BNP Faces Legal Threats Over Websites

BNP supporters face threats of legal action from the Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC) for breaching the Race Relations Act.

A CSC report published earlier this week detailed offensive material on BNP-supporting YouTube accounts, blogs and internet forums run by members and self-professed supporters of the BNP.

The sites host and link to material that displays support for violence, admiration of the Third Reich, extreme racist views and denial of the holocaust.

The report is a response to BNP calls to be treated as a mainstream political party.

The report's authors state that "it would be unacceptable" if any of the three main parties failed, as the BNP have, to distance themselves from and denounce similar views if they were posted on sites run by their supporters.

As a by-product of the report, new evidence was uncovered that the Race Relations Act had been breached, but the CSC has said that, because many of the bloggers remain anonymous, it may be difficult for them to bring legal action without police involvement.

CSC director Douglas Murray said: "This report shows members and supporters of the BNP continue to hold and express the vilest racist, anti-semitic, homophobic and sexist views - shocking even to those of us who thought our opinion of the BNP could never be lower."

As BNP MEPs Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons entered the European Parliament today in Strasbourg, anti-racist campaign group Hope Not Hate delivered a "not in our name" petition to the Parliament with thousands of signatures from members of the British public stating that the BNP does not represent their views.

Unconditional Release Of All Political Prisoner

Iran Solidarity has been formed to mobilise support and stand with the people of Iran against the Islamic regime of Iran.

Iran Solidarity

In June 2009 millions of people came out on to the streets of Iran for freedom and an end to the Islamic regime. Whilst the June 12 election was a pretext for the protests - elections have never been free or fair in Iran – it has opened the space for people to come to the fore with their own slogans.

The world has been encouraged by the protesters’ bravery and humane demands and horrified by the all-out repression they have faced. It has seen a different image of Iran - one of a population that refuses to kneel even after 30 years of living under Islamic rule.

The dawn that this movement heralds for us across the world is a promising one – one that aims to bring Iran into the 21st century and break the back of the political Islamic movement internationally.

This is a movement that must be supported.

Declaration:

We, the undersigned, join Iran Solidarity to declare our unequivocal solidarity with the people of Iran. We hear their call for freedom and stand with them in opposition to the Islamic regime of Iran. We demand:

The immediate release of all those imprisoned during the recent protests and all political prisoners

The arrest and public prosecution of those responsible for the current killings and atrocities and for those committed during the last 30 years

Proper medical attention to those wounded during the protests and ill-treated and tortured in prison. Information on the status of the dead, wounded and arrested to their families. The wounded and arrested must have access to their family members. Family members must be allowed to bury their loved ones where they choose.

A ban on torture

The abolition of the death penalty and stoning

Unconditional freedom of expression, thought, organisation, demonstration, and strike

Unconditional freedom of the press and media and an end to restrictions on communications, including the internet, telephone, mobiles and satellite television programmes

An end to compulsory veiling and gender apartheid

The abolition of discriminatory laws against women and the establishment of complete equality between men and women

Moreover, we call on all governments and international institutions to isolate the Islamic Republic of Iran and break all diplomatic ties with it. We are opposed to military intervention and economic sanctions because of their adverse affects on people’s lives.

The people of Iran have spoken; we stand with them.

Sign up to this declaration @ http://www.iransolidarity.org.uk/iscommit/iscom186.php?nr=97158834

Also, you can join the Iran Solidarity group on Facebook @http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=100662515381

The complete separation of religion from the state, judiciary, education and religious freedom and atheism as a private matter.

MPs' Expenses: Conservative Charged £375 A Month For Mobile Phone Bills

Guardian 'crowd-sourcing' experiment also reveals Ribble Valley MP Nigel Evans claimed for four digital cameras in space of 18 months

A Tory MP charged the taxpayer £375 a month for four years for his mobile phone bills and claimed for four digital cameras in just 18 months, it has been revealed.

The expenses claims by Nigel Evans, the MP for Ribble Valley, in Lancashire, came to light as a result of the Guardian's unique "crowd-sourcing" experiment, which asked readers to help journalists trawl through the hundreds of thousands of pages of censored documents released by the Commons last month.

The cameras bought by Evans between May 2006 and November 2007 cost between £199 and £387, with the prices sometimes including memory cards and, in one instance, a camera case.

His mobile phone bills, with Vodafone and O2, came to an average of £404 a month in 2004-05, £389 in 2005-06, £418 in 2006-07 and £289 in 2007-08.

The average figure over four years was £375. Evans's highest monthly bill, for £686.34, was from Vodafone in June 2006.

Telephone costs are allowed under the rules set out in the Green Book, which governs MPs' expenses, while cameras could conceivably come under "purchase of hardware and software".

But claims are only allowed for "expenditure that it was necessary for a member to incur to ensure that he or she could properly perform his or her parliamentary duties".

Asked why his mobile bills were so high, Evans said it was "due to the fact of roaming [costs] when abroad".

"I still keep in touch with constituents and journalists, so when they phone me I still pick up a hefty chunk of the charges," he explained.

He pointed out that roaming charges were "coming down or being shelved" by many telephone companies, and added: "I will be turning my phone off when abroad and getting my staff to text me any calls I must make.

"I will prioritise them more effectively, hence lower charges."

Of the four cameras, the Conservative MP said: "We are currently using two in the office here ... and one broke, and one was stolen at some stage ... so we are currently operating the two.

"I have bought a video camera at my own expense at the tail end of last year [and] I will use it as a digital camera if necessary."

Guardian reader Tony Hacking brought Evans's expenses to the paper's attention. Evans is his MP.

He said he had compared his accounts with those of Jack Straw, a neighbouring MP, and found that while Straw's appeared to be "straightforward and businesslike", Evans's "seemed more like indulging an interest in electronic gadgets".

Hacking said: "I have worked in business where expenses were fairly but scrupulously expected to be fully explained.

"I have also worked at a senior level in a high school where auditors expected and checked to ensure that I could account for every laptop, mouse and keyboard.

"The governors of the school knew how I was spending every pound of the £2.5m budget."

He said he did not believe Evans's expenses were in the same league as those of some MPs, "but they do look offhand and casual in a way that, if I had the same approach, there would have been serious questions raised about my positions in business and education".

He added: "I have certainly known of headteachers who have been dismissed for 'financial irregularities' of the kind which some MPs have dismissed as 'within the rules'."

Hacking said he was angry that MPs had "muddied the water" since the Telegraph first obtained an unedited disk of expenses details and began publishing revelations in May.

Parliamentarians, he said, had "prevaricated so that the issue is still unresolved and things will drift back to the usual".

"Perhaps MPs should show the same professionalism as teachers and work throughout the recess to develop a framework of professional standards for politicians," he added.

The Guardian's exercise has yielded hundreds of pieces of information from readers, which reporters will continue to examine.

Reader Ian Fairbarn pointed out that Oliver Heald, the Conservative MP for Hertfordshire North East, had on two occasions double claimed for the same month's £250 worth of petty cash.

In both September and October 2007, Heald claimed for September's £250, while in both November and December 2006 he claimed for November's £250.

The MP said the double claims were due to "administrative errors where months were inadvertently mismarked", adding: "I did not claim for other months in each year, so the annual totals did not exceed the maximum."

Without commenting on the individual case, a spokesman for the Commons Department of Resources said this behaviour would probably fall within the rules.

Another reader, Mike Ion, discovered that Mark Pritchard, the Tory MP for the Wrekin, had claimed £131.60 for placing a Conservative advert in the Telford Journal.

The Department of Resources spokesman said MPs were not allowed to claim for the costs of any party political campaigning.

Pritchard said: "From my recollection, this advert was for a surgery." This would not be party political.

Click here to analyse your own MP's expenses.

The Secret Documents That Reveal Tory Plans For Social Cleansing Of The Poor In West London

Hammersmith & Fulham Council has recently announced plans to demolish 3,500 homes on estates they have declared “not decent neighbourhoods”. The full story in Evening Standard's article "Plot to rid council estates of poor".

Why?

Secret documents I have just recovered through an FoI request reveal that the Conservative Leader of Hammersmith & Fulham Council, Stephen Greenhalgh, told senior Conservative Party officials that council estates are “ghettoes”. The people who live there “add to the welfare cost of Government” and “have fallen into a cycle of unemployment and dependency”. “We (the taxpayer)” get “no return”. “What is needed” is “a solution to concentrations of deprivation”.

As part of the process exposed by the documents, the Council gathered together a secret group of people to discuss this. Someone asked: “What is a ‘Poor person’?” Someone else said Fulham Court “is not a place, it is a barrack for the poor”. Yet another suggested the 2,000 strong White City estate was “an ideal place to develop and deliver a ‘master plan’”. And someone else said it was “hard to get rid of people”.

Participants acknowledged “’Porteresque’ accusations of gerrymandering or social engineering needed to be faced head on”. Hence: “funding needed for political problem of management”, and “regeneration should not be stymied by a very few who object on spurious or ideological grounds”.

The “message” is “ownership empowers”, and “the Sacred Cows need to be shot!”. “We need to create mixed communities in concentrated areas of deprivation.”

Now, the Council has developed its “bulldozer argument” for its planning strategy - branding seven council estates containing 3,500 homes “not decent neighbourhoods”.

Using the language of social cleansing, and with no respect for age, vulnerability or human rights, the Tories propose to destroy communities on estates in Shepherds Bush, Hammersmith and Fulham. The sites will be used mainly for commercial development like hotels and conference centres. There would be a reduction of social rented homes by up to a third, and new housing for sale would be unaffordable to local residents.

In the meantime, all but health and safety repairs to the properties would cease and flats would be let on a temporary basis. Whole neighbourhoods are now blighted, with freeholders and leaseholders unable to sell, even though demolition could be years away. For the remaining social tenants in the borough – almost 40% of the population – there would be no prospect of re-housing for 20 years as the displaced residents took the few homes that become available.

But the targeted estates are places that all types of people wish to live – from pensioners and young families to first-time buyers and professionals. Many millions of pounds of public money have been spent on them under the Decent Homes programme. There is no need to destroy these communities. Residents are naturally furious at the proposals and don’t want to be forced into smaller homes at higher rents.

This is social engineering on a grand scale, and it is being recommended to the Conservative Party hierarchy as the way forward in housing: no security, high rents, no duty to house the homeless, not even right to buy.

The secret Council documents I have obtained suggest the Council’s policy to destroy communities they brand “not decent” may be unlawful, as well as immoral. Council officers are writing Tory party policy using council taxpayers money. But, far worse, poor and vulnerable people in my constituency are being used as guinea pigs in a dishonest and destructive socio-political experiment.

Developing Countries Urge G8 To Impose 40% Emissions Cut By 2020

Diplomat says developing nations 'will commit once they have certainty that developed countries are committing themselves'

Developing nations are prepared to make concessions on climate change targets if the G8 fulfils its side of the bargain in the run-up to the climate change talks in Copenhagen in December, a key negotiator told the Guardian today.

The developing countries want the G8 nations to sign up to a 40% cut by 2020, but that figure is off the radar of the EU and, given the unwieldy legislation laboriously passing through the senate, not a possibility for the US.

In important forward steps this week, the G8 agreed to cut its emissions by 80% by 2050 and said worldwide emissions should fall 50% by the same date.

However, the value of this pledge has been reduced by the lack of an agreed start date from which the emission cuts should be measured, making it a distant promise.

Luis Alfonso de Alba, the lead co-ordinator on climate change for the developing countries at the G8, told the Guardian that their call for a 25-40%cut in developed nations' emissions by 2020 was based on what UN climate change scientists had recommended.

The Mexican diplomat gave some ground, saying: "It does not have to be a specific target of 40%.

"That is what we hope to achieve, but this is a process of negotiation."

He said a G8 commitment to a 2020 target was "fundamental", adding: "It is logical that developing countries will commit once they have certainty that developed countries are commiting themselves.

"We need to see the mid-term targets go much higher, and we want to see all the developed countries, including the US, move at the same pace.

"We still need to see numbers. We respect the internal debate in the US, but it is important for the US to understand that this is a global issue and a multilateral negotiation."

He said developing nations could not "just sit and wait to see what the internal debate in the US resolves". He insisted the meeting chaired by Barack Obama under the aegis of the Major Economies Forum this week had made progress in accepting common responsibility for the crisis and for the need for carbon emissions to peak.

"Climate change is no longer seen as a north-south issue," he said. "It is no longer a donor recipient relationship.

"The most important message is that assuming individual responsibilities to fight climate change can start immediately, and by doing it immediately it will be easier to reach an ambitious agreement at Copenhagen."

De Alba said Mexico had already come up with its own carbon reduction programme, and he expected other developing nations to do the same over the coming months.

It was acknowledged at the summit that science dictates world temperatures must not rise more than 2C degrees above pre-industrial levels.

The negotiators hope this acknowledgement will drive the coming negotiations in the run-up to Copenhagen.

The talks include three UN sponsored meetings in Bonn, Bangkok and Barcelona as well as another meeting of the G20 in September.

Rich Countries To Aid Private Agriculture

As speculation has pushed up the prices of staple foodstuffs the number of global hungry has topped one billion G8 leaders have vowed to provide £12.4 billion to the developing world over the next three years to boost food production.

The investment, which is £3.1bn more than had been expected, will fund a three-year initiative to help poor countries modernise their own agriculture.

Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi, the host of the G8 meeting in L'Aquila, reported that the leaders decided to raise the initial goal from £9.3bn following talks with African leaders.

The initiative calls for helping the private agricultural sector and small farmers, particularly around harvest time.

In a joint statement, the G8 and African states said that the money would be dedicated to a "co-ordinated, comprehensive strategy focused on sustainable agriculture development, while keeping a strong commitment to ensure adequate emergency food aid assistance."

There are around 500 million small-holder farmers in the world and they produce up to 80 per cent of the food that feeds the world's population.

Angola welcomed the new commitment, saying that it was a "very significant step."
Angola's ambassador to Italy Manuel Pedro Pacavira said: "Rebuilding the infrastructure and constructing new infrastructure in Africa will create wealth that will contribute to reducing poverty." And UN Food and Agriculture Organisation chief Jacques Diouf hailed what he described as a "total shift" in rich states approach to tackling world hunger.

"You solve the problem of hunger by giving the necessary tools to farmers who are in these poor countries so they can produce food," Mr Diouf noted.

But anti-poverty groups said that the funding was insufficient and pointed out that rich countries have a long history of failing to make good on development pledges.

Oliver Buston, the European director of anti-poverty group ONE, agreed that "the best way to tackle poverty is through growth of the agricultural sector."

But he said that Africa alone requires an additional £15.4bn over the next three years to ensure a basic level of food security.

Food security has jumped to the fore of the political agenda since high prices sparked deadly riots in underdeveloped countries last year.

Prices have receded from mid-2008 highs but a recent estimate by the Food and Agriculture Organisation said that the number of hungry people this year was a record one billion.

Beijing pacifies Xinjiang

I would like to place on the record that coming from Ethic Chinese background myself were I still have families who were born & bread Xinjiang, Hong Kong, UK, Russia, Canada, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Caribbean we find it highly insulting that the Communist Party has the cheek not to remember or forget agbout the incident of The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 culminating in the Tiananmen Square massacre (referred to in China as the June Fourth Incident, ostensibly to avoid confusion with two prior Tiananmen Square protests) were a series of demonstrations in and near Tiananmen Square in Beijing in the People's Republic of China (PRC) beginning on 14 April. Led mainly by students and intellectuals, the protests occurred in a year that saw the collapse of a number of communist governments around the world.

Yet Communist officials in Xinjiang have declared that calm has been restored to riot-torn Urumqi following the deployment of thousands of troops.

President Hu Jintao abruptly left the G8 summit in Italy on Wednesday and returned home to oversee efforts to prevent more unrest in the city, where inter-ethnic bloodletting claimed the lives of 156 people on Sunday.

Urumqi Communist Party secretary Li Zhi told a televised news conference that many people had been arrested, including students.

"To those who committed crimes with cruel means, we will execute them," Mr Li declared, adding that government forces would crack down on any security risk.

China's top police officer also vowed that there would be no leniency for those who took part in the violence in Urumqi.

Public Security Minister Meng Jiangzhu said that "key rioters should be punished with the utmost severity."

In some areas of the city, residents have formed barricades with furniture and debris to stop a repeat of the clashes between Uighur citizens and Han Chinese.

One man, who would give only his surname Wang, said: "The government told us today not to get involved in any kind of violence.

"They've been broadcasting this on the radio and they even drove through neighbourhoods with speakers telling people not to carry weapons."

Chinese authorities in Xinjiang have blocked the internet, including social-networking sites such as Facebook, and limited access to texting services on mobile phones.

Andy Coulson The Director Of Communications For The Conservative Should Resign When Sctland Yard Investigates

If Tory communications director Andy Coulson knew about the systemic illegal activity which took place by his staff when he was editor of the News of the World, he is surely finished in politics and public life.

The Guardian report uncovers enormous and systemic illegal activity by reporters on the Sun and the News of the World newspapers, to hack into an estimated two or three thousand mobile phones. When Royal reporter Clive Goodman was jailed, the newspaper claimed he was the only reporter involved. That position is untenable, despite Coulson's statement last night.

Former Sunday Times editor Andrew Neil, speaking on Newsnight, was incredulous at the idea that Coulson could have been unaware of an operation on that scale, or could have been oblivious to how his reporters got their stories.

And yet David Cameron is "relaxed" about the story about the Tory party director of communications. This is not a good thing to be relaxed about.

Yet it is of a piece with Cameron's approach to the expenses crisis.

Cameron has been very keen to project the impression that he has been exceptionally tough and decisive over MPs' expenses - particularly stressing that some in his own party feel bruised. (And no doubt the knights of the shires have their shop stewards too).

There is a large element of mythology in this - most disgruntlement is really about the political expediency of the Cameron approach.

What Cameron has done is to loudly take on and dismiss the expendable - allowing him to protect allies closely.

So George Osborne is thought safe by his leader, though, as John Rentoul has pointed out, there is little relevant difference with the cases of Hazel Blears or Kittty Ussher, except the scale of Osborne's profits.

Meanwhile, Cameron wrote a warm personal endorsement letter to Bill Cash, in another interesting sign that he is working hard to maintain good relations with Euroscpetics, Cameron wrote, so that the veteran Eurosceptic could go into his constituency reselection with a clear exoneration from the party leader. (It is difficult to see that Labour MP Ian Gibson was more culpable than Cash (though many feel Gibson may have been particularly harshly treated).

Keeping Coulson may prove too difficult, But the attempt to do suggests that the only ethic that matters is one of convenience - and that different rules apply to the inner circle.
It is also equally important to realise that this is not just, or primarily, a story about Andy Coulson, though that is a natural initial point of focus for political (as opposed to media) reporting and scrutiny.

Andy Coulson's problem is that few if any media experts believe the claim that he could not have known about this type of operation is in any way credible, if he was doing his job.
However, the political impact for the Conservatives could easily be contained. David Cameron always took a (calculated) gamble in appointing Coulson, given the circumstances of his resignation as editor of the News of the World when his reporter was jailed in the Royal bugging scandal, particularly if he took on trust the claim of no involvement or knowledge of a one-off incident.

The Conservatives would face only temporary embarrassment if there was swift action in the next couple of days. If, on the other hand, there is an attempt to manage the story and to see which way the wind is blowing, then that would appear to many people to be condoning a rogue culture of self-granted impunity to the law, and to be taking an entirely relativist view of professional ethics, so that there are different rules for your friends.

At that point, Cameron's own character and judgement would be seriously in question. I feel he is likely to avoid this, despite his initial response, but we will have to wait and see.

Equally important is to understand that the story appears to be a much bigger one than the political role of the Conservative Party's head of communications and the most senior aide to the main who would be our next Prime Minister.

News International have a much wider series of questions about who knew what when. The role of the recently promoted Rebekah Wade will be one focus of scrutiny. The instinct is to contain the story and to say as little as possible. This may prove untenable.

There will be rightly be scrutiny of how parts of the News International group cover the story - in particular that The Times and Sky News demonstrate journalistic integrity and credibility in following up the story just as they would if it were not about their parent company. And it remains to be seen whether the practices and culture of other news organisations suggest any wider pattern. The media needs to demonstrate that it has the appetite to follow through on these issues - as The Guardian has done - otherwise it becomes the one source of power not effectively scrutinised in an age of increased transparency and accountability.

There are also questions to be asked about the role of the police and prosecution services, and about the lamentable failure of the current arrangements for press oversight by the Press Complaints Commission, given that this proved no barrier to the systemic flouting not just of the PCC self-imposed code but of the wider criminal law.

It will be interesting to see if the centre-right and right-wing blogosphere respond. At the time of the Damian Green arrest I wrote a post on liberal principles and partisan allegiances suggesting that:

"So let me propose a credibility test for such issues: do we take a similar view about the principles involved, regardless of whether a member of their own party or another party is involved?"

To a large extent, liberal and left bloggers did achieve that over the Damian Green affair, and in being very clear in their criticisms of Derek Draper and Damian McBride. Indeed, many of us felt that it was necessary to be tougher when it was our own side being damaged by such shenanigans. So let us see if the right also responds just as they would were a senior aide to Brown or Clegg in charge of and responsibile for those conducting illegal activities in this way, or if the approach is rather to attempt to minimise the issue, or even defend the indefensible.

There has been a good deal of discussion about strengthening the role and relevance of Parliament. A Select Committee investigation with public hearings could prove an important way to ensure that the broader questions of law and ethics are not obscured by some important questions about leading political and media personalities.

Expenses row: Tory Commons Leader Alan Duncan Faces Loan Probe

Shadow Commons Leader Alan Duncan is facing a probe - after allegedly taking out a taxpayer-funded mortgage on a home he owned outright.

He bought a country house in his Rutland seat without taking out a home loan.

The multi-millionaire, supposedly heading Tory clean-up efforts, designated it his "second home" for Commons expenses.

But he didn't take out his £271,000 mortgage on the property until 2004 - since when he has claimed more than £63,000 for interest.

Shadow chancellor George Osborne is already under inquiry over the same issue.

Now, Labour MP John Mann has asked Parliamentary Standards Commissioner John Lyon to look into Duncan's case.

A spokeswoman for Mr Duncan, who, like Mr Osborne, insists he has done nothing wrong, said the mortgage was always for his constituency home even though it was originally taken out on his London property.

Genocide Suspects Could Face Trial

Suspects in the Rwandan and Yugoslavian genocides could be tried in British courts under proposals unveiled by Justice Secretary Jack Straw after warnings Britain could become a "safe haven" for war criminals.

Mr Straw said he had decided to "strengthen" domestic law by making British residents suspected of war crimes since 1991 liable to stand trial, adding 10 years to the current limit.

The decision follows warnings from the Parliamentary Group for Genocide Prevention about legal loopholes which would let suspects avoid trial.

In a statement to MPs, Mr Straw said the all-party group had made a "powerful case" for the inclusion of genocide as an extra territorial offence.

He said: "Serious crimes of this nature are best dealt with in the country where the crimes took place.

"That is where the evidence will be most easily accessible and where witnesses will be easier to contact."

"It is also the best solution because witnesses and survivors can see justice being done.

"Failing that, these crimes should be dealt with by international courts or tribunals where they exist."

The BNP Came With Same Old Blame Game Now A Labour Government Is Doing Likewise

Building Britain's Future is the government's draft legislative programme for 2009-2010.

It claims "Britishness" throughout. The front cover has a union jack logo, while Gordon Brown's foreword speaks of "the best of British values."

It sends shivers down the spine of those of us who regard values as universal.

A small part of the programme, hyped up by Downing Street spin-doctors, is the proposal to change the allocation rules for council housing. The document doesn't say "British homes for British workers" but certainly implies it.
"It's not true that migrants unfairly queue- jump, and irresponsible to legitimate that false perception."

Stating that "there is a perception that allocations policies for social housing are unfair, inflexible and act as a barrier to people being able to move when they need to," the government proposes to enable "local authorities to give more priority to local people and those who have spent a long time on a waiting list."

Code for "too many foreigners are being given council houses." There may be that perception, but is it based on reality?

The law governing the allocation of council and housing association properties forbids an allocation to most people "subject to immigration control" and other "persons from abroad."

That means most immigrants are not entitled to social housing at all. Contrary to the "perception" that the government relies on, asylum-seekers cannot obtain social housing.

No-one who is here unlawfully - because they came in under the radar or overstayed after their visas expired - is entitled.

European Union nationals who don't - or can't - work aren't allowed to apply.
Those on conditional visas - students, work permits, family members etc - can't apply although they pay taxes and national insurance.

Only a small proportion of immigrants are even entitled to apply for social housing.
If you're not a British or European Union citizen, you need refugee status or unconditional indefinite leave to remain.

British citizens returning to Britain after having lived abroad must pass a "habitual residence" test to show that they intend to remain here permanently.
European Union workers may apply for social housing, but only if they remain here as workers or have been here working for at least five years.

Anything less would be a breach of European Union obligations.
Migrants who are entitled to apply for social housing have a harder job trying to apply than British citizens.

The eligibility rules are extremely complex and so migrants who are entitled can be told (wrongly) that they are not.
Those groups of recent arrivals who are entitled to apply are not in any privileged position.

If they are entitled to apply, their need for social housing will be assessed just like everyone else's.
Recent arrivals who don't have children and are able-bodied are as unlikely as any equivalent British citizen ever to be given a council or housing association property.

Those who are assessed as eligible for social housing take their place in the queue.
Research by the Equality and Human Rights Commission has found that most recent migrants tend to live in private rented accommodation, not in social housing. Their accommodation is more likely to be sub-standard than that occupied by British citizens.

The second part of the promise "give more priority to ... those who have spent a long time on a waiting list" is already established law.
By law, local authorities must recognise and give a "reasonable preference," otherwise known as a "reasonable headstart," to certain groups of people who have the greatest need for social housing - homeless people, those living in overcrowded or otherwise unsatisfactory housing, people who need to move for medical or welfare reasons.

Each local authority's policy must ensure that there is some recognition of those needs. In other words, someone who falls within one of those categories is given a certain number of points. But this emphasis on "need" doesn't mean that someone in one of those categories will always trump a person who has less need, but has been waiting longer.

Earlier this year, an important legal case decided by the House of Lords confirmed that, provided local authorities ensured that there was some recognition of those groups specified by statute as entitled to a "reasonable preference," how local authorities then organised their allocation schemes and worked out the number of points that were given for various forms of need or for waiting time, was entirely up to each local authority.

So local authorities have actually been giving points for waiting time.
If the government is considering changing the law, it would have to junk the concept that those who have a greater need for social housing should have that need recognised.

That would be a major policy change. Even the Tories, who legislated to implement Peter Lilley's "little list" of people such as single mothers who didn't deserve council homes, couldn't quite bring themselves to abolish preference for "need" altogether.

Of course, the main point is that council and housing association homes are in desperately short supply. So people who have been waiting for years for a home find scapegoats.
The recession has forced the government to acknowledge the shortage of social housing.

Local authorities are finally going to be allowed to keep the receipts from council house sales, and put that capital money into building more houses.
The government says that 3,000 additional council homes and 12,500 housing association homes will be built over the next two years.

That's a start. But what with five million households waiting for council or housing association properties, and the numbers set to increase as repossessions of owner-occupied homes increase, it is probably a drop in the ocean.
The responsibility for scapegoating, however, lies with the government.

As a local councillor in a hard-pressed local authority during the 1990s, I'm well aware that anyone waiting years for a new home looks at their neighbour and questions why he or she appears to have queue-jumped. But it's the job of politicians and the media to refute those myths, not propagate them.
The slogan "local homes for local people" originates from the BNP, was taken up by Margaret Hodge and effectively now by the government.

As I've demonstrated, it's simply not true that migrants unfairly queue-jump. It's wholly irresponsible of the government to legitimate that false perception. Rather than taking on the BNP, it's playing into their hands.

“Driving Global Recovery through Co-operative Enterprise”

Co-operatives are more resilient to crisis that other forms of enterprise according to a recent study commissioned to the ICA by the International Labour Office (ILO)( Birchall, Johnston and Hammond, Lou. Resilience of the Co-operative Business Model in Times of Crisis,International Labour Organization, 2009, pp 37). Financial cooperatives have remained financially sound; agricultural co-operatives in many parts of the world are showing surpluses; consumer co-operatives are reporting increased turnover; and worker co-operatives are seeing growth. People are increasingly choosing the co-operative form of enterprise to respond to the new economic realities.

Why are co-operative able to survive and indeed thrive in crisis and beyond?It is the model. Co-operative enterprise is an alternative business model which instead of focusing on profit, focuses on people by aggregating the market power of people while guiding its operations on the basis of the co-operative values and principles.

In many countries and in many sectors around the world, co-operative enterprise is growing in membership, capital and turnover. Co-operatives are contributing in a significant way to maintaining and creating new jobs and thus securing family incomes. They are ensuring that prices stay reasonable and that consumer retail goods, food, and services remain safe, reliable and of a good quality. Co-operative financial institutions have seen a capital influx as consumers recognise the safety and reliability of credit unions, co-operative banks and cooperative insurers who in many cases have also continued to provide credit to individuals and small businesses. By doing so, they are demonstrating that co-operative business is sustainable and that enterprises having ethical values at heart that can be successful and contribute to sustainable economic recovery.

Economists, academia and the international community are desperate for answers on how to stimulate a global recovery, and in doing so are beginning to question the current economic model which has lost the confidence of policy-makers as well as the average person. They are look at regulating markets and financial institutions in particular to ensure a more ethical and transparent operation. In their quest, however, they are also rediscovering and recognising the potential of co-operatives in contributing significantly to a new economic system.

Many governments are now considering the co-operative option in this new economic environment whether it be to stimulate agricultural productivity or to reorganise national social protection systems as seen by the recent debate in the United States reform of the health-care system and the proposal to create health co-operatives. They are also recognising the contribution that they can make to driving recovery in their countries and so are increasingly encouraging their citizens to look at co-operative enterprise for their finances, to increase their productivity and for their general well-being.

The Co-operative Movement will need to work with policy-makers to ensure that they recognise the particular nature of co-operatives. They should not be over-regulated, and their essentially risk-averse nature should be understood. A consistent and well articulated policy response is crucial to ensure that they are not disadvantaged by changes in the regulatory environment. Only with appropriate policies will co-operatives continue to be able to drive global recovery.

Although some analysts are saying the worst is over for the global economy and a recovery is likely to begin later this year, the recession is and will impact all enterprises. Many cooperatives will be tempted to focus on survival at any cost – even foregoing their co-operative nature, but there is mounting evidence to demonstrate that putting co-operative values and principles in practice may be the deciding factor for long-term sustainability. Now is the time to stress the co-operative nature.

The co-operative movement faces an unparalleled opportunity. It must rise to the challenge to demonstrate that the co-operative model of enterprise is an alternative business model that is the better business model for the future. Co-operatives are demonstrating that they not only drive economic development, but also economic and political democracy and social responsibility. Co-operatives offer a fairer way of doing business where social and environmental values count not as something you do if you can afford to do so, but that simply are the part of the way you do business.

On this International Day of Co-operatives, the ICA calls on co-operators throughout the world to strengthen their commitments to their co-operative values and principles, celebrate their success in these difficult times, and work in partnership to ensure that they continue driving global recovery around the world.

The Unfinished Battle For LGBT Equality

It was very interesting to hear the comments By Peter Tatchell of OutRage as it has been sometime that he has spoken out, I say well done.

In less than decade, the government has legislated astonishing, huge improvements in LGBT human rights, such as equalising the age of consent, introducing civil partnerships, repealing Section 28, outlawing homophobic discrimination and allowing same-sex couples to adopt children.

These stunning reforms have been won in an amazingly short period of time. Centuries of homophobic laws have been wiped from the statute books since 1999. This would have never happened if the Tories had remained in power. The Labour government – and pro-LGBT MPs from all parties – deserve our praise and gratitude.

But these progressive changes are no excuse for the government’s apparent endorsement of several remaining pockets of homophobic discrimination. The battle for equal rights is not yet won.

The current Equality Bill protects against harassment, except on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. The government and the National Blood Service have a blanket lifetime ban on blood donations from any man who has ever had oral or anal sex with another man – even once, 50 years ago and even if they test HIV-negative.

Same-sex marriage is still illegal. Civil partnerships are not equality. Separate laws are not equal laws. Even if, like me, you are critical of the institution of marriage, to ban LGBT couples from getting married is an act of bare-faced homophobic discrimination. It is a system of sexual apartheid. We now have a situation where lesbians and gays are banned from civil marriage (homophobia) and straights are banned from civil partnerships (heterophobia). This exclusionist two-tiered system of partnership law is not equality. It perpetuates and extends discrimination. Marriage is the gold standard. Civil partnerships are second best.

The Home Office is refusing asylum to LGBT refugees who have been jailed, tortured and raped in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Nigeria, Jamaica, Iran, Algeria, Zimbabwe and Uganda. It says they won’t be at risk of arrest and murder if they go back home, change their names, hide their sexuality and behave 'with discretion'. Accordingly, it is ordering the deportation of LGBT refugees, despite the danger they could be imprisoned or killed on return to their home countries.

The police and the Crown Prosecution Service permit record stores and radio stations to promote CDs by homophobic reggae singers who openly advocate the murder of queers. The Home Secretary gives these singers visa and work permits. Government ministers would never tolerate similar 'murder music' against Jewish or black people. Why aren't LGBT people entitled to the same legal protection?

Section 28 may have been repealed, but many schools are failing to challenge homophobic and transphobic bullying. This bullying affects both LGBT pupils and LGBT staff. For many of them, school is not a safe space. Verbal or physical abuse is experienced by around two-thirds of LGBT school kids. LGBT teachers are also often subjected to taunts, ridicule and threats by homophobic pupils. They do not always get support and back-up from other teaching staff.

Unlike racism, homophobia is still frequently tolerated in the classroom and playground. “Gay” has become a commonplace taunt. Most schools don’t bother to discipline offenders.

To its credit, the government says that the education system should challenge all forms of prejudice, to ensure that schools are inclusive, safe environments for youngsters and teachers from all backgrounds. But then it contradicted this commitment by recently exempting faith schools from its curriculum guidelines; allowing them to continue to teach sex and relationship education in accordance with their anti-gay religious values.

The reality is that too few schools of any kind impart an understanding of LGBT people and issues. The needs and welfare of LGBT pupils are rarely addressed in sex education and HIV prevention lessons. Safer sex information often ignores the specific risks faced by LGBT young people. It invariably focuses on heterosexual relationships, to the neglect of same-sex ones.

These are a few issues where the government could have overturned homophobia, but has instead chosen to maintain discrimination. The government says it is committed to LGBT equality, but on some issues it has failed to deliver.

What can you do? Protest to your MP and to the Prime Minister. Ask for their support to remedy these injustices. Together, we can and will overcome these final barriers to LGBT equality.

African states take steps toward greaterunity

African leaders have agreed to a Libyan-driven push to transform the African Union (AU) and greatly extend its powers.

The document drafted at the AU summit of heads of states in Libya intends to simplify the AU structure and boost its power over defence, diplomatic and international trade matters.

The accord was viewed as a milestone for the build-up to what Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has long envisioned as a federal government overseeing a "United States of Africa."

The new structure will have to resolve doubts voiced by many African leaders about unifying Africa, including concerns about national sovereignty, division of resources and power.

Most African leaders’ voice support for more unity but some of the continent's wealthier nations, led by Nigeria and South Africa, appeared to be resisting the move.

African diplomats say that there are worries the new structure could become overbearing, especially if it is led by Mr Gadhafi.

New legislation puts Italy on 'fascist path'

It has been reported by one of sources in Italy that it's parliament has given final approval to frightening legislation that allows vigilante-style citizen patrols to operate in the alleged fight against illegal immigration.

The legislation passed yesterday also calls for jail terms of up to three years for people who knowingly house illegal immigrants and lengthens the amount of time that migrants can spend in detention.

The Conservative government of Premier Silvio Berlusconi insists that the measure will increase security.

The new legislation makes entering or staying in Italy without permission a crime punishable by a fine of 5,000-10,000 euros (£4,286-£8,572) and lengthens the amount of time that migrants can spend in detention from two to six months.
The legislation has drawn criticism by centre-left politicians and human rights groups.

Amnesty International said that the measures "affect negatively the vulnerable people in the country" and "heavily impinge on the rights of migrants."
Adding to such fears has been the recent creation of a citizens' patrol group billing itself as the Italian National Guard, whose uniforms bear fascist and nazi-like symbols.

After the group announced that it would soon start patrolling the streets, Interior Minister Roberto Maroni claimed that any right-wing patrol that can be associated with fascist and nazi-era guards would not be permitted.

Mr Maroni said that he would start meeting local officials next week to work out details and set limits for the unarmed patrols.
The measures were passed with a 157-124 vote in the Senate.
The government also won three confidence votes in the past two days tied to the measures.

Critics insist that the measures would further marginalise those living in Italy illegally without actually improving security.
A group of Italy's best-known writers have signed an open letter attacking the legislation.

"The Berlusconi government, using security as a pretext, has imposed laws the like of which we have not seen in this country since the passing of the fascist Race Law," the letter read.

The letter was signed by Sicilian writer Andrea Camilleri and Nobel prize winner Dario Fo.

Aung San Suu Kyi

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon arrived in Burma, as the regime once more delayed Aung San Suu Kyi's trial. When he arrived Ban Ki-Moon said it was his top priority to secure the release of all of Burma's political prisoners - this is a breakthrough for us as that's what we've been campaigning for him to do for many months.

We need to ensure that Ban turns words into action. The regime is hoping that by stringing out Aung San Suu Kyi's trial the world will forget her; we can't let that happen. We need tens of thousands of people across the world to show that they haven't forgotten her by demanding that the regime release Suu Kyi and all of Burma's political prisoners at http://www.64forSuu.org

The global movement calling for the release of Suu Kyi has never been stronger. With over 16,000 messages, and the backing of political leaders, major celebrities such as Julia Roberts, Yoko Ono, Paul McCartney and Bono, 64forSuu.org has demonstrated the scale of global outrage. Over a hundred thousand people support her on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/aungsansuukyi, and thousands are supporting her on Twitter (by using the hashtag #ASSK64 Twitter).

TAKE ACTION: LET'S KEEP THE PRESSURE UP

Aung San Suu Kyi is Burma's most high profile political prisoners but across Burma there are 2,154 other political prisoners enduring appalling conditions inside Burma's squalid prisons. They face brutal torture, are banned from receiving family visits and denied proper medical care. Please go to http://www.64forSuu.org now and leave a message calling for their release.

With your help we can show that no matter what the regime try the world will never forget Burma's brave political prisoners.