. People here have that feeling that when something big is being built away from the media – it’s not fishy, it’s smelly.”

Mr Thomson said the Shire council were not notified when the current Christmas Island detention centre reopened last week to detain seven West Timorese asylum seekers.

Azmi Yon, president of the island’s Malay association, has lived for 37 years on the island and wants the federal Government to leave it alone. He said locals were confused and did not know if the new centre would just be used for refugees or as a Guantanamo-style prison. “We need something from them in black and white to say what it is,” he said. “Tell us something, don’t keep us in the dark.”

Mr Yon said the island was home to a harmonious group of Chinese, Malays and Europeans who respected each other’s cultures. “Why disturb an isolated and unique environment when you can (build the centre) somewhere else?” he said.

Mothballed Detention Centre Reopened

A group of seven asylum seekers were transported by DIMIA to Christmas Island last week. One detainee, his wife and infant children have been allowed to live in the community under new detainment laws. However, three other asylum seekers remain the sole inhabitants of the current Christmas Island detention centre – reopened for the seven from Indonesian West Timor on November 17.

Refugee advocates, Democrats and Greens senators said the recent West Timorese asylum seekers had been “shunted” to the remote facility at a massive cost, raising more doubts about the Howard Government’s promise not to detain children.

Democrats senator Andrew Bartlett, who visited a previous group of 52 Vietnamese asylum seekers in December last year, said he was especially alarmed to learn that children were still being detained despite the Government’s promise that children would only be detained as a last resort.

“We want to know exactly what the cost has been to unnecessarily fly these people over to Christmas Island and why, seeing that they managed to arrive within the accepted migration zone and should be processed here,” Senator Bartlett said. “The only possible reason this family has been transferred to such a remote location is the very deliberate intention of the Government to deny these people proper processing of their claims and to prevent them from accessing adequate legal and other support. It is also assists the Government to keep the family away from media attention or public scrutiny.”

Australian Greens Senator Kerry Nettle says the Government should suspend the construction of the Christmas Island detention centre and review the necessity of the facility. “At a time when the Government claims to be reforming its immigration detention system, it is increasing its capacity to lock people up,” Senator Nettle said. “After the recent scandals and abuses, the public want alternatives to detention, but the Government insists on building more empty prisons.”

According to Immigration Department figures provided at the November 2005 Senate Estimates:

* The current immigration detention centres – Baxter, Villawood, Maribyrnong, Perth, Port Augusta and the existing Christmas Island facility, already have a capacity to hold 1,688 people and they have contingency places for 667 more people, bringing the total capacity to 2,355.

*Port Hedland has a capacity to hold 820 people and is costing $3 million a year to be ready to reopen.

*The infamous Woomera Detention Centre holds 800 and costs $2.6 million to keep mothballed.

Senator Nettle said: “Australia’s total immigration detention capacity is already 3,975 people. The locals on Christmas Island are opposed to this facility, yet the Government is wasting $210 million on another empty prison. Is the government planning to increase the number of people in detention and deport people from the mainland to Christmas Island?”

Environmental Concerns

There has also been environmental concerns about the development. The detention centre site is adjacent to prime “Abbotts booby” habitat, in the north-west corner of the island, and is surrounded by the Christmas Island National Park.

Endangered Abbott’s Boobies nest in tall rainforest trees immediately to the north, south and south-east of the site, and their proximity puts the species at the mercy of turbulence generated by the passage of wind across the clearing.

The National Park encloses the entire range of at least 35 endemic species, more than any other Australian protected area. It is part of the network of habitats of migratory species that Australia must protect under international agreements such as the Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA) and the China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA).

The Wilderness Society have said, “There are several serious environmental concerns with the selection of this site, not least of which was the selection process itself, the Howard government’s self-exemption from environmental scrutiny normally required under the EPBC Act, and its commitment to best practice environmental measures during construction of the detention centre.”

Research has shown that Abbott’s Boobies nesting within 300 m of clearings experience significantly lower breeding success than birds nesting further away. At last count, 36% of breeding sites across the island were located within this 300 m danger zone.

The centre, under construction since January this year, is not due to be operational until late 2006.

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Leo Varadkar, Ireland’s Health Minister, introduced emergency legislation in the lower house of the Irish parliament yesterday evening, to negate the legal loophole created by a decision from Dublin’s Court of Appeal that morning. Various hard drugs — including ketamine, ecstasy, and magic mushrooms — were rendered legal, following the law governing their prohibition being found to be unconstitutional.

The drug possession case of Stanislav Bederev led to the legal loophole; his lawyers arguing the 2010 addition of several drugs to the country’s controlled substances list, governed by the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977, was unlawful. They contended it was unconstitutional to add these substances to the list without consulting the Oireachtas — i.e., parliament.

The Irish government is stressing the urgency of parliamentary legislation to rectify the situation. “It is now important from both a public health and criminal justice perspective that the legislation be enacted as soon as possible”, said a government spokesperson. The Health Minister expressed concern both for the welfare of individuals taking advantage of the temporary legality of the substances involved, and for drug-related convictions handed down since the now-unconstitutional changes came into effect.

“The emergency legislation I am introducing today will re-instate the status quo ante and re-control all drugs that were controlled prior to this judgment”, said Mr Varadkar.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

A United States-based operation, known now as USF1, has unveiled plans to join the Formula One motor racing series beginning in the 2010 season. Team principal Ken Anderson and sporting director Peter Windsor officially launched USF1 in a live press conference broadcast on the US television channel Speed.

Ken Anderson has previously worked for the Ligier and Onyx Grand Prix Formula One teams, and most recently held the position of technical director for the Haas CNC Racing team in the American NASCAR series. Windsor has previously been general manager at Scuderia Ferrari and team manager for WilliamsF1 before taking up his current role as a journalist and reporter for the Speed channel.

USF1 would be based in Charlotte, North Carolina in the United States, unlike all eleven teams that participated in the 2008 Formula One season, which are based in Europe. Anderson also expressed a preference for the team’s drivers to be of American nationality. They confirmed that they do not yet have an engine supply contact but expressed a desire to contact all existing Formula One engine builders before signing one.

The team expressed an intention to be more open to fans than current Formula One teams in order to appeal to the US market. The possibility for fans to tour the factory and see the car being built as well as television shows showing the inner workings of the team were suggested. Windsor claimed that the team had received the backing of both Max Mosley, the president of Formula One’s governing body, and Bernie Ecclestone, president of Formula One’s commercial rights holders. No details were given on the team’s financial backers, however.

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

AMD filed an antitrust complaint against Intel Corporation two days ago in U.S. federal district court for the district of Delaware under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, and the California Business and Professions Code.

According to the complaint, Intel has unlawfully maintained its monopoly by, among other things:

• Forcing major customers such as Dell, Sony, Toshiba, Gateway, and Hitachi into Intel-exclusive deals in return for outright cash payments, discriminatory pricing or marketing subsidies conditioned on the exclusion of AMD;

• According to industry reports, and as confirmed by the JFTC in Japan, Intel has paid Dell and Toshiba huge sums not to do business with AMD.
• Intel paid Sony millions for exclusivity. AMD’s share of Sony’s business went from 23 percent in ‘02 to 8% in ‘03, to 0%, where it remains today.

• Forcing other major customers such as NEC, Acer, and Fujitsu into partial exclusivity agreements by conditioning rebates, allowances and market development funds (MDF) on customers’ agreement to severely limit or forego entirely purchases from AMD;

• Intel paid NEC several million dollars for caps on NEC’s purchases from AMD. Those caps assured Intel at least 90% of NEC’s business in Japan and imposed a worldwide cap on the amount of AMD business NEC could do.

• Establishing a system of discriminatory and retroactive incentives triggered by purchases at such high levels as to have the intended effect of denying customers the freedom to purchase any significant volume of processors from AMD;

• When AMD succeeded in getting on the HP retail roadmap for mobile computers, and its products sold well, Intel responded by withholding HP’s fourth quarter 2004 rebate check and refusing to waive HP’s failure to achieve its targeted rebate goal; it allowed HP to make up the shortfall in succeeding quarters by promising Intel at least 90% of HP’s mainstream retail business.

• Threatening retaliation against customers for introducing AMD computer platforms, particularly in strategic market segments such as commercial desktop;

• Then-Compaq CEO Michael Capellas said in 2000 that because of the volume of business given to AMD, Intel withheld delivery of critical server chips. Saying “he had a gun to his head,” he told AMD he had to stop buying.
• According to Gateway executives, their company has paid a high price for even its limited AMD dealings. They claim that Intel has “beaten them into ‘guacamole’” in retaliation.

• Establishing and enforcing quotas among key retailers such as Best Buy and Circuit City, effectively requiring them to stock overwhelmingly or exclusively, Intel computers, artificially limiting consumer choice;

• AMD has been entirely shut out from Media Markt, Europe’s largest computer retailer, which accounts for 35 percent of Germany’s retail sales.
• Office Depot declined to stock AMD-powered notebooks regardless of the amount of financial support AMD offered, citing the risk of retaliation.

• Forcing PC makers and tech partners to boycott AMD product launches or promotions;

• Then-Intel CEO Craig Barrett threatened Acer’s Chairman with “severe consequences” for supporting the AMD Athlon 64 launch. This coincided with an unexplained delay by Intel in providing $15-20M in market development funds owed to Acer. Acer withdrew from the launch in September 2003.

• Abusing its market power by forcing on the industry technical standards and products that have as their main purpose the handicapping of AMD in the marketplace.

• Intel denied AMD access to the highest level of membership for the Advanced DRAM technology consortium to limit AMD’s participation in critical industry standard decisions that would affect its business.
• Intel designed its compilers, which translate software programs into machine-readable language, to degrade a program’s performance if operated on a computer powered by an AMD microprocessor.