TOP 100 ENGLAND SITES
| |||
|
| |||
| |||
|
| |||
| Workers' pensions contributions to be cut Workers' retirement plans are being thrown into disarray by employers' plans to cut pensions contributions in response to Government reforms, it was claimed. telegraph.co.uk |
Gumtree advert offered 'baby for sale' An eight-week-old baby boy was offered for sale on classified advertising website, Gumtree, it was reported. telegraph.co.uk |
Britain Suspends Direct Flights From Yemen Britain has suspended direct flights from Yemen until security is improved, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said on Wednesday. nytimes.com |
Anger over Gordon Brown's failure to implement free prescriptions pledge Chronically ill to protest against plan being put back until after general electionGordon Brown is facing a backlash from charities representing up to 15 million people with long-term health conditions after it emerged a promise to give them all free prescriptions is likely to be shelved until after the general election.The prime minister made the pledge to people with conditions such as asthma, heart disease, diabetes and depression in his speech at the Labour party conference in September 2008. Instead of implementing the change for all those patients, it is now expected to be included in the party's manifesto.A coalition of 20 health charities fears that, with Labour behind in the opinion polls and the Tories giving no firm commitment to the plan, the promise will never be realised. Mikis Euripides, director of policy and public affairs for Asthma UK, which is leading the coalition, said: "If the Labour party decides to put something in the manifesto instead of acting now, that would be a complete failure on the part of the prime minister to keep a promise."Mariam Kemple, policy and campaigns officer at Mind, a mental health charity, said: "We represent many millions of people and, if this does not happen, we will be up in arms."The coalition, which also includes the British Heart Foundation, Diabetes UK, the Stroke Association and Rethink, is calling on its members to begin a campaign of direct action this week, writing to local MPs and the prime minister to demand the promise be fulfilled before the election.Meanwhile, 172 MPs have signed an early day motion urging the prime minister to implement the policy. They say they fear "the recession has made it harder for large numbers of people with long-term conditions to pay for their prescriptions and that many are going without vital medicines". They claim "the government has identified savings from the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme of around £550m per year from 2010, which will be more than sufficient to cover the £250m-£350m cost".Both groups have expressed concern that a major review of prescription charges by Professor Ian Gilmore, president of the Royal College of Physicians, has not been published by ministers. The report, which is expected to call for charges to be dropped for millions, was supposed to come out before Christmas.Party sources point out that Brown promised first to abolish charges for cancer patients, which happened in April 2009. The pledge for those with long-term conditions was for a later date – and only when savings had been made by shifting to cheaper generic drugs. They insist that Labour will show its commitment to those suffering long-term conditions with plans to allocate every such patient a named GP, health-worker or nurse, who would provide them with a tailored care plan. A spokesman for the Department of Health said the government remained committed to its pledge and added: "We will set out our plans for improved support for patients with long-term and chronic conditions in the coming weeks, including our plans to abolish prescription charges."The issue of prescription charges has come under intense scrutiny in the past year. The British Medical Association has argued for all charges to be dropped. Dr Kailash Chand, the north-west member of the BMA's national council and chair of a primary care trust, said: "The system is unfair. Making the list of exemptions longer will not make it fairer." The Conservatives accused the prime minister of "dithering". Mark Simmonds, the shadow health minister, said: "Labour seems to have no idea how it will actually pay for this pledge."Health policyGordon BrownLabourHealthToby HelmAnushka Asthanaguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Obscure law dismisses Mau Mau claims Foreign Office says it is 'not liable for acts and omissions' of administration after alleged abuse of Mau Mau suspectsThe government is invoking an obscure legal principle to dismiss claims of torture and rape by the British colonial administration in Kenya, campaigners claimed.The Foreign Office has said four elderly Kenyans alleging that they suffered serious physical and sexual abuse at the hands of the British during the Kenyan "emergency" of 1952 to 1960 should not be allowed to proceed with their claim because of the law of state succession.The government argues it is "not liable for the acts and omissions of the Kenyan colonial administration", claiming the Kenyan government was now responsible for events that took place while Kenya was a British colony. But a cross-party group of MPs will this week publish an open letter demanding an apology and the creation of a welfare fund to help the alleged victims through old age.Allegations that the British abused suspected Mau Mau fighters have continued since the Kenyan government lifted a 30-year ban on membership in 2003.The organisation, which came into being to oppose colonial rule in Kenya, remains a sensitive issue because of the violence suffered by Kenyans. The British government recently acknowledged that suffering was experienced "on both sides" during the Mau Mau uprising in what experts said was the first recognition that the UK was also to blame.A Foreign Office spokesman said the emergency period caused great pain on all sides, and marred progress towards independence.But the government is refuting liability for the case, in which the claimants describe allegedly being castrated, sexually assaulted and beaten during their detention by the British and say they are still suffering consequences.The case could open the way for up to 12,000 Kenyans to seek redress. It was filed at the high court last year. Daniel Leader, a lawyer at Leigh Day, representing the claimants, said: "One ... was castrated for supplying a cow to the Mau Mau.""The nature and scale of this abuse was unparalleled in modern British colonial history. The claimants are among the poorest in Kenyan society, and they still live with injuries from that period."Historians have been through the public records, and the use of systematic violence was authorised at the highest level in London," Leaderhe said. "We have the documents to prove that."But the government decision to have the case struck out on technical grounds of state succession – the principle that countries assume liability for their own affairs after independence – has infuriated human rights campaigners, who accuse the UK of shirking its responsibilities for rights abuses in former colonies.The Foreign Office is believed to be arguing on a rule derived from a case over licences to fish for Patagonian toothfish in the South Georgia and South Sandwich islands, British overseas territories. "The FO is arguing that responsibility for acts by the colonial government passed to the independent government in 1963," Muthoni Wanyeki, executive director of Kenya Human Rights Commission, said.KenyaForeign policyLawAfua Hirschguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |