It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Friday, February 09, 2024
UK Dental recovery plan ‘not worth the title,’ and ‘too little too late’
THE Dental Recovery Plan comes “too little, too late,” campaigners have warned as dentists are being offered up to £50 to take on new patients.
Under government plans to boost dentistry across England, launched today after being leaked on Tuesday, dental professionals will also be given £20,000 “golden hellos” to work in communities with a lack of NHS treatments available.
Dentists will also be paid more for their NHS work, and other initiatives will include “dental vans” rolled out in rural areas and the use of the NHS app to see which practices are accepting new patients.
The government said around a million people who have not seen a dentist for two or more years are expected to benefit.
British Dental Association’s general dental practice committee chairman Shawn Charlwood said: “This recovery plan is not worthy of the title.
“It won’t halt the exodus from the workforce or offer hope to millions struggling to access care.”
And Toothless in England said in a statement: “It has been a long time coming, but for millions of patients and thousands of dentists [the plan] comes too little, too late.
“The news is still filled with horrifying tales of do-it-yourself dental work and small children being taken to the hospital due to excruciating tooth pain.
“Many thousands of dentists have resigned from their beloved profession, primarily due to the NHS dental contract being deemed ‘not fit for purpose.’
“They won’t care about this announcement because their lives and livelihoods have been drastically, negatively, and permanently impacted by what they’ve gone through.
“Regretfully, those who are currently in needless pain and suffering cannot expect their hope of receiving NHS dentistry anytime soon to improve.”
The group said the government’s failure to reform dentistry standard contracts means that its current plan is “destined to fail.”
Labour shadow health secretary Wes Streeting said: “The Conservatives are only promising to do something about it now there’s an election coming.
“By adopting Labour’s proposals for recruitment and supervised toothbrushing, they are finally admitting that they are out of ideas of their own.”
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said: “Backed by £200 million, this new recovery plan will deliver millions more NHS dental appointments and provide easier and faster access to care for people right across the country.”
MORNINGSTAR
UK Barnet council strikers are determined to keep fighting
Strikers say bosses’ pay offer is a ‘slap in the face’ Fighting for fair pay on the Barnet council strikers’ picket line
By Isabel Ringrose SOCIALIST WORKER
Thursday 08 February 2024
Adult mental health social workers in Barnet will have completed 27 days of strikes by the end of this week in their battle for a recruitment and retention bonus.
The Unison union members are reballoting to continue their fight against the Labour-led council in north London. They have three demands—a safe service, lower waiting lists and fair pay.
Katie, a rep and newly qualified social worker, told Socialist Worker, “We’ve been offered just 2.6 percent when children’s services get up to 25 percent. That was a slap in the face. Our role is difficult and stressful and there’s been a lot of restructuring in our department.
“As a student, I was really thrown into the deep end. We’ve lost so much experienced staff. It means there’s no one to go to when you have a particularly difficult case, and you take longer to deal with something.”
Katie added, “At points morale has dipped, and our work is there waiting for us. But we’re not backing down—we’re not going away quietly.
“In this job you can feel on your own with individual problems. But being on strike we’ve been able to share our experience and support each other. Since the strike started in September, we feel more like a team, and less alone.”
On the pickets the strikers chant, play music and leaflet other council workers.
Bethan is an assistant enablement officer (AEO) who started working for the council in September and joined the strike in December. The council said AEOs couldn’t join the strike because they’re not social workers, but Bethan refused to cross the picket line.
“I completely agree with the strike. Our wait list is currently 17 months, which is appalling,” Bethan said. “We can only deal with urgent cases. In that waiting time people go into deeper crisis.
“Eventually they just don’t trust our services. We need more staff to be able to handle that demand.” Bethan says the council “isn’t listening or taking it seriously” and has not sat down with the strikers or their Unison union to discuss pay.
“A lot of my colleagues are stressed because of their caseloads. When they come back from annual leave there’s such a high volume of emails, in the hundreds, and it causes real anxiety.”
To win, Bethan says the strikers “need to be consistent on the pickets”. “We also need to get residents’ stories out there,” she said.
“We don’t want to be out here in the cold or away from our clients, but we’ve been pushed to it.
“We’ve had a lot of people supporting us on the picket line who say they understand why we’re striking and people making donations. Everyone deserves support—whether it’s urgent care or not.”
Striker Anita added that there isn’t enough funding for pay, psychiatric wards or residential care. She had to work two jobs to be able to rent a new flat. “The local authority says it has no money. This is a national issue for social services after 13 years of the government ignoring local needs,” she explained.
“It’s £1,000 a month to rent a room. We have a lot of newly qualified social workers whose salary goes almost all on rent. On top of the crisis work we do, we can’t have added stress like this.”
Anite said the strikers are “passionate” about the work they do. “People we work with are suicidal, caught in domestic violence, self-harming and harming others or living in squalor or with safeguarding issues,” she said.
“But once qualified social workers feel the pressure, stress and accountability for their pay, they realise it isn’t worth it. They can go to work for an agency, the NHS or in children’s services for more.
“Those that remain inherit their cases—some of the residents have three or more social workers within months.”
Anita added that it’s not easy being on strike, “but we’re not going away”. “I wouldn’t be out if it wasn’t serious,” she said. “But after 22 years of watching my colleague leave and working in what can be emotionally draining, it’s the right thing to do.”
Jaihanne has worked at the council since July. “As a social worker, I’m not able to practice safely or give clients what they need,” she told Socialist Worker. “There’s so much intervention rather than preventative work. There’s no time to think about how to stop a clients’ situation from escalating further.”
After the reballot, the strikers will look to strike for two weeks, then three or four at a time. “If there’s no response we’ll have to, that’s the only way to get them to listen,” said Jaihanne.
“No one from the council leadership is talking about our strike or visited our picket. They get five figure salaries and it doesn’t filter down.”
“We feel invisible and like the work we do and our clients aren’t even considered,” she added. “Seeing strikes in other sectors like the NHS has inspired us.
The strikers need a big result in their reballot, and to plan their next round of escalated action as soon as possible to make Barnet council listen.
UK
David Miller verdict is a victory for anti-Zionists
It’s time to go on the offensive for Palestine.
Bristol university students protesting for Palestine last October
Anti-Zionist academic David Miller’s landmark victory at an employment tribunal against the University of Bristol should be warmly welcomed.
It strengthens pro-Palestine people at work against bullying bosses and intimidating managers.
The tribunal said Miller was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed. He successfully claimed discrimination based on his philosophical belief that Zionism is inherently racist, imperialist, and colonial.
This judgment establishes for the first time that legally anti-Zionist beliefs are protected in the workplace.
Miller was a professor of political sociology until he was dismissed in October 2021. This followed an avalanche of complaints from a small section of students, MPs, the Labour mayor of the city, the All Party Group on Antisemitism. They decided to attack him because he had spoken out strongly against Zionism.
His solicitors, Rahman Lowe said, “The case has drawn attention to the challenges faced by academics and individuals advocating for justice, fairness, and equality in Palestine. It also underscores the issue of weaponising antisemitism to stifle discussions on Zionism.”
You don’t have to agree with everything that Miller says—and Socialist Worker has not always done so—in order to celebrate this judgment.
Pro-Palestine workers can already point to the recent International Court of Justice decision that there is a plausible case that Israel is carrying out genocide.
Now the employment tribunal has defended anti-Zionists. It’s also true that the verdict was unlikely to have happened without the eight national demonstrations in London and all the other mobilisations for Palestine.
A statement from the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine campaigning group said, “Why did Bristol take its disastrous decision to fire David Miller? The self-evident answer is that it crumpled in the face of an extraordinary pile-on by more than the usual suspects.
“Bristol is the extreme case of ethical collapse. But where were the supposed official guardians of academic freedom and of free speech when Bristol was trashing them both? The answer is that virtually the whole official structure of UK academia bent before the gale-force gusts of official and unofficial demands for the censure of those who speak up for Palestine.
“Sadly the UCU union, which should be the voice of support for academic freedoms, has also failed to step up to the plate. UCU members need and deserve a union that will stand up for the principle and practice of academic freedom.”
The employment tribunal did not order David Miller’s reinstatement to his post, and he is left with heavy legal expenses. He should be offered his job back.
But those shortcomings should not detract from what has been gained. It’s time to keep organising pro-Palestine walkouts and protests, and challenge the suffocating hold of pro-Israel views in so much of education.
With the reality of Zionism on display, there is also an opportunity to challenge those institutions that adopted the IHRA definition and examples of antisemitism. This has been used to prevent free speech on Israel.
It’s time to go on the offensive for Palestine.
UK Rwanda deal: why the media should focus more on the policy and less on the politics of immigration
THE CONVERSATION Published: February 7, 2024
Heading into an election year, the government’s handling of migration continues to dominate headlines. Much of the coverage has been about the plan to send those who enter the UK without legal paperwork to Rwanda.
This plan was enshrined in law in July 2023 through the Illegal Migration Act. However, after the UK Supreme Court deemed the plan unlawful, its future remains uncertain.
Despite this law’s significant effects on the lives of thousands of people – and wider UK society – the media coverage of its passage appeared to focus primarily on the politics of the issue and consequences for the government. As we found while analysing television news reports from when the bill was being debated in parliament, less focus was given to the substance of the policy and its implications for asylum seekers and human rights.
We argue that the media ought to take note of this issue as it continues to cover the government’s Rwanda policy.
News audiences have come to expect horse race coverage of politics ahead of elections. But this should not come at the expense of in-depth scrutiny of policy. When it does, it can have detrimental effects on the public’s understanding of important issues, leading to political polarisation and more partisan views.
The human and legal consequences of immigration rules are too important to be distilled to political infighting. To fulfil their obligations as public service broadcasters, the UK’s TV media outlets in particular should focus more on the policy, not the politics. Party politics over scrutiny
Working with research assistant Ellie Baskerville at the School of Journalism, Media and Culture at Cardiff University, we examined 1,250 news items from the UK’s flagship evening television news bulletins (BBC News at Ten, ITV News at Ten, Channel 4 News, 5 News at 5 and Sky News at Ten) between March and July 2023. We looked specifically at weeks when the bill was being discussed in parliament.
The vast majority – 72% of stories – discussed the bill in relation to Westminster party politics. Specifically, how it would affect politicians’ reputations and prospects in the next election. Coverage was often more concerned with how the bill would fulfil Sunak’s pledge to “stop the boats”, than whether it would actually work or be implemented.
For example, when describing the legislative process, a Channel 4 reporter said that the government wanted to get the bill “done and dusted” before the election. While this is important context for understanding why the government was so focused on the policy, this overshadows reporting on the practicalities of the legislation.
Throughout the legislative process, critics of the bill (including MPs, legal experts and international organisations) raised concerns about how it could violate the UK’s legal obligations. But while most of the news items we examined referenced these obligations, they did not include a robust scrutiny of the legislation. In 30% of news items, journalists did not question whether the bill was legal.
Political sources accounted for 54% of the voices speaking in the news items reporting on the bill. Legal experts made up only 6%.
Channel 4 News stood out for including sources expressing open criticism of the legislation most often. This included, in March 2023, an asylum law expert who dismissed the bill as “a really impractical idea” emphasising the “completely unworkable” logistics associated with mass detention of asylum seekers pending removal.
The majority of criticism was not of the bill’s supposed human rights shortcomings, but of the legislation’s electoral implications. For example, on ITV News on July 3: “The prime minister wanted immigration to be an election battleground. What he’s got is a battle in his own party too.”
Personality over policy
The bill faced many challenges from peers in the House of Lords. These were largely to do with humanitarian concerns about treatment of child migrants and modern slavery victims.
But instead of detailing the substance of the amendments (or indeed the constitutional value of the legislative process), news coverage in our sample framed this as a power play between the two houses. Broadcasters focused on how the Conservatives were determined to vote against these recommendations to “send a message” to the Lords.
More time was given to stories with high entertainment value, such as a summit between Rishi Sunak and French president Emmanuel Macron that was described by all broadcasters as a “bromance”. This approach was more common than giving an informed analysis of the Franco-UK deal worth over €500 million to stop Channel crossings.
About 23% of the bulletins included asylum seekers’ perspectives about the impact that the legislation would have on their life prospects. Limited airtime, however, was given to humanitarian organisations.
Groups like the UN Refugee Agency or the Refugee Council accounted for only 9% of the total sources in our sample. We also found that most of the bulletins lacked wider context about Channel crossings, including the root causes of migration more broadly. What is the media’s responsibility?
Research shows that news coverage of elections tends to focus on political personalities and horse race reporting about who is pulling ahead in the polls. Our analysis suggests that broadcasters used this same logic when reporting on regular government activity outside of an election cycle.
UK public service broadcasters have a responsibility to provide the public with accurate, impartial and informative reporting. This should mean in-depth scrutiny of policy and holding the government accountable for any breach in law, domestic or international.
Authors
Marina Morani Lecturer, School of Journalism, Media and Culture, Cardiff University
With airstrikes on Houthi rebels, are the US and UK playing fast and loose with international law?
THE CONVERSATION Published: February 7, 2024
The US and UK have over the past few weeks carried out a number of joint military strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen. The strikes have been in response to attacks by the Iran-backed Houthi rebels on both commercial and state vessels in the Red Sea since conflict broke out in Gaza on October 7 2023.
Together, the two sources provide that the right exists “if an armed attack occurs” against a state and that any action taken should be both “necessary” and “proportionate”
On the face of it, this justification might seem relatively straightforward. But the reality is that the justification advanced by these states is far from clear and the applicable law not settled.
Get your news from people who know what they’re talking about.Sign up for newsletter
The Houthis are in control of much of Yemen. But they don’t (yet, at least) represent the legally recognised government. While there is today much support for the argument that armed attacks that permit a state to act in self-defence can be perpetrated by non-state groups such as the Houthis, this is not a settled position.
Many states, commentators and even the International Court of Justice still require that such attacks be perpetrated by states or at least be attributable to a state through its effective control over attacks by non-state armed groups.
Whether Iran had this level of control over these particular attacks is not clear. But in any case, the US and UK response took place on the territory of Yemen, not Iran.
The US and UK both invoked Houthi attacks on their naval warships to justify self-defence. And, in principle, attacks on these types of targets can give rise to this right. Yet the number of attacks on naval vessels were relatively small in relation to the overall number of attacks launched by the Houthi rebels.
There are also question marks over whether the Houthi attacks were of sufficient gravity to justify an argument of self-defence. Indeed, the reported damage was relatively small and no deaths have been reported.
While the International Court of Justice has held that self-defence is reserved for responses to attacks which are of a particular “scale and effects”, some scholars and states – including the US – do not believe that such a threshold exists, or should exist. But there is a theory that even if a single attack does not reach the required gravity threshold for an armed attack, several smaller attacks might be taken together in gauging whether that threshold has been met.
Anger: protests against US-led strikes in Sana'a, the capital of Yemen, on February 2.
EPA-EFE/Yahya Arhab
Yet this so-called “accumulation of events theory” is something that has only been given tentative support by the International Court of Justice and is rarely expressly invoked by states. It arguably remains – at present at least – just a theory.
Threat to global trade
The majority of the Houthi attacks have occurred against commercial or merchant vessels. The right of self defence would arguably be available to a state to protect those vessels sailing under its flag. But even then, the majority of commercial vessels struck by the Houthis have not been sailing under the flag of either the US and UK.
Whether these states have the right to act in “collective self-defence” of the states whose flagged vessels have been struck is not entirely clear. But in any case, a request for such assistance would need to have been made by these states. And there’s no evidence that such a request was formally made.
A significant and problematic aspect to the justification advanced by the US and UK was that they were acting to protect the “free flow of commerce”. National governments don’t have the unilateral right to resort to military force in self-defence to protect commercial interests – either their own or more generally – or simply to enforce international law.
Confusing the issue here is that the day before the first wave of military action by the US and UK on January 11 2024, the UN security council seemingly provided its blessing to this aspect of the justification in resolution 2722 (2024). Among other things, this noted the rights of states to defend their vessels from attacks that undermine navigational freedoms.
Adding to the muddle here is the question of why the security council appeared to provide such a vague and open endorsement of the right of self-defence in this context – rather than authorising the states concerned to take military action, which the council is entitled to do to under chapter VII of the UN charter.
Of course, we are not privy to any behind-the-scenes discussions between members of the security council. Yet, while the acting states will no doubt prefer the greater flexibility that operating under the right of self-defence appears to provide, it arguably would have been in the interests of other member states to have instead authorised the action within a more regulated mandate.
There is already a great deal of concern regarding the use and abuse of the right of self-defence by the United States and its vague limitations. So for the security council to seemingly give the nod to an invocation of the right in this way to protect broader interests could set a precedent that may have unforeseen circumstances.
The simple fact that the US and UK felt the need to legally justify their actions has to be welcomed. But picking the justifications apart reveals their somewhat muddled nature – and that the acting states were testing the limits of this branch of international law.
Asda said it was "disappointed" over the decision and added it had "taken reasonable and practical action to address the GMB's concerns".
Workers initially voted to take action in December.
They rejected Asda's recent offer and voted a second time to take strike action, according to GMB.
Nicola Nixon, GMB regional organiser said: "Counter proposals have been made to the company to settle the dispute but Asda has failed to come back with any improvements.
"We originally gave Asda until Tuesday as a show of goodwill but no improved offer materialised and so our strike will now go ahead.
"Our members are determined to stand up to Asda and their management, and say enough is enough.
"They should be able to come to work without threat of bullying or putting their health, safety and well-being at risk." 'Open as usual'
An Asda spokesperson said: "We are disappointed the GMB have taken this course of action and can reassure our customers that the Gosport store will open as usual this weekend.
"The majority of colleagues in store are not affiliated with the GMB and will continue to work as normal during this period.
"Over the course of several weeks, we have taken reasonable and practical action to address the GMB's concerns.
"This includes undertaking a full health and safety review at the store, and providing additional training for colleagues where required.
"We have also asked the GMB on multiple occasions to share details of the alleged bullying in store so these claims can be investigated. The GMB have not yet provided this information."
UK
Junior doctors to strike over five days, BMA says
7 hours ago By Aurelia Foster
BBC
Health reporter
PA MediaJunior doctors joined pickets outside hospitals during a recent strike in January
Junior doctors in England will strike on five days from 24 to 28 February, in an ongoing dispute with the government about pay.
The British Medical Association (BMA), which represents junior doctors, wants a 35% pay increase - a proposal previously rejected by ministers.
Many routine hospital services are likely to be disrupted or cancelled.
The government said it wanted to find a "reasonable solution" and is prepared to "go further" on a pay offer.
Junior doctors received a pay rise averaging nearly 9% this financial year - and during talks at the end of 2023, the option of an extra 3% on top of that was discussed.
The BMA said the government had "failed to to meet the deadline to put an improved pay offer on the table".
Junior doctors committee co-chairs Dr Robert Laurenson and Dr Vivek Trivedi said: "We have made every effort to work with the Government in finding a fair solution to this dispute whilst trying to avoid strike action."
They added that they believed the forthcoming strike could still be called off if a "credible offer" was made.
The BMA previously said the pay increase it was calling for would make up for what it said had been below-inflation rises since 2008.
Health secretary Victoria Atkins said: "This action called by the BMA Junior Doctor Committee does not signal that they are ready to be reasonable.
"We urged them to put an offer to their members, but they refused.
"Five days of action will put enormous pressure on the NHS and is not in the spirit of constructive dialogue."
This will be the 10th strike by junior doctors since March 2023. It will follow a six-day strike by junior doctors in January, the longest in the history of the NHS, which saw about 100,000 appointments cancelled.
Nearly half of NHS doctors are junior doctors - a group that spans those just out of university through to some who have 10 years or more experience.
The BMA is also balloting junior doctors on further industrial action beyond this strike.
More than 1.2 million medical appointments have been cancelled since December 2022, due to strikes by NHS workers, including nurses, paramedics and consultants.
The union is currently in talks with the government about a fresh pay deal for consultants, after rejecting the most recent offer.
‘Culture of fear’ at hospital where junior surgeons assaulted, report finds
A surgeon physically assaulted two trainees at a Brighton hospital during an operation, a fresh report has revealed.
(Gareth Fuller/PA)
By Anahita Hossein-Pour, PA
Wed 7 Feb 2024
A review by the Royal College of Surgeons discovered instances of bullying and harassment at the Royal Sussex County Hospital, and a further “culture of fear” regarding the top leadership team.
Bosses at University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, which runs the hospital, commissioned the investigation into its surgery services which took place in May 2023.
It was apparent to the review team that there was a feeling of relative hopelessness within the general surgery department and it was clear that these reputational and cultural issues had affected the morale of many passionate and committed members of staff, some of whom had worked in the trust for 20-30 yearsThe Royal College of Surgeons
The Royal College of Surgeons flagged serious concerns between surgical staff and the trust’s senior leadership and said whistleblowers were poorly treated, such as by being bullied or subjected to disciplinary action.
They said: “There were concerning reports of bullying by members of the executive leadership team, with instances of confrontational meetings with individual consultant surgeons, when they were told to “sit down, shut up and listen”, with no ability to express their own concerns, and where they were alone and outnumbered.
“It was apparent to the review team that there was a feeling of relative hopelessness within the general surgery department and it was clear that these reputational and cultural issues had affected the morale of many passionate and committed members of staff, some of whom had worked in the trust for 20-30 years.”
The team also discovered a “dysfunctional” team working within the general surgery department and surgical teams, and were told consultant surgeons were “dismissive and disrespectful” towards other staff.
They added: “Reports of negative culture and behaviours within the general surgery department and wider trust was of concern to the review team.
The report comes as Sussex Police detectives are investigating the deaths of around 40 people at the Royal Sussex County Hospital due to allegations of medical negligence (Jonathan Brady/PA)
“It is imperative that robust action is taken to tackle unacceptable behaviours, given the reports of bullying, harassment and physical abuse.”
Major concerns were also raised over high cancellations of planned surgery for patients, often on the day and after patients had been waiting up to seven hours without eating or drinking ahead of their operation.
They added: “The review team heard about patients being cancelled multiple times and this was causing patients psychological distress.”
The findings come as Sussex Police detectives are investigating the deaths of around 40 people at the Royal Sussex County Hospital due to allegations of medical negligence.
The claims relate to concerns over neurosurgery and general surgery between 2015 and 2021.
In the conclusions from the Royal College of Surgeons, it said the team found staff who were interviewed in their probe “extremely engaged, open and helpful”, adding: “Within the constraints of current challenges they were facing, it was clear that staff worked very hard to offer the best possible service for their patients.”
Long-term problems cannot be solved overnight but significant strides are now being madeDr George Findlay
The appointment of the chief of surgery was also highlighted as a positive step, with the new boss described as attentive and responsive when staff escalated concerns.
The trust’s chief executive Dr George Findlay said he asked for this independent report because of the “huge challenges” the surgery teams have faced over many years and that all trust staff are focused on improving care.
Dr Findlay said: “Since last May when the review took place, major changes have begun – we have invested in extra staff and are recruiting now, we are seeking more theatre and bed capacity, and we have approved the opening of a Surgical Assessment Unit.
“The reviewers also noted the open attitude of staff and good local leadership – essential ingredients for a good service.
“Long-term problems cannot be solved overnight but significant strides are now being made. We all want to further improve patient care, so the job of building a stronger structure around the team, and stronger relationships, remains an absolute priority.”
The report, which was published on January 17, is set to be discussed by the trust’s board of directors on February 8.
SCOTLAND
Aberdeen University staff vote to strike over languages cuts
University staff have voted to strike over changes to modern languages degrees
Staff at the University of Aberdeen will take industrial action in a row over modern languages cuts.
The University and College Union (UCU) said about 30 people were at risk of redundancy due to the changes.
In the ballot of UCU Scotland members, 80% of those who voted backed strike action in a turnout of 60%.
From the next academic year, students will not be able to start single honours degrees in French, German, Spanish or Gaelic.
Those wishing to study them will have to do so as part of a joint degree.
The university court announced the decision in December, based on a recommendation from the senior vice principal, Prof Karl Leydecker.
The union's branch chairwoman, Dr Rachel Shanks, said members had "made it abundantly clear that senior managers need to rethink their plans to cut jobs and cut the university's offer in languages."
"The ballot result is a mandate for industrial action and to oppose job cuts," she said.
"Aberdeen is an important employer in north east Scotland and cuts of this scale will have a serious impact on the economy locally, the student experience, and both the university and city's reputation.
"It is not too late for university managers to work with UCU and others and to find alternatives that don't involve such drastic cuts and job losses."
Senior vice principal Prof Karl Leydecker recommended the changes to the university court
A University of Aberdeen spokesperson said the university was facing serious financial challenges and had to take "essential action to generate extra income and to make savings".
"We understand the strength of feeling across the university with regard to potential job losses," they said. "Early retirement and voluntary severance applications are our focus.
"Compulsory redundancy is something that the university always seeks to avoid.
"We hope that ongoing dialogue with colleagues in modern languages and union representatives will mean that industrial action will not take place. If it does, every effort will be made to minimise the impact on students."
The spokesperson said the university was exploring "all options for ensuring the future academic and financial sustainability of our modern languages degrees."
University staff back strike action over language course changes
The University and College Union is calling on the University of Aberdeen to rethink its plans.
UCU MEMBERS WERE BALLOTED OVER STRIKE ACTION (ANDREW MILLIGAN/PA) PA WIRE
Staff at the University of Aberdeen have backed strike action over the institution’s plans to no longer offer single honours degrees in modern languages.
In December, the university court made the decision based on a recommendation from the senior vice-principal, Professor Karl Laydecker.
It means that from the next academic year, those wishing to study the languages at the university will have to do so as part of a joint honours degree.
UCU Scotland said in a ballot of its members, 80% of those who voted backed strike action on a turnout of 60%.
The union is calling on management at the institution to rethink the decision.
Aberdeen UCU branch chairwoman Dr Rachel Shanks said: “By voting in these numbers, UCU members at the University of Aberdeen have made it abundantly clear that senior managers need to rethink their plans to cut jobs and cut the university’s offer in languages.
“The ballot result is a mandate for industrial action and to oppose job cuts.
“Aberdeen is an important employer in north-east Scotland and cuts of this scale will have a serious impact on the economy locally, the student experience, and both the university and city’s reputation.
“It is not too late for university managers to work with UCU, and others, and to find alternatives that don’t involve such drastic cuts and job losses.”
The university said it hopes industrial action can be avoided.
A spokesperson said: “The University of Aberdeen is like many others across the UK facing serious financial challenges. We are taking essential action to generate extra income and to make savings.
With Help from the Five Eyes, Argentina Doomed to Lose the Falklands War
For 74 days, the U.K. and Argentina fought bitterly for a small patch of land in the South Atlantic
In the early morning hours of April 2, 1982, Argentinian naval commandos landed three miles south of Port Stanley, the capital of the Falklands Islands. They made their way to the small barracks that housed a contingent of British Royal Marines. Once outside the building, they broke the windows and threw tear gas canisters inside to flash out the sleeping British troops. A few hours before, the Royal Marines had been alerted to the invasion and had barricaded themselves in the governor’s house, the administrative headquarters of the Islands. In the ensuing firefight, the British Royal Marines held at bay a much larger Argentinian force for more than an hour before finally surrendering. As the sun rose on the horizon, Argentina had finally captured the Falklands Islands after centuries of dispute.
The Falklands War that lasted from April to June 1982 was a conflict between the United Kingdom and Argentina over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic. Although short, the conflict was one of the largest in terms of the forces involved since the end of World War II. Overtly, the U.K. fought the war alone. However, the United States provided key diplomatic, logistical, and intelligence support to the country. Using the Five Eyes intelligence partnership, the U.S. shared critical all-source intelligence with its ally which proved key to the eventual British victory. However, U.S. support for the U.K. was not certain. Argentina was an important South American partner for the U.S., especially in the fight against Communism during the Cold War. Nevertheless, foreign policy and national security interests prompted America’s decision to support Britain.
GOING TO WAR WITH SOME HELP
When the British government decided to recapture the Falklands, it did so with the understanding that it would receive support, even unofficial, from its most important ally: the United States. As the Beatles sang in 1967, the U.K. was sailing to war “with a little help from [its] friends.”
Although publicly the U.S. wanted to seem impartial – with the risk of offending the British – privately, President Roland Reagan was committed to supporting the U.K. if he had to. From the start of the war, his position was one of neutrality over which country had a better claim on the Falklands but of strong opposition to military aggression – that is, to Argentina.
Once the White House committed to supporting Great Britain, even behind closed doors, the intelligence started flowing. Intelligence sharing included “compartmental, sensitive source programs,” including signals and communication intelligence. The NSA provided almost real-time, key signals intelligence to the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the U.K.’s intelligence agency, that helped the British task force protect its aircraft carriers, perhaps the most valuable assets of the British military. Although the GCHQ worked with the Royal Navy and put HMS Endurance in the area to intercept Argentinian radio traffic long before the invasion, the British could not break the Argentinian code. The NSA then stepped in and helped their GCHQ comrades. Moreover, the NSA granted the GCHQ access to its satellite interception technology. Interestingly, the GCHQ was hesitant to share intelligence about U.K. troop movements with the NSA out of fear that the State Department would leak the information as U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig tilted toward Argentina.
However, the U.K. received intelligence beyond the signal intelligence stipulated by the Five Eyes agreement. The British received key intelligence on Argentinian military plans and intentions from the CIA’s A.G. Crypto operation. Moreover, the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the intelligence agency that designs, launches, and operates spy satellites, relocated a satellite that was tracking Soviet movements in the Northern Hemisphere and dedicated it to the conflict. Using this raw data, the Defense Mapping Agency (DMA) provided the U.K. with satellite imagery of the Atlantic Ocean west of the Falklands, the Falklands, and the small islands of South Georgia. Interestingly, the U.S. provided satellite imagery to both combatants: Under a U.S.-Argentine Memorandum of Understanding that the U.S. had to honor, NASA provided satellite imagery of the same areas to Argentina.
American assistance to the British campaign went beyond the sharing of intelligence. The Reagan administration allowed British aircraft and vessels to use American bases and provided logistical support. The U.S. military was even ready to lend aircraft carriers to the British in case theirs got damaged or sunk. The British also received support at the individual unit level. Delta Force, the U.S. military’s premier counterterrorism and hostage rescue unit, gave its British counterpart, the Special Air Service (SAS), cold-weather gear, FIM-92 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, and satellite phones.
PICKING A SIDE
Argentina was an important U.S. partner in South America. During the 1970s, successive U.S. administrations maintained good relations with the Argentinian juntas that came and went into power. When a new junta took over in 1976, U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was anxious not to let the Argentinian military officers think the U.S. was opposed to them. This junta would launch the “Dirty War” against domestic leftist opposition and other political opponents that would see thousands of people killed, tortured, disappeared, and imprisoned. But with the Cold War raging hot, the U.S. saw in Argentina a committed anti-Communist partner that could prevent a “Domino Effect” in America’s backyard. The U.S. also sold Argentina weapon systems worth hundreds of millions of dollars, though it stopped doing so in the late 1970s. When Roland Reagan was elected to office, the relations with Argentina improved further.
Nevertheless, the U.S. chose to support the United Kingdom. The U.S. and the U.K. shared strong political and strategic interests. Reagan and Thatcher were close, and the U.S. President wanted to “[give] Maggie [Thatcher] enough to carry on.” Although Argentina was a valuable U.S. partner in South America, the Anglo-American defense and intelligence alliance towered over anything Argentina could provide the United States. Moreover, the U.S. was opposed to the use of military force and faulted the Argentinians for shooting the first shots. Further, U.S. public opinion was largely supportive of the British cause. Some even feared that Argentina would work with the Soviet Union after capturing the Falklands. In a personal letter to CIA Director William Casey, newspaperman Ernst Cuneo attached a copy of an article he had written urging to help the U.K. and prevent a Soviet opening in America’s backyard.
Another likely policy consideration that motivated support for the U.K. was the deep ties between the U.S. and U.K. intelligence agencies formalized in the Five Eyes partnership. In 1985, three years after the war, the U.S. Intelligence Community conducted an evaluation of the Five Eyes intelligence partnership, particularly of the UKUSA component. In the declassified but heavily redacted top-secret report, the Intelligence Community assessed the value of the relationship as “high [that] allows for a much fuller SIGINT [Signal Intelligence] effort than is possible with only U.S. resources.” The report stated that there was “heavy flow of raw intercept, technical analytical results, and SIGINT product between NSA and GCHQ, to include direct distribution of product by each party to both country users.”
However, in choosing to support the U.K., the Reagan administration faced a conundrum. Overt support would alienate Argentina. Moreover, the CIA had intelligence that indicated that the Argentinians were mobilizing intelligence and paramilitary units to “disappear U.S. citizens in Argentina if the U.S. government [adopted] the British position in regard to the dispute in the Falkland Islands.” This concern was complicated by the fact that the Argentinian junta was not in complete control of the country’s national security apparatus.
For 74 days, the U.K. and Argentina fought bitterly for a small patch of land in the South Atlantic. In the end, Britain prevailed and did so with important intelligence support from America. Against the backdrop of broader U.S. hesitancy to openly support the British position, the Five Eyes partnership played an integral role in Britain’s victory. Faced with policy and political conundrums, the Reagan administration chose to support the “Special Relationship,” as the relations between the U.S. and U.K. have been described. In the case of the Falklands War, that relationship proved very special indeed.
About the Author
Stavros Atlamazoglou is a seasoned defense journalist specializing in special operations and national security. He is a Hellenic Army veteran (national service with the 575th Marine Battalion and Army HQ). He holds a BA from the Johns Hopkins University, an MA from the Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), and is pursuing a J.D. at Boston College Law School.
This article was first published by Sandboxx News.
UK
Conservative MP Dehenna Davison criticises Rishi Sunak for 'disappointing' Commons trans joke
Wednesday 7 February 2024
The Conservative MP for Bishop Auckland has hit out at the Prime Minister for a "disappointing" joke in Prime Minister's Questions about transgender people.
Dehenna Davison warned that politicians' words "resonate right across our society".
It came after Rishi Sunak mocked the Labour leader's stance on "defining a woman" after the Commons heard the mother of murdered transgender teenager Brianna Ghey was watching from the gallery.
In a post on X, Ms Davison said: "The debate around trans issues often gets inflamed at the fringes. As politicians, it’s our job to take the heat out of such debates and focus on finding sensible ways forward, whilst ensuring those involved are treated with respect.
"Given some of the terrible incidences of transphobia we have seen lately, this need for respect feels more crucial than ever."That’s why it was disappointing to hear jokes being made at the trans community’s expense. Our words in the House resonate right across our society, and we all need to remember that."
Dehenna Davison has criticised Prime Minister Rishi Sunak for his Commons trans joke.
Credit: ITV Tyne Tees
The Labour leader condemned the Prime Minister’s remark, with a chorus of opposition backbenchers calling out: "Shame."
The exchange took place during the Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons, as the leaders clashed over the Government's missing targets to reduce NHS waiting lists.
Sir Keir said: "He says he stands by his commitments. He once insisted if he missed his promises, these are the words he used: ‘I am the Prime Minister,’ and then he said: ‘It is on me personally'.
"Today, we learn from his own officials that he is the blocker to any deal to end the doctors’ strikes and every time he is asked, he blames everyone else.
"So, what exactly did he mean when he said it is on him personally if he doesn’t meet his promise?"
Mr Sunak replied: "We are bringing the waiting lists down for the longest waiters and making progress, but it is a bit rich to hear about promises from someone who has broken every single promise he was elected on.
"I think I have counted almost 30 in the last year. Pensions, planning, peerages, public sector pay, tuition fees, childcare, second referendums, defining a woman – although in fairness, that was only 99% of a U-turn.
"The list goes on, but the theme is the same: it is empty words, broken promises and absolutely no plan."
Sir Keir hit back, saying: "Of all the weeks to say that, when Brianna’s mother is in this chamber. Shame.
"Parading as a man of integrity when he’s got absolutely no responsibility."
Sir Keir had opened the session by telling MPs: "This week the unwavering bravery of Brianna Ghey’s mother Esther has touched us all. As a father, I can’t even imagine the pain that she is going through and I am glad that she is with us in the gallery here today."
Mr Sunak was later asked to apologise to Brianna’s mother for his "insensitive comment".
Labour MP for Blaydon Liz Twist said: "May I take the opportunity to ask the Prime Minister if he would consider apologising to Brianna Ghey’s mother for his insensitive comment?"
Mr Sunak did not directly respond to Ms Twist’s request.
Concluding Prime Minister’s Questions, Mr Sunak said: "If I could just say also to Brianna Ghey’s mother who is here, as I said earlier this week, what happened was an unspeakable and shocking tragedy.
"As I said earlier this week, in the face of that, for her mother to demonstrate the compassion and empathy that she did last weekend, I thought demonstrated the very best of humanity in the face of seeing the very worst of humanity.
"She deserves all our admiration and praise for that."
Brianna Ghey's mum wants mindfulness taught in schools
Feb 7,2024 By Kristian Johnson
BBC News
Family handoutBrianna Ghey was described by her mother as "fearless, strong and brave"
The mother of murdered teenager Brianna Ghey has backed calls to put mindfulness onto the national curriculum.
Esther Ghey is now part of a campaign to create "a lasting legacy" to her daughter.
She has already launched a local campaign in Warrington, which has raised £50,000 to deliver mindfulness training in schools in the area.
She is now backing a nationwide campaign alongside Warrington North MP Charlotte Nichols, which is calling on government to fund mindfulness programmes in every school in England.
Mindfulness is a calming technique. The charity Mind says it involves noticing what is happening in the present moment, without judgment.
"Brianna Ghey was sassy, beautiful, kind, courageous and authentically herself," Nichols told MPs at Westminster Hall.
"She was loved fiercely and her death was unspeakably tragic.
"No parent should ever have to bury their child, but to have gone through what Esther has and have the drive to seek positive change in the wake of that takes extraordinary courage and compassion."
Ms Nichols said the cost of such a programme would be "modest" and added: "This is an investment worth making for the future."
A spokesperson for the Department for Education said there are currently no plans to introduce mindfulness into every school.
But they said the current Relationships, Health and Sex Education (RSHE) curriculum has a "strong focus" on mental health and wellbeing, and all schools have been offered grants to train a senior mental health lead by 2025.
Ms Ghey was present for the Westminster Hall debate, which took place just hours after Prime Minister's Questions, when Rishi Sunak faced criticism for his comments about Sir Keir Starmer's position on trans people.
The PM had ridiculed the Labour leader for U-turning on the "definition of a woman". Watch: Sunak makes trans jibe to Starmer at PMQs
Sir Keir, who was due to meet Ms Ghey after PMQs, said: "Of all the weeks to say that, when Brianna's mother is in this chamber. Shame."
Ms Ghey was not in the public gallery for the exchange, but entered later.
When asked whether the prime minister's comment was transphobic, his press secretary said: "I don't accept that at all."
'Drastic action' needed
Ms Ghey has recently called for "drastic action" to protect children.
Mr Sunak has previously said the Online Safety Act is strong enough to protect children online.
But speaking to BBC Breakfast, Ms Ghey said she believes there needs to be further changes to the law, and added that mobile phone companies should take more responsibility.
"I would like to see the law change so that children only have access to children's mobile phones, and that could look exactly the same as an adult's mobile phone but without the ability to download social media apps, and there is software available already," she said.
Ms Ghey has also said children under the age of 16 should not have access to social media apps on smartphones.
Esther Ghey wants a law introduced so under-16s cannot access social media on their phones
However, parents have told the BBC it is "practically impossible" to take smartphones away from children who already have them.
James Turnham, who lives in Hackney, east London, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he limits the amount of time his children spend on apps, but said: "The pressure is relentless."
Anna - not her real name - told the Today programme she launched a campaign after her daughter tried to take her own life.
Called Just Say No, Stick To Bricks, it calls on parents and schools to restrict smartphone access for children.
Kate Edgcumbe-Rendle, from Worthing, West Sussex, leads online safety workshops in schools and said: "Once those smartphones are handed to our children, it is near enough impossible to get them off them again. The effects are profound."
Senior vice principal Prof Karl Leydecker recommended the changes to the university court
