Daniel Khalife: 80 prison officers didn’t show up for work on day terror suspect escaped

Escaped terror suspect Daniel Khalife arrested in Chiswick

Adam Forrest, Kate Devlin and Matt Mathers
Fri, 15 September 2023 

Rishi Sunak’s government has revealed that 80 prison officers had failed to show up for work at HMP Wandsworth on the day terror suspect Daniel Khalife allegedly escaped from the jail.

Nearly 40 per cent of the prison’s staff did not attend their “expected shift”, a Tory minister admitted – but he claimed that initial investigations had suggested that staff shortages were not a factor in the apparent security breach.

Experts said that stress, low pay, and a rise in violence and attacks on staff had led to a mental health crisis among officers. Labour said the “astonishing” rate of absence at Wandsworth showed that staffing problems were “making the public less safe”.

It comes after Khalife was charged with fleeing Wandsworth on 6 September by strapping himself to the underside of a food lorry. The 21-year-old was arrested four days later beside a west London canal after being pulled off a bike by a counterterrorism officer.

On Friday, Keith Bristow, a former director general of the National Crime Agency, was appointed to investigate the incident. He will look at what access Khalife had to certain materials while in prison, as well as staffing levels and security measures.

The investigation will also look at whether Khalife had “inside help” with his alleged escape, a possibility first revealed by The Independent last Thursday.

The revelation about prison staff absences came in response to a parliamentary question submitted by Labour. Prisons minister Damian Hinds said that only 61 per cent of Wandsworth’s officers had attended work as expected on the day of the alleged escape.

The minister insisted this was an “acceptable” level, adding: “All staff in both the kitchen and the gatehouse were on duty on 6 September. An initial investigation into Daniel Khalife’s escape did not find the staffing level to be a contributing factor.”

But Charlie Taylor, the chief inspector of prisons, argued that “the single biggest problem that faces Wandsworth is a lack of staff”. His 2021 report found that 30 per cent of Wandsworth officers were either off sick or had failed to turn up at the time of the inspection.

Mr Taylor said many officers across England struggled with mental health issues, with some off work because of assaults by inmates. The inspector said that an increase in prison violence had created a “vicious cycle”, in which staff stayed at home, leaving a reduced number of staff on hand to deal with or prevent violent incidents.

Khalife allegedly escaped from Wandsworth by strapping himself to the underside of a food delivery vehicle (PA)

Mr Taylor told The Independent that prison officers “face high levels of stress and at times violence in their work”. He added: “In far too many prisons that we inspect, we raise concerns about a shortage, and the relative inexperience, of frontline officers.”

The chief inspector said his team had issued an urgent notification for improvement at high-security prison HMP Woodhill last month, where only half of the more experienced “band 3” officers were available for duty.

Mr Taylor said staff shortages are an ongoing issue in many prisons, including Birmingham, Swaleside, Stocken, Elmley and others. His team’s most recent report on HMP Mount in Hertfordshire also found a 40 per cent shortfall in staff availability.

Andrea Albert, president of the Prison Governors’ Association, admitted that there is a “recruitment and retention problem”, which she said is due to a rise in violence, stress, low pay, and “poor” development opportunities.

“We do have, across some of our prisons, high levels of staff sickness; we do have wellbeing issues. It is a very stressful environment,” she told BBC Radio 4’s The World at One. “I would probably say that in some of our prisons, it does border on being quite dangerous. There are prisons that are running with similar staffing levels to Wandsworth, so they’re running with maybe 30 per cent to 40 per cent reduction in staff on a daily basis.”

But Ms Albert added that some prisons are over-recruiting, so staff can be sent to “places like Wandsworth” to bolster numbers.

Vehicle searched by police during their hunt for Daniel Khalife (PA)

Ministry of Justice sources said that the 80 absences included some annual leave, maternity leave and training, so were not all down to officers calling in sick or unauthorised absences.

But Labour’s Rosena Allin-Khan, the MP for Wandsworth, who asked about staffing, said it “beggars belief” that almost 40 per cent unavailability is considered acceptable.

She told The Independent: “When I visited Wandsworth prison a few months ago, the biggest issue they were facing were staff shortages ... just six officers turned up for a shift one night in December. The government chose to ignore my concerns.”

Daniel Khalife at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Monday (PA)

Labour’s Shabana Mahmood, the shadow justice secretary, said the “astonishing” fact that almost 40 per cent of staff did not turn up “makes it clear that the dire conditions at the prison are having wide-ranging implications”.

She added: “Morale amongst staff is in the depths of despair, and the rate of loss of experienced staff is frankly alarming.”

Mr Sunak said it would be “premature” to talk about the “specific incidents” until an independent investigation had established the facts. He would not be drawn on whether the level of absenteeism was acceptable, but urged “people to turn up [to work] wherever they work”.

Analysis by The Independent published this week shows that some 60 per cent of officers across UK prisons had more than 10 years of experience in 2017 – but that figure had plunged to around 30 per cent by June this year.

The prison officers’ union, the POA, cited government cuts as a factor in reduced staffing levels. Spokesperson Mick Pimblett said the Wandsworth staffing figures were “quite disturbing”, but added that there is “not a lot of difference in many establishments across England and Wales”.

The union chief said staff don’t take overtime “due to burnout and the very fact that these are dangerous and stressful places to work”.

Mr Hinds insisted that the government had brought in 4,000 more prison officers since March 2017, adding: “We are also recruiting 5,000 prison officers across public and private prisons by the mid-2020s.”

Death, deception and the truth behind Britain’s biggest blood scandal

Cara McGoogan
Sun, 17 September 2023 

tainted blood

Kevin Slater had been in and out of hospital with unexplained symptoms including rapid weight loss and acid reflux for three months by March 1983, when his doctor started to suspect he could be suffering from a new illness called acquired immunodeficiency disorder, or Aids, which had emerged in America two years earlier and was predominantly affecting gay men.

A 20-year-old precision-tool engineer from Cwmbran, in South Wales, Kevin had never been to the United States, he wasn’t gay and he didn’t use intravenous drugs.

If he had Aids, there was only one way he could have contracted it – from Factor VIII, a “miracle” treatment for haemophilia made from human plasma.


Prof Arthur Bloom, Kevin’s doctor at the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff, was Britain’s leading haematologist. Not wanting to cause panic about Factor VIII, despite his concern that it could be contaminated, Bloom hedged Kevin’s diagnosis and downplayed the risk of Aids for people with haemophilia for months.

Kevin Slater, as well as his brother Paul, was treated with contaminated Factor VIII

Kevin rapidly became ill, and in May 1983, he was the first British person with haemophilia to be diagnosed with Aids. Four months later, an anonymous man in Bristol died from an Aids-related illness after treatment with Factor VIII. Kevin and the man in Bristol were the first official casualties of what would become known as the infected blood scandal, described as “the worst treatment disaster in the history of the National Health Service”, in which an estimated 2,900 people have died after contracting HIV and hepatitis C from contaminated blood products or transfusions.

Forty years on, the Infected Blood Inquiry, set up by Theresa May in 2017, is due to report this autumn on how so many people were infected with HIV and hepatitis C, and the ensuing cover-up. The results could lead to compensation amounting to billions of pounds.

I have spent two years speaking to survivors, lawyers, doctors and politicians for my book The Poison Line, which investigates how Bloom concealed evidence, the Department of Health endangered patients with its sluggish response to the Aids crisis and pharmaceutical companies put profits above lives.

Kevin was an ebullient young man who liked to drink the occasional half a pint in the evening. By March 1983, he had become unnaturally tired, developed severe reflux oesophagitis and oral thrush, and lost a stone in weight. On March 17, his test results came back from the laboratory with a worrying possibility: “?Aids”.

Since birth, Kevin had been treated for haemophilia A, first with cryoprecipitate then with Factor VIII. In the 1980s, Britain imported half of its Factor VIII from the US, where pharmaceutical companies paid for plasma from prisons, Skid Row and clinics for sexually transmitted diseases, before pooling tens of thousands of donations together. If one donor had an infectious virus, that batch of Factor VIII was contaminated.

Doctors and politicians had known about the risks of imported commercial Factor VIII since the 1970s, but still the British government had continued to rely on it.

In July 1982, after three haemophiliacs in the US contracted Pneumocystis-carinii pneumonia (PCP), a rare and often fatal fungal infection in the lungs, rumours began circulating in medical circles that Factor VIII could be connected to an immune-related syndrome that was affecting gay men

By the following year, researchers were honing in on the theory that Aids was transmitted through an infectious agent in blood and could therefore have made it into Factor VIII. On March 4, 1983, the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) named people with haemophilia as one of the four most at-risk groups in its first Aids trends report. “Blood products or blood appear responsible for Aids among haemophilia patients who require clotting factor,” said the CDC.

Seeking advice for Britain, Bloom wrote to Bruce Evatt, director of haematology at the CDC, who said there had been 13 cases of Aids confirmed in Americans with haemophilia, with another five “highly suspected”. “I suspect it is a matter of time before you begin to see cases in the United Kingdom,” wrote Evatt.

But when Kevin showed symptoms of Aids a couple of weeks later, Bloom prevaricated and told the Haemophilia Society there weren’t “any definite cases in British haemophiliacs”.

On May 1, The Mail on Sunday ran a front page story saying that NHS hospitals were using “killer blood” imported from America. The article was met with a backlash from influential doctors. Bloom wrote to the Haemophilia Society and said: “We are unaware of any proven case in our own haemophiliac population… Whilst it would be wrong to be complacent, it would be equally counterproductive to alter our treatment programmes radically.” Peter Jones, director of the haemophilia centre in Newcastle, complained to the Press Council, saying the piece by Sue Douglas was “neither objective nor accurate”. The Press Council upheld the complaint and told The Mail on Sunday to sanction Douglas. “It was about shooting the messenger,” says Douglas.

If her reporting had been heeded, lives could have been saved. As recently as this year a man contacted her to say he believed she had saved his life: after reading her article, his parents had demanded that his doctor stop treating him with Factor VIII.

Throughout the summer of 1983, evidence mounted that Aids was transmitted through an infectious agent in blood, and could therefore be in Factor VIII. In an internal document kept from the public, the Department of Health accepted that “the assumption is that such transmission is possible”. The Council of Europe said doctors and patients should be warned about the “health hazards” of Factor VIII and advised countries to stop importing the commercial version made from large pools of donations.

But in June 1983, two months after Kevin was officially recorded as having Aids, Bloom still equivocated. Kevin had a vomiting bug and suspected PCP, but Bloom said his diagnosis was only “possible” and “cannot be described as a definite case”.

During my research for The Poison Line I uncovered new evidence that Bloom in fact suspected at least six other patients could have contracted Aids from being treated with the same batch of Factor VIII he believed had infected Kevin. He wrote to their doctors saying: “Although our patient may not be suffering from Aids, I nevertheless thought you should know.” As the leading adviser on haemophilia care, Bloom’s refusal to admit the dangers of Factor VIII had fatal consequences. The Government was consequently slow to respond to the risk of Aids in blood products, never banning risky American imports, and leaving patients in the dark. Dissenting voices were ignored.

Demonstrators during July as Rishi Sunak was questioned by the Infected Blood Inquiry in London - Getty

By September 1983, when the first haemophiliac in Bristol died from an Aids-related illness, the Department of Health had adopted Bloom’s evasive language, saying “there is no underlying conclusive evidence” that Aids could be transmitted through blood products.

As Kevin’s health deteriorated he stopped working and seeing his friends. After people in his neighbourhood discovered he had Aids, they began crossing the street to avoid him. The stigma only worsened when his older brother, Paul, tested positive for HIV, having also been treated with Factor VIII. The postman started leaving their mail at the end of the driveway.

Within a month of his diagnosis, Paul gave up his job in electronics. “He didn’t want to go on,” Lynda Maule, his partner of five years, said in inquiry evidence.

Soon after, Paul split up with Maule, who was the mother of his young daughter, and returned to his parents in Cwmbran. His mother, who worked in a school, had to give up her job in order to look after her two sons.

In mid-June 1985, Kevin was admitted to hospital with pneumonia and put on an isolation ward. Staff were reluctant to enter his room, so his family brought him food. They had to feed him themselves, because he was “as weak as a kitten”.

Kevin died a week later on June 23, 1985, aged 22. The funeral director was scared to enter his room to collect the body because of the fear of transmission. When he heard Kevin had died, Paul wanted to run away, but he could barely walk, weighing only 4st 7lb. He tried to conceal how shrunken he had become by wrapping bandages around his legs and layering up with jumpers. But on Aug 4, 1991, Paul too died from Aids, aged 31.

“Paul, Kevin and their parents trusted the medical staff to give them safe medication,” said Maule. “Knowing that such young lives could be taken because of somebody else’s mistake was very hard for everyone.”

In another particularly devastating case, five relatives from the Farrugia family, from Dagenham, east London, contracted viruses from Factor VIII, four of whom died. Barry Farrugia was the first of the family to contract HIV.

A fitter for the North Thames gas board, and a mild haemophiliac, Barry was treated by Bloom after suffering a bleed on his elbow whilst on holiday in Wales.

Documents unearthed by his son Tony, and shared for the first time, reveal that in June 1983 Bloom, who died in 1992, wrote a letter to Barry’s doctor in London saying he had been “given a suspect batch of Factor VIII in 1980”.

“I can only come to the assumption that Bloom knew this stuff was filthy,” says Tony. “He certainly knew there was hepatitis in it.”

Barry died in September 1986, aged 37, leaving a wife and five sons. His younger brother also contracted HIV and died in 2002, while his third brother died from hepatitis C complications in 2012.

In the wake of Barry’s infection and death, the Farrugia family fell apart. Tony went to live with his estranged birth mother, but soon ended up in care. His twin brother David was kicked out by their stepmother after Barry’s death and moved into a separate home 100 miles away. They were kept apart until Tony was 18. “The contaminated blood scandal has destroyed my entire family,” says Tony.

Barry Farugia, a haemophiliac, who was treated by Bloom

About 1,250 people with haemophilia tested positive for HIV at hospitals across the UK. Those where doctors used more imported American Factor VIII had a higher incidence of infections.

From 1985 to 2017, what was a treatment disaster became a national scandal, as the British establishment failed to own up to its mistakes – and actively covered up what had happened.

“There is evidence of the cover-up going right to the top,” says Andy Burnham, the former health secretary and the current Mayor of Greater Manchester, who gave highly critical evidence to the inquiry.

The Department of Health shredded documents from the 1970s and 80s which outlined how dangerous Factor VIII was and what doctors had known. Through successive governments, the Department of Health denied that there had been any wrongdoing, and refused to hold a public inquiry. Meanwhile hospitals sporadically disposed of medical records.

Burnham is clear the Government needs to own up to its mistakes. “If you don’t confront people with what you believe to be the truth, no matter how hard it is, then how does the system learn?” he says.

Some survivors and bereaved relatives want to see prosecutions, others are looking for an official apology. All want proper compensation.

“A lot of the blame is going to be on the dead people, like Bloom,” says Tony. “And it’s difficult to prosecute dead people. What I would like desperately is for the Government to actually hold their hands up and say properly, ‘We’re sorry’. And to financially look after these victims for the rest of their lives.” HIV and hepatitis C require complex care, especially for those who are ageing.

To this day, no one has been held accountable for the thousands of infections and deaths in the UK. In France, two leading haemophilia doctors were imprisoned for their role in treating patients with infected blood products, while a further two were given suspended sentences. Laurent Fabius, the prime minister at the time, was found guilty of manslaughter but received no sentence. Many countries held investigations and paid compensation in the 1990s. But in the UK, the wait continues.

Former French prime minister Laurent Fabius - AFP

Meanwhile, Bloom’s legacy remains fraught. “Arthur Bloom was given a hard rap,” says Edward Tuddenham, emeritus professor at University College London, who was mentored by Bloom. “He was in a very invidious and difficult position.”

Prof Liakat Parapia believes that Bloom, who he trained with, wanted to prevent patients from panicking so they would continue to accept Factor VIII treatment. “But it was wrong,” says Parapia. “You have to be honest and truthful. And you have to give the right advice. Prof Bloom has been disgraced.”

The University Hospital of Wales recently removed Bloom’s name and bust from the haemophilia centre after a campaign by bereaved families.

But Parapia lays the greatest portion of blame with the pharmaceutical companies who took inordinate risks, making billions of dollars in the process. “It was almost like a conspiracy,” he says. “We all fell for the marketing because we needed the support and scientific information they were giving. The pharma companies were brainwashing us.”

In Japan and Germany, the pharma companies who made Factor VIII – Baxter, Bayer, Armour, Alpha and Behringwerke, among others – were forced to contribute around half of the funds for the compensation pot.

While the 2,007 core participants of the Infected Blood Inquiry, who include survivors and bereaved family members, await the final report, chairman Sir Brian Langstaff has recommended the Government set up a compensation scheme without delay. “My conclusion is that wrongs were done at individual, collective and systemic levels,” he said in an interim report in April.

Last year, the Government spent £450 million on interim payments of £100,000 for those who were infected with HIV and hepatitis C, but it has ignored Sir Brian’s call to extend those payments to bereaved family members, including parents who lost children and those who were orphaned.

In July, Sir Brian took the unprecedented step of reopening the inquiry to grill Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and other ministers about why they had ignored his recommendation for compensation.

Once more the Government is silent in its response to Sir Brian and survivors fear they will be let down. “This September dad will have been dead longer than he lived,” says Tony. “I hope he gets justice, but I’m not holding out much hope.”

No matter what the outcome, Tony is unsure he will be able to move on. “I don’t know whether we’ll ever get peace from this,” he says, “because it’s still going on – people are still dying. It’s a constant reminder.”

Listen to Bed of Lies, a six-part Telegraph podcast laying bare one of the biggest medical disasters in history, on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or your preferred podcast app

BP knew about Bernard Looney’s workplace relationships before chief executive appointment


Jonathan Leake
Fri, 15 September 2023

Bernard Looney, 53, was forced to resign this week after admitting he had misled the board about the extent of his relationships with colleagues - Prakash Singh/Bloomberg

BP was aware of Bernard Looney’s relationships with colleagues before he became chief executive in 2020, it has emerged.

Board members quizzed Mr Looney about the relationships in the autumn of 2019 during the recruitment process that led to his appointment.

Mr Looney, 53, was forced to resign this week after admitting he had misled the board about the extent of his relationships with colleagues.

BP issued a statement saying Mr Looney had failed to fully disclose the extent of his relationships during an internal inquiry conducted in 2022. The investigation was opened following an anonymous complaint that was made internally.

However, it has now emerged that Mr Looney was also quizzed about his workplace relationships in autumn 2019 during the recruitment process that led to his appointment.

That process was led by Helge Lund, BP’s chairman.

The revelation will raise new questions about the board’s judgment in appointing Mr Looney and about the company’s processes for appointing senior executives.

It came as the Guardian reported that BP was now reviewing all personal relationships between staff, with a particular focus on senior leaders.

Ann Francke, chief executive of the Chartered Management Institute, said: “Reports that BP’s board knew about these serious allegations before appointing Looney as CEO is a classic example of what goes wrong when companies prioritise technical competence at the expense of behaviour.”

BP’s code of conduct does not forbid workplace relationships. However, it does state that relationships must be declared if there is any risk of a conflict of interest.

For a chief executive, any past or present relationship with a colleague could risk such a conflict and so should be declared.

The fact that Mr Looney had disclosed at least some of his pre-2020 relationships to board members emerged during a series of meetings with investors held by Mr Lund and Murray Auchincloss, BP’s interim chief executive.

Mr Auchincloss has been at BP for over two decades and was a close ally of Mr Looney. Mr Auchincloss is also in a relationship with a colleague at BP. The company has said the relationship was properly disclosed and does not breach any rules.

Ms Francke, who has held senior executive positions at companies including Mars and Boots, said: “As [BP] addresses this situation, and hopefully their corporate culture more broadly, they must ensure they’re not over reliant on insiders to fix this crisis.”

The board has appointed law firm Freshfields to conduct an investigation into Mr Looney’s conduct. The inquiry will also examine BP’s broader culture.

A BP spokesman said: “The recruitment of Mr Looney was done with full due diligence in the autumn of 2019.

“The board would have carried out a thorough process which would have included talking to him about personal issues. This would have included talking to him about previous relationships. There was also an extensive review of open source data.”

Some rival UK oil and gas producers have welcomed Mr Looney’s departure, blaming him for the imposition of the windfall tax in 2022.

It follows remarks he made in late 2021 comparing BP to a cash machine because of its then surging oil and gas income. In 2022 at a shareholders meeting he also said a windfall tax would make no difference to BP’s investment plans.

Robin Allan, chair of Brindex, the Association of British Independent Exploration Companies, said Mr Looney’s actions “left No 10 with nowhere to go in resisting the calls for a tax”.

Mr Allan said: “We hold him responsible for the windfall tax or energy profits levy.

“That tax has had a really bad impact on the UK’s independent oil and gas operators and we told the Government that in advance.”

The windfall tax has seen overall levies on UK oil and gas production rising from 40pc to 75pc.

It applies only to oil and gas produced in UK waters so it has hit the smaller North Sea operators particularly hard.

Multinationals such as BP and Shell, by contrast, make more than 90pc of their profits in other countries and so have are relatively unaffected by the windfall tax.

BP to review personal relationships between staff to root out ‘problematic’ conduct

Anna Isaac and Jillian Ambrose
Fri, 15 September 2023

Photograph: Daniel Leal/AFP/Getty Images

BP has launched a review of all personal relationships between its staff, particularly at senior levels, to root out any “problematic” conduct, the Guardian can reveal.

The oil and gas company’s chief executive, Bernard Looney, quit on Tuesday night after an investigation into his personal relationships with colleagues. His departure left the company facing questions over its governance and culture.

BP said this week that an anonymous whistleblower in May 2022 had triggered an investigation into Looney’s conduct, during which he admitted to a “small number of historical relationships” before he became chief executive in 2020. At the time he gave the board assurances about his past relationships and future behaviour. Since then, further allegations had recently come to light, BP said, and Looney admitted he was “not fully transparent in his previous disclosures”.

It is understood that BP’s review is particularly focused on relationships involving senior managers. “The issue is bigger than Bernard,” one source familiar with the review said. More broadly there were concerns about a “male-dominated, macho, problematic culture” in that some staff had failed to realise the governance issues that undisclosed relationships could cause and simply regarded it as senior men being “players”, the same source said.

BP has more than 67,600 staff and spans 62 countries. Looney resigned after less than four years at the helm, and more than two decades with the company.

Sources also claim that there have been “problematic” relationships involving senior staff.

“BP is a huge company, where people often stay for decades. It becomes its own universe, and the lines between work life and personal life become very blurry. This can obviously cause problems,” an industry source said.

BP said it had found no breach of its code of conduct after its review into Looney’s relationships last year. The code warns employees that conflicts of interest may arise if their “interests or activities affect, or appear to affect, your ability to make objective decisions for BP”. This includes “having an intimate relationship with someone whose pay, advancement or management you can influence”.

Prior to Looney’s shock exit he had won praise for championing workplace diversity, particularly in encouraging better gender representation in its graduate intake as well as its senior leadership team.

Looney also spearheaded campaigns to improve mental health awareness at the company. Women make up almost 40% of BP’s staff while the senior leadership team and the board are evenly split between men and women.

Looney’s abrupt departure left the oil company reeling, with concerns that it may not stick to its plan to clean up its carbon emissions. Its chair, Helge Lund, who appointed Looney to the job, has insisted its decarbonisation strategy, which involves shifting away from hydrocarbons to renewables, is unchanged.

Some investors have also questioned whether the board should have disclosed the 2022 review into Looney’s relationships with staff to the market.

Multiple sources have claimed that Looney’s relationships were an “open secret” within the oil and gas industry, and that his reputation for conducting personal relationships with colleagues predated his appointment as chief executive.Interactive

One senior oil industry source told the Guardian earlier this week: “It has been an open secret for some time, and the BP board must have known about his reputation before he was appointed as chief executive. It’s absolute nonsense to suggest that this came to light last year.”

Lund has begun the hunt for a new chief executive and will consider hiring an outsider to the role for the first time in more than 30 years. Internal candidates for the job include the interim chief executive, Murray Auchincloss, the former chief financial officer. Lund has reportedly ruled himself out of the race to fill the top job.

The son of Irish dairy farmers, Looney joined the company as a 21-year-old graduate from University College Dublin in 1991. As a drilling engineer, he worked in the North Sea and the Gulf of Mexico before attending the Stanford Graduate School of Business in 2004. He returned to BP with a masters of science in management.

BP declined to comment on the internal review. Looney was approached for comment.

SEE

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2023/09/lies-and-magical-thinking-about-ceo.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2023/09/could-bernard-looneys-departure-end.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2023/09/icymi-bps-ceo-resigns-as-investigation.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2023/09/bp-shares-drop-after-ceo-quits-over.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2023/09/revanchist-bps-looney-holding-his-nerve.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2023/08/we-wont-invest-in-green-energy-sake-of.html

British judge uses ‘jolly useful’ ChatGPT to write ruling

Gareth Corfield
Thu, 14 September 2023 

Court of Appeal

A Court of Appeal judge has called ChatGPT “jolly useful” after he used the artificial intelligence chatbot to write part of a ruling.

Lord Justice Birss, who specialises in intellectual property law, said he had used the text generation tool to summarise an area of law he was familiar with before copy and pasting its words into a court ruling.

Speaking at a conference held by The Law Society, Lord Justice Birss said ChatGPT and similar AI programs had “great potential”.


He added: “I think what is of most interest is that you can ask these large language models to summarise information. It is useful and it will be used and I can tell you, I have used it.

“I asked ChatGPT can you give me a summary of this area of law, and it gave me a paragraph. I know what the answer is because I was about to write a paragraph that said that, but it did it for me and I put it in my judgment. It’s there and it’s jolly useful.

“I’m taking full personal responsibility for what I put in my judgment, I am not trying to give the responsibility to somebody else. All it did was a task which I was about to do and which I knew the answer to and could recognise as being acceptable.”

The judge’s remarks, which were originally reported by The Law Society Gazette, are the first known occasion where a member of the British judiciary has used an AI chatbot to write part of a judgment.

The Judicial Office declined to comment, or to say whether it has issued any formal guidance for judges around using ChatGPT.

Earlier this year a Colombian judge used ChatGPT to help decide a case, asking the chatbot whether a disabled child’s medical insurance should cover the cost of related therapies.

While the chatbot said “yes”, the ruling ignited a global debate on the rightful place of AI in the world’s legal systems.

In June, a New York lawyer said he was “humiliated” after he was forced to admit he used ChatGPT to carry out legal research.

In an example of what experts have dubbed the “hallucination problem,” ChatGPT made up six fictitious court cases it cited in support of Steven Schwartz’s legal argument.

Judge Kevin Castel later fined Mr Schwartz and his firm, Levidow, Levidow and Oberman, $5,000 (£4,029) after describing their submissions as “gibberish”. The judge criticised the firm for “abandoning their responsibilities” and continuing to “stand by the fake opinions after judicial orders called their existence into question”.

The hallucination problem describes AI chatbots’ tendency to generate false but convincing-sounding information in response to human queries.

A number of City law firms have shunned ChatGPT’s technology in recent months.

Mishcon de Reya banned the use of ChatGPT in March, with a senior partner saying the firm “has a clear policy in place that client and confidential firm information must not be uploaded to ChatGPT or any other models.”

In contrast, Magic Circle firm Allen & Overy has developed its own AI chatbot called Harvey.

The tool, developed with support from ChatGPT makers OpenAI, is designed to automate tasks such as drafting contracts, although the firm says its output is reviewed by a human lawyer.

UK

XL bully dog ban: 6 developments in the past 24 hours

Prime minister Rishi Sunak has said the dogs will be banned by the end of the year in response to a series of attacks.

ITS THE OWNER NOT THE BREED

Jimmy Nsubuga
Updated Sat, 16 September 2023 

American XL bully dogs are set to be banned by the end of the year. (PA)

What's happening? The government is set to reveal details of a planned ban on American XL bully dogs.

Prime minister Rishi Sunak said the dogs will be banned by the end of the year in response to a series of attacks.

A man died after being attacked on Thursday by two dogs – suspected to be bully XLs – in Staffordshire.

The decision to ban the dogs was quickly backed by campaign groups but other organisations – including the RSPCA and the Kennel Club – said outlawing the animals would not stop attacks.

Questions also remain about how exactly a ban will be implemented and enforced, with concerns about the challenge of defining the dog breed given its cross-bred nature.

It comes amid questions over whether an “amnesty period” could be introduced for owners, with suggestions this would see an outright ban take effect in 2025.

Read more: What is an XL bully dog and why are they being banned? (Yahoo News UK)

Yahoo News rounds up some of the key developments from the XL bully dog ban announcement:
Existing American XL bully dogs in UK will not face cull, says chief vet

There will be an amnesty before a ban. (Getty)

UK chief veterinary officer Christine Middlemiss has reassured American XL bully dog owners there will be an amnesty before a ban is issued.

This would mean existing dogs were not culled and owners would instead be required to register the pets and use a muzzle and leash when in public, she told BBC Radio 4.

She said: “There’s also a huge amount of work ongoing already, about responsible breeding, responsible ownership and education of people who keep dogs that have the potential to be dangerous.”

Read more: Existing American XL bully dogs in UK will not face cull, says chief vet (Guardian)

American XL bully dogs ban backed by architect of Dangerous Dogs Act

The Baron Baker of Dorking has backed the ban. (PA)

Lord Baker, the architect of the Act during the Sir John Major era, said American XL bully dogs should be “neutered or destroyed” once the ban has come into force, with any permitted to live being “muzzled for the entire time”.

Speaking to LBC, the Tory peer said: “It should be done almost immediately because this is a very dangerous breed and it has actually killed children and attacked other people, and I do not accept the views of the Kennel Club and the RSPCA that breeds should not be banned.

“This dog is, in fact, bred in order to fight and to be aggressive. It has already done enough damage and the Prime Minister is absolutely right to add it.”

 Read more: American XL bully dogs ban backed by architect of Dangerous Dogs Act (PA)

Mother of four-year-old attacked by XL bully torn on plans to ban breed

Amy Hobson, whose four-year-old daughter Luna was bitten by an XL bully, said she was undecided over the potential ban.

The 32-year-old told BBC Breakfast: “I do think they should ban them, but I also don’t think they should... there is a small majority of people out there that do look after their XL bullies.

“On the other hand, you’ve got a wide variety of people that just don’t care.”

Read more: Mother of four-year-old attacked by XL bully torn on plans to ban breed 

(Independent)

Ministers set to work out American XL bully dogs ban after PM pledge



Rishi Sunak promises to ban American XL Bully dogs by end of 2023

Rishi Sunak has vowed to ban American XL Bully dogs saying 'it’s clear' the breed 'is a danger to our communities'.

Ministers will soon have to set out details of the prime minister’s planned ban on American XL bully dogs.

Sunak said he had ordered ministers to bring together police and experts to define the breed of dog behind these attacks so they can be outlawed.

But questions still need to be answered about how a ban will be implemented and enforced, with concerns about the challenge of defining the dog breed given its cross-bred nature.

Read more: Ministers set to work out American XL bully dogs ban after PM pledge (PA)

‘Get on with it’: Starmer backs calls for ban on American XL bully dogs

Sir Keir Starmer has told the government to get on with the ban. (Getty Images)

Labour, while supportive of the ban, criticised the prime minister for “dithering” over bringing in restrictions on their ownership.

Sir Keir Starmer told broadcasters: “There has been a clear case for banning them for a long time.

"What I say to the government is good, get on with it, and the sooner we can do this the better.”

Read more: ‘Get on with it’: Keir Starmer backs calls for ban on American XL bully dogs (Independent)

What are American bully XL dogs – and why could the government face a tough time banning them?

XL bully dogs are set to be outlawed. (PA)

Adding American bully XL dogs to the banned list is the responsibility of environment secretary Therese Coffey's department.

But it is understood there are concerns over the feasibility of adding the American bully as the dog is not recognised as a specific breed by the Kennel Club.

It could be hard to define and a ban could inadvertently outlaw a range of other dogs.

Read more: What are American bully XL dogs – and why could the government face a tough time banning them? (Independent)

Wheelchair-user with American XL bully as assistance dog supports ban

Hannah Cottrell, PA
Sun, 17 September 2023 

A wheelchair-user who owns an American XL bully as an assistance dog supports banning the breed in the UK, saying “it would be selfish for me not to advocate for this ban”.

Jerome Johnson, from Thornton Heath, south London, has had muscular dystrophy since birth, a condition which gradually causes muscles to weaken, and he said he is “unable to move, other than a few fingers”.

Mr Johnson, 31, is helped by his assistance dog Jennie, a seven-year-old XL bully, who carries items like his shopping for him, but also “provides protection” and “guards” him when they leave home.

Having owned her since November 2018, Mr Johnson said he has had to train her over a period of five years to “rewire her brain”, as he suspected she was “trained to attack” from being “bred to fight for a county lines drug dealing operation”.

Mr Johnson says he loves his dog and “she’s a good girl in my house”, but the banning of the breed in the UK “should be implemented” and “is needed”.

Jerome Johnson’s dog Jennie (Jerome Johnson/PA)

It comes as Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has said American XL bully dogs will be banned by the end of the year, following a series of attacks.

Owners will not see their pets culled but are likely to face new restrictions, including a requirement to have the dogs neutered.

Mr Johnson got Jennie as a rescue in November 2018 when she was two years old, saying he suspected she had been “bred to fight for a county lines drug dealing operation in nearby Thornton Heath”.

“They used her as protection when doing drops,” he said.

“I took her in after their operations had been shut down by the Met (Police).”

Mr Johnson said it has taken about five years to retrain her, which has been hard work but “we are almost there”.

He said he undertook “basic training” when Jennie first arrived, as well as a few fetching commands.

“She ripped through multiple tyres on my wheelchair which wasn’t ideal,” he said.

“Initially, I cannot lie, it was hard work.

Jerome Johnson says he loves his dog but the ban is needed (Jerome Johnson/PA)

“She was trained, after all, to attack, so I had to train her and rewire her brain.

“Now, five years later, we are almost there.”

He added that Jennie was initially “very aggressive” but has “mellowed” over the years.

“Occasionally she will bite my wheelchair which isn’t ideal but I think it’s more her playful nature than anything malicious,” he said.

Mr Johnson said Jennie carries things like his shopping but “most importantly” helps to protect him.

Recalling an incident when he was returning from a hospital appointment a few weeks ago, Mr Johnson said he was “accosted by a gang of youths”.

“Luckily I had Jennie, who lunged for one,” he said. “They all ran, it was a great relief.”

Mr Johnson said: “I think the ban is needed, as much as I love Jennie, there are far too many bad owners who use these dogs for ill intent – just like Jennie had before me.

“As much as she’s a good girl in my house, I couldn’t say I’d trust her with strangers alone.

“They have been bred for years and have a genetic make-up making them more prone to violent outbursts.

“I think it would be selfish for me to say otherwise – too many children have lost their lives.”

American XL bully row as vet chief says dogs will not be culled

Keith Perry
Sat, 16 September 2023 

The American XL Bully dogs that attacked and killed Ian Price in the garden of his mother's flat last week - facebook.com/harrison.pettitt.33

A row over the impending American XL bully ban has erupted after the Chief Veterinary Officer stated that owners will be allowed to keep their dogs.

The UK’s Chief Veterinary Officer, Christine Middlemiss, has announced an “amnesty” approach instead of mass destruction of XL bullies. Owners will be required to register their dogs and ensure their pets wear muzzles in public.

The ban, announced by Rishi Sunak on Friday, followed the tragic death of a 52-year-old man who was defending his elderly mother from an attack by two suspected American bully XLs. However, campaigners argue that not culling these dogs under the ban fails to eliminate the threat and may simply promote a black market trade in these animals.

Chief Veterinary Officer Professor Christine Middlemiss mentioned that reaching a “consensus” on the definition of XL bullies would be one of the first tasks for officials. She also confirmed there won’t be a cull of the dogs.

Christine Middlemiss Chief Veterinary Officer - Crown copyright/Defra

“There will be an amnesty. So, people who already have these dogs - some of which may be well-socialised, well-trained, and well-managed - will need to register them and take specific actions. Your dog will need to be neutered, muzzled in public, kept on a lead, and insured. However, if you comply with these actions, and we’ll know where these dogs are, which will be a significant benefit, then yes, you will be allowed to keep your dog.”
Tragic death

This development comes after Ian Price’s tragic death due to multiple injuries sustained in an attack by two suspected American bully XLs near Walsall. A 30-year-old man arrested in connection with his death has been released on conditional bail, the police reported.

Mr Sunak stated on Friday that these dogs pose “a danger to our communities” and would be banned by the end of the year.

Pippa Apps, a dog behaviourist and founder of Best Behavior School for Dogs, believes that as long as this breed remains in people’s homes, they represent a serious danger.

Ian Price death prompted the Government to ban the XL bully breed

“The American bully has been selectively bred for power and strength,” she stated. “I wouldn’t have one in my house. They are too dangerous to be kept as pets. In the wrong hands, they are used as weapons and attack dogs. These new measures don’t go far enough and may encourage illegal breeding, much like what happened with pitbulls.”

Peta’s Vice President of Programmes, Elisa Allen, commented: “Banning American bullies and prohibiting the breeding of these dogs is the logical and responsible thing to do to safeguard the public. Also, because of their ‘macho’ appearance, they are the dog of choice for drug dealers, dog fighters, and other individuals who exploit them in horrific ways.”

Animal campaigner Debbie Matthews added, “XL bullies are used by the wrong people as status symbols. Will these measures stop people from using them as weapons? I think the breeders will simply create a different crossbreed and give it a different name.”
Blame the owners

However, Sophie Coulthard, the owner of a bully XL dog named “Billy,” argued that blaming the dog alone is wrong, and more responsibility should be placed on the owner.

“There are people who have bred these dogs to be larger, possibly crossing an aggressive dog with another breed without considering temperament, which contributes to this issue,” she told the Today program.

“On the other hand, there are many people like me who have a bully breed, and their dog is exactly what the breed should be - a family pet, well-trained, well-socialised, and well-behaved, fitting into their family life.”

Legal academic Dr. Lawrence Newport stated on Times Radio: “We know that bans work, as we’ve had one in place on pitbulls since 1991. That ban has been very successful. In the UK, we have half the per capita deaths related to dogs that the US does, and that difference can be attributed to pitbulls.”

The American XL bully has a reputation for aggression but is not recognised by the Kennel Club, raising concerns that a ban could inadvertently outlaw other breeds.

Approximately 70 per cent of dog-related deaths in Britain are believed to be caused by XL bullies. Analysis by The Telegraph found that half of all American XL bully dogs are descendants of one inbred pet called Kimbo, which has produced dozens of unstable and violent animals.

Recently, a 60-year-old man was arrested after an 11-year-old, Ana Paun, was attacked by an XL bully and Staffordshire Bull Terrier cross in Birmingham last Saturday. Two men who came to her aid were also injured and needed hospital treatment.

Four-year-old Luna-Ann from Nuneaton, Warwickshire, required 40 stitches and plastic surgery after being bitten in the face by what her mother believes was an American bulldog crossed with an XL bully at a neighbour’s house in April. Her mother, Amy, 32, expressed her desire for a ban, and if not that, at least “they should all be muzzled, and a licence should be put in place.”

On Friday, a man was taken to the hospital with serious injuries after he and four others were bitten by a dog. North Wales Police reported that this occurred during a “disturbance” at Palins Holiday Park in Kinmel Bay, Conwy County.

Two men, aged 58 and 28, were arrested, and the dog was seized on Saturday. Police were trying to establish its breed.

Opinion
Inbreeding made the American Bully a monster. Rishi is right to ban it

This isn’t because of the owners – it’s because of their genes.

Rosalind Arden
Fri, September 15, 2023 

An American Bully XL called Kimbo

After another fatal attack, Rishi Sunak has vowed to ban the American Bully XL by the end of the year. It’s not a moment too soon. The breed is still relatively new, but has already taken a horrendous toll in attacks on people and animals. This isn’t because of the owners – it’s because of their genes.

All dog breeds are “shallow”; they’re mostly less than 200 years old. Through planned breeding, humans have made dogs the most variable animal on earth. The size scale in this single species goes from the sublime Great Dane, where adult males stand around 32 inches at the shoulders, to the ridiculous teacup Chihuahua, which grow up to six inches. And along with this diversity in size, we’ve shaped dogs’ behaviours.

We’ve created dogs who, with only a little training, will point to the avian victim of a shotgun, then run and collect the body with a soft mouth. We’ve made dogs that connect so powerfully with us that they look down their noses at other canines, much preferring our company with whom they can silently contemplate sheep and their shortcomings in the brain department. And most relevantly, we’ve created dogs that fight.

Bully dogs are a genetic mixture of two strains of dog designed by us. The first, Pit bulls, were bred in the early 1800 from parent-stock designed for the power, stamina and willingness to hang on to the faces of bulls. The second, the Mastiff, sports a glorious ancestry with at least a literary association with antiquity. The Romans sent the deep ancestors of the Mastiff back from Blighty to show their colours in bear and bull fights.

Into this formidable ancestry, we’ve introduced inbreeding. Inbreeding – or “line breeding” as it’s often known among dog enthusiasts – is the practice of mating a dam who looks and behaves as you want, with a sire who looks and behaves as you want. But breeders should be careful what they wish for. The modern Bully, like older dog breeds, is highly inbred. And behaviour is heritable; genes influence all behaviour. Half of all XL Bully dogs in Britain are descended from one animal, known as “Killer Kimbo”, whose offspring have been implicated in multiple fatal attacks.

This genetic background is extremely difficult to overcome. Yes, training and life experience influence behaviour, but the evidence is that dogs bred from fighting stock are much more pugnacious. Any responsible individual owner can invest the immense time, effort and consistency necessary to train any dog as a companion, but owners of the Bully face a genetic headwind that makes a storm look like a light breeze.

In addition to the aggression the dogs were bred for, there’s the musculature to contend with. Teacup chihuahua’s might bite, but are unlikely to cause much more harm than snagged hosiery before being popped back in the handbag. By contrast, the jaw muscles of an adult bully dog were shaped for hanging on to a bull. Few male forearms have anything like enough heft to pull off such a dog once engaged.

It’s not the American Bully’s fault they’re this way. We made them, and we should stop. Rishi is right to ban them.

---

Rosalind Arden is a research fellow at London School of Economics

The complex and corporate rise of the Tony Blair Institute

THE ORIGINAL RED TORY NEO-LIBERAL


Kiran Stacey Political correspondent

THE GUARDIAN
Sun, 17 September 2023 

Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA

As prime minister, Tony Blair oversaw a few hundred Downing Street staff and one country. Sixteen years later, he is now responsible for more than 800 staff who help advance his policies in nearly 40 countries.

Since leaving No 10, the former prime minister has arguably become more powerful thanks to the work of the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (TBI), which has exploded in size and revenue during the last few years. Its accounts show it made over $81m (£65m) in revenue in 2021, a 78% increase on the previous year.

With the Labour leader, Keir Starmer, increasingly turning to Blair as an unofficial source of advice, the influence of both the former prime minister and his institute could soon grow further.


Benedict Macon-Cooney, the institute’s chief policy strategist, said: “Other organisations around the world help governments think about delivery, but not with the same degree of expertise that we are able to offer thanks to the former prime minister.”

Blair himself told the Financial Times: “I want [the institute] to be entrepreneurial, agile and give governments good solid advice,” adding that he wanted the TBI to outlive him.

Critics, however, accuse Blair of using the institute as a vehicle to advance his own ideological views and the causes of some of its corporate backers.

A spokesperson for the leftwing campaign group Momentum said: “It’s deeply worrying to hear of the Tony Blair Institute’s extensive influence in Keir Starmer’s Labour.

“This is an organisation bankrolled by billionaires, which continues to advise and take money from the murderous Saudi government. What’s worse, its solutions reflect these corporate interests, with Tony Blair laughably claiming that Britain’s economic crisis is a result of too much tax and spend.”

After leaving Downing Street, Blair pursued a handful of different commercial and philanthropic activities. They included advising the US bank JP Morgan for $1m a year, and the insurance group Zurich for a reported six-figure salary.

It was his profit-making consultancy work abroad, however, that was to attract the fiercest criticism, such as helping the Saudi-owned company PetroSaudi do business in China for a monthly salary of £41,000 plus a 2% commission.

Blair decided to wrap all his commercial and philanthropic activities, including the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, the Tony Blair Sports Foundation, the Tony Blair Governance Initiative and Tony Blair Associates – into one organisation in 2017, to be known as the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change.

Related: Tony Blair Institute continued taking money from Saudi Arabia after Khashoggi murder

The new organisation would use money from donations and commercial activities including advising governments around the world to fund philanthropic and policy analysis work. As a whole, the organisation is not run for profit and Blair does not receive a salary.

The institute has since grown steadily in terms of its finances and influence. It works around the world, including the UK, the US, eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East.

Last week the TBI recruited the former Finnish prime minister Sanna Marin, who said upon joining: “I believe that I can serve those voters [in Finland] well and maybe even better in the new assignment.” Marin, Blair and Starmer all spent the weekend in Montreal as part of a gathering of centre-left leaders and former leaders from around the world.

In its size and scale the institute resembles less a British thinktank and more the kind of globe-straddling foundation that US presidents sometimes set up after leaving office – a UK version of the Clinton Foundation. One person who knows the institute well recently described it as a “McKinsey for world leaders”.

One of its most controversial clients is Saudi Arabia, which the TBI continues to advise even after the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018. Blair told the FT: “If we don’t work in any country where there are problems of human rights, you’re going to be working with a small list of countries.”

Macon-Cooney, who worked for the TBI in Rwanda advising the country’s authoritarian president, Paul Kagame, said: “The judgement that we make with any country is where do we think it is going. In Rwanda there is a very, very deep focus on trying to promote stability and economic growth.”

The TBI came to the fore in the UK during the Covid-19 pandemic, when it released a series of policy proposals that often foreshadowed what the government would do. They included rolling out widespread rapid testing and reducing the interval between the first and second vaccine doses in an attempt to get people fully vaccinated more quickly.

The policy area that underpins much of what the institute does, however, is technology. Blair’s belief that governments can cut their costs by embracing cutting-edge technology is promoted by the institute as a whole, which advocates for countries to roll out digital identification cards and spend heavily on artificial intelligence.

The institute also pushes for governments around the world to digitise their health records, an agenda that happens to tally with the corporate interests of one of its biggest donors, Larry Ellison.

Ellison, the co-founder of the technology company Oracle who has ties to Donald Trump, has long been a strong supporter of the TBI. Oracle’s executive director for external relations, Awo Ablo, is also one of the TBI’s four directors.

Ellison gave the TBI $33.8m through his philanthropic foundation in 2021 and promised another $49.4m in 2022. That was also the year Oracle bought the healthcare IT company Cerner for $28bn.

Macon-Cooney insists the institute’s policy positions are not shaped by its donors’ corporate interests. “There is no conflict of interest, and donations are ringfenced,” he said.

He did say, however, that the TBI helped to put public officials in touch with companies it believed could help them deliver the changes for which it advocated. “Sometimes the state is the best way to do things, but if we are look around and see private providers which would be better at helping with reforms, then we will say so,” he said.

Starmer enter Downing Street next year as only the second Labour leader to have won an election in half a century. As he prepares for the prospect of government, he is becoming closer to the first.

Starmer promoted a series of figures from the Blairite wing of the party in his recent reshuffle, including Liz Kendall as shadow welfare secretary and Pat McFadden as his election coordinator. McFadden’s wife Marianna was also recently recruited from the TBI to help plan the election campaign, a route many in Labour expect others will soon follow.

One Labour source said: “If you think the TBI is influential right now, just wait until we get into power and have to recruit half our staff from there.”