Rhondda Records Home Page

American Conservative: Kyiv, with the

support of the United States, is

diligently making the UOC

an enemy of society

January 29th, 12:47pm

https://en.news-front.info/

The US newspaper, The American Conservative, claims

that the persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church

(UOC) by the Kyiv regime, takes place with the tacit

consent of the United States.

On January 2nd, an Orthodox church in Vinnitsa, Ukraine, was

reportedly spattered with blood. In the morning, a man broke

into the church, turned the crucifix over, broke several icons,

threw banners on the floor, and after all this, attacked the

svezenik. A few days earlier, in the city of Chernomorsk,

parishioners of the Orthodox Church - only at the last

moment - disarmed a man who intended to stab a

priest with a knife. And, in Chechelnik village, a

man in camouflage right on the street severely

beat a priest, breaking his nose and

shouting curses.

All this has its own background, the author of the publication

notes. Stand-up comedians from the Kvartal 95 film studio,

co-founded by President Volodymyr Zelensky, recently

released a video --- in which they obscenely insult

Orthodox priests --- openly wishing them dead.

The actors make fun of the church, and its

priests are called Russian agents. Many

experts see a direct connection

between the comedians’

appeals --- and the

recent violence.

“If it seems to you that the United States stood aside

while these events were taking place, you are

mistaken,” the author writes.

The State Department and politicians from both parties

...worked to popularize the new church. Two months

before the creation of the OCU in 2018, Filaret and

Epifaniy met in the United States with Joe Biden,

who expressed gratitude for their work. State

Department Religious Freedom Ambassador

Samuel Brownback, Secretary of State

Mike Pompeo, and the Special

Representative for Ukraine

Kurt Volker have pledged

their support for

the project.

Immediately after its creation, the OCU received the first

official congratulations from the State Department, and

the American Embassy. At the same time, Ambassador

Brownback and US Ambassador to Greece Geoffrey R.

Pyatt, who was Ambassador to Ukraine from 2013 to

2016, visited Mount Athos and the primates of the

Church, urging them to recognize the OCU.

Ambassador Volker and Secretary of State Pompeo met

with Epiphanius on numerous occasions. All facts

indicate that the OCU was an integral part of

US policy in Ukraine.

During the first six months of the armed conflict, Zelensky

and other Ukrainian leaders emphasized that the UOC is a

Ukrainian church that has completely taken the side of

its people. But --- at the end of 2022 --- everything

changed dramatically.

Employees of the Security Service of Ukraine carried out

searches in cathedrals and monasteries. They reported

that they found there evidence of cooperation between

the bishops and priests of the UOC and the enemy.

Their statements were often simply ridiculous.

SBU officers paraded photos of children’s

bibles, prayer books, old liturgical books,

archival newspapers ...and magazines

with the words “Russian”, as well as

Christmas and Easter sermons of

the Patriarch of the Russian

Orthodox Church.

In those cases when the agents could not find

anything, they themselves threw in

incriminating evidence.

The real details of these searches are practically unknown

to Ukrainians. All mass media report that the special

services find a lot of evidence of the cooperation

of the UOC churches with the enemy. Thus, the

UOC is being diligently made into an enemy

of Ukrainian society.

Zelensky set out to outlaw and completely

destroy the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

On January 20th, a draft law was submitted to parliament,

effectively banning the UOC. The initiator of this law

was not some ordinary deputy, but Prime Minister

Denys Shmygal.

“This bill marked a return to a shameful era -- when a state

in the centre of Europe -- intends to persecute the religion

of its own people,” the author of the publication sums up.

_____________________________________________

US elite provoked conflict

in Ukraine to plunder

Russia – Rebelion

January 29th, 10:15am

https://en.news-front.info/

The US elite provoked the Ukrainian crisis

in order to dismember Russia, and gain

access to its resources, writes Iginio

Polo, in an article for Rebelion.

The author of the publication is convinced that

US businessmen, under the guise of Pentagon

generals, are speculating on the topic of

Ukraine, in order to capture another

huge piece in Eastern Europe.

“They dream of partitioning Russia in order
to plunder its rich oil and gas fields,”
the author specified.

According to Polo, Western countries have been

preparing for a war with Moscow for years,

deliberately sending instructors and

mercenaries, to train Ukrainian

soldiers --- because they “saw

in the Ukrainian issue a good

reason to carry out their

malicious intent --- to

dismember Russia.”

“NATO, led by the Pentagon, in recent years has not only

trained the Ukrainian military to prepare the ground,

but has also organized a powerful pro-Ukrainian

propaganda... aimed at protecting the true

instigators of the war, omitting the fact

that the civil war in Ukraine was

organized by the Kyiv junta,

established in 2014.

''And the Zelensky government has become a necessary

instrument of this puppet war. Thirty NATO countries

found a cunning pretext and acted as a united front

against Russia. Now, we know, that Washington

and Brussels have been preparing for an

escalation... for many years”, the

author explained.

_______________________________________

The US announced a ''discussion'' at

the Pentagon --- on the transfer
of fighter jets to Ukraine

January 28th, 11:53pm

(Lenta.ru)

Politico: attempts to send F-16 fighter jets to

Kiev are gaining momentum in the Pentagon.

A group of military officials is trying to push the Pentagon to

approve the supply of F-16 fighter jets to the Armed Forces

of Ukraine (AFU). This is reported by the publication

Politico, citing sources in the US Department of

Defense, familiar with the discussion.

According to them, the campaign within the agency to send

fighter jets to Kiev - is gaining momentum. "I don't think we

are against it," the senior official said. At the same time,

the source of the publication stressed that the final

decision on this issue has not yet been made.

Information that Ukraine intends to receive American F-16s

from the West appeared on January the 28th. It was noted

that Kiev is considering other options — for example,

Swedish Gripen and French Rafale aircraft.

Later, the representative of the AFU command, Yuri Ignat,

called a ''translation error'' the requirement to receive 24

fighters from the West. According to him -- there were no

statements. At the same time he stressed: that Ukraine

"does not need 24 aircraft, but at least five full-fledged

brigades, and each brigade has three squadrons."

__________________________________________________

The head of the NATO military

Committee announced the

alliance's readiness - for

confrontation with the

Russian Federation

January 28th, 10:08pm

(Izvestia.ru)

The chairman of NATO's Military Committee, Lieutenant

Admiral Rob Bauer, said that the alliance is ready to

confront Russia. He expressed this opinion, on

January the 28th, in an interview with the

Portuguese TV channel RTP.

According to him, the civilian industrial production of the

Atlantic Alliance countries should be reoriented to the

military. Bauer says - that NATO is ready for a direct
confrontation with Russia - while acknowledging

that the organization has lost its monopoly on

military initiative.

Bauer considers rearmament a priority of the alliance and

argues that Russian strategic objectives are superior to

Ukrainian ones, as "Moscow intends to regain the

size of the former Soviet Union."

Earlier, on January the 24th, the head of the Russian General

Staff, Valery Gerasimov, said that NATO's desire to expand

at the expense of Sweden and Finland, as well as the

West's use of Ukraine, as an instrument of hybrid

confrontation with Russia, are the main threats

to the Russian Federation.

On January the 16th, Croatian President Zoran Milanovic said

that the United States and NATO are waging war with Russia

through Ukraine. He also criticized the policy of introducing

anti-Russian sanctions, emphasizing their senselessness.

Before that, on December 1st, 2022, Russian Foreign Minister

Sergei Lavrov, said that NATO countries had returned to the

priorities of the cold war. According to the minister, now

NATO still. wants to keep the Russians out of Europe,

and the United States, in turn, has already enslaved

all of Europe and keeps under control not only the

inhabitants of Germany, but also the entire

European Union (EU).

On November 29th, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken

announced that NATO will increase its presence from the

Black Sea, to the Baltic Sea. He also stressed that the

Black Sea region is ---- ''important'' for the alliance.

In September last year, the head of the NATO Military

Committee, Rob Bauer, said that the North Atlantic

Alliance officially recognized, that, several years

ago it began planning to expand to the borders

of Russia.

__________________________________________________

LNR warns about: consequences

of the West's silence, after the

Ukrainian Armed Forces'

strike - on Novoaydar

January 28th, 7:21pm

(Izvestia.ru)

Acting head of the LPR Pasechnik: The West will feel

the consequences in connection with their silence,

after the AFU strike on the hospital in Novoaydar

Tacit approval by the West of the strike of the Armed Forces

of Ukraine on a hospital in the city of Novoaydar in the

Luhansk People's Republic (LPR) ------ which killed

people, will have grave consequences for the

whole world. This was stated on January

the 28th ------ by the acting head of
the LPR, Leonid Pasechnik.

"The West's tacit approval of the Ukrainian regime's

disregard for the fundamental principles of

humanitarian law, encourages militants

around the world &, I have no doubt,

will have grave consequences for

the entire world community,"

Pasechnik said in his

Telegram channel.

The acting head of the LPR, also expressed his

condolences to the families and friends of the

victims and wished recovery to the wounded.

On the same day, Ukrainian troops fired artillery at a
medical facility in Novaya Kakhovka. According to
a representative of the emergency services of
the Kherson region, the Armed Forces of

Ukraine, fired 17 shells from barrel
artillery -- at the hospital town

of the Sokol plant.

________________________________________________

14 dead as Ukraine’s army

strikes hospital with

US-made missiles

--- Russia

January 28th, 5:12pm

(PressTV)

Russia says Ukraine’s army has attacked a hospital

in Luhansk using a US-made rocket system,
killing at least 14 people.

Russia's Defense Ministry said in a statement on Saturday

that Ukrainian forces “deliberately attacked the building

of a district hospital” in the town of Novoaidar. The

strike was carried out with a HIMARS multiple-

launch rocket system, it said. Two dozen

people among the “hospital patients

and medical staff” were

also injured.

According to the ministry, the hospital has been providing

“necessary medical assistance to the local population

and military personnel for many months.”

“A deliberate missile strike on a known, active, civilian

medical facility, is, without doubt, a grave war crime

by the Kiev regime,” the ministry said.

Ukraine and its Western allies are engaged in “fast-track”

talks, on the possibility of equipping Kiev with long-range

missiles & military aircraft, according to a top Ukrainian

presidential aide. Mykhailo Podolyak... an ''adviser'' to

President Vlodymyr Zelensky, said on Saturday that

Ukraine’s supporters in the West “understand how

the war is developing.” He said Ukraine needs to

be supplied with planes capable of providing

cover for the armoured vehicles the United

States and Germany pledged... at the

beginning of the month.

Podolyak, however, criticized some of Ukraine's Western

partners whom he said maintain a “conservative”

attitude to arms deliveries ---- “due to fear of

changes in the international architecture.”

Ukraine has been at war with Russia since Moscow launched

its special military operation on February 24th, 2022 with

the declared aim of de-Nazifying Ukraine.

Ever since, the United States and its Western allies have

imposed waves of unprecedented economic sanctions

on Moscow - and have given Ukraine tens of billions of

dollars' worth of weaponry, including rocket systems,

drones, armoured vehicles & communication systems.

Russia has already warned - that sending

weapons to Ukraine will prolong the war.

________________________________________

Medvedev: if the third world war

starts, everything will be dust

January 28th, 1:25pm

https://en.news-front.info/

Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of the Russian Security

Council, denounced Western attempts to explain arms

supplies to Ukraine as allegedly preventing a world

war. He wrote about this in his Telegram channel.

Medvedev spoke very negatively about the supply

of weapons to Ukraine by Western countries.

“If something happens, Europe’s protection of useless Ukraine

will not save the entire decrepit Old World from retribution,

this is first. And secondly, if it so happens that if the third

world war begins, then it will no longer be on tanks and

not even on fighters. Then, for sure, everything will be

in ruins”, writes the deputy chairman of the Security

Council of the Russian Federation.

With these words, Medvedev reacted to the statement of

Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto. The Minister of

Defense of Italy stated - that the third world war will

begin when Russian tanks appear in the capital of

Ukraine and then on the borders of Europe. And

he noted that these weapons supplied by the

West to Ukraine, are intended to stop any

further escalation.

______________________________________

NATO State Unveils Its Largest

Ukraine Arms Package

January 28th, 12:42pm

(al Manar)

Belgium.. has authorized a new round of military aid for

Ukraine worth €92 million ($100 million), the country’s

largest weapons transfer since the conflict with

Russia kicked off last year. The arms will

include anti-aircraft munitions,

armoured vehicles, and

anti-tank grenades.

The NATO member announced the decision on Friday,

with officials noting.... that some of the weapons

would come from existing Belgian inventories,

while the remaining portion --- will be

purchased directly from the

arms industry.

“Since the start of this war, our country has made a lot of

efforts to support Ukraine,” Prime Minister Alexander

De Croo told reporters. “In total -- our country has

already given €146 million in military aid. Today,

the Council of Ministers --- decided to send a
new package of €92 million... in military
aid to Ukraine.”

While Defense Minister Ludivine Dedonder declined to give

exact numbers... for what Kiev will receive, she said the

''package'' will include grenades, ammunition, anti-

aircraft missiles, anti-tank weapons, light

armoured vehicles, machine guns,

and assault rifles.

The package also includes the US-made AIM-120 advanced

medium-range air-to-air missiles (AMRAAMs)... which

Washington agreed to sell to Belgium in November.

Though it is designed to be fired from an aircraft,

the missile is also compatible with the ground-

based NASAMS launcher, several of which

have been provided to Kiev

by Washington.

According to local media reports, the new arms package will

include a number of Volvo N10 heavy utility trucks, which

were removed from Belgium’s arsenal in 2021 after they

were found to provide “no or insufficient protection to

the crew.” Several dozen Iveco LMV tactical vehicles

are also reportedly destined for Ukraine, even after

the military discovered a design flaw in its armour

and decided to phase out the platform by 2026.

Officials said some of the gear will undergo

''maintenance'' before being shipped out,

though it’s unclear if that will address

the defects.

Dedonder went on to explain.. that Brussels cannot follow the

US, Germany, and other European partners and supply tanks

to Ukraine, as Belgium sold off its aging Leopard 1 battle

tanks to private companies in 2014 and has no

comparable weapon to offer.

“We haven’t found a way to answer that question. We no

longer have them in stock and we have not found any

operational units on the market,” she said, adding

that -- while the government approached some

firms about purchasing tanks, it was unable

to find a reasonable deal.

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky later thanked

Brussels in a statement posted to Twitter, saying

the weapons will “strengthen our air defense,

help deter enemy tanks [and] improve the

mobility of our defenders.”

Russia has repeatedly urged the West to stop pumping

Ukraine with weaponry, arguing it will only prolong

the conflict and lead to more bloodshed.

Source: AFP

__________________________________________

White House Refuses to Say

-- If Ukraine Will Get Toxic

Depleted Uranium Ammo

January 27th, 2023

(Southfront - Originally

published by AntiWar)

Bradley Fighting Vehicles can use depleted

uranium shells that are linked to cancer

and birth defects in Iraq.

The White House refused to say if it will provide
Ukraine -- with Bradley Fighting Vehicles
equipped with radioactive depleted
uranium rounds -- ammunition
that is linked to cancer
and birth defects.

Depleted uranium is typically created as a byproduct of

producing enriched uranium - and is extremely dense,

making it an effective material to pierce the armour

of tanks. Bradleys can be equipped with depleted

uranium ammunition, which is why they are

known as “tank killers.”

When asked on Wednesday if the Bradleys the US is sending

to Ukraine will be equipped with depleted uranium, a senior

Biden administration official said, “I’m not going to get into

the technical specifics.” The official... also declined to

answer if the M1 Abrams tanks the US is providing

Kyiv, will be equipped with a depleted

uranium cage.

Konstantin Gavrilov, the head of Russia’s delegation in Vienna

on arms control, has warned Moscow would view the use of

depleted uranium weapons in Ukraine as the use of a “dirty

bomb.” Gavrilov claimed that Germany’s Leopard 2 tanks

could also be equipped with depleted uranium rounds.

“In case such munitions for NATO-made heavy weapons

are supplied to Kiev, we will consider that as the use

of dirty nuclear bombs against Russia with all the

consequences that come with it,” he said,

according to the Russian news

agency TASS.

Cancer and birth defects spiked in Iraq after the Gulf War,

during which ---- the US fired an estimated one million

depleted uranium rounds. The US also used toxic

ammunition in its 2003 invasion, and studies

have found that birth defects are more

common... in areas where depleted

uranium was used. Birth defects

are still common today in the

city of Fallujah.

_________________________________

The Russian Foreign Ministry: warned
the West about the consequences of
the supply of uranium ammunition
to Ukraine

January 25th, 11:22pm

(Izvestia.ru)

Gavrilov: Moscow will regard the supply

of uranium shells to Kiev as the use of

"dirty bombs."

If Western-made uranium-containing shells are delivered

to the Kiev regime, the Russian Federation will consider

this as the use of dirty nuclear bombs. This was stated

by the head of the Russian delegation at the Vienna

talks on military security and arms control,

Konstantin Gavrilov, on Wednesday,

January the 25th.

"We warn the Western sponsors of the Kiev military machine

against encouraging nuclear provocations and blackmail.

We know that the Leopard 2 tank, as well as the Bradley

and Marder infantry fighting vehicles ---- are armed with

sub-calibre armour-piercing shells with uranium cores,

the use of which leads to contamination of the terrain,

as happened in Yugoslavia & Iraq. If such projectiles

are delivered to Kiev for NATO heavy military equip-
ment, we will consider this --- as the use of dirty
nuclear bombs against Russia --- with
all the ensuing consequences,"

the Russian Foreign Ministry
said in a statement on

its website.

He noted that the agreed arms deliveries will further "tarnish

the reputation" of EU and NATO member states as parties

to the conflict, doing everything to continue the suffering

of civilians.

On January the 25th, the German government announced

its decision .....to transfer Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine.

Germany is ready to form two tank battalions, at the first

stage Berlin will send a company of 14 tanks to Kiev.

The first combat vehicles, according to German

Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, can be

delivered to Ukraine... in about

three months.

At the same time, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said

that the delivery of Leopard 2 tanks to Kiev --- does not

bode well for relations between Russia and Germany.

Military expert Igor Nikulin on January the 25th, in an

interview with Izvestia, said the supply of Leopard 2

tanks to Ukraine will not radically affect the course

of the special operation of the Russian Federation.

He noted that the Russian military will have no

problems with them.

Rhondda Records exists to express the Rhondda's
vision --- when it was confident, powerful, caring,
and socialist.

A Rhondda very aware of the media's poisonous
tricks -- how they con working class people into
attacking each other, or racial groups, or, often,
even their best allies and friends... instead of
seeing their real enemies:--- an elite who hate
the very idea that working people can think,
create, or achieve a fairer society.

Thatcher said her proudest achievement was
Blair and New Labour - who parachuted in
careerists and expenses fiddlers - to stop
local Labour members having a say, and
who made genuine socialist MPs leave
the Labour party in disgust and many
members and voters to despair...
and the young to stop voting.

Jeremy Corbyn was always attacked because
he was trying to reverse all that New Labour
corruption --- that's why membership was
flooding in all over the UK.

______________________________________

Get Involved!

– If you feel you’ve been ‘purged’,
take this online survey:

https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/857YMDK

or this one:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSc0du5YuhPZ8ahI
oxC_b6pvBprmGA4XFdG-0r2dOVYyc4UNFg/viewform?c=0&w=1

– Request all your own data that
the Labour Party holds on you:

http://www.labour.org.uk/pages/privacy

– Sign the petition in support of
Jeremy Corbyn, if you agree:

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/a-vote-
of-confidence-in-jeremy-corbyn-after-brexit

_______________________________________

IF - YOU THINK you HAVE
BEEN UNFAIRLY BARRED:

“Any member who is suspended & intends
to appeal the decision should throw in a
‘Subject Access Request in accordance
with the Data Protection Act’ --- for ALL
data that the Labour Party hold on them.

The Labour Party are Data Controllers and
therefore have to, by law, provide you with
all material/information they hold on you.”

If anyone is in contact with anyone who
was barred from voting --- please can
you pass this info on:

The Labour leadership election was under the
jurisdiction of the electoral reform services.

If you were unfairly deprived of your vote you
can call them on 0208 365 8909 and lodge
your complaint, and inform them of your
Data Protection request.

https://www.electoralreform.co.uk

The notification letters barring new members
did not give a clear reason, or information on
how to appeal, so Vox Political suggests that
anyone in this situation, could also contact
Liz Davies here: http://www.whycantivote.com

She is a barrister --- who can
advise members on what to do.

**************************************

CHILCOT REPORT: SOME MAIN POINTS:

1) "Military action was not a last resort".

2) UK government "undermined the
authority" of the UN security council.

3) Weapons of Mass Destruction presented
"with a certainty that was not justified".

4) UK forces were "ill-prepared".

5a) "The government failed to
achieve its stated objectives."

5b) Post-war planning: Blair "should
have known what might happen".

6) Chilcot says Blair also "overlooked the
threat the invasion would pose to Britain."

____________________________________

Blair to Face Law

The former prime minister has been put on notice
by families of dead servicemen, that he will face
legal action, for his part in the illegal Iraq war.

They are being crowd-funded now, and
have raised so much money, that Blair
is probably heading for a big fall...

Shadow Commons leader Paul Flynn:
the Iraq Inquiry's findings are an "utter
condemnation" of his terrible decision
--- and his prosecution should now be
given "serious consideration".

Former Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond:
"I would like to see Blair investigated by
the International Criminal Court (ICC),
for the crime of a war of aggression,
and face parliamentary action to
stop him holding public office
ever again."

A former British ambassador to the UN:
"The UK was pushed into entering
this military action, too early."

Stop the War Coalition Convener Ms German:
“This is an incredibly damning report for Tony Blair.
It will not call for legal sanctions, but it says that
Blair is culpable for the war, in many ways.

“He needs to be driven out of public life. He is
still part of the Labour Party. We need to make
sure that truth & justice prevails. There must
be legal action against Blair, & he should no
longer be considered fit for any office.”

CND general secretary Kate Hudson:
“The report shows that Tony Blair had
no respect for cabinet procedure, no
respect for Parliament, & no respect
for international law.

“Chilcot reveals the evidence that must now be
used to bring Tony Blair to justice. This is our
demand. Only when justice is served, can we
prevent disasters like the Iraq war from ever
happening again.”

Iraqi journalist Juma al-Quraishi:
"Everyone who took part in the war against Iraq
should be condemned, either Britain, or others."

Baghdad resident Ali al-Saraji:
"Ex-UK prime minister, Tony Blair, destroyed
our country. From 2003, to now, our country
has been the scene of destruction, killing,
massacres, explosions and sectarianism."

A defiant Blair refuses to accept accusations
from service families that he was wrong and
reckless, and he insists that he would make
the decision again, 'come what may'.

Families of some of the 179 military personnel
killed in Iraq, say the former PM is "a terrorist".

____________________________________

PONCY LABOUR MPS PROBLEM?

A huge drop in working-class Labour MPs,
caused a massive drop in support among
voters with similar backgrounds, reveals
research seeking to explain why support
has dwindled in the party’s heartlands.

The study says past leaders like Kinnock
and Blair made a concerted effort to pick
“more and more middle-class candidates
to run for office, during the 80s and 90s,
as part of an effort to rebrand” -- which
had initial successes at the ballot box.

But this “conscious electoral strategy”
stored up problems, as working-class
voters who initially, just didn’t vote in
response, now seek an alternative.

The solution? Trust each constituency to put
forward its own candidates, and don't impose
‘party-approved’ choices who can't do the job.

Now, unfortunately, there are "entryist" MPs who, for
decades, have been groomed by CIA cold war relic
organisations -- like the Atlantic Council -- and are
now trying to misdirect the Labour Party towards
cuts, a militarised police, and a US war agenda...
- and their anti-Corbyn slant is hobbling Labour.

‘How Can I Deselect My Labour MP?’ A Short Guide
to Reselection and Democratic Accountability
by Eric Sim, excellent free advice here:

http://novaramedia.com/2016/07/13/how-can-i-
deselect-my-labour-mp-a-short-guide-to-
reselection-and-democratic-accountability/

CHRIS BRYANT - SUPPORT THE MEMBERS'
LEADERSHIP CHOICE & POLICIES - OR GO!

Chris Bryant, the Rhondda's dodgy MP,
was on TV -- as soon as the PLP coup
started -- telling us that Jeremy MUST
go, because it was the ONLY way to
act in the Labour Party's interest...

Chris Bryant's voting record:
from TheyWorkForYou.com

On Tuition Fees:

On 27 Jan 2004:
Chris Bryant voted in favour of university tuition
fees increasing from £1,125 per year, to up to
£3,000 per year.

On 31 Mar 2004:
Chris Bryant voted to allow university tuition fees
to increase from £1,125 per year, to up to £3,000
per year.

On 31 Mar 2004:
Chris Bryant voted for the introduction of variable
university tuition fees (top-up fees) of up to £3,000
per year in place of the previous fixed fee of £1,250
per year.

On 31 Mar 2004:
Chris Bryant voted to allow university tuition fees
to increase from £1,125 per year to up to £3,000
per year, and to make other changes to higher
education funding and regulation arrangements.

On 14 Sep 2004:
Chris Bryant voted against: the immediate abolition
of all tuition fees, the re-introduction of maintenance
grants of up to £2,000 for students from low-income
homes, and changes to the country's higher
education system.

On 14 Sep 2004:
Chris Bryant voted to reject the Liberal
Democrat policy of abolition of tuition fees.

On 25 May 2016:
Chris Bryant was absent for a vote on Queen's
Speech - Forcing Schools to Become Academies
- Further Rises in University Tuition Fees

On Human Rights:

Consistently voted for introducing ID cards

Almost always voted for requiring the mass
retention of information about communications

Generally voted for mass surveillance of
people’s communications and activities

On the Environment:

Generally voted against greater regulation
of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to extract
shale gas

On Special Interests:

Almost always voted against limits
on success fees paid to lawyers in
no-win no fee cases

Generally voted against a
statutory register of lobbyists

On War or Peace:

Generally voted for use of UK military
forces in combat operations overseas

Consistently voted for the Iraq war

Consistently voted against an
investigation into the Iraq war

Generally voted for replacing Trident
with a new nuclear weapons system

On 2 Dec 2015:
Voted to support UK airstrikes in Syria
[without UN authorisation]

On 2 Dec 2015:
Voted to support UK airstrikes in Syria
[without UN authorisation]

On Independence:

Generally voted for more EU integration

____________________________

Chris Bryant Labour MP
From Wikipedia

(aka 1962-1986: Mr Christopher John Bryant
1986-1991: The Reverend Christopher John
Bryant, 1991-2001: Mr Christopher John
Bryant, 2001-: Mr Christopher John
Bryant MP.)

Born in Cardiff, to a Scottish mother & a Welsh
father, Bryant grew up in Cardiff, Wales (where
his father worked for 5 years), and Cheltenham.

He was educated at Cheltenham College, an
independent school for boys in the spa town
of Cheltenham in Gloucestershire, where he
was captain of the school swimming team,
and Mansfield College at the University of
Oxford, where he graduated in 1983, with
a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in English.
This was later promoted to a Master of
Arts degree (MA (Oxon)), as per tradition.

After completing his first degree, Bryant began
training to be a priest in the Church of England
at Ripon College, Cuddesdon, in Oxfordshire.
There, he obtained a degree in theology.

Although a member of the Conservative
Party, and an elected office-holder in the
Oxford University Conservative Association,
he joined the Labour Party in 1986, after
leaving Oxford.

He was ordained deacon in 1986 and priest in
1987. He served as a Curate at the Church of
All Saints, High Wycombe, from 1986 to 1989;
then as a Youth Chaplain in Peterborough,
as well as travelling in Latin America.

In 1991 Bryant left the ordained ministry, after
deciding that being gay and being a priest,
were incompatible. Statements made by
Richard Harries, then Bishop of Oxford,
also influenced his decision.

After leaving the priesthood in 1991, Bryant
worked as the election agent to the Holborn
and St Pancras Constituency Labour Party,
where he helped Frank Dobson hold his seat
in the 1992 general election.

From 1993, he was Local Government officer
for the Labour Party; he lived in Hackney and
was elected to Hackney Borough Council in
1993, serving until 1998. He became Chair of
the Christian Socialist Movement.

He is both a member of the Labour Friends
of Israel and Labour Friends of Palestine &
the Middle East. From 1994 to 1996 he was
London manager of the leader-grooming
"charity", Common Purpose.

He was Labour candidate for Wycombe, in the
1997 general election (he lost by 2,370 votes),
and Head of European Affairs for the BBC,
from 1998.

His selection for the very safe Labour seat of
Rhondda, South Wales in 2000, shocked many
people given Bryant's background – gay, an ex-
Anglican vicar, and someone who was a Tory,
while studying at Oxford, and a member now,
of the Henry Jackson Society 'think tank' ---
described by The Guardian newspaper as
'neoconservative'. It is pro-US, pro-NATO
and pro-military intervention, as well as
being fundamentally anti-socialist.

Fifty-two people applied for the candidature
and a local councillor was hot favourite to
win, before Bryant was parachuted in.

In 2004, a photograph of Mr Bryant in his
underpants, which he had posted to a gay
dating website, was published in 'papers.

When an interviewer suggested he was
a 'disgrace to the Rhondda', he replied:
"They can't get rid of me."

His pay, allowances and some expenses:

The basic annual salary for an MP, from
April 1st, 2016 is £74,962. MPs also get
expenses: to cover the costs of running
an office, employing staff, having some-
where to live in London, plus, in their
constituency and travelling between
Parliament and their constituency.

His MP's expenses story:

Chris Bryant changed second home
twice to claim £20,000: the deputy
leader of the House of Commons,
"flipped" his second home twice,
in 2 years, allowing him to claim
almost £20,000 for renovations
and fees.

Chris Bryant, MP for the Rhondda, split over
£92,000 of expenses between 3 properties
in Wales and London --- within five years.

In 2004, he attempted to claim £58,000 to
overhaul his second home in Wales, after
allegedly complaining that properties in
his constituency were "terrace or mine
owners' houses".

Mr Bryant, a former Church of England clergyman,
wanted the money for a new bathroom & kitchen,
and to demolish his conservatory. He'd bought the
detached house for £97,500, under a year earlier.

He submitted a claim to the Commons fees office for
£58,493.26 --- almost 3 times the annual maximum.
He noted that the claim exceeded his allowance.

His alleged justification was disclosed... in
correspondence between Commons officials.
By email, an official wrote: "He had problems
finding a suitable property because in the
Rhondda there is a choice mainly of terraced
property or mine owners' houses." When
approached by the Daily Telegraph,
Mr Bryant said: "I have never said
or thought anything of the sort".

In all, he successfully claimed over £13,000
for renovations, repairs & appliances, in 2004.
Along with other bills, his annual claim was
£20,902.

In April 2005, he flipped his expenses to his flat in
west London, which he bought for £400,000 in April
2002. He also claimed £630 a month for mortgage
interest, along with other bills. After claiming over
£3,600 over 3 months, he sold the flat in July 2005
for £477,000.

Mr Bryant used his profits to buy a more expensive
flat in west London, which was valued at £670,000.
He immediately flipped his second home expenses
there, claiming almost £6,400 in stamp duty, legal
fees and mortgage fees, incurred in the purchase.

He then began claiming interest of £1,000 a month
on the mortgage. He also claimed a further £6,000
a year for the flat's service charge and ground rent.

In all, he claimed £92, 415 in second
home expenses, from 2004 to 2009.

Mr Bryant said at the time: "I moved flat in
London, so as to be closer to Parliament."

Research by Channel 4 News in 2015 found that
at least 46 MPs had this kind of system in place
– a move one Labour backbencher described as
“a new fiddle”. Channel 4 reported then:

“Our investigation found that many of the MPs
bought their London properties with the help of
the taxpayer, when a previous expenses system
allowed them to claim back mortgage payments.
But when those claims were banned, following
the expenses scandal, they switched to letting
out their properties, in some cases for up to
£3,000 a month. They then started claiming
expenses for rent and hotels in the capital.”

Among those identified was Chris Bryant, shadow
leader of the House of Commons. He had already
bought a penthouse in London back in 2005 and
claimed around £1,000 a month in mortgage
claims under the old system.

But after the expenses scandal, he started renting
the property out. It’s since been advertised by estate
agents as having a private lift and a porter, with rent
at about £3,000 a month. Meanwhile, Bryant moved
into a new flat;- claiming his own rent on expenses.

Figures released by The Office for National Statistics
(ONS) reveal that UK pensioners are 4th worst off....
out of all of the countries in the European Union.

_______________________________________

Survey Finds UK
Failing on Childcare

September 13th, 11:13am (FNA)

Tens of thousands of working parents said the government

is failing them with inadequate childcare policies that leave

them financially crippled, stymied in their careers and

desperate for radical change, according to a

major survey.

The survey of more than 20,000 working parents, which was

shared with the Guardian and involved more than a dozen

organisations, found that 96% believed ministers were

not doing enough to support parents with the cost

and availability of childcare while 97% said

childcare in the UK was too expensive.

One-third of parents said they paid more for childcare than

their rent or mortgage. This proportion rose to 38% for

both those in full-time work or were single parents,

and to 47% of respondents from a black ethnic

background.

The survey comes before a debate on childcare in parliament

on Monday that was triggered after over 100,000 parents

signed a petition calling for an independent review of

childcare funding and affordability.

According to data from the Organisation for Economic Co-

operation and Development, the UK has the third most

expensive childcare system in the world, behind only

Slovakia and Switzerland; a full-time place costs

£12,376 a year on average.

Research by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) found that

between 2008 and 2016 the cost of a one-year-old child’s

nursery provision grew four times faster than wages in

England. In London, it was more than 7 times faster.

Warnings that the early years sector is at risk of collapse have

been largely ignored and morale is low: research by Nursery

World, found that one in 10 childcare workers, is living

in poverty.

Justine Roberts, the chief executive of the online forum Mumsnet,

said, “This is a problem that’s been hiding in plain sight for years,

and parents know exactly how badly they’re being failed. The

government must not ignore the misery and stress this

issue causes for parents across the whole country.”

The survey found that people who were struggling the most were

on the lowest incomes, on universal credit, were single parents,

had disabilities or had a black ethnic background. One in three

parents with a household income of less than £20,000 has had

to cut back on essential food or housing as a direct result of

childcare bills, while four in 10 single parents have had to

use credit cards to pay for essential items.

Ninety-two percent of parents said the cost of childcare had

affected their standard of living, while 50% said the cost was

completely unaffordable or had resulted in a substantial

impact. Ninety-four percent of parents who changed their

working patterns after having children... said childcare

costs were a factor in the decision.

The survey also revealed how heavily parents relied on family

for childcare – while 75% used private nurseries for childcare,

56% of parents said they relied on grandparents for help.

Overall, the survey found 99% of all respondents agreed

that childcare should be recognised as a vital part of the

UK’s economic and social infrastructure.

Joeli Brearley, the founder of the charity Pregnant Then Screwed,

said, “All we want from the government is transparency. The cost

of childcare continues to increase, forcing more parents out of

their jobs, and the quality of our early years settings decrease,

which will have serious long-term consequences for all of us.

We don’t believe the government has a grasp of how big the

issue is... and the impact it is having on families and

the economy.”

The survey was produced and distributed by.. Mumsnet, Pregnant

Then Screwed, the TUC, the Fawcett Society, the Women’s Budget

Group, Gingerbread, Working Families, the Fatherhood Institute,

Maternity Action, Music Football Fatherhood, Mother Pukka,

Tova Leigh, Black Mums Upfront, the Young Women’s Trust

and Cathy Reay (That Single Mum).

The data, which was not weighted, was collected from 20,046 parents

in the UK with at least one child aged 18 or under, carried out

between 20 July and 31 August 2021 – with 97% of the

respondents being women.

It presented compelling evidence, that lack of access to childcare

was preventing progress on gender equality. Only 16% of women

said childcare had not affected their seniority or income at work,

compared with 42% of men. Of the female respondents, 83%

said childcare costs and availability affected mothers more

than fathers; 41% of male respondents said it affected

parents equally. Two-thirds of female respondents

reduced their hours after having a baby,

compared with 26% of men.

Felicia Willow, the chief executive of the Fawcett Society, said,

“Our government cannot drop the ball on this – it’s clear that

a lack of access to childcare is stopping women both going

to work and progressing at work.”

The survey also suggested the government’s flagship shared

parental leave policy was a particular failure; only 17% of

respondents said it was useful for their family.

Ros Bragg, the director of Maternity Action, said, “The deeply

flawed shared parental leave has been about as helpful to

working parents as a chocolate teapot. Take-up rate

among eligible families is now less than 4% in its

fifth year of operation. It’s clear that we need to

start again.”

Elliott Rae, the founder of Music Football Fatherhood, said...

“Extortionate childcare costs reinforce traditional gendered

parenting roles and make it difficult for dads to have

flexibility in their work and be fully active and

engaged fathers.”

The survey suggested that respondents wanted to see a radical

overhaul of the childcare system: 90% of all parents supported

at least three months of “use-it-or-lose-it” parental leave for

fathers, paid at at least minimum wage level, while 94%

believed subsidised childcare should start from the

end of paid maternity leave.

Frances O’Grady, the TUC secretary general, said, “We don’t

want tinkering around the edges. Our broken parental leave

system is in need of a complete overhaul.”

The Department for Education said parents’ ability to claim 30

“free” hours a week during term time for three- and four-year

-olds could save them up to £5,000 a year and the number of

childcare places offered by providers was stable.

A spokesperson said early years providers had been given

financial support during the pandemic, and the government

had invested £3.5bln yearly in childcare since 2018, adding,

“We’re making millions more available through our

recovery fund to level up children’s early

outcomes, raising the quality of early

education even further.”

_____________________________________

Watchdog Finds UK Police

Tasering Children and
Mentally ill People

August 25th, 1:37pm (FNA)

Police must be trained to use Tasers only when “absolutely

necessary”, a watchdog said, after a review found the

weapons were being used against children and

mentally ill people.

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) reviewed

around 100 of the most serious cases involving Tasers in

England and Wales, including 16 where people died, The

Independent reported.

Inquests found that the use of Taser contributed to four

of those deaths, and inquiries are ongoing in others,

including the killing of former footballer, Dalian

Atkinson, by PC Benjamin Monk.

Last year, a coroner who examined the death of 30-year-old

father Marc Cole, warned that “future deaths will occur,

unless action is taken”, but the Home Office rejected

his call for a review of the physical effects of Tasers.

The IOPC said they had been used on people with underlying

health problems, including epilepsy and heart conditions,

and that, in some cases – including three where people

died – officers had suspected they were “feigning

being unwell”.

A report published on Wednesday also raised concerns about

the “increasing use of Tasers on children and vulnerable

people with mental health, drug and alcohol issues”.

The review warned that police had used the weapons in

unsafe locations, and had not always considered the

“risk of injury”, properly.

In a quarter of the cases examined, Tasers had been wrongly

used to make people “comply with instructions”, and in a

third, officers had missed opportunities to de-escalate

situations.

The IOPC said that current Taser use was threatening public

trust in the police, especially over the disproportionate use

against Black men.

IOPC director general Michael Lockwood stated, “Tasers are

available to more officers than ever before, but engagement

with communities has highlighted a stark difference

between their expectations about when a Taser

should be used, and the situations in which a

Taser can be used, under current national

guidance, particularly on those who

are vulnerable.

“Police forces must be able to explain this clearly, or risk

further eroding public confidence,” Lockwood added.

Lockwood said that although Tasers were a valuable tool

for protecting both the public and police officers...

independent scrutiny must ensure that they
are used appropriately.

“Clearer national guidance on the circumstances in which Tasers

should and should not be used - and better training - will improve

officer safety, as well as give the public reassurance that Tasers

are being used, only when absolutely necessary,” he added.

“Police forces must be able to justify to the public the

circumstances in which a Taser is deployed,

particularly when children and vulnerable

people are involved. Forces must also

respond to the disproportionate use

of Tasers against Black people,”

he said.

The IOPC made 17 recommendations, including improvements

to police guidance and training, the scrutiny and monitoring

of Taser use and data and research.

The Inquest charity said they do not go far enough and called for

“systemic change”, saying Tasers were dangerous weapons,

that had resulted in serious injury and death.

“They are increasingly used, as a first, not last resort,” added

Director Deborah Coles, adding, “Ultimately to prevent further

deaths and harm, we must look beyond policing and redirect

resources into community, health, welfare and

specialist services.”

The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and the College of

Policing announced research on racial disproportionality in

police use of Tasers last year.

A National Taser Stakeholder Advisory Group in this area has

also been set up, and there are new conflict management

guidelines and training proposals.

The NPCC said the IOPC’s review only covered 0.1 percent of

all Taser use, because so few cases had been referred to

the watchdog.

Home Office figures record Taser use if the weapons are

drawn, used to plant a red target dot on a suspect, or

fired. In 86 percent of recorded Taser incidents,

they are not fired.

Chief Constable Lucy D’Orsi, the national police lead on

Tasers, said work was already underway... to make

improvements.

“Focusing on these smaller number of cases missed an

opportunity to consider Taser use more broadly and,

unfortunately, has resulted in recommendations

which are mostly out of date and not based
on the realities of policing,” she added.

“Policing is not easy and in many violent situations I believe

Taser is a viable, less lethal option for officers, between

using a baton and the lethal force of a gun. Taser has

a critical place in protecting the public and our

officers,” she said.

The IOPC said it could only investigate “the most serious

and sensitive cases” because of its remit, and aimed to

contribute to the growing evidence base around

Taser use.

The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners said
it would act as a bridge between police forces and the
public, to ensure concerns were addressed.

The watchdog also uncovered evidence that some officers made

inappropriate comments, including derogatory remarks, during

these incidents, in an analysis of 101 investigations involving

Tasers, between 2015 and 2020.

Some 60 percent of Black people involved in Taser discharges

were subjected to continuous discharges of more than five

seconds, compared with 29 percent of White people.

The longest length of continuous use, was 67 seconds.

_________________________________

Watchdog Finds UK Police

Failing to Impose Orders

on Men Accused of Abuse

August 24th, 12:05pm (FNA)

Police are failing to impose restraining orders
or bail conditions on men accused of rape,

domestic abuse, harassment and

stalking, a watchdog found ---

placing women and girls at

increased risk of harm.

A police super-complaint, submitted by the Centre

for Women’s Justice (CWJ), raised concerns that

police were failing to use protective measures
in cases involving violence against women
and girls, The Guardian reported.

A joint investigation between HM Inspectorate of

Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services, the

Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC),

and the College of Policing found there was
a lack of understanding in police forces of
how and/or when to use such protective

measures, which could lead to women
and girls being harmed, or victims

being less likely to report crime

in the future.

However, the CWJ expressed disappointment that

the recommendations did not go far enough.

Nogah Ofer, a solicitor at the CWJ, stated, “The super-

complaint recommendations are welcome. However,

they do not get to grips with the severity of the

problem, or go far enough to ensure that

police forces make real changes

in practice."

“Some recommendations, require improved data-gathering,

and tell chief constables in general terms to prioritise and

monitor use of orders, but there is a lack of specifics and

no discussion of under-resourcing, which is the elephant

in the room. We fear that in five years’ time the situation

will not be much different to today,” Ofer added.

The report made several recommendations, including that

chief constables should ensure their officers understand

all the protective measures available & the Home Office

and Ministry of Justice should intensify and accelerate

their consideration of creating a bespoke offence, of

breaching pre-charge bail.

The director general of the IOPC, Michael Lockwood, said:

“Police have a key role in protecting vulnerable people

and this super-complaint has highlighted clear gaps

where improvements must be made in protecting

vulnerable women and girls."

“The right training, support, guidance... and leadership, is

critical to police using protective measures to help keep

women and girls safe from harm," Lockwood added.

“However, this is a community-wide issue and one that

needs not just a policing response, but a response

from the whole criminal justice sector, non-

government organisations and others,"

he said.

“More than ever, we need a consistent approach to

stopping appalling crimes of violence against

women and girls, from occurring in the
first place,” Lockwood added.

[Rhondda Records adds:

Damned if you do, and damned if you
don't... think, change, and improve!!!]

________________________________

UK head teacher prompts outrage,

heated debate -- after revealing her

school ban on ‘sexist’ expressions

like ‘boys and girls’

April 29th, (RT)

UK head teacher prompts outrage, heated debate

after revealing her school ban on ‘sexist’

expressions like ‘boys and girls’.

A UK primary school headmistress has kicked off a storm

after revealing that she has instructed her teachers not to

use a number of “sexist” phrases, including ‘let’s go,

guys’ and ‘boys and girls’.

Sarah Hewitt-Clarkson, who heads the Anderton Park

primary school in Birmingham, told the Good Morning

Britain show on Thursday that students as young as

three are taught to reject the use of the banned

expressions by holding up posters.

The program – which has stoked fierce debate among

parents – rewards the two students who flag the ‘best’

instances of such usage with certificates at the end

of the week.

“If our boys and girls grow up and in school we don’t

challenge this sexist language and boys are told,

‘man up’, ‘grow a pair’ and ‘boys don’t cry’, it’s

very damaging for them...abusers later on

potentially, or bullies, will also use this

fear,” Hewitt-Clarkson said.

“Fear is the biggest weapon that abusers have and if

boys are told, ‘boys don't get scared’, ‘boys don’t talk

about their feelings’, then where are they going to go

when they are afraid and they are frightened?”

she added.

“Fast forward a little bit to when the children are older

just to see why this is so important because it’s a tiny

part of a huge jigsaw,” said Hewitt-Clarkson, who had

previously said that there was a thread tying tragic

outcomes like the murder of Sarah Everard to

casual ‘banter’ and the examples adults set.

When asked how the school handled the resulting issues

in addressing students in a classroom setting, Hewitt-

Clarkson said that the preferred greeting should be

“good morning everyone” since that does not

create a gender divide and includes people

who might not identify as either sex.

Journalist Nana Akua, who was also part of the show,

called the move “absolutely ridiculous” and warned

that “we’re creating a generation of wallflower kids

who are listening for an offence.”

Noting that the “context of language” was important,

Akua told Hewitt-Clarkson her “energy is in the

wrong place.”

Social media users were divided on the school’s emphasis

on gender identity and inclusion with as many supporters

defending the program as important as there were critics

who called it unnecessary.

Describing it as “absolutely ridiculous”, one person, a p

rimary school teacher, tweeted, “Let kids be kids. They

grow up too fast as it is.”

Another user, identifying herself as an academic, said

Hewitt-Clarkson was right since “we do segment”

others based on lessons learned early on.

A number of users suggested she stick to teaching

students “reading, writing, arithmetic and also how

to be kind” instead of “any of this other stuff.”

The majority of users agreed with the need to “phase

out” some phrases like ‘man up’ and ‘grow a pair’ but

called for “balance and some common sense”. Some

also expressed concern about the long-term effects

of the program.

But some denounced the program as evidence

of “brainwashing” and “stifling freedom of

speech” in schools, while others said the

problem lay with the English language,

which doesn't use gender.

Tweeter: The problem is English Language.

Only English and Turkish do not assign
gendered pronoun & cases in discourse.
English denotes everything as Male with
few satisfactory gender neutral alternatives,

Learning non-gendered language early is

the best solution and avoids confusion

If you like this story, share it with a friend!

_____________________________________

UN hits out at UK decision
to cut family planning aid
from £154 million to £23m

April 29th, 2:39pm (PressTV)

The UK faces criticism from a UN agency, over
the government's decision to cut aid for family

planning by 85 percent.

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has

launched a scathing attack on the UK’s decision
to cut family planning aid from £154 million to

£23m this year, warning that women and

girls around the world, will suffer as

a result.

The aid cut, which indicates a reduction by 85%

could have helped prevent “250,000 maternal

and child deaths.”

Prior to this decision, Britain was the biggest

donor to the initiative, run by the UNFPA.

UNFPA provides contraception and maternal health

medicine to millions of women in some of the world's

poorest nations, as well as training maternal health

staff and promoting efforts to prevent child

marriage, unintended pregnancies and

unsafe abortions.

Natalia Kanem, UNFPA executive director, accused

Britain of “stepping away from its commitments at

a time when inequalities are deepening and

international solidarity is needed more

than ever.”

She branded UK government’s decision as “devastating”

& said that "with the now-withdrawn £130m, the UNFPA

Supplies Partnership would have helped prevent around

250,000 maternal and child deaths, 14.6 million

unintended pregnancies and 4.3 million

unsafe abortions.”

Kanem said the UN agency “deeply regrets” the UK’s

decision, before adding that - upon slashing funds -

“women and girls suffer, especially the poor, those

living in remote, underserved communities and

those living through humanitarian crises.”

In response to a UN statement on Thursday, Liz Sugg,

the former Foreign Office minister, who resigned in

protest of the cuts, said that Britain's withdrawal

of financial funding for the women's health

organization was a "double hit on the

world's poorest."

“This is money the UK committed to in the UN chamber,

signed an agreement and now we’re walking away from

it – it’s pretty unheard of," Sugg told the BBC Radio 4

Today program on Thursday.

The UK declared this year that it would reduce its total

foreign aid budget from 0.7 percent to 0.5 percent of

national income, a £4 billion cut.

Meanwhile, Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said he did

not recognize the figures, but admitted no area was

immune to cuts.

The move has triggered an outcry from charities and aid

organizations that argue it will harm poor communities

already reeling from COVID-19 and could also hamper

efforts to curb climate change.

UKAid has long been a cover for the government’s foreign

policy deployment in the poorer countries and its drastic

aid cuts happen, even as the British military and

intelligence services step up their activities in

the subject countries.

The UK’s retreatment from its financial commitments

comes after other world powers’ increase their aid

spending to the poorest, because their need is

increasing, given the global health crisis.

__________________________

UK: Domestic Abuse Victims

‘Forced to Sell Homes or Rack

Up Debt to Get Justice’

April 28th 5:08pm (FNA)

Domestic abuse victims who can’t get legal aid

are being forced to sell their homes or rack up

debts, to bring perpetrators to justice,

campaigners warned.

New legislation introduced in January eradicated

the cap -- previously used -- when determining

eligibility, but charities say domestic abuse

survivors are still being refused help, due

to owning their home, The Independent

reported.

Experts say victims who cannot afford legal representation

are being forced to face their abusive former partners

alone in court, due to the changes not being
properly rolled out.

The warning flies in the face of a December 2020 High Court

ruling that stopped a legal loophole that blocked a domestic

abuse survivor who was a single mother from obtaining

legal aid, despite her only having £28 in her bank

account. Legal aid helps people pay for legal

advice and representation in court.

Lola, a domestic abuse survivor, said she reapplied for legal

aid twice after learning the law had changed but has been

rejected both times, due to owning her home.

The 36-year-old, who is unemployed and struggling for money,

added, “I was also rejected before the law change. I meet all

the criteria, except for the fact I own my house."

“They asked: ‘Why haven’t you got a loan out? and ‘Why haven’t

you asked friends and family?’ The process is re-traumatising.

But my ex has got full legal aid," she added.

“He manipulated a professional by saying he had suffered

domestic abuse from me and got them to write this down

in a letter, which he then used to apply for legal aid. You

don’t need any proof for this. He’s taking me to court

for nothing,” she said.

Lola, who has had two restraining orders against her ex-

partner, said she qualifies for free school meal vouchers.

“I have to represent myself alone in court,” she said, adding,

“I’m not legally trained. It's the most triggering, traumatising

experience. He has a barrister. They talk to me like I’m the

lowest form of humanity. Like I’m scum. He’s got an

endless pit of my money to keep taking me to

court. It’s like I’m his plaything.”

Lola criticised the legal aid agency which gave her ex money

for not even checking if there were legal proceedings or a

restraining order against him - adding it should be

standard practice.

She warned the “injustice” of the situation was “so huge” it

means she is “consumed by anger” every day, and warned

an individual as dangerous as her ex-partner, who refuses

to pay child maintenance, should not be granted “all that

power” in the courts.

Lola, who is being supported by domestic abuse charity

Women’s Aid, recalled the abuse suffered during her

relationship.

“It was never physical,” she said, adding, “But it was getting

to that point. It was emotional and financial abuse. He

starting reading up on conspiracy theories and

taking an interest in flat earth theories. He

completely lost his grip on reality.”

Lola said he would regularly scream at her in front of their son

for trivial issues such as leaving lights on and constantly

ringing her when she was at home due to his

“possessive nature”.

She said her son is keen to do school activities but she has

had to request grants from charities to afford them —

adding she is terrified she won’t be able to “afford

to let him pursue his passions”. Money set aside

for her son’s future is being spent on solicitors

and barristers, she said.

“I’m in a horror film,” Lola said, adding, “This man has got all

his support. He is hunting me down. I’m going from room to

room and there is no escape. He was bad enough but now

the legal aid is abetting him to do this to me.”

Refuge found 1,780 women seeking help – more than a third of

the total – had faced economic abuse from their partner. On

average, the mistreatment, which includes being denied

access to money or a bank account, as well as having

debt placed in their name, lasted more than six years.

Charlotte Proudman, a family law barrister, told The Independent

she had referred domestic abuse survivors to solicitors since

the changes were in introduced but they had nevertheless

not been eligible for legal aid.

Dr Proudman added, “Solicitors have said it hasn't come into

force. On the ground, it is not happening. The legal aid

agency might be refusing because they own

properties, which defies logic and law."

“There is one woman in particular, who because she owns half

of the family home, they have said she is not eligible for legal

aid even though she is on benefits. She is a domestic abuse

victim. It is awful," Dr Proudman said.

“If victims haven't got any money to seek protection through

courts, it leaves them in a vulnerable situation, unable to

escape abusive partners and seek court protection.

Such as, orders which block the abusers

contacting them or approaching them

in person,” she said.

Dr Proudman warned women who are not legally trained do

not know how to “navigate” the legal system - with victims

of domestic abuse being particularly scared to face their

abuser in court alone.

“It is a process of them being re-traumatised without the

protection of a lawyer to speak on their behalf,” she said,

adding, “An abuser can continue abuse by taking them

back to court as a way of continuing harassment and

stalking them.”

Legal aid for domestic abuse victims needs to be non-means

tested and universally available for all irrespective of their

finances with no delays, she added.

“Sometimes it can take weeks to get a legal aid agency to

decide if they are going to get funding,” Proudman said,

adding, “In that time serious physical or psychological

harm could have been caused.”

Olive Craig, senior legal officer at Rights of Women, a

leading women’s legal rights charity, told The

Independent recent changes to legal aid are

“applied inconsistently and do not go far

enough to address the many problems

presented by the legal aid means test”.

She added, “We expect the government’s long overdue review

of the means test to address those deficiencies and ensure

access to justice for all.”

While Lucy Hadley, of Women's Aid, said they have been

“disappointed” to learn domestic abuse victims who

own their own homes are still being blocked from

getting legal aid, in spite of the High Court’s

key ruling.

She demanded the legal aid means test to be completely

axed for domestic abuse survivors to make sure “no

woman who needs to access legal advice and

representation when escaping an abuser

is barred from justice“.

The Home Office has been contacted for comment.

____________________________

UK breakup? Welsh
independence

more popular
than ever

April 8th, 8:56pm (Press TV)

New polls suggest that support for Welsh independence

from the UK is at an all time high. This has created fear

in Downing Street, over the real threat of a Kingdom

breakup, with the Welsh parliament elections on

the way.

The idea of a Welsh breakaway from the United

Kingdom is high on the agenda, ahead of this

year's Welsh elections.

With the country’s biggest pro-independence party

Plaid Cymru, pledging to secure a vote on Welsh

independence within the next five years.

The idea of Wales going alone has traditionally been

an obscure viewpoint, however, since Brexit, public

support for an independence vote has skyrocketed.

One poll conducted this year actually suggested that

Welsh support for independence, could be as high

as 39 percent, that would be the highest level

ever recorded.

No.10 has reportedly become very aware of the growing

anti-Westminster sentiment outside of England, and are

drawing up plans to counter the trend.

The Welsh elections are taking place in May. Plaid Cymru

have been recording great successes in past votes, and

hopes are high of major gains.

Although support for independence is not yet near a

majority view, Westminster’s poor handling of the

coronavirus crisis, and the negative effects

Brexit has had for Wales, appears to have

created greater belief in the virtues of

self-government. With Scotland also

pushing hard for a UK divorce...

No.10’s concerns are growing

as fast as Welsh patriotism.

____________________________

Hello darkness my old friend
...Peter Mandelson is back

advising Labour, why not

just go the whole hog &
bring back Tony Blair?

by Chris Sweeney

February 15th (RT)

Chris Sweeney is an author and columnist who has written

for newspapers such as The Times, Daily Express, The

Sun and Daily Record, along with several international-

selling magazines. Follow him on Twitter
@Writes_Sweeney

Keir Starmer is so devoid of original ideas he is bringing back

the Prince of Darkness to help him crowbar his way into

Number 10, but if the plan is Blair 2.0, why settle for an

impersonator when the original is still available?

Lord Peter Mandelson is not a name that will resonate beyond

the UK, but he is one of Britain’s most infamous spin doctors.

The type of character who has seemingly exerted an extended

sphere of influence without it ever being clear exactly what he

does. He arrived into the Labour Party in 1985 and it’s now

been revealed he is still pulling strings today, 36 years later.

Tony Blair adored his style but some of the left-wing union

devotees had no time for the man who became known as

‘The Prince of Darkness’. So, to appease them, and to

keep his involvement in Blair’s leadership campaign

secret, he was issued a code name – 'Bobby'.

Since then, he’s inhabited a range of roles; minister without

portfolio, secretary of state for Northern Ireland, European

commissioner, business secretary --- and then Baron

Mandelson as he entered the House of Lords. After

Blair left - and was replaced by Gordon Brown -

Mandelson retained an iron-grip on the levers

of power. In that period, he was a member of

35 cabinet committees, and some referred

to him as the “unelected prime minister.”

Mandelson likes a frontman, a lead singer to shield him while

he writes the lyrics. So it’s business as usual now that’s he

back in alongside current Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer.

There is only a decade or so in age between the two, but

the level of experience in the dark arts of politics, is

heavily tipped in Mandelson’s favour. The notoriety

is why he chooses to remain in the shadows, as a

lot of voters detest him. He represents the back-

room dealmaking and media manipulation that

turns so many off politics.

Mandelson is like a lightning rod, he takes the surge and

allows his ‘stooge’ to carry on. He ended up in the public

court of shame, for spending a New Year’s Eve, on Paul

Allen’s yacht, while Microsoft was at the centre of an

EU investigation.

Another yacht trip got him in hot water, this time,
with oligarch Oleg Deripaska, as Mandelson had
been part of a decision to cut aluminium tariffs.
At the time, Deripaska owned United Company
Rusal, one of the world’s biggest producers of
the metal.

Mandelson was also friendly with Jeffery Epstein,

and has been pictured with the disgraced financier.

So for Keir Starmer to bring in a man with that amount of

baggage, proves how desperate he must be. Starmer

replaced Jeremy Corbyn - the most socialist main-

stream figure seen in British politics for decades -

but has as yet done nothing of substance. He's a

more centrist figure, but Boris has that sewn up:

he won the last election, with an affirming 80-

seat majority. The so-called Red Wall, fell to

the Conservatives, proving that the working

class heartlands, no longer had faith in

their old ally Labour. And still there’s

no spark or idea from Labour, to

turn that around.

Since Blair left office, the party hasn’t won an election. Their

last victory was in 2005 and before Blair led them to victory

in 1997 they hadn’t won an election since 1974. Blair is the

only person who has led the Labour Party to victory in the

last 47 years, and it seems they’ve simply decided to

revert to what worked then and hope it does now.

So welcome back Mandelson, who is right in his sweet spot,

without an official position but is there to “broaden the party’s

appeal.” It seems a redundant mission, as you’re asking

Mandelson to recreate the old magic. For that, he needs

his protege and the man who brought those ideas to life

– Blair. Why bother trying to copy him, when he is still

out there, sitting around not doing very much? Blair

has been quite vocal and made quite a few public

interjections into the Covid-19 effort. It was his

idea to stagger the two vaccine doses, which

Britain and other countries are now

actually doing.

If Labour's desperation is so great they need to face facts.

Starmer is keen to paint himself as a paragon of the good

and just. He created a big spectacle over the investigation

into anti-Semitism within Labour and also fired a member

of his shadow cabinet for making a remark that was

judged to slight the Jewish faith.

Starmer’s previous profession was as a barrister where he

worked on human rights cases before becoming a QC and

the Director of Public Prosecutions. He also spoke out

and protested against the Iraq war.

Yes, the same war that Blair led Britain into, after years of

working with Mandelson. So if Starmer is so willing to

embrace Mandelson, is he really as principled and

motivated by integrity as he’d like to have us think?

All of this also reflects an extremely depressing facet to

British politics. The country has suffered the most

deaths in Europe due to incompetent leadership.

The list of ludicrous decisions has been recounted many

times and if the opposition cannot muster up a feasible

counter after all these months, they really are

beyond hope.

The vaccination rollout is the only thing Boris has handled

well, but it won’t erase the number of families left to rue the

unnecessary loss of loved ones. There is also the much-

covered resurgence in support for independence in

Scotland and a growing movement in Wales. Brexit

was another shambles, with a deal agreed days

before everything went into meltdown. How is it

possible that an allegedly well-run, professional,

perceptive political party ,can’t muster up a

credible opposition?

Winding the clock back 20 years and hoping that the same

things will work is, in my view, a fantasy. Society and

attitudes have changed, there was no social media

in 1997 and simply looking plausible and playing

'Things Can Only Get Better' on a loop isn’t

going to win you 80+ seats. But let us

suppose, for a minute, that it might,

if the Labour party & it’s leadership

really believe that’s their greatest

hope and the best plan they have

for the British people is New

Labour 2.0, then why isn’t

Blair involved?

Starmer talks a bit like him, has a similar presence, they were

even both barristers before entering politics, but trying to

‘out Blair’ Blair is futile. If Starmer isn't able to lead and

create his own vision, then why did he put himself
up for the job? Trying to get Peter Mandelson to

Svengali you into some sort of Blair tribute act
is never going to work. As Queen fans know,
Adam Lambert, is no substitute for

Freddie Mercury.

Step up or step aside, don’t be a down-
market copy of your predecessor.

Think your friends would be interested?

Share this story!

_________________________________

Boris Defends Bully Patel
but Not Pensioners – His
Govt is Morally Repugnant

by Tommy Sheridan

22/11/2020 (Source - Sputnik)

Anyone surprised by BoJo’s decision to condone shameful bullying at

the heart of his government and order a “square” of defence be formed

“around the prittster” after he decided to keep Priti Patel in his cabinet

despite her being found guilty of breaching the Ministerial Code and

bullying, has plainly been sleeping over the past eleven months.

That period has exposed the rancid hypocrisy, corruption, cronyism,

and lack of integrity which characterises Johnson and the Tories

under his leadership.

Priti Patel was accused of disgraceful conduct and bullying while an

employment Minister under Theresa May in 2015, behaviour which

drove a female civil servant to attempt suicide on at least two

occasions and ended with a Department of Work & Pensions

pay-out of £25,000 in April 2017 to avoid the scrutiny of an

Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal, harassment,

discrimination, and victimisation.

Patel the Bully Became Patel the Liar

Patel was then moved to the role of International Secretary only to be

found out as a devious liar whom May had to sack after her deliberate

misleading of the PM and Parliament over secret meetings with Israeli

officials, business representatives and lobbyists was exposed. She

lied and was caught. She had to go.

Being a dishonest bully presented no barrier to Boris Johnson’s

cabinet however and he appointed Patel as his Home Secretary

in July 2019 after he became Tory leader.

Within weeks the top civil servant in the Home Office, Sir Philip Rutnam,

felt compelled to warn her about her conduct and lack of respect for

staff before eventually resigning from his post at the end of February

this year in a move which caused shock waves in the civil service

and government. He accused Patel of lying about a “vicious”

campaign orchestrated against him and creating a climate

of fear in her department.

Patel Investigation Handicapped from the Outset

A high-level investigation was reluctantly ordered into the allegations

made by Rutnam, and he vowed to pursue a constructive dismissal

claim against the government which is yet to be concluded. It is

increasingly clear that the investigation has been less than

rigorous as the senior civil servant appointed to conduct

it was refused access to Rutnman despite him being the

best equipped to inform the investigation.

However the report that was compiled was laid on Johnson’s desk

in April and he refused to act on it for months before recently

contacting the author, Sir Alex Allan, and leaning on him to

water down the conclusions. Despite the limited access to

witnesses the investigation still found Priti Patel "shouted

and swore" at staff in actions "that can be described

as bullying" and that she had indeed breached the

Ministerial Code which is normally an automatic

resignation offence.

The fact Sir Alex Allan, former chair of the prestigious Joint

Intelligence Committee, chose to resign rather than alter his

report to save Patel’s reputation is admirable, but the full

report is being kept secret. It must be revealed in full and

the fact it was severely handicapped by the barring of

access to Rutman’s input must also be highlighted.

Johnson Willing to Protect Patel
but not Pensioners in Care Homes

Patel was ordered to issue an apology on camera on Friday but all

it did was rub salt in the wounds of the campaign against bullying

as she smugly smirked and smiled when she claimed to have no

knowledge of bullying but apologised anyway. Please watch and

remember - her conduct drove a lowly paid civil servant to

attempt suicide on two occasions and compelled a very

senior civil servant to resign. The lack of contrition for

her actions and empathy for her victims is truly

frightening.

If Johnson and his Tory gang of millionaires and spivs showed an iota

of the concern and commitment to defend elderly care residents as

they have shown to defend lying bully Patel at least 20,000 lives

could have been saved. A shocking report compiled by Amnesty

International last month received very little media attention but

condemned the Tory Covid19 response as a dereliction of duty

and care towards elderly citizens.

Read the document and understand just how complicit this Tory

government is in the deaths of thousands of senior citizens. It

presents evidence that the government’s policy of herd immunity

was responsible for mass murder. The government was entirely

aware of the probable outcome of their policy and went ahead

regardless of the risk to thousands of lives.

The report, “As if expendable: The UK government’s failure to protect

older people in care homes during the Covid-19 pandemic”, details

how, between March 2 and June 12, 18,562 residents of care homes

in England died with COVID-19. The vast majority (18,168) were

aged 65 and over, representing almost 40 percent of all deaths

involving the virus in England during this time frame. Of these,

76 percent (13,844 deaths) occurred within care homes for

the elderly.

During this brief period, 28,186 “excess deaths” were recorded

in English care homes, a 46 percent increase in comparison

with the same period over previous years.

Amnesty conclude that the Tory government together with its

agencies at national and local level have “taken decisions and

adopted policies during the Covid-19 pandemic that have directly

violated the human rights of older residents of care homes in

England—notably their right to life, their right to health, and

their right to non-discrimination”.

The report argues that the decisions and policies of the Tory

government “impacted the rights of care home residents to

private and family life, and may have violated their right not

to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment”.

Johnson was determined to “form a square around the prittster”

to defend his lying bully Patel at the Home Office but didn’t lift a

finger to defend thousands of pensioners in care homes. That is

the warped and putrid priorities which define this government.

A Litany of Government Failures but No Resignations

Their top advisor broke lockdown rules but there was no resignation.

They have been caught awarding contracts worth over £20 billion of

public money without proper scrutiny or tendering processes to

friends of senior Tories and companies known to donate to the

Tory party and no one has resigned.

The UK government’s late response to Covid-19 and failure to

impose lockdown measures caused the unnecessary deaths

of 20,000 --- but no one resigned from government.

International law will be broken because of the government’s

Internal Market Bill --- but no one resigns.

The Johnson government backs bullies, liars, public contract

cheats and international law breaking. It is morally repugnant

and thoroughly incompetent. No wonder Scotland is so keen

to break away as soon as possible.

_________________________________________________

Report: Patients Discharged from

UK Hospitals without COVID Test
Results

October 28th, 2020 (FNA)

Almost half of hospital patients have been discharged

without receiving the results of their coronavirus test

– including some patients who were sent to care

homes, new research revealed.

Independent national patient body Healthwatch England

said it had learned many patients were discharged from

hospitals between March and August this year without

proper assessments with many vulnerable people sent

home without medication, equipment or the care they

needed, The Independent reported.

At the start of the pandemic thousands of patients were

discharged to care homes as NHS England instructed

hospitals to free up 15,000 beds ahead of the first

wave of coronavirus.

Approximately 25,000 patients were sent to care homes

with some not tested, sparking fears this helped seed

care homes with the virus. There have been around

16,000 care home deaths linked to COVID-19.

According to a survey of almost 600 discharged patients

and interviews with 60 NHS staff, Healthwatch England

said it had found serious flaws with the way hospitals

had followed NHS England’s instructions.

In joint research with the British Red Cross, shared with

The Independent, it found that 44 percent of patients were

discharged without knowing the result of their corona-

virus test - including some to care homes.

It said, “Despite the policy stating that all patients

discharged to a care home should be tested for

COVID-19, we found that 26 percent of our

survey respondents who were discharged

to a care home were not tested.”

While the numbers involved were small, only 13 out of 50

patients, the report added that this was “still a significant

proportion of people who were required to be tested

but did not receive one”.

Healthwatch added that while patients going to care homes

must have the results available and shared with the home

it was still not national policy to test everyone being

discharged. It argued this should now be an

''ambition'' for the government.

Its report also raises concerns about the wider care

of vulnerable patients sent home from hospital.

88 percent of patients reported having care needs

after being discharged that have still not been met.

82 per cent did not receive a visit or any

assessment from a health professional

Almost one in five of those who did not

receive a visit, reported unmet needs.

In total 45 percent of people with a disability and

20 percent of people with a long-term condition

had support needs that were not being met,

following their discharge.

Healthwatch England criticised the national discharge

policy put in place by NHS bosses, as “confusing” in

places which it said may have contributed to some

patients missing out on the care they needed.

Robert Francis QC, chair of Healthwatch England, said,

“In March, hospitals were asked to discharge patients

with little or no notice and the speed with which this

took place was important, but led to mistakes."

“We do not want to detract from the heroic efforts of
those on the frontline, who often put themselves at

great risk to care for their patients, but services

and system leaders have now had more time

to prepare," he said.

“It’s essential that we learn from what people have

shared with us about the impact that a poorly

handled discharge can have on them and

their loved ones. Taking action now will

not only reduce the risk to patients but

will also help improve the way people

leave hospital in the future,” he added.

The British Red Cross and Healthwatch England said

assessments for patients needed to be prioritised.

They also called for discharge checklists to make

sure patients were asked if they needed help with

transport and equipment.

Other recommendations included making sure carers

and patients had a single contact for support, which

was already national policy but still not fully adopted.

The report also said community services needed

to be boosted, to cope with increased demands.

British Red Cross Chief Executive Mike Adamson said,

“We’ve seen first-hand the huge efforts made to

improve the discharge process for patients and

their families. However, we also know, despite

good intentions and hard work, there are still

barriers to making the ideals of discharge

policy a reality."

“The Red Cross has been bearing witness to these

issues for years, and we hope that the increased

urgency of the situation will bring lasting change.

Many of the people we support are older or more

vulnerable, & fall into the higher-risk categories

for COVID-19," Adamson said.

“Simple interventions, like getting equipment and

medicine delivered, or follow-up visits, can make

the difference between a good recovery or some-

one regressing to the point of readmission -

precisely at the time we want people to

stay well, and stay at home,” he said.

Professor Stephen Powis, NHS national medical director,

said, “There has long been a wide consensus about the

benefits for patients of being able to return home as

soon as their specialist hospital care is complete,

and it is good that delays have been reduced in

recent times. While this is a very small snap-

shot survey, local hospitals will want* (sic)

to take account of the points it makes.”

(*No they won't!)

_________________________________________

By backing housing charity’s
‘Jewish only’ rule, UK court drops
the ball. Aren’t we all equal in Britain?

by Chris Sweeney October 17th, 2020 (Source: RT)

A small legal challenge has turned into a precedent-

setting case about whether someone in today’s

Britain can be prioritised or denied housing on

the basis of their religion.The law isn’t always

right and it’s not just people who can be

taken hostage.

In a disgraceful decision deemed legitimate by the UK’s

highest court, a single mother with four children was

refused social housing – because she wasn’t a Jew.

It’s that simple.

The charity Agudas Israel Housing Association (AIHA)

owns 470 houses in the London borough of Hackney.

Local authorities promised, in October 2017, the

next available home to the woman and her kids,

two of whom are autistic.

AIHA refused to hand over the keys to any

of its SIX four-bedroom, unoccupied flats.

Their argument was it makes offers “only to members

of the Orthodox Jewish community.” As Britain is a

secular nation, the woman’s legal team found this

claim astonishing and argued it had the same

sentiment as the ‘No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish’

signs that were once displayed in some pubs.

Lord Sales stated the charity’s use of positive discrimination

was lawful, under the Equality Act 2010, in order to correct

the disadvantage faced by the community. The issue

apparently was not racism, but discrimination on

the grounds of religious observance. The court

considered the “widespread and increasing

overt antisemitism in our society.”

Intolerance or hate speech of any form is unacceptable.

But it’s hard to believe the courts and public reaction

would have been the same, if this had been Islam or

a group of Pashtuns from the Iranian border region.

Jewish affairs are treated differently. There's a 'kid gloves'

approach and they’re deemed to be culturally valuable,

while other communities are sometimes dismissed as

interlopers. AIHA’s founder Ita Cymerman-Symons,

speaking last year about the legal action, offered

the view: “Which non-Jewish person, honestly

speaking, wants to live in the midst of a

building full of Haredi men with all the

beards, and all the chanting on a

Friday night and all the children?”

A homeless single mother with four children

for one, along with many others.

Plenty of people in social housing endure noisy neighbours,

potent cooking smells and screaming kids. But isn’t that

wonderful? Diversity and living cheek by jowl with

people who see, think and believe different
things to you.

That’s a rich learning experience for anyone.

The fallacy of the AIHA’s superiority complex of viewing

Orthodox Jews above others is, every public service is

available to their members. And, of the charity’s 2019

income of £105,710, the sum of £39,716 came from

British government grants. They won’t be stone-

walled at hospital or refused entry on a bus, so

why should they be allowed to create their

small-minded kingdom with impunity?

These Jewish community leaders seem to be shutting out

anyone who doesn’t align with their beliefs. It’s unhealthy

and depressing, especially in a multicultural metropolis

like London.

The judgement also referenced issues that Orthodox Jews

don’t like to live outside of the Stamford Hill area and they

tend to be poorer than the wider Jewish community. Many

of us would prefer not to live outside of the millionaire’s

playgrounds of Kensington, Knightsbridge and Mayfair –

but we tend to be poorer, so can’t afford it. That doesn’t

mean the courts would support us founding the

Republic of Poverty Housing Association, and

letting us administer who can move in.

Even if we concede that Orthodox Jews appear to support

AIHA’s ghetto-isation, aren’t the courts supposed to rule

for the greater good? It makes no sense to encourage

people to live in self-imposed enclaves. How are they

going to progress in life, or do they never plan to

leave the streets around their homes?

There’s also a wider impact of the judgement. It raises the

hackles of the population. It hacks away at the concept of

respecting every other citizen. The far-right will jump on

this and sadly there’s no defence. It will birth more

discontentment and raise tensions.

The law lords have dropped the ball, because they are the

highest court in the land, they had the chance to set a

precedent. They seem to have been influenced by

Jewish sensitivity, that labels anyone who

disagrees with the faith an anti-Semite.

It’s hard to see how justice, fairness,

compassion and understanding are

applicable. But superiority, tokenism

and favouritism have been advanced.

Why?

Well one of the court’s final points was AIHA was "a small

housing provider, but similar discrimination by a larger one

might not be allowed.”

We’re all equal, right?

Chris Sweeney is an author and columnist who has

written for newspapers such as The Times, Daily

Express, The Sun and Daily Record, along with

several international-selling magazines. Follow

him on Twitter @Writes_Sweeney

______________________________________

Brits should be ashamed of the casual cruelty

we show towards over-60s, and shrugging it

off as ‘banter’, does nothing to excuse it.

by Damian Wilson

9th October, 2020

Two-thirds of UK over-60s say they have been abused in

public because of their age, with a fifth saying insults

come from within their own families. It seems the

idea that we should ‘respect our elders’, is no

longer in fashion.

We live in a society where everyone just loves to talk

about ‘respect.’ Even primary school children are

indoctrinated with the concept, told they are due

it by right and can demand it from others, if it’s

not forthcoming. It’s all one-way traffic.

That’s why, as they grow older, and insist on enforcing

their entitlement, it becomes increasingly evident that

while they assume that right is a given for them, they

actually don’t give a toss about it applying to

anyone else.

Every now and then, research will put this into sharp relief,

as is shown in the results of a survey undertaken by the

University of the Third Age (u3a). The study found that

the more senior members of society, basically those

aged 60 and over, are frequently insulted by younger

people, and they don’t like it.

Clueless Millennials, Zoomers and even Gen X’ers told the

u3a pollsters that they don’t mean anything by slinging

ageist insults, they were simply being “friendly” and

the name-calling was just “banter.” Everyone

does it.

The growing tendency of young people to airily dismiss their

elders as over the hill old fogeys, and to even insult them in

public because of their age, is not ‘banter,’ it’s insulting

and rude.

The misuse of ‘bants’ as a term is one of modern life’s

great irritations, because while young people have

co-opted the word to (mis)represent the sort of

behaviour that borders on bullying, with a thin

coating of vicious humour, they are

deeply mistaken.

Banter, in its traditional form, is an exchange between

two people, a battle of wits, a game of intellectual

ping-pong, like those nerdy folk on Channel 4 panel

shows. Usually, those engaging in banter finish

their jousting with a smug, self-congratulatory

smile. It’s showing off, it’s proving how clever

you are. It’s not calling someone an old fart

and shoving them out of the way.

Where’s the give and take, or clever verbal sparring, in

a teenager shouting at an elderly woman in the street,

“You dozy old biddy, move it!”. Or standing behind a

chap of a certain age at a shop checkout, as he

searches for his wallet and complaining,
“C’mon grandpa, hurry up!”?

That’s not banter. That’s something completely different.

A new sort of passive-aggressive behaviour combined

with name-calling, is increasingly common among

young Brits these days, thinking that getting one

over another person is some sort of achievement

proving their superiority, particularly if it
belittles their victim as a result.

Of those surveyed, 63 per cent of over 60s said they

had been verbally abused in public, with an ageist

insult, while others had also noticed an increase

in insults on television (65 per cent) social media

(33 per cent) and even from their own family

(21 per cent).

My 11-year-old thinks it’s funny to call me a ”boomer”

when I can’t find the TV remote. She has a very clear

idea of what the insult suggests, even if she’s

actually out of range by a few years. I’m 56 --

so borderline Gen X’er, thank you very much.

Unfortunately for me, British families in general

are not the sort of multi-generational dynasties,

such as in Italy or India, in which patriarchs

& matriarchs, are given lifelong roles at the

head of their family and afforded a respect

that other members ignore at their peril.

Break the rules in one of these families, cause offence

to an elder, and you will bring down the wrath of

generations upon your head, face humiliation

and even ostracisation. There is a sense of

honour woven into the fabric of the family.

These families are, sadly, not common

amongst the British.

So most kids and young adults have no hesitation

in freely hurling abuse at someone they consider

a geriatric, past it, a fuddy duddy, over the hill, a

fogey, a crone, an old dear, a codger, a biddy or

a fossil, which by the way, are those insults

most frequently employed, according to u3a.

This sort of casual cruelty, and the disregard

it displays towards our seniors, is hugely

disrespectful & we should be ashamed

that it’s so widely accepted as nothing

out of the ordinary.

We’re all guilty here. Causing offence like this should

provoke more concern than it does, because it is an

unwelcome sign of a breakdown in social and family

hierarchies. Ignoring the concepts of seniority and

wisdom --- we treat human beings like any other

consumable, in our consumer-driven world ---

with a finite shelf-life & built-in obsolescence.

Many people feel no qualms about calling out an older

person, in public, to remind them their time is up as a

useful contributor to society and they need to shift

it or risk being steamrolled by those behind them.

While maybe not articulated quite like that as a

traffic queue forms behind an elderly motorist

showing excessive caution at a road junction,

that, sadly, is often the underlying sentiment

and we should be ashamed.

But most often, we’re not. We’re just annoyed at

the inconvenience that someone older than us,

is causing to ourselves. Nearly 10 years ago,

Age UK made a study of ageism & identified

it as the most widely experienced form of

discrimination across Europe, affecting

164 million senior citizens at that time.

Nothing much has changed in the UK in this regard

since 2011, it seems. And if the latest study is

anything to go by, things have become

even worse.

Damian Wilson is a UK journalist, ex-Fleet Street

editor, financial industry consultant and political

communications special advisor in the UK & EU.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in

this column are solely those of the author and do

not necessarily represent those of RT.

__________________________________________

Figures Reveal 17,000 Elderly People in UK

Forced to Sell Home to Pay for Care Costs

in Just One Year

October 5th, 2020 (Fars news agency)

More than 17,000 pensioners were forced to sell their homes

to pay for social care last year, research by Money Mail reveals.

The shocking figure means that 330 elderly residents each

week are taking the desperate step despite Prime Minister

Boris Johnson’s promise to fix the social care funding crisis.

The calculations reveal the scale of the emergency, showing

that the numbers forced to sell their hard-won homes have

soared 45 percent since 2000.

Last night campaigners called for urgent action and

demanded a "national fund" to pay for social care.

Morgan Vine, of charity Independent Age, said, "The

pandemic is not a reason not to act – it is the reason

why action has never been more vital."

On his first day in No 10 in July 2019, Johnson vowed to

make social care a priority and end the crisis "once and

for all".

But he has since admitted action would be delayed and

the coronavirus crisis has made immediate reform a

remote possibility.

The cost of residential care has risen dramatically

and now stands at more than £33,000 a year.

Anyone with more than £23,250 in funds, including their

house value, is denied state help, leaving thousands

having to sell their homes to pay soaring care bills.

The Daily Mail has campaigned to end this injustice

for the families of those with dementia, as well as

other patients.

MoneyMail’s calculations, verified by Independent Age,

are based on Department of Health data indicating that

30 percent of those who pay for their residential care

have to sell their homes.

The total was produced by comparing the numbers of

self-funders in care provided by analysts Laing Buisson.

The research assumes the average stay is two-and-a-half

years, as concluded in a study by the Personal Social

Services Research Unit and Bupa.

It means around 350,000 elderly people are estimated to

have sold their homes to pay for residential care since 1999.

Caroline Abrahams, director at charity Age UK, said, "When

the threat from coronavirus finally recedes, Age UK will

certainly be holding the Government to account on its

promise to fix social care. The obvious solution is for

us all to pay into a national fund, like we do with

the NHS."

She added" |Most people dread the idea of having to sell

the family home to pay their care bills and the fact that

this is the reality for substantial numbers is very sad."

Vine, head of policy at Independent Age, said, "These latest

figures are a timely reminder of the need to fix the funding

crisis that has plagued the social care system for decades,

long before COVID-19.

"When taking office, the Prime Minister promised to solve

the crisis, including preventing people from having to sell

their homes to pay for care," Vine said, adding, ‘Although

he couldn’t have predicted the challenges we now face,

we can all predict the long-term consequences of failing

to keep his promise."

Liz Kendall, Labour’s social care spokesman, said, "The

Prime Minister said, on the steps to Downing Street, that

he has a plan to fix the crisis in social care and that no

one should have to sell their homes to pay for their care."

"Yet we have seen neither sight nor sound of

any long-term plan for reform," Kendall said.

"This must be an absolute top priority for the Government.

People who have worked hard and saved all their life have

seen their savings wiped out," Kendall added.

A Department of Health and Social Care spokesman said,

"We have committed to end the injustice that some people

have to sell their homes to finance care whilst others don’t.

We know there is a need for a long-term solution and are

looking at proposals."

_____________________________________________________

UK’s chief scientific adviser has
£600,000 of shares in vaccine
maker contracted by govt
– reports

UK Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Patrick Vallance reportedly

holds a bonus of tens of thousands of shares in a pharma

giant developing a Covid-19 vaccine for the government.

Yet, London says there is no conflict of interest.

Vallance, who also chairs the government’s expert advisory

panel on vaccines, appears to have retained over 43,000

shares in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) – a UK-based

multinational pharmaceutical company –

worth £600,000, The Telegraph reports.

The shareholding appears to be the legacy of his previous

job as the head of research and development at the very

same company. Over his tenure from 2012 to 2018,

Vallance accumulated a total of 404,201 GSK

shares worth a whopping £6.1 million in his

hands, according to the British media.

However, he sold more than £5 million worth of shares

after being appointed to the government. GSK, mean-

while, has entered the global race to provide the world

with a vaccine against coronavirus – alongside some

20 other drug manufacturers and research centres.

The endeavour might prove quite lucrative, should

the company succeed.

The pharma giant working together with another drug

manufacturer – Sanofi – has already struck deals with

the UK and the US governments to supply them with

a Covid-19 vaccine in case its efforts are fruitful.

The contract would see GSK providing as many

as 60 million doses to the UK and 100 million

doses to the US. Washington has already

reportedly paid the two companies

£1.65 million to accelerate

their efforts.

Since it received the government contracts, GSK’s

share price rose by some two percent. Vallance

has meanwhile been busy ensuring that the UK

would get enough vaccine doses - if GSK is

successful and contributing to the vaccine

development efforts.

Earlier this week, he said that the first doses could

be ready as early as by the end of this year,

warning, however, that the first half of 2021

would be a more realistic prospect.The

revelations sparked suspicions of a

potential conflict of interest.

However, Health Secretary Matt Hancock denied the

possibility of this. “No, there are rules around these

kinds of things and I'm sure that Sir Patrick has

been fully advised by them,” he told LBC Radio.

“If you know Sir Patrick Vallance as I do, any

suggestion that he is doing anything other

than his level best to try and tackle this

virus is wrong,” he added.

A government spokesman confirmed that Vallance holds

a deferred share bonus that would mature in April 2021

without revealing its exact value. The spokesman also

said that “appropriate steps were taken to manage the

government chief scientific adviser’s (GCSA) interests

in line with advice provided at the time.”

He added that the chief scientific adviser also has “no input”

into the commercial decisions on vaccine procurement,

which are taken by the government following a “robust”

approval regime.

The developments come as the UK braces for a second wave

of coronavirus. The number of new cases is on the rise once

again and some places in the UK witness it increasing at a

pace not seen since the peak of the epidemic in spring.

More than 6,100 people were confirmed to have contracted

the disease overnight and Hancock said that up to 10,000

people might get ill a day. The situation prompted London

to introduce a new set of restrictions, which according to

Prime Minister Boris Johnson might stay in place for up
to six months.

Some companies, including the British-Swedish AstraZeneca

are, meanwhile, seeking emergency approval for their

vaccines from the relevant regulators.

(originally appeared in RT.)

________________________________________________________

Rhondda Records Home Page

(Source - Xinhua)

Australia first country to open service
sector to China.

Rhondda Records Home Page

(Source - Xinhua)

Australia first country to open service sector to China.

Australia first country to open service
sector to China.