Off camera, Fox hosts doubted 2020 election fraud claims

RANDALL CHASE
Fri, 17 February 2023 

 A headline about President Donald Trump is displayed outside Fox News studios, on Nov. 28, 2018, in New York. Attorneys for the cable news giant argued in a counterclaim unsealed, Thursday, Feb. 16, 2023, that a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News by Dominion Voting Systems over the network’s coverage of the 2020 presidential election is an assault on the First Amendment.

 (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, File) 

WILMINGTON, Del. (AP) — To millions of viewers, Fox News hosts gave allies of former President Donald Trump a platform to champion false claims that he lost the 2020 election because of voter fraud. To one another, they expressed doubts about the claims and mocked the people making them.

Private exchanges between Fox News hosts Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, and other network bigwigs — including the chairman of Fox Corporation, Rupert Murdoch — show a wide chasm between what the network promoted in primetime and the doubts that its stars held behind the camera, according to new court filings in a defamation lawsuit being waged by a company whose voting systems were regularly maligned on air.

“Sidney Powell is lying” about having evidence for election fraud, Carlson said via text on Nov. 16, 2020 to a Fox News producer, referring to one of Trump’s lawyers.

Ingraham texted Carlson that Powell is “a complete nut. No one will work with her. Ditto with Rudy,” referring to the former New York mayor and Trump supporter Rudy Giuliani.

These and other internal communications were included in a redacted brief filed Thursday by attorneys for Dominion Voting Systems, which is suing Fox News and its parent company, Fox Corporation, for $1.6 billion.

In a deposition, host Sean Hannity said “that whole narrative that Sidney was pushing, I did not believe it for one second,” according to Dominion’s filing.

Murdoch, meanwhile, in a Nov. 19 email, described what he saw in a press conference that day featuring Giuliani and Powell as “Really crazy stuff. And damaging.”

Dominion's legal case rests on its belief that Fox News employees deliberately amplified false claims that the company had changed votes in the 2020 election, and that Fox provided a platform for guests to make false and defamatory statements.

Attorneys for Fox argued in a counterclaim unsealed Thursday that the lawsuit is an assault on the First Amendment. They said Dominion has advanced “novel defamation theories” and is seeking a “staggering” damage figure aimed at generating headlines, chilling protected speech and enriching Dominion’s private equity owner, Staple Street Capital Partners.

“Dominion brought this lawsuit to punish FNN for reporting on one of the biggest stories of the day — allegations by the sitting President of the United States and his surrogates that the 2020 election was affected by fraud,” the counterclaim states. “The very fact of those allegations was newsworthy.”

Fox attorneys have noted that Carlson repeatedly questioned Powell’s claims in his broadcasts. “When we kept pressing, she got angry and told us to stop contacting her,” Carlson told viewers on Nov. 19, 2020.

Fox attorneys say Dominion’s own public relations firm expressed skepticism in December 2020 as to whether the network’s coverage was defamatory. They also point to an email from Oct. 30, 2020, just days before the election, in which Dominion’s director of product strategy and security complained that the company’s products were “just riddled with bugs.”

In their counterclaim, Fox attorneys wrote that when voting-technology companies denied the allegations being made by Trump and his surrogates, Fox News aired those denials, while some Fox News hosts offered protected opinion commentary about Trump’s allegations.

“Freedom of speech and freedom of the press would be illusory if the prevailing side in a public controversy could sue the press for giving a forum to the losing side," Fox attorneys wrote.

Fox attorneys warn that threatening the company with a $1.6 billion judgment will cause other media outlets to think twice about what they report.

Responses by both sides to the briefs made public on Thursday remain under seal. Fox has said Dominion's filing includes “cherry-picked quotes stripped of key context,” and that it has refused to allow Fox to make its response to Dominion's brief public. Attorneys for Fox and Dominion told The Associated Press on Friday that responses to the briefs will remain under seal until Feb. 27.

Dominion on Friday filed its own challenge to the redactions in the briefs, including its own. “Dominion’s position is that nothing in these three briefs warrants confidential treatment,” attorneys for the company wrote, adding that all redactions were done at Fox's request.

If either side can persuade Superior Court Judge Eric Davis to grant summary judgment in its favor, the case will end without a jury trial. If not, the trial is scheduled to begin in mid-April.

In its 192-page brief, Dominion said the judge should rule in its favor because “no reasonable juror could find in Fox’s favor on each element of Dominion’s defamation claim.” Dominion attorneys also assert that no reasonable juror could find in favor of Fox’s “neutral reportage” and “fair report” defenses.

“Recounts and audits conducted by election officials across the U.S. repeatedly confirmed the election’s outcome, including specifically that Dominion’s machines accurately counted votes,” Dominion’s filing states.

Fox News attorneys argue the network’s coverage and commentary are not defamatory and that there is no evidence the hosts had any malicious intent behind what they said about Dominion — an important legal standard in First Amendment cases.

Davis ruled last month that, for the purposes of the defamation claims, he will consider Dominion to be a public figure. That means Dominion must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Fox defendants acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth.

Nigeria: Protests at banks and ATMs amid ‘cash scarcity’ concerns

Pariesa Brody
Fri, 17 February 2023 

© Twitter / @OaikhenaJo

Destroying ATMs, breaking into banks and setting up blockades in the street: angry protests erupted on February 15 in several cities across Nigeria as people struggle to get their hands on newly designed banknotes. Frustration is mounting as some citizens can’t purchase basic necessities amid widespread shortages of the new currency, just a week ahead of the 2023 general elections.

The Central Bank of Nigeria began circulating newly designed banknotes worth 1,000, 500 and 200 naira (2.03, 1.02 or 0.41 euros) on December 15, 2022. The move was intended to replace dirty, old cash currently in circulation, tackle inflation and counterfeiting, as well as promote a cashless society.

The old banknotes were set to expire on February 10, before Nigeria's President Muhammadu Buhari extended the deadline for citizens to continue using their old 200 naira banknotes until April 10. The 500 and 1,000 naira notes must be exchanged or deposited in banks.

But a lack of new notes in the banks – as well as allegations that banks are hoarding the new notes – have left people desperate, with lines forming outside banks and at ATMs.

Some merchants have already stopped accepting the old banknotes, rendering them essentially valueless. In a cash-based society where around 40% of the population do not have bank accounts, the currency redesign has caused growing anxiety among those who can’t access the new money.

UK

Judge praises Just Stop Oil activists as ‘good people with admirable aims’ as he convicts them

Jane Dalton
Fri, 17 February 2023 


A judge has thanked anti-fossil fuel campaigners for opening his eyes as he praised them as good people with admirable aims.

In comments supporting their motivation, Judge Graham Wilkinson told Just Stop Oil activists who had blocked the distribution of oil that they were “a pleasure to deal with”. He also said he had been moved by their evidence.

Activists stop an oil tanker on its way to a terminal in Birmingham (Just Stop Oil)

Seven backers of the anti-fossil fuel movement were found guilty at Wolverhampton Magistrates Court of aggravated trespass, and two were cleared, after they peacefully blocked oil distribution from an Esso terminal in Birmingham for 12 hours on 3 April last year.

The activists were demanding the government halt licences and granting permission for any new fossil fuel projects in the UK.

Paul Barnes, Paul Fawkesley and Alan Woods were each ordered to pay costs of £500. Oliver Clegg, Jon Deery, Harley Brewer and Diana Hekt were ordered to pay costs of £250 each.

All seven were given a 12-month conditional discharge and told to pay a £22 surcharge.

Naomi Goddard and Sylvie More were found not guilty after prosecutors offered no evidence against them.

During the trial, the defendants said that Esso, a subsidiary of Exxon Mobil, had led a “sustained campaign of misinformation” across many decades, over the role of fossil fuels in climate breakdown.

Convicting the seven, the judge said: “It’s abundantly clear that you are all good people. You are intelligent and articulate, and you have been a pleasure throughout to deal with.

“It’s unarguable that man-made global warming is real and we are facing a climate crisis. That is accepted and recognised by the scientific community and most governments (including our own).

Campaigners halted oil distribution for 12 hours at the Birmingham terminal (Just Stop Oil)

“Your aims are to slow or even stop the advance of global warming and therefore preserve the planet, not just for generations to come but for existing generations.

“No one can criticise your motivations and indeed each of you has spoken about your own personal experiences, motivations and actions. Many of your explanations for your actions were deeply emotive and I am sure all listening were moved by them. I know I was.

“In simple terms, you are good people with admirable aims. However, if good people with the right motivation do the wrong thing, it can never make that wrong thing right, it can only ever act as substantial mitigation.”

He said the group’s fears were “ably and genuinely articulated” and supported by the science.

Judge Wilkinson went on: “When the United Nations’ secretary-general gives a speech saying that the activity of fossil fuel companies is incompatible with human survival, we should all be very aware of the need for change.

“Millions of people – and I do not dispute that it may be as many as 1 billion people – will be displaced as a result of climate change.

“The tragedy is that good people have felt so much, without hope, that you feel you have to come into conflict with the criminal justice system.”

Since the Just Stop Oil campaign launched a year ago, more than 2,000 people have been arrested and 138 people have been jailed for actions such as blocking traffic, throwing paint on buildings and climbing motorway gantries.

Many people have criticised the activists – who oppose the burning of fossil fuels, which emit greenhouse gases – over the disruption they have caused.

The judge prefaced his remarks by saying it was a court of law, not morals.

“Trust in the rule of law is an essential ingredient of society, and it will erode swiftly if judges make politically or morally motivated decisions that do not accord with established legal principles. Indeed, I would become the self-appointed sheriff if I acted in such a way,” he said.

But he thanked the defendants for opening his eyes. “Most, I was acutely and depressingly aware of, but there were certain things,” he said.

“I say this I – and I mean this sadly – I have to convict you. You are good people and I will not issue a punitive sentence. Your arrests and loss of good character are sufficient. I don’t say this, ever, but it has been a pleasure dealing with you.”

To one defendant who said in his evidence that he felt guilty for not doing enough to save the planet for his daughter, Judge Wilkinson said: “You should feel guilty for nothing. You should feel proud that you care, have concern for the future. I urge you not to break the law again. Good luck to all of you.”

The activists said that during the trial, prosecutors had initially described them as “self-appointed vigilantes”, but on hearing their evidence, retracted that comment and conceded they were “good people”.

In cross-examination Esso’s terminal safety manager Craig Pugh reportedly played down the burning of fossil fuels, saying “there are lots of things going on in the world”.

One defendant, Naomi Goddard, 58, a parish clerk from Calderdale, said: “Part of my role is to make sure things are lawful. Is it lawful to continue to license new fossil fuels, when we know that they are killing us? This is the question we need to be asking our government and the judiciary.”

The Guardian view on disinformation online: a 21st-century growth industry

Editorial
Fri, 17 February 2023 

Photograph: Olivier Douliery/AFP/Getty Images

The healthy functioning of democracies depends on the quality of the information that frames debate within them. But digitalisation, the rise of social media and increasingly sophisticated forms of artificial intelligence are delivering new opportunities to poison the well of public discourse. Unfortunately, as a Guardian investigation this week illustrates, exploiting these is a 21st-century growth industry.

Alongside state-sponsored actors, increasing numbers of private firms are profiting from the dissemination of disinformation on behalf of political and corporate clients. Undercover research, in conjunction with 30 other media organisations, has exposed the inner workings of one such outfit – an Israeli black ops unit which combines the use of automated disinformation on social media with hacking and the seeding of fabricated stories in mainstream news outlets. The resulting revelations offer the deepest, most detailed insight yet into evolving forms of digital malpractice.

Codenamed Team Jorge, the unit is headed by a former Israeli special forces operative, who denies any wrongdoing. To manipulate online debate, it developed cutting-edge software to create tens of thousands of fake avatars. These were given a convincing digital backstory – even including Airbnb accounts – and operated in multiple countries, often intervening in commercial disputes. In the UK, the Information Commissioner’s Office was targeted for online criticism as it sought clarity over the award of government PPE contracts during Covid. Separately, Team Jorge organised a fake “real world” protest in London, the impact of which was then amplified by the fake avatars.

Operatives infiltrated an election campaign in Nigeria and obtained documents. And key players in last year’s Kenyan election had their Gmail and Telegram accessed using hacking methods. The disinformation unit also appears to have targeted mainstream media, planting stories which were swiftly taken up by the bots. A Team Jorge member told the undercover investigators that it was responsible for a fake story favourable to sanctions-hit Russian oligarchs that was broadcast on France’s most-watched news channel. One of its presenters has now been suspended. Contacted by our reporters with evidence of fake accounts, Meta, the owner of Facebook, has taken down bots linked with Team Jorge’s software. But similarly bad actors are freely operating, undetected, throughout the world.

The professionalisation of a commercial disinformation industry, seeking to profit from lies and distortion, is one of the clear and present threats of our times. Rapid advances in the fields of artificial intelligence and virtual reality promise to deliver huge social gains; but they also offer new scope to blur the lines between the real and the fake, and the true and the false. The conspiracy theories propagated online during the Covid pandemic, and the riot on Capitol Hill following false claims that the US presidential election of 2020 was stolen, have shown where that can lead.

As technology leaps ahead, systems of regulation and public oversight must attempt to keep pace, and ensure that tech platforms become more accountable for the online environments they create. In an age of polarisation, disinformation undermines the presumption of good faith necessary for democratic debate and consensus. More attention must be paid to the activities of organisations such as Team Jorge, and more resources must be devoted to putting them out of business.

Australia can’t blow another decade of climate action – it’s now up to Labor and the Greens

Katharine Murphy
Fri, 17 February 2023 

Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP

Anthony Albanese believes Australians are suffering from “conflict fatigue” so he’s sought to establish a collaborative tone in the current parliament. Not everybody is on board with that aspiration of course. But thus far, the vibe has skewed towards peace and harmony.

That changed on Wednesday. Labor arrived in the House of Representatives chamber for question time ready to rumble. Albanese and the climate minister, Chris Bowen, held themselves above the fray, but frontbenchers Madeleine King and Tanya Plibersek let rip at the Greens. The trigger was the Greens signalling through media outlets earlier in the day that the next round of climate policy negotiations needed to deliver a ban on new coal and gas projects.

Australia’s climate wars have persisted long enough to have developed their own forms of extraordinary rendition. King, the resources minister, reprised 2009 – the decision by the Greens to vote against Kevin Rudd’s carbon pollution reduction scheme. The merest whiff of 2009 triggers indiscriminate brawling and mauling between squads of Labor and Green supporters on social media. Shots fired, in other words. Backing in King’s theme, Plibersek expressed shock that the Greens could again line up with the Liberals to vote down climate legislation.


Related: Safeguard mechanism: what is it, will it cut emissions and what role do carbon offsets play?

Labor wasn’t finished. Later in the day, the government’s Housing Australia Future Fund legislation was rammed through the house. This procedural smash and grab was a departure from the orderly chamber rituals established since last May. Labor has the numbers in the house, so can do what it likes, but the convention has been staging collaborative conversations enabling various points to be ventilated. The Greens were ready to make their points, but the government rolled right over the top.

Things moved so fast the moderate Liberal Bridget Archer almost had to jog in order to cross the floor to support the package. The four Greens MPs left the chamber and abstained from voting. The Queensland Labor frontbencher Murray Watt, who relishes a scrap, rewarded the strategic retreat with a hastily crafted internet meme which reads: “Guess who didn’t vote for Labor’s $10bn housing fund? Dutton and the Greens: the new Coalition.”

Albanese has expended so much energy developing his current style of collaborative leadership that people can forget his penchant for tactical ruthlessness if he judges that necessary in the moment.

Wednesday’s flex will have jogged a few memories.

I suspect the target wasn’t the Greens leader, Adam Bandt, because Bandt is fluent in the physics of national politics – the flow of actions and reactions. It was likely newer arrivals in the Greens party room. People who have not lived through the public policy atrocity of the past decade. People who could be inclined to see the recent departure of Lidia Thorpe as a sign the Greens need to punch up to Labor to mollify a fractious base.

The moral of Labor’s skirmish was clear-cut. The “new politics” of the 47th parliament is an active choice we all make, not some inalienable human right. The voters have given us an opportunity to pursue a progressive agenda. We can build, or we can go to war. If it’s war, there will be casualties, and consequences. Inevitable, I guess, that the opening sorties of the safeguard mechanism deliberation were bare-knuckle. This phase of policymaking was always going to be the true test of whether or not Australia’s climate wars have ended.

Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup

The best granular explainer about the nuts and bolts of the safeguard mechanism revamp has already been written by my colleague Adam Morton. You can find that here. Read it. It’s worth your time. My less comprehensive summary is as follows.

The safeguard mechanism is a remnant of the Abbott era, regulations that allegedly curbed pollution from Australia’s heaviest emitters, but in practice did nothing of the kind. Labor is proposing to make the mechanism work. The scheme proposed would see companies cut their carbon emissions intensity by 4.9% a year, either by curbing pollution on site, or buying carbon offsets. Offsets are units of emissions reduction that has already occurred elsewhere, but credible concerns have been raised about the integrity of some credit schemes. The government commissioned a review that broadly backed the integrity of the system, but recommended systemic change to improve confidence and transparency.

The overhaul has triggered a valid debate about whether Labor’s revamp is too favourable to sections of the Australian business community that willingly abetted a decade-long climate policy atrocity by either backing in, or failing to disavow, Tony Abbott’s “axe the tax” histrionics.



Climate wars have inflicted a deep wound ... Healing isn’t an overnight proposition, particularly when the war isn’t over

Having helped bury a perfectly functional carbon price, this crowd is now screaming for policy certainty. You’d laugh if this was in the least bit funny. It isn’t funny, and it’s reasonable to query whether or not Labor is applying kid gloves to self-serving rent-seekers who, in moral terms, deserve a sledgehammer.

Fair, too, to probe the integrity of the carbon credits. Credits are an important part of the policy mix for two reasons. Where possible, we should be pursuing least-cost abatement to manage the costs of the transition, and in some sectors, practical emissions reduction is either impossible, or fiendishly expensive. But units need to be credible, otherwise all we are doing is pretending to reduce emissions.

While kicking the policy tyres is mandatory, two other things should also be understood at the level of principle. The first is progress is always better than regression; and the second is progress tends to be more linear when enough people become convinced of the merits of a particular course of action.

In political terms, Labor’s objective in this parliamentary term is to deliver a proof of concept: speed up emissions reduction, and show voters the world doesn’t end.

This aspiration sits at the heart of the safeguard redux. The government wants to change the direction of travel. If you send a signal the future is carbon constraint, investment follows, because there are deep pools of capital wanting to place their bets on the transition. Incremental success here will help reboot the arid debate about climate action. In Australia, voters have heard too much about cost, and not enough about opportunity and necessity.

Necessity brings us to science. Anyone who reads climate science knows we have to act faster because the risks of failing to act are existential. The Greens are correct to champion a ban on new coal and gas. I’ll say this again: the Greens are right on the science.

But anyone paying attention for the past decade also understands that base electoral politics, straight-out lying, manipulation and weaponisation, has made it difficult for incumbent governments to do what the science tells us is necessary. Australia’s climate wars have inflicted a deep wound on the polity. Healing it isn’t an overnight proposition, particularly when the war isn’t over.

Community sentiment is shifting. The May election result tells us more Australians understand they’ve been had by lying politicians and greedy corporates. But Peter Dutton remains fully subscribed to the Coalition’s cult of no, because he wants to chase his electoral losses by going after traditional Labor voters in the outer suburbs and regions.

So where does this leave the safeguard?

The Greens say they are prepared to turn a blind eye to the various deficiencies in the revamp if Labor will ban new coal and gas developments. Labor says if you want that ban spelled out in a neon bumper sticker, we can’t deliver it, because that exceeds our electoral mandate.

Related: The safeguard mechanism: Australia’s emissions trading scheme in all but name

I predict a supplementary conversation along the following lines. Labor will signal (as Plibersek did this week) the government will apply an environmental lens to new fossil fuel developments, case-by-case. The Greens will say great, then give us a climate trigger in environmental laws. There’s a way to go yet with this discussion. But I suspect Labor’s response to that will be you can either trust our bona fides with case-by-case decision-making, or you can overplay your hand and trust Dutton’s bona fides. Take your pick.

Key people are talking, but there is frustration in both camps. Bandt would argue Labor is more timid than it needs be – too busy fighting the last war to see that the politics have now shifted, and decisively, in favour of climate action. Albanese would argue this is naive. The politics have certainly shifted, but not uniformly in terms of geography, and parties of government have to straddle geography if they want the opportunity to change the country.

While the private punditry of a couple of party leaders remains a matter of argument, this final statement is objectively true.

Australia has blown a decade of climate action.

We can’t blow another one, and the responsibility for ensuring that doesn’t happen is a collective one for progressive forces in the current parliament, because the Coalition on these questions is no better than a laugh track; it has opted out of a core responsibility of a governing party.

The weeks ahead are going to require both maturity and dexterity.

BEWARE OF RUSSIAN WINDOWS
Senior Russian military official ‘plunges 16 storeys to her death falling from window’

Andy Gregory
Fri, 17 February 2023 at 1:44 am GMT-7·2-min read

Senior Russian military official ‘plunges 16 storeys to her death falling from window’

A senior military official in Russia heavily involved in funding Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine has reportedly plummeted 16 storeys to her death in St Petersburg.

The body of Marina Yankina was found on the pavement below an apartment building in the city’s Kalininsky district shortly before 8am on Wednesday morning, according to local reports.

The 58-year-old was finance director of the Western Military District, one of the five geographical battalions which comprise Russia’s army, the leader of which Mr Putin has replaced multiple times since invading Ukraine last February.

The Western Military District confirmed one of its employees had died, but refused to comment further – instead pointing local outlets to the authorities investigating her death.

Ms Yankina called her ex-husband to let him know she was about to jump, and told him that she was leaving her documents and packed belongings on the balcony, a local Telegram news channel claimed, adding that “the motives continue to be clarified”.

Her personal belongings were left on a common balcony on the building’s 16th floor, according to Tsargrad TV, a self-styled Russian Fox News, whose founder is sanctioned by the West.

Reports from Russia were conflicted over whether or not Ms Yankina lived in the building.

She previously worked at Russia’s Federal Tax service, and rose to the position as chief of finance within five years of joining the Western Military District as an entry-level staff member, investigative outlet Meduza said, citing local reports.

She is the second senior Russian military official to die this week in circumstances reportedly deemed a suicide by authorities.

Major General Vladimir Makarov, who reportedly led the oppression of journalists, opposition activists and protesters in his role at the Main Directorate for Combating Extremism, was claimed to have shot himself on Monday, a month after being relieved of his post by Mr Putin.

Yankina's death comes after a number of Russian officials have died in unusual or unexplained circumstances since Putin launched his unprovoked war on Ukraine nearly a full year ago.

Anton Gerashchenko, an adviser to the Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, pointed this out in a tweet on Thursday about Yankina's death.

Putin critic and sausage tycoon Pavel Antov died after falling out of a window at a hotel in India in December. Last September, 67-year-old Russian energy oligarch Ravil Maganov also died after falling from a hospital window, Insider reported at the time.

UK

Sizewell C developer EDF reveals underlying loss of £4.44bn


Dominic Bareham
Fri, 17 February 2023 

Sizewell C developer EDF has registered an underlying loss of £4.44bn (Image: Archant)

The parent company behind the new Sizewell C nuclear power station has revealed an underlying loss of £4.44bn due to a decline in nuclear output, mainly in France.

However, EDF Energy's UK arm registered an underlying profit of £1.12bn in 2022, compared with a loss of £21m in 2021, mainly due to improved performance in nuclear energy output.

The firm's UK consumer energy supplier lost more than £200m in the year as the cost of buying energy was higher than the prices set by the Government's energy price cap, which limits the average household cost of energy and gas to £2,500 annually.

But the problems in France caused by a decline in nuclear output due to stress corrosion, along with the price caps on charges to consumers, had resulted in the firm buying electricity at a time when market prices were high.

This led to the fall in overall profits.

EDF's chief executive Luc Remont said: "The 2022 results were significantly affected by the decline in our electricity output, and also by exceptional regulatory measures introduced in France in difficult market conditions.

"Despite all the challenges, EDF actively focused on service and support for all its residential and business customers and made every endeavour to ensure the best generation fleet availability for the winter period."

He added the 'priority' was to improve EDF's financial position and he was 'confident' that actions taken to address the situation would bring benefits in 2023.

A spokesperson for Sizewell C said: "The results do not impact the Sizewell C project."

In the autumn, chancellor Jeremy Hunt announced in the budget that the Government would be providing £700m towards the £25bn cost of Sizewell C.

The two turbine reactor aims to generate low-carbon energy for six million homes over the next 60 years.

Alison Downes, spokesperson for campaign group Stop Sizewell C, which is opposed to the project, said: "EDF now admits that Hinkley Point C is expected to cost over £32bn in today's money and there are still almost five years of construction to go.

"Government officials have admitted privately that they expect Sizewell C to cost more than £30bn and here is that proof.

"With offshore wind at least five times cheaper, the Treasury should take note and save us from yet another expensive mistake."

Some NHS Scotland staff could get 19pc pay rise over two years in bid to end strikes

Lizzie Roberts
Fri, 17 February 2023

NHS nurses stage a protest outside Glasgow Royal Infirmary last summer to call for a better pay deal - Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images

Some NHS staff in Scotland could receive a 19 per cent pay rise over two years after the Scottish government put forward a new offer to end strike action.

Around 160,000 health service staff in Scotland, including nurses, midwives, and paramedics, will be offered an average 6.5 per cent pay increase in 2023/24. The £568 million package offered by the Scottish government is the largest in NHS history, and will also include a one-off payment of between £387 and £939.

When combined with the 2022/23 pay offer, some staff, such as experienced hospital porters, could receive a 19.1 per cent pay increase over two years. Experienced paramedics and nurses could receive 13.2 per cent and 12.4 per cent respectively.


The Royal College of Nursing (RCN), Royal College of Midwives (RCM) and other health unions are now considering the offer. Strike action in Scotland was paused by the RCN while negotiations with the Scottish government took place.

Humza Yousaf, the Scottish health secretary, said the new offer meant NHS staff in Scotland are “far and away the best paid anywhere in the UK”.

It comes after the RCN announced a significant escalation of its strike action in England on Thursday after the UK Government refused to negotiate on pay. The latest action will include 120 NHS employers, with staff walking out for 48 hours from March 1.

Separately, thousands more ambulance workers in England have voted to strike in the long-running dispute over pay and staffing. Announcing re-ballot results, the Unison union said staff at another four English ambulance services and five NHS organisations including NHS Blood and Transplant would now be able to strike in a “significant escalation” of the dispute.

The 12,000 staff involved in the re-ballots can now take part in strike action alongside their NHS colleagues at ambulance services in London, Yorkshire, the North East, the North West and the South West.

The GMB also announced on Friday that its ambulance members in Wales had rejected an offer from the Welsh government that saw an extra three per cent added to the existing deal. Around 1,500 workers will now join a strike on Monday by almost 10,000 other GMB members across England.

Nathan Holman, the GMB Welsh official, said: “We thank the Welsh government for actually entering talks – but if this is their final offer, it’s too low for our members.”

When the offer was put forward by the Welsh government earlier this month, Eluned Morgan, the health minister, said it was “the maximum we can afford to make”.

The RCN in England previously demanded a 19 per cent pay increase for nurses, but in recent weeks softened its stance and indicated that it would be prepared to meet the government “half way”.

Commenting on the escalation of action in England, Christina McAnea, the Unison general secretary, said: “It’s time the Prime Minister ditched his do nothing strategy for dealing with escalating strikes across the NHS.

“Governments in other parts of the UK know what it takes to resolve disputes. Ministers in Scotland and Wales are talking to health unions and acting to boost pay for NHS staff this year, and Holyrood is really showing Westminster up.

“Sadly, health workers across England have been met with a wall of silence from Number 10. The Prime Minister stubbornly refuses to talk about pay, preferring to subject everyone to many months of disruption.”

Chair of Natural England worries ‘endlessly’ about companies greenwashing

Danny Halpin, PA Environment Correspondent
Fri, 17 February 2023 

The chair of Natural England Tony Juniper said he worries about companies greenwashing “endlessly” after a meeting of international delegates discussing how to use private finance to achieve biodiversity goals.

Hosted by the UK Government, the event saw delegates from international corporations, indigenous groups, financial institutions, civil society and government ministers from around the world meet to discuss using private capital to honour the Cop15 biodiversity agreement made in Montreal, Canada, in December.

The US Special Envoy for Biodiversity and Water Resources, Monica Medina, joined the UK Environment Secretary Therese Coffey at the event on Friday – as did representatives from HSBC, Blackrock, AstraZeneca, WWF and the Amazon Sacred Headwaters Initiative.

In Montreal, delegates set a target of protecting 30% of the world’s lands, seas, coasts and inland waters by 2030 and paying for it by mobilising 200 billion US dollars (£167 billion) a year.

Countries also pledged to ensure a flow of 20 billion dollars (£16.5 billion) to developing countries by 2025 – rising to 30 billion dollars (£24.7 billion) by 2030.

Speaking to the PA news agency as the delegates left for a reception with the King at Buckingham Palace, Mr Juniper said all private sector organisations have a role to play in reaching these targets, from farmers practising sustainable agriculture, water companies protecting water quality, house builders ensuring their projects boost nature recovery and pension funds investing in net-zero projects.

He said: “I think it’s important for companies in all sectors to look at the overall impacts they’re causing on the environment to understand the risks and costs that arise from those impacts for them, as well as society, and then to develop strategies to be able to do something about it.

“And this isn’t just about some kind of charitable donation or some kind of marginal project that they can do alongside mainstream business. This is about transforming the core business.

“This does feel like a bit of a turning point because all of this stuff’s on the table today and people are talking about it in ways which are getting much more practical. And it wasn’t like that 10 years ago, not even two years ago.”

Asked whether he worries about companies using these financial agreements to greenwash, he said: “Yes, endlessly.

“Often the easiest thing to do if you’re under pressure to do something – which is transformative and which is challenging and which looks costly in the short term – is to come up with something which is more about communications and substance and there’s a long track record of that going back 30 years to my certain knowledge.”



Delegates were divided into four roundtable discussion groups, focusing on how to attract private finance to support countries’ conservation targets, mobilising capital to fund habitat restoration, the benefits of using plant and animal genetic information and scaling up sustainable food systems.

Carlos Manuel Rodriguez, CEO of the Global Environment Facility, described the discussion he chaired as a “very productive session”.

He summed up to the other delegates: “One key element that came up in our room is that the private sector is sitting on top of billions, billions of dollars, waiting for government to create the right framework.”

Dame Amelia Fawcett, chair of the Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew, said the three overarching themes arising from the talks were the need to accelerate the net-zero transition, the importance of the role of private finance in decarbonisation and the need to scale up “high-integrity investments” along with the flow of finance to achieve global biodiversity goals.

Amazon Indigenous leader Domingo Peas presents a gift to the King during a reception (Kin Cheung/PA)

Richard Benwell, CEO of Wildlife Countryside Link, said: “To halt the decline of nature by 2030 we’ll need every major industrial sector not just to compensate for environmental harm, but to contribute to recovery.

“We are too far down the road of ecological losses for offsetting. Water companies, for example, should be given responsibility for boosting nature across the freshwater environment.

“This means addressing nutrient, chemical, and sewage pollution, alongside restoring nature in the wider catchment areas of rivers.”

Tanya Steele, WWF’s chief executive, added: “Today’s meeting made clear that governments, the private sector and charities all recognise that the ambitious goal for nature set at COP15 in Montreal is just a first step, and what’s crucial now is keeping momentum.

“We know our planet is running out of time and we must act now to tackle systemic issues that are driving nature’s decline such as how we grow and produce food, as well as ensuring critical funding for our most precious ecosystems.

“Only then can we hope to protect and restore nature and bring our world back to life.”

One in three parents are skipping breakfast so their kids can eat, study finds

Beril Naz Hassan
Fri, 17 February 2023 

Parents are having to make tough decisions to make sure their kids are fed, study finds (Providence Doucet/Unsplash)

A new study has revealed that nearly one in three parents (31%) are making the decision to skip breakfasts so that they have enough food to give to their children.

The research, conducted by Quakers, also found that 19 per cent of Brits have used a food bank or the free food available at donation points to feed themselves and their family.

Aware of the dire circumstances many families are facing with rising energy prices, inflation, and the cost of living crisis, one in two Brits were unveiled to have donated money to a charity, while 55 per cent donated their items to help out.

When asked if they have helped out a neighbour during these tough times, 37 per cent said they had done.

The study’s results come amid an avalanche of strikes, with professionals across multiple industries sharing that they are having to go to food banks to feed their families.

Recently, the chair of the British Medical Association’s North Thames committee, Dr Arjan Nagra, told the Standard that junior doctors were having to use food banks, and make major financial sacrifices to pay their rents and heat their homes.

Similarly, the head of the Fire Brigades Union, Matt Wrack, previously said that some firefighters are using food banks.

Metropolitan Police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, also shared his concerns about the growing number of officers who are struggling to make ends meet.

As the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Bank of England both anticipate a decline in the economy in the first half of 2023, families’ pockets are likely to be further affected.

Those who want to help are being urged to donate food and goods to their local food banks and collection points.

The Trussell Trust has compiled a list of suggested non-perishable food items to donate, including cereal, soup, pasta, rice, tinned tomatoes, lentils, beans, pulses, tinned meat, tinned vegetables, tea/coffee, tinned fruit, biscuits, UHT milk, and fruit juice.

You can also donate non-food items, such as toiletries, household items, feminine products, and baby supplies.

Those who don’t have time to donate food can also choose to give money.