Senate Republicans balk at bulking up IRS because they don't want to chase wealthy tax evaders

 Joseph Zeballos-Roig

Tue, June 22, 2021, 

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA). Sarah Silbiger-Pool/Getty Images

• Senate Republicans are balking at bulking up IRS enforcement to finance infrastructure.

• "I am very skeptical that there's a lot of easy money to be had from so-called tax enforcement,' one GOP senator said.

• The IRS is already under GOP scrutiny following a leak of wealthy Americans' personal tax records.

• See more stories on Insider's business page.

There's one measure receiving fresh debate in bipartisan negotiations for a $1 trillion infrastructure plan: bulking up the IRS so it collects more money from wealthy tax evaders.

That's been pushed by moderate Democrats this week as a source of extra revenue that could finance infrastructure spending, but the idea looks like to collide into opposition from Republicans, who have long accused the tax agency of overstepping into the personal lives of Americans. The IRS is already under major GOP scrutiny following a recent ProPublica report that featured a leak of wealthy Americans' tax records.

They also don't believe that chasing wealthy tax evaders will actually generate a major amount of money.

"I am very skeptical that there's a lot of easy money to be had from so-called tax enforcement," Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, told Insider. "We could spend a lot more money, we could have a lot of intrusive rules, and find we don't have very much difference in revenue."

IRS chief Charles Rettig told a Congressional panel in May the amount of taxes going uncollected every year could exceed $1 trillion. Several Republicans including Toomey told Insider they're skeptical the number is that high.

The Biden administration put forward $80 billion in extra IRS funding as part of its spending plans, to correct years of GOP-led budget cuts at the agency - and a related decline in the number of audits. The White House forecasts the funds could raise $700 billion in new revenue, though some experts have challenged their estimate.

The bipartisan group is leaning towards putting $40 billion into the IRS. That could generate $103 billion in total tax revenue, or $63 billion for fresh spending towards overhauling infrastructure, the CBO estimates.

"We think we have a nice balance with where we are, and there are colleagues on my side of the aisle who are nervous about the [$63 billion] net figure because they're concerned about intrusion," Sen. Rob Portman, a GOP negotiator, told reporters, per The Wall Street Journal.

Other Republicans suggested that closing the tax gap could be worthwhile, though they were still cautious on how much money it could produce.

"We don't want people to be harassed, but I think everybody should pay their taxes," Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi told Insider. "I don't think there's as much 'there' there as people think."

Other leading Republicans pushed back against the idea. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia disputed the administration's estimate as too rosy and said it could lead to "ramped-up reporting" and yield ineffective results.

"You have to get a better number," said Capito, who had been Republicans' lead negotiator on an infrastructure package before President Joe Biden cut off talks with her weeks ago, citing a failure to agree on how to fund a package.

Moderate Democrats in bipartisan gang

 lean towards IRS enforcement 

as a way to raise revenues for

 infrastructure: 'That's found money'

Joseph Zeballos-Roig

Tue, June 22, 2021, 

Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) speaks during a Senate hearing in Washington DC. Graeme Jennings-Pool/Getty Images

• Moderate Democrats are eyeing bulking up the IRS to finance infrastructure as bipartisan talks continue.

• "I think there's lots of documentation on the tax gap issue," Mark Warner said in an interview.

• Another Democratic senator said extra money for the IRS was "a good possibility" in the nascent blueprint.

• See more stories on Insider's business page.

A bipartisan gang of 21 lawmakers is in fluid negotiations over a $1 trillion infrastructure plan, with the crucial difference being how to pay for some of it. Some moderate Democrats in the group are leaning in a certain direction on revenue: strengthening the IRS' ability to pursue tax evaders.

A pair of the group's last financing ideas, indexing the gas tax to inflation and charging drivers of electric vehicles, was thrown out by the White House on Monday. Top officials called them a violation of President Joe Biden's pledge to shield households earning below 400,000 from new taxes.

As the working group scrambled for new sources of revenue to cover its plan, which is focused on core infrastructure like roads and bridges, the idea of beefing up the IRS has gained steam.

"I think there's lots of documentation on the tax gap issue," Warner said in an interview with Insider. "It's not linear, but the more you put into the IRS, the better enforcement - that number could go as high as $700 billion."

He went on: "I do think there's an awful lot of evidence that we've had not the most effective enforcement over the last few years, particularly under the last administration."

Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, a Republican negotiator, said last week the deal would include around $40 billion for the IRS, which has undergone a decade of GOP-led funding cuts that have weakened the agency's ability to gather taxes from very wealthy Americans.

Sen. Angus King of Maine, another member of the group, told Insider beefing up the IRS is among "the clearest opportunities" for new infrastructure revenue. He's co-sponsored a bill to reinvigorate the IRS with $80 billion in new funding to pursue wealthy tax evaders - the same level that Biden put forward in May.

"That's found money," he said. "But the trick is what will CBO score. It's not a question of how much money we put in for enforcement, it's what the CBO scores."

Sen. John Hickenlooper of Colorado told Insider that extra money for the IRS was "a good possibility."

"There are lots of different ideas out there," he said about the negotiations. Other proposed measures for infrastructure financing include repurposed stimulus money, a step the Biden administration has signaled it doesn't support.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said in a report last year that $40 billion in IRS funding would collect $103 billion in total tax dollars, or $63 billion in new federal revenue.

Other analysts are skeptical of the administration's projection that their tax proposals directed at wealthy Americans would draw $700 billion over a decade. The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimated the administration's tax plans would instead generate $480 billion in new revenue over ten years.

Warner told reporters he believed the group was close to unveiling their proposal this week.

"I think it is overall very settled," Warner said. "We want to get the details right."

A British army email mishap publicly mentioned a military intel unit so secretive its members are banned from social media

Stavros Atlamazoglou
Tue, June 22, 2021, 

A British SAS member, right, enters a building in Nairobi during a terrorist attack, January 15, 2019. KABIR DHANJI/AFP via Getty Images

A recent email error publicly revealed the names of British commandos, including members of the SAS's E Squadron.

E Squadron is a secretive unit in the secretive world of British special operations, tasked with high-risk operations overseas.

The British Ministry of Defense had an unusual security breach recently when an email containing the promotions of non-commissioned officers, some of whom serve in special-missions units, was accidentally distributed across the government.

Among the regular promotions of conventional troops were the names of commandos with the Special Air Service (SAS), Special Boat Service (SBS), and Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR), as well as the Special Forces Support Group (SFSG).

Some of those named serve in an elite, classified outfit known as Special Air Service, E Squadron, or the "Increment."


A secret unit within a secret world, E Squadron works for the British intelligence services in high-risk operations overseas.

When special-operations meets intelligence

Long Range Desert Group patrols in the desert during the North African campaign, 1940-1943. British Army/Lt. Graham

The British military is a pioneer in modern special-operations forces, creating the first modern units during World War II.

Since then, British special-operations units have led the way, establishing doctrine and tactics, techniques, and procedures that are now in common use across the world, including in the US.

The SAS, SBS, and SRR are the British military's three main Tier 1 units.

The first two focus on direct-action, counterterrorism, and hostage-rescue operations and are the British equivalents of the US's Delta Force and SEAL Team 6, with which the British units work closely and even exchange operators.

The SRR specializes in gathering human intelligence and signals intelligence and in the operational preparation of the battlefield.

The British Ministry of Defense is currently working on modernizing the country's special-operations units to reflect lessons learned from the past two decades of combat experience in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Africa.

SAS troops during a weapons test a secret location, August 1981. PA Images/Getty Images

Interestingly, the British are basing their modernization process on US special-operations forces and their evolution over the past 40 years. The teacher has slowly become the pupil.

But in some instances, intelligence services need the specialized skills and training of commandos. That is where E Squadron comes in.

The British intelligence apparatus is composed of three agencies.

The Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), known as "MI6," is the British equivalent of the CIA and specializes in foreign intelligence gathering and covert action.

The British also have the Security Service, better known as "MI5," that conducts domestic counterintelligence and is the equivalent of the FBI.

Finally, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), specializing in signals intelligence, is the equivalent of the NSA.
The Increment

MI6 headquarters in London, November 9, 2006. Reuters/Kieran Doherty

Although E Squadron's mission sets are classified, open-source information suggests that the unit provides manpower to MI6 operations abroad.

Their missions can include close-protection details, in which they act essentially as bodyguards, as well as exfiltrating assets from, conducting special reconnaissance of, and supporting covert action in denied environments, such as Russia, Iran, China, or North Korea.

E Squadron operators work undercover, using aliases and backstories.

The British government played a big part in the campaign to overthrow Libyan dictator Col. Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. Not only was MI6 deeply involved, British special-operations units, including E Squadron operators, saw limited action in the country while conducting special reconnaissance and close protection.

However, an E Squadron mission was compromised during the insertion, resulting in the capture of several operators, who were later released, and the embarrassment of the British government.

Although E Squadron recruited mainly from the SAS in the past, it targets candidates from across the British Tier 1 community, with SBS and SRR operators also joining the shadowy outfit.

Besides a special-missions unit background, E Squadron recruits candidates based on their ethnic background, a reflection of the UK's colonial past and the fact that people from many foreign countries, such as Fiji, Malta, or Jamaica, can join the British armed forces.

Troops on the Fan Dance, a 24 km march in the Brecon Beacons mountains of South Wales, as part of SAS Selection, January 6, 2018. Ben Birchall/PA Images via Getty Images

The British military wields that openness as a strategic advantage. British citizens of Pakistani, Indian, Yemeni, Syrian, or Nigerian background can join and slowly work their way up to the SAS, SBS, or SRR.

If they perform well in a demanding environment, completing several overseas deployments, and shine beyond the direct-action and counterterrorism aspects of the job - such as reliably working on their own to conduct the low-visibility work that prepares the operational environment - they would be assessed for service in E Squadron.

They would have to pass an additional selection and a demanding training course that would emphasize intelligence tradecraft more than additional special-operations skills.

"You don't know a lot about them. There's a veil of secrecy and guys who end up there just disappear," a former SBS commando told Insider of E Squadron members.

"But honestly that also happens in the Regiment [SAS] and in my own old unit and also at the SRR," the former commando added. "Guys who you might be close mates with will go on an assignment, and you won't know where they're or what they're doing. It's standard and part of the job. But it's on a completely different level" with E Squadron.

Maintaining the covert nature of the Increment's missions demands absolute secrecy, meaning an email flap could be a potential disaster for operational security, burning commandos and sidelining them from future operations abroad.

Stavros Atlamazoglou is a defense journalist specializing in special operations, a Hellenic Army veteran (national service with the 575th Marine Battalion and Army HQ), and a Johns Hopkins University graduate.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Exclusive: Biden's top intelligence official says COVID origins may never be known

Daniel Klaidman

·Editor in Chief, Yahoo News

Tue, June 22, 2021

 

The top U.S. intelligence official said in an interview with Yahoo News on Monday that the true origin of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has killed 600,000 Americans and almost 4 million people worldwide, may never be known.

Last month, President Biden directed the intelligence community to conduct a 90-day review of what he described as the two plausible theories for how the pandemic originated. In one scenario, the virus emerged from human contact with an animal. In the other, it leaked out of a lab in Wuhan, China.

But Avril Haines, the director of national intelligence, expressed considerable caution about the likelihood of the U.S. government solving this vexing mystery.

Asked if it’s possible the intelligence community will never have “high confidence” or a smoking gun on the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, Haines responded, “Yes, absolutely.” Haines, who studied physics at the University of Chicago, held out the possibility of a eureka moment but refused to predict a breakthrough. “We’re hoping to find a smoking gun,” she said, but “it’s challenging to do that,” adding that “it might happen, but it might not.”

Haines said she has been closely overseeing the review, which involves dozens of analysts and intelligence officials, and has immersed herself in the details. She is regularly briefed by analysts who represent the rival theories, which may explain her caution about predicting a breakthrough. “I don’t know between these two plausible theories which one is the right answer,” she said in the interview. “But I’ve listened to the analysts, and I really see why it is that they perceive these two theories as being in contest with each other and why it’s very challenging for them to assess one over the other.”

The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, China, where authorities said a man who died from a respiratory illness in January 2020 had purchased goods. (Noel Celis/AFP via Getty Images)

Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the prevailing theory among scientists and public health experts is that the virus had a natural origin — that it likely jumped from bats to another species before transferring to humans at a wet market in Wuhan. The theory that it may have leaked from a Chinese lab also emerged in the earliest days of the pandemic, but the consensus among scientists was that a natural occurrence was the far more likely explanation.

Earlier this year, the World Health Organization sent a team of scientists to Wuhan to investigate the source of the pandemic and concluded that a lab accident was “extremely unlikely.” Over time, the lab accident theory was increasingly marginalized in the public sphere and even derided by many as a conspiracy theory propagated by the Trump administration to deflect from criticism that it had botched its response to the pandemic.

The American news media, with notable exceptions, was criticized for engaging in groupthink for its collective failure to take the lab leak theory seriously. And yet from the earliest days of the pandemic, the U.S. intelligence community has been steadfastly pursuing the lab accident hypothesis, with some officials even arguing that a leak from a research lab was the most likely scenario. Last month, the theory started to gain more traction publicly after Bloomberg News revealed a classified U.S. intelligence report indicating that three researchers at the Wuhan laboratory fell ill and sought hospital treatment in November 2019, right around the time the virus began infecting people in the Chinese city. Soon thereafter, Biden ordered U.S. intelligence agencies to “redouble their efforts” to discover the origins of the coronavirus, an implicit but clear indication that the new administration was taking seriously the possibility that the virus had accidentally leaked from a lab.

Security personnel outside the Wuhan Institute of Virology during the World Health Organization’s visit in February. (Thomas Peter/Reuters)

Responsibility for getting to the bottom of this mystery now lay in the hands of Haines, a former deputy CIA director and national security adviser in the Obama administration. She had 90 days to report back to Biden while presiding over an intelligence community that has been deeply divided over the question. There have been other major obstacles as well, including China’s unwillingness to cooperate, notably refusing to turn over lab records that would help in the investigation.

In her only public comments since the start of the review, Haines told Yahoo News that her teams were seeking to collect new intelligence that might shed light on the pandemic’s source, while also applying fresh analysis to the intelligence that has already been gathered. Her agencies, she said, “are trying to get as much information as possible, new information that could be applied against the challenge,” but also “just brainstorming about different ways to approach the problem that might reveal how information that you hadn’t thought could be relevant might be useful.”

To that end, Haines has deployed “red cells,” or groups of contrarian thinkers to challenge the assumptions of analysts and ensure that the intelligence is being examined from every relevant angle. “There’s an effort to do exercises,” she said. “Do one exercise, look at one hypothesis, do another exercise looking at the other hypothesis.”

The effort has been coordinated by the National Counterproliferation Center, which has been tapping resources across the intelligence community, making sure that all collection avenues are being pursued and that foreign intelligence liaisons and other overseas partners are tapped “to ensure we have as much information and any information that they might have on the table,” Haines said.

But nearly a month into the review, it appears that the intelligence community is no closer to settling on one explanation of how the deadly virus originated. Haines pointed out the difficulties of “proving a negative.”

National Intelligence Director Avril Haines. (Graeme Jennings/Pool via Reuters)

From listening intently to both sides of the debate, Haines does understand why both arguments seem so plausible. “It’s true that the vast majority of pandemics and novel diseases have originated through human contact with animals, but you also look at the fact that it appears to have come from the area in which this lab was doing work on coronaviruses and you have to look at that option as well. You can make an argument in either direction.”

Haines even posited a third, hybrid theory for the virus’s origin. “It could be, for example, a scenario in which a scientist comes into contact with an animal that they’re sampling from” and contracts the virus in that way.

Should the review end with no definitive resolution on the origins of the virus, Haines will have no choice but to give Biden and other senior policymakers that unsatisfying answer.

Insight into how COVID-19 spread could provide crucial information to public health officials looking for strategies to prevent the next outbreak. And if it turned out it leaked from a Chinese lab, that would be important information guiding Washington’s tense competition with Beijing, not to mention leverage to push for stricter safety regimes of international research labs.

But Haines said that as much as she’d like to solve this scientific and national security conundrum, the intelligence community has to stick to its core mission of calling it as they see it. “The best thing I can do is to present the facts as we know them and to present the analysis that we’ve done in as unbiased a way possible,” she said.

Added Haines, “We’re going to do our damnedest to try to get an answer. But what policymakers hope and expect from me, I think, is that I present to them what we do and what we don’t know, and I don’t try to make something up or give them an answer that I think they might like to have.”

Activists: Vatican is 'meddling' in Italy's LGBT rights law

Vatican Italy Gay Rights

FILE - In this Friday, May 7, 2021 filer, Italian lawmaker Alessandro Zan paints a bench in the colors of the rainbow, in Milan, Italy. The Vatican has formally opposed proposed Italian legislation that seeks expand anti-discrimination protections to people who are gay and transgender, along with women and people with disabilities, the leading Italian daily Corriere della Sera reported on Tuesday. Activists immediately denounced Vatican meddling in the Italian legislative process as “unprecedented. Italian politicians and activist groups reacted strongly to what they see as an attempt to derail the so-called Zan Law, named for a Democratic Party lawmaker and gay rights activist Alessandro Zan. (AP Photo/Luca Bruno, File)

COLLEEN BARRY
Tue, June 22, 2021


MILAN (AP) — The Vatican has formally opposed a proposed Italian law expanding anti-discrimination protections to the LGBT community, a leading Italian newspaper reported Tuesday. Activists immediately denounced the move as “unprecedented” Vatican meddling in Italy's legislative process.

The Vatican foreign minister, Archbishop Paul Gallagher, sent a letter last week to the Italian ambassador to the Holy See saying the proposed law violates Italy’s diplomatic agreement with the Vatican and seeking changes, the Milan-based daily Corriere della Sera reported.

Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni confirmed that a diplomatic communication had been sent on June 17 but did not elaborate.


According to Corriere, the Vatican's objections include parts of the law that would require schools as well as Catholic schools to organize activities on a day designated nationally to fight homophobia and transphobia.

Italian politicians and advocacy groups reacted strongly to what they saw as an attempt to derail the Zan Law, named for the Democratic Party lawmaker and gay rights activist Alessandro Zan. In the past, the Vatican has objected to Italian laws legalizing abortion and divorce and backed unsuccessful referendums after the fact to try to repeal them.

The proposed law adds women and people who are gay, transgender or have disabilities to the classes of those protected under a law banning discrimination and punishing hate crimes. It was approved by the lower house last November, but remains stalled in a Senate commission by objections from Italy’s right wing.

“We support the Zan law, and naturally we are open to dialogue,’’ on any legal issues, Democratic Party leader Enrico Letta told RAI state radio Tuesday. But he said his party wants to see the law enacted, calling it “a law of civilization.”

An atheist group in Italy protested the Vatican’s actions, saying they “violated the independence and the sovereignty of the Republic.”

“The government has the political and moral obligation to not only just resist pressure but to unilaterally denounce this unprecedented interference in state affairs,’’ the secretary of the Union of Atheists and Agnostic Rationalists, Roberto Grendene, said in a statement.

A gay-rights group, Gay Party for LGBT+ Rights, called on Premier Mario Draghi's government to reject the Vatican’s interference “and improve the law so that it truly has, at its heart, the fight against homophobia and transphobia.”

"We find worrying the Vatican meddling in the law against homophobia,'' said the group’s spokesman, Fabrizio Marrazzo.

Marrazzo said Gay Pride Parades in Milan and Rome on Saturday would send a clear message from the streets on the topic “and defend the laicity of the state.”

Close this content

Vatican in 'unprecedented' 

protest against Italian 

homophobia law

Nick Squires

Tue, June 22, 2021

The annual Gay Pride parade in Rome - file photo taken in June 2019 - AFP

The Vatican has lodged an “unprecedented” interference in Italian politics by objecting to a law that would criminalise violence and hate speech against gay and transgender people.

The Holy See confirmed on Tuesday that it had sent a diplomatic protest to the government of prime minister Mario Draghi over the so-called Zan bill, which would punish acts of discrimination and incitement to violence against gay, lesbian, transgender and disabled people.

The bill, promoted by Alessandro Zan, a gay MP from the centre-Left Democratic Party, was approved by the lower house of parliament in November.

It is now going through the Senate, where it faces stiff resistance from hard-Right politicians such as Matteo Salvini, the head of the League, and Giorgia Meloni, the up-and-coming leader of Brothers of Italy, heirs to Italy’s Fascist movement.

The Italian bill is being pushed by Alessandro Zan, an MP with the centre-Left Democratic Party - AP

Conservatives and some Catholics argue that the bill would be an attack on freedom of expression and that it is unnecessary because existing laws already condemn homophobia.

The Vatican is worried that the passing of the law could lead to the Catholic Church in Italy being prosecuted for refusing to conduct gay marriages, for opposing adoption by gay couples through Catholic institutions or for refusing to teach gender theory in Catholic schools.

But its decision to lodge a formal protest with Italy, a separate sovereign state, was described by atheist groups and LGBT associations, as well as the Italian press, as “unprecedented”.

The protest was sent last week by a British archbishop, Paul Gallagher, who as Secretary for Relations with States is effectively the Vatican’s foreign minister.

As Secretary for Relations with States, British archbishop Paul Gallagher is the Vatican's de facto foreign minister - AFP

The Vatican argues that the Zan bill violates the Concordat, part of the Lateran Pacts that have since 1929 governed relations Rome and the Holy See.

The proposed law would jeopardise the “liberty” that was guaranteed by the treaty to the Catholic Church in Italy, the diplomatic note said.

The Italian Bishops Conference has already protested against the bill, saying that a “law intended to fight discrimination must not pursue that objective with intolerance.”

The bill would “put at risk” fundamental principles such as freedom of thought and speech, Cesare Mirabelli, a former president of Italy's constitutional court, told Vatican News, the Vatican’s news outlet.

But Mr Zan, the MP pushing the bill, said the Vatican’s concerns were unfounded. “The bill does not restrict in any way freedom of expression or religious freedom,” he wrote on Twitter.

“All the concerns and doubts will be listened to, but there cannot be any foreign interference in the workings of a sovereign parliament.”

UK Government calls for ‘more reuse and recycling’ after Amazon destroys millions of items in UK every year


Samuel Osborne
Tue, June 22, 2021


Various technology products they found sorted into boxes marked

The government has called for “more re-use and recyling of products” after an investigation at one of Amazon’s Scottish warehouses suggested it is destroying millions of items every year.

ITV News found items including smart TVs, laptops, drones, hairdryers and thousands of sealed face masks were sorted into boxes marked “destroy” at the Amazon Fulfilment Centre in Dunfermline, Fife.

One ex-employee at the site, one of 24 such warehouses across the UK, said their "target was to generally destroy 130,000 items a week".

The anonymous worker added: "I used to gasp. There's no rhyme or reason to what gets destroyed: Dyson fans, Hoovers, the occasional MacBook and iPad; the other day, 20,000 Covid (face) masks still in their wrappers.

"Overall, 50 per cent of all items are unopened and still in their shrink wrap. The other half are returns and in good condition."

Commenting on the news, a spokesperson for the prime minister, Boris Johnson, said: “The business secretary has already spoken to Amazon on this issue. We absolutely want to see more re-use and recycling of products.

“We are looking at the regulations to see how we can increase re-use and recycling and make sure retailers take more responsibility for things like electrical goods.”

ITV’s investigation also found a leaked document showed more than 124,000 items were marked "destroy" during one week in April - compared to just 28,000 items in the same period labelled "donate".

However, a Amazon spokesperson told the PA news agency that while the investigation followed lorries to a landfill site, no items are disposed of in that way. The Lochhead Landfill is also part of the Dunfermline Recycling Centre.

A statement from Amazon said: "We are working towards a goal of zero product disposal and our priority is to resell, donate to charitable organisations or recycle any unsold products.

"No items are sent to landfill in the UK. As a last resort, we will send items to energy recovery, but we're working hard to drive the number of times this happens down to zero.

"We are committed to reducing our environmental footprint and building a circular economy programme with the aim of reducing returns, reusing and reselling products, and reducing disposals."

Energy recovery is when recyclable materials are stripped from products before the rest is reconverted into energy and put through the national grid.

But the spokesperson maintained this was a last resort for the company - and also denied it was cheaper to dispose of the items instead of returning them to the domestic sellers.

Mark Ruskell, Scottish Greens environment spokesman and Mid Scotland and Fife MSP, said: "Amazon's net profit has soared during this crisis while many people have struggled to make ends meet.

"It's therefore obscene that this multi-billion corporation finds it more profitable to put unused items in the bin than help people out.

"It is a damning indictment of our economy that the throwaway culture is put before people's needs. Even if it is not reflective of wider Amazon policy, the company must answer for why the Dunfermline warehouse has such high levels of waste and so little is resold or given to charities.

"This shocking revelation shows that governments must do more to force companies to design waste out of their systems, with regulation and fines where they are failing to do the right thing."

Additional reporting by PA

Amazon isn't alone in reportedly destroying unsold goods. Nike, Burberry, H&M and others have also come under fire for torching their own products.

Aleeya Mayo
Tue, June 22, 2021

Models showcase Burberry's latest designs during London Fashion Week February 2020. John Phillips/BFC/Getty Images for BFC


Amazon reportedly destroyed 130,000 unsold and returned items in a single week.


Burberry, Urban Outfitters, H&M, Nike, and Victoria's Secret have also come under fire for the practice.

The fashion industry makes up 10% of humanity's carbon emissions.

Amazon is not the only company that has been reportedly destroying unsold goods.

Amazon came under fire this week after a former employee told ITV, a British news channel, that employees at a warehouse in Scotland were instructed to destroy 130,000 unsold and returned items in just one week - totalling more than a million items per year.

But Amazon is far from the only offender.

Brands including Burberry, Urban Outfitters, H&M, Nike, JCPenney, Michael Kors, Eddie Bauer, and Victoria's Secret have all been accused of doing the same, according to various reports in recent years.

Burberry came clean about burning clothes and said it "used specialist incinerators that harness energy from the process." The destroyed goods totaled about $37 million, compared to Burberry's revenue of $3.8 billion that year.

"Burberry has insisted it's recycling the clothing into energy, except the energy that is recouped from burning clothing doesn't come anywhere near the energy that was used to create the garments," Timo Rissanen, an associate dean at Parsons School of Design and a professor of fashion design and sustainability told Vox in a 2018 interview.

The amount of garments that people have been buying annually has been steadily increasing since the early 2000's. Insider previously reported that the fashion industry makes up "10% of humanity's carbon emissions, dries up water sources, and pollutes river streams."

Chanel and Louis Vuitton have also participated in the burning of merchandise. Richemont, the Swiss company behind brands like Cartier and Montblanc, said in 2018 it had destroyed more than $500 million worth of watches to keep them out of the hands of resellers.

In response to ITV's reporting, an Amazon spokesperson told Insider that no clothes were sent to landfills, but "as a last resort," some may be sent to "energy recovery."

"We're working hard to drive the number of times this happens down to zero," Amazon said.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Poll: Most Americans say LGBTQ discrimination still exists


Jennifer De Pinto

CBS
Tue, June 22, 2021

A big majority of Americans — nearly 8 in 10 — say the last 50 years have brought progress in ending discrimination against LGBTQ people. However, most also feel some discrimination still exists in society today.



Majorities think at least some discrimination exists today against people who are gay and lesbian and those who are transgender, and comparatively, more see "a lot" of discrimination against transgender people specifically.



These levels of perceived discrimination are slightly lower now than in 2019, when similar questions were asked.


Transgender student athletes

Several states have recently proposed legislation concerning transgender student athletes. Our poll finds most Americans overall think transgender student athletes should only be allowed to play on teams that match the sex they were born as, while four in 10 say they should be allowed to play on a team that matches the gender they consider themselves to be. These views extend across most demographic groups.



Democrats and liberals stand apart from the public overall on this. Majorities of these groups say transgender student athletes should be allowed to play on a team that matches the gender they consider themselves to be. Most other political and demographic groups feel these athletes should only play on the team that matches their sex at birth.



Another factor that shapes views on this: personally knowing someone who is transgender.

More than half of those who know a transgender person say transgender student athletes should be allowed to play on team sports that match the gender they consider themselves to be.

A third of Americans report knowing someone who is transgender — either a family member, friend, work colleague or themselves.

Also, most of those who perceive "a lot" of discrimination against transgender individuals believe transgender athletes should be permitted to play on the team matches their gender identity.



Same-sex marriage

This is not the first time we've seen personal relationships influence views concerning LGBTQ issues.

During the earlier days of the debate over same-sex marriage and before it was legal nationwide, our polling found people who knew someone who is gay or lesbian were more supportive of legal marriage for same-sex couples compared to those who did not know someone. And in 2013, when those who once opposed same-sex marriage were asked why they changed their mind to supporting it, knowing someone who was gay or lesbian was among the top answers given.

Today, same sex marriage is supported by a majority of Americans and has been for nearly a decade.



Support has become more widespread over time. Those across all age groups and education levels favor legal marriage for same-sex couples.

Some differences along political and ideological lines remain, however. Large majorities of Democrats, liberals, independents and moderates support same-sex marriage, while most conservatives do not. Among Republicans, there is more support among those who are younger — Republicans under age 45 are split on same-sex marriage- while two-thirds of older Republicans are opposed.

Religiosity plays a role too. People who say religion is "very important" in their daily life do not think same-sex marriage should be legal.

Democrats and liberals were early supporters of same-sex marriage and, today, these groups favor allowing transgender athletes to play on a sports team that matches the gender they consider themselves to be.

This CBS News survey was conducted by YouGov using a nationally representative sample of 2,073 U.S. adult residents interviewed between June 11-14, 2021. This sample was weighted according to gender, age, race, and education based on the U.S. Census American Community Survey, and the U.S. Census Current Population Survey, as well as 2020 Presidential vote. The margin of error is ± 2.6 points.

Pakistan premier criticized for comments on sexual violence

FILE - In this Nov. 19, 2020 file photo, Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan speaks during a joint news conference with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani at the Presidential Palace in Kabul, Afghanistan. Khan is facing growing criticism at home for seemingly blaming a rise in sexual violence in Pakistan on women wearing “very few clothes.” Khan drew nationwide condemnation Tuesday, June 22, 2021, from human rights activists and the country’s opposition, which sought an apology. (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul, File)

MUNIR AHMED

Tue, June 22, 2021, 

ISLAMABAD (AP) — Prime Minister Imran Khan faced growing criticism at home on Tuesday after seemingly blaming a rise in sexual violence in Pakistan on women wearing “very few clothes."

His comments drew nationwide condemnation from human rights activists and the country’s opposition, which sought an apology. The controversial statements aired over the weekend came in an interview on Axios, a documentary news series on HBO.

“If a woman is wearing very few clothes it will have an impact, it will have an impact on the men, unless they’re robots," the prime minister said. “I mean it’s common sense.”

Asked directly by interviewer Jonathan Swan whether the way that women dress could provoke acts of sexual violence, Khan said: “It depends on which society you live in. If in a society where people haven’t seen that sort of thing, it will have an impact on them.”

It was the second time in two months that Khan sparked outrage after suggesting that women's attire plays a role in provoking sexual violence against them.

In April, in an online show on state-run Pakistan Television, Khan claimed that wearing a veil — the traditional head covering worn by conservative Muslim women — would protect women from sexual assault.

Khan’s government has faced criticism over its failure to curb sexual attacks on women since he came into power by winning a simple majority in parliamentary elections in 2018.

Pakistan has been rocked by high-profile sexual attacks, including last September when a woman was gang-raped in front of her children after her car broke down on a major freeway at night near Lahore.

Sexual harassment and violence against women is not uncommon in Pakistan. Nearly 1,000 women are killed in Pakistan each year in so-called “honor killings” for allegedly violating conservative norms on love and marriage.

The weekend interview with Khan in Islamabad covered a wide range of issues, but his comments seemingly linking how women dress to sexual violence garnered by far the most attention. The former cricket star drew broad criticism on social media from both civil rights groups and everyday Pakistanis.

“Shame on You,” Pakistani woman Frieha Altaf said on Twitter.

Marriyum Aurrangzeb, spokeswoman for the opposition Pakistan Muslim League party, condemned Khan on Twitter for his remarks.

“The world got an insight into a mindset of a sick, misogynistic, degenerate & derelict IK (Imran Khan). Its not women’s choices that lead to sexual assault rather the choices of men who choose to engage in this despicable and vile CRIME,” she said.

However, female lawmakers from Khan's Tehreek-e-Insaf party defended the prime minister, saying his comments were taken out of context, without elaborating.

Zartaj Gul, the minister for climate change, said at a news conference Tuesday “our culture and our way of dressing is idealized across the world," referring to conservative norms of dressing in Pakistan.