Body Shop’s UK arm close to bankruptcy: report

By

 AFP

The Body Shop, the near 50-year-old cosmetics company renowned for its ethical hair and skin products, is near bankrupt in the UK after poor Christmas trade, media has reported.

Sky News on Sunday reported that German private equity firm Aurelius, which bought The Body Shop only in November, is lining up administration — a UK process whereby financial experts are drafted in to try and save parts of a business.

It said this would result in shop closures and job losses for The Body Shop, founded in 1976 by Anita Roddick but which has been under various owners since she sold it to French cosmetics giant L’Oreal in 2006.

The Body Shop has about 200 shops in the UK, or around seven percent of its worldwide total of some 3,000 stores in more than 70 countries.

The company directly employs about 10,000 staff, while 12,000 more are employed via franchises. 

The Body Shop and Aurelius had yet to comment on the weekend news.

Since taking over, Aurelius has already sold The Body Shop business in most of mainland Europe and parts of Asia to an unnamed buyer.

“Administration will mean the company is protected from compulsory liquidation and offers legal protection from creditors’ demands,” noted Susannah Streeter, head of money and markets at Hargreaves Lansdown. 

“It will give Aurelius breathing space to restructure and close highly underperforming stores and refocus attention on e-commerce sales. Whatever the outcome, it looks likely that many shops will shut for good.”

Roddick, who died in 2007 from a brain haemorrhage, had rapidly expanded the business from modest beginnings with a determination to offer products that had not been tested on animals. 

She set out also to make her business environmentally-friendly, with customers encouraged to return empty containers for refilling at the original shop in Brighton, on England’s southern coast.

Brazil’s Natura Cosmeticos, which had bought The Body Shop from L’Oreal, sold it at the end of last year to Aurelius for £207 million, far less than the previous owners had paid.

  

British boys most at risk of modern slavery in UK

Image: Ground Picture / Shutterstock.com

People suffering criminal exploitation, often young British boys, must be recognised as victims of modern slavery, a new report has argued.

Entitled Criminal exploitation: Modern slavery by another name, the report found that 45% of victims in the UK are British boys aged 17 and under, with risk factors including deprivation, substance misuse, family circumstances, learning disabilities and school exclusion.

Victims of criminal exploitation are ‘forced, coerced or groomed into committing crime for someone else’s benefit’, the report by the Centre for Social Justice and Justice and Care says.

However, it says professionals, families and victims themselves ‘frequently do not apply the label of “modern slavery” (nor even exploitation in some cases) to what is happening’.

Legislation and policy are ‘inconsistent’, ‘incomplete’ and ‘confusing’, while support for victims and prevention is inadequate, despite good work done by some charities, local authorities and the Government’s County Lines programme, the report found.

It calls for the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to be amended to include a definition of criminal exploitation.

The independent anti-slavery commissioner, Eleanor Lyons, said: ‘This report rightly calls on the Government and frontline policing to make sure criminal exploitation is prosecuted for what it is: a form of modern slavery.

‘This will also allow us to do more to prevent the endless stream of young people and vulnerable adults being pulled into criminal exploitation. And give them the support they deserve.’

 Ellie Ames 12 February 2024

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for BOY BRIDES 

UK

FARM FAIR

'Are you an animal lover?' Animal rights protest displaying dead pig, cat, and dog shocks in Central London

The protest, aimed at convincing people the rethink eating animals, has raised eyebrows in the capital

By Amber Allott
Published 12th Feb 2024,
Watch more of our videos on Shots!
Visit Shots! now

Animal rights activists have shocked the public in Central London, as a pro-vegan protest displayed what is believed to be a real dead cat, dog, and pig hanging side-by-side from butcher's hooks.

The protest was organised by Viva! - a campaign group best known for its investigations into conditions on factory farms - and was designed to challenge people's perceptions on how they viewed animals. The stunt saw the three displayed on the back of a lorry, beneath a sign reading ‘Are You an Animal Lover?’ The cat and dog were marked as pets, but the pig as just 'animal'.

Footage of the public's reaction to the protest showed a number of people recoiling in visible disgust as the truck drives past, parking at key London landmarks like the London Eye, Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square. Social media reaction has also been mixed, with one posting on X - formerly known as Twitter - that this was the best way to make people understand, while another slammed it as a "cheap and pathetic stunt".

Animal rights activists have displayed a dead dog, cat and pig in Central London 

(Photo: Viva! Campaigns / SWNS)

NationalWorld has approached Viva! to confirm whether the animal's bodies were real, but they are currently believed to be.

Viva! said the stunt marked the start of a new wave of campaigning, which will use more provocative tactics to encourage people to go vegan. The protest action's main aim was to "evoke a powerful response from passers-by as they were confronted with the reality that the pigs they eat are very similar to their beloved pets".

The group's founder, Juliet Gellatley, defended their use of shock tactics. “As a society we treat cats and dogs as part of our families but see animals such as pigs, chickens and cows as commodities," she said. "Tens of millions of people in the UK eat factory farmed animals, but very few are happy to look at them dead, see how they are farmed or witness how they are killed."

UK
Deliveroo and Uber Eats riders strike on Valentine's Day

By Jemma Dempsey

BBC News

Getty Images

Takeaway delivery drivers are planning to strike on Valentine's Day to demand better pay and improved working conditions.

The action, impacting four food apps including Deliveroo and Uber Eats, is thought to involve as many as 3,000 drivers and riders on Wednesday between 17:00 and 22:00 GMT.

One cyclist taking part told the BBC their pay was "absolutely ridiculous".

Deliveroo said its riders "always earn at least the national living wage".

The action, organised by a grassroots group of couriers, many of whom are Brazilian, is intended to draw attention to what has been described as poor pay and working conditions many riders face while delivering food and groceries in cities across the UK.

"Sacrificing a few hours for our rights is essential, instead of continuing to work incessantly for insufficient wages," the group Delivery Job UK said on its Instagram page.

"Our request is simple: we want fair compensation for the work we do. We are tired of being exploited and risking our lives every day... It's time for our voices to be heard."

Aside from Deliveroo and Uber Eats, Just Eat and Stuart.com will also be affected, with couriers who normally compete across multiple apps for delivery planning to refuse to take orders.

Delivery Job UK claimed delivery riders were braving the "cold, rain and absurd distances" for deliveries paying "ridiculous values", ranging from £2.80 to £3.15.

A spokesman for the group told the BBC striking Deliveroo riders wanted an increase to a minimum of £5. The other companies use different pricing structures.


"They [Deliveroo] have lowered their fees. There's no incentive anymore. On a Friday night you could make £100 over 4-5 hours, now that's gone," the spokesman said.

He also claimed couriers were exposed to "a lot of violence on the streets", especially in the evenings.Deliveroo not forced by law to engage with unions
Children working for food delivery apps, BBC finds

Joe, a courier in London since 2018 who plans to strike on Wednesday, said the work was "incredibly isolating" and attracted a lot of migrant workers who were unable to challenge the conditions and were "forced into it".

"Conditions are shocking," he told the BBC. "The pricing of fees is aggressive. It's hard to overstate how sophisticated these algorithms have become. The fees are absolutely ridiculous."


Callum Cant, who has written about the gig economy and is a lecturer at Essex University, said changes to fees meant couriers had seen a 40% drop in wages in real terms since 2018.

"With a minimum fee of £2.80, most might only be making three orders an hour, and then they have to subtract their costs too. Some are making £7 an hour, which in London is barely liveable," he said.

While delivery drivers are not formally unionised the GMB has an agreement with Deliveroo which, the union has said, is the first of its kind in the food delivery sector.

It includes access to education courses and a pay floor for fees, negotiated each April.

In a statement, Deliveroo said it offered its riders self-employed, flexible work, alongside protections.

"Riders always earn at least the national living wage, plus vehicle costs, for the time they are working with us, though the vast majority earn far more than this," it said.

"Riders are also automatically insured for free, covering them if they are in an accident or injured while working and receive income protection if they are unwell and cannot work."

Uber Eats told the BBC it offered a "flexible way" for couriers to earn by using its app "when and where they choose".

"We know that the vast majority of couriers are satisfied with their experience on the app, and we regularly engage with couriers to look at how we can improve their experience."

Just Eat said it provided "a highly competitive base rate to self-employed couriers and also offer regular incentives to help them maximise their earnings".

"We continue to review our pay structure regularly and welcome any feedback from couriers," the company added.

Stuart.com said it also was "committed to providing competitive earnings opportunities for courier partners".

UK eyes Hitachi’s Welsh site for nuclear plant: report

By

 AFP

A UK government body is in talks to buy Welsh land from Hitachi that could house a new nuclear plant after the Japanese giant scrapped construction plans, media reported Monday.

Great British Nuclear has held “preliminary talks” with Hitachi to acquire the land ahead of finding a private partner to help construct a new facility, said the Financial Times (FT) newspaper, citing an unnamed minister.

Hitachi in 2020 axed its planned multi-billion-pound nuclear facility at the Wylfa Newydd site on Anglesey island off the northwest coast of Wales, blaming soaring costs and souring economic climate amid the Covid pandemic.

“Wylfa is one of a number of potential sites that could host civil nuclear projects,” a government spokesman told AFP when questioned about the FT report.

“Whilst no decisions on sites have yet been taken, we are working with Great British Nuclear to support access to potential sites for new nuclear projects,” he added.

The British government is looking to tap into more nuclear power under plans to help meet its target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

“We’ve ended the stop-start approach to nuclear and recently launched a roadmap setting out the biggest expansion of the sector in 70 years, simplifying regulation and shortening the process for building new power stations,” the spokesman said.

This strategy would mean “cleaner, cheaper and more secure energy in the long-term”, he added.

The UK wants to increase the share of nuclear in the country’s energy mix since it does not emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Its use as an alternative to fossil fuels is highly controversial, however, with environmental groups warning about safety risks around the disposal of nuclear waste.

UK government 'wants to take control' of land in Wales to revive nuclear power

A new power plant could be built at the old Wylfa site in Anglesey

Reem Ahmed

WALES ONLINE

12 FEB 2024

The decommissioned Wylfa Power Station on Anglesey (Image: Daily Post Wales)


The UK Government is seeking to acquire and revive a dormant nuclear power station site in Wales, it has been reported. According to a report by the Financial Times, nuclear energy company Great British Nuclear - which is owned by the government - is in early-stage talks with Hitachi, owner of the old Wylfa site in Anglesey.

Located west of Cemaes Bay, Wylfa pumped electricity into millions of homes for 44 years until it was was decommissioned at the end of 2015. These people were forced to leave their homes amidst long-proposed plans for a new power station, which was to be called Wylfa Newydd.

It was hailed by some as crucial to the economic development of Ynys Môn and a a "game-changer" for the north Wales economy, with the ability to bring up thousands of jobs into the area. But in January 2019 Hitachi suspended work on the £13bn project as funding negotiations with the UK Government had "hit an impasse", according to the Japanese corporation. For the latest Welsh news delivered to your inbox sign up to our newsletter

The UK government is seeking to take control of the dormant power station (Image: Getty Images)

By September 2020, plans for Wylfa Newydd nuclear power plant had been scrapped as Hitachi had withdrawn from the project. But a year later, there was hope yet as Rolls-Royce announced they were developing small modular reactors (SMR) in November 2021, with sites such as Wylfa and Trawsfynydd in Gwynedd subsequently being shortlisted as SMR sites a year later. Now the government is looking to buy the site from Hitachi and find a private sector developer to build a new plant there, the FT reports. 

The land is believed to be worth about £200m, but the government could strike a cheaper deal as the land lies fallow, according to the report. The move is part of the government's wider ambition to expand nuclear power, having last month published a roadmap setting out its "biggest expansion of nuclear power for 70 years".

Rwanda plan 'fundamentally incompatible' with UK’s human rights obligations



Demonstrators hold placards as they protest against Britain’s plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, outside the High Court in London on June 13, 2022

 [NIKLAS HALLE’N/AFP via Getty Images]

MEMO
February 12, 2024


The British government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is fundamentally incompatible with the country’s human rights obligations, according to a joint committee report released today.

“Measures intended to remove barriers to sending individuals to Rwanda, including mandating that courts treat Rwanda as a ‘safe’ country and limiting access to courts to appeal decisions, are incompatible with the UK’s human rights obligations,” warned MPs and peers from the cross-party Joint Committee on Human Rights.

The controversial bill aims to address the concerns of the UK Supreme Court, which ruled that the government’s original plan to send asylum seekers to the East African country was unlawful.

“The bill’s near total exclusion of judicial scrutiny seeks to undermine the constitutional role of the domestic courts in holding the executive to account,” said the report.

READ: UK rejects Palestinian’s student visa in spite of previously providing her a scholarship

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has warned: “The Bill would erode protection for human rights provided by the Human Rights Act, contravene rights guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights and fall short of the UK’s commitments under international treaties.

“The Bill places the UK’s hard-won reputation for human rights and the rule of law into jeopardy,” said Joanna Cherry, chair of the committee.

The Rwanda plan had been one of the most controversial plans of the government’s migration policy as it sparked international criticism and mass protests across the UK.

In January 2023, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said that tackling small boat crossings by irregular migrants across the English Channel is among five priorities of his government as more than 45,000 migrants arrived in the UK through that route in 2022.

UK plan to send asylum-seekers to Rwanda incompatible with human rights, parliamentary watchdog says

Copyright © africanews

Associated Press

By Rédaction Africanews with AP

UNITED KINGDOM

The British government's plan to send some asylum-seekers on a one-way trip to Rwanda is "fundamentally incompatible" with the U.K.'s human rights obligations, a parliamentary rights watchdog said Monday, as the contentious bill returned for debate in the House of Lords.

Parliament's unelected upper chamber is scrutinizing a bill designed to overcome the U.K. Supreme Court's ruling that the Rwanda plan is illegal. The court said in November that the East African nation is not a safe country for migrants.

The Safety of Rwanda Bill pronounces the country safe, makes it harder for migrants to challenge deportation and allows the British government to ignore injunctions from the European Court of Human Rights that seek to block removals.

Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has members from both government and opposition parties, said in a report that the bill "openly invites the possibility of the U.K. breaching international law" and allows British officials "to act in a manner that is incompatible with human rights standards."

Scottish National Party lawmaker Joanna Cherry, who chairs the committee, said the bill "risks untold damage to the U.K.'s reputation as a proponent of human rights."

"This bill is designed to remove vital safeguards against persecution and human rights abuses, including the fundamental right to access a court," she said. "Hostility to human rights is at its heart and no amendments can salvage it."

The Home Office said the Rwanda plan is a "bold and innovative" solution to a "major global challenge."

"Rwanda is clearly a safe country that cares deeply about supporting refugees," it said in a statement. "It hosts more than 135,000 asylum seekers and stands ready to relocate people and help them rebuild their lives."

Under the policy, asylum-seekers who reach the U.K. in small boats across the English Channel would have their claims processed in Rwanda, and stay there permanently. The plan is key to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's pledge to "stop the boats" bringing unauthorized migrants to the U.K. Sunak argues that deporting unauthorized asylum-seekers will deter people from making risky journeys and break the business model of people-smuggling gangs.

Human rights groups call the plan inhumane and unworkable, and no one has yet been sent to Rwanda.

In response to the Supreme Court ruling, Britain and Rwanda signed a treaty pledging to strengthen protections for migrants. Sunak's Conservative government argues the treaty allows it to pass a law declaring Rwanda a safe destination.

The bill was approved by the House of Commons last month, though only after 60 members of Sunak's governing Conservatives rebelled to make the legislation tougher.

It is now being scrutinized by the Lords, many of whom want to defeat or water down the bill. Unlike the Commons, the governing Conservatives do not hold a majority of seats in the Lords.

Ultimately, the upper house can delay and amend legislation but can't overrule the elected Commons.

 

UK’s Rwanda plan incompatible with rights obligations: lawmakers

By

 AFP

The UK government’s latest legislation to revive its controversial plan to send migrants to Rwanda is “not compatible” with the country’s rights obligations, a watchdog panel of British lawmakers warned Monday.

The ruling Conservatives introduced the so-called Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill late last year, shortly after the Supreme Court ruled that deporting asylum seekers to Kigali is illegal under international law.

If passed after ongoing scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament, the legislation would compel UK judges to treat Rwanda as a safe third country.

It would also give government ministers powers to disregard sections of international and British human rights legislation.

But after a detailed review, parliament’s own Joint Committee on Human Rights said in a new report that it had various concerns.

“By denying access to a court to challenge the safety of Rwanda the Bill is not compatible with the UK’s international obligations,” the committee concluded in its 52-page report.

It noted the proposed law appeared incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention, in particular, as well as domestic rights law.

The committee, which features five Conservative lawmakers among its 12 members, warned enacting it held many pitfalls, including “undermining the rights-compliant culture that should exist in all public bodies” in the UK.

Globally, the law also “risks damaging” Britain’s hard-earned reputation for rights protections and “encouraging other states who are less respectful of the international legal order”.

Meanwhile, the report criticised allowing ministers rather than judges to determine whether a country like Rwanda is safe or not.

“The question of Rwanda’s safety would best be determined not by legislation but by allowing the courts to consider the new treaty and the latest developments on the ground,” the report stated.

The draft law is central to the government’s policy to combat “irregular immigration” to Britain, in particular via small boats crossing the Channel, by deporting arrivals to the East African country.

It has been criticised by opposition parties as well as various international bodies, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

But Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, facing an uphill battle to win a general election due later this year, has vowed to press ahead, winning a knife-edge parliamentary vote in the lower House of Commons on the legislation last month.

Members of the upper House of Lords chamber, which includes former senior judges, are due to renew their debate on it Monday, with many having already expressed deep unease about parts of the plan.

 

Parliamentary rights committee: Safety of Rwanda Bill is fundamentally incompatible with UK’s human rights obligations

Summary

New reports by Joint Committee on Human Rights and Lords Select Committee on the Constitution warn Bill breaches international obligations

By EIN

Date of Publication:

12 February 2024

Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) has today published the report of its inquiry in the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill.

Image credit: UK GovernmentYou can download the 52-page report here or read it online here.

The focus of the Committee's inquiry and report is on whether the Safety of Rwanda Bill is compatible with the UK's human rights obligations. The Bill was subjected to detailed line by line scrutiny by the JCHR as part of its inquiry. Very notably, the Committee finds the Bill is fundamentally incompatible with those obligations.

Indeed, the Committee finds the Bill goes further than ever before and disapplies almost all of the key provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 in respect of removals to Rwanda and thereby undermines the fundamental principle of the universality of human rights.

As the Bill allows government ministers to decide whether or not to comply with interim measures issued by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Bill openly invites the possibility of the UK breaching international law.

The Government maintains that Rwanda is now a safe country for asylum seekers despite the Supreme Court finding in November that is was not, but the JCHR found the evidence was not clear to support the Government's position.

"We have considered the Government's evidence that Rwanda is now safe, but have also heard from witnesses and bodies including the UNHCR that Rwanda remains unsafe, or at least that there is not enough evidence available at this point to be sure of its safety. Overall, we cannot be clear that the position reached on Rwanda's safety by the country's most senior court is no longer correct. In any event, the courts remain the most appropriate branch of the state to resolve contested issues of fact, so the question of Rwanda's safety would best be determined not by legislation but by allowing the courts to consider the new treaty and the latest developments on the ground," the report states.

The JCHR finds that by denying access to a court to challenge the claim that Rwanda is safe, the Bill is not compatible with the UK's international obligations, most obviously Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The report states: "Clause 4 of the Bill would mitigate the Bill's impact by allowing for claims based on individual circumstances. It would not, however, make the Bill compliant with the Refugee Convention or with Article 13 ECHR because it would continue to deny access to court for individuals with arguable claims that they face persecution or a violation of fundamental human rights as a result of Rwanda being unsafe generally or because there is a risk of refoulement. Neither would clause 4 provide for a suspensive process, as required by Article 13 ECHR, in all but the rarest of circumstances."

Joanna Cherry QC MP, the chair of the Committee, said: "This Bill is designed to remove vital safeguards against persecution and human rights abuses, including the fundamental right to access a court. Hostility to human rights is at its heart and no amendments can salvage it. This isn't just about the rights and wrongs of the Rwanda policy itself. By taking this approach, the Bill risks untold damage to the UK's reputation as a proponent of human rights internationally. Human rights aren't inconvenient barriers that must be overcome to reach policy goals, they are fundamental protections that ensure individuals are not harmed by Government action. If a policy is sound it should be able to withstand judicial scrutiny, not run away from it."

Last week, the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution published an 18-page report on the Bill, which can be downloaded here.

It warns starkly that Clause 1(2)(b) of the Bill (which "gives effect to the judgement of Parliament that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country") is constitutionally inappropriate and could be interpreted as a breach of the separation of powers between Parliament and the courts.

The Lords Committee said: "The sovereignty of the UK Parliament is a long-established principle of the UK constitution. Nevertheless, there are constitutional consequences when legislation is enacted that significantly impacts the separation of powers. This is constitutionally inappropriate because it provides a potential precedent in which legislation could be used to effectively reverse factual conclusions, jeopardising the rule of law as well as the separation of powers."

The Lords Committee finds it is possible that the Bill's provisions are incompatible with the UK's obligations in international law under both the ECHR and the Refugee Convention.

"We reiterate that respect for the rule of law requires respect for international law. Legislation that undermines the UK's international law obligations threatens the rule of law. We invite the House to consider the consequences should the enactment of this Bill in its current form breach the UK's international obligations," the report states.

Clause 2 of the Bill prevents legal challenges against the safety of Rwanda, which the Lords Select Committee on the Constitution said would reduce access to justice and the protection of rights. The Committee asks the House of Lords to consider whether these restrictions are constitutionally appropriate.

In addition, the Lords Committee noted that Clause 5 of the Bill (allowing a minister to decide whether to comply with an interim measure of the ECtHR) "raises serious constitutional concerns" given the impact on the independence of the judiciary.

Foreign workers play pivotal role in NHS: 1 in 5 staff non-UK nationals

Data shows a significant presence of non-UK nationals among nurses and doctors, with 30% of nurses and 36.3% of doctors coming from abroad 

12 February, 2024

The largest groups among nurses and health visitors are from India, 10.1% of all FTEs, the Philippines, (7.7%) Nigeria, and Ireland, (1.1%) while Indian, (8% of all medics) Pakistani, (3.7%), Egyptian, (2.9%) and Nigerian (2.0%) nationals are the most common among doctors 

By: Kimberly Rodrigues

In England, the NHS’s dependence on international staff has hit a record high, with one out of every five workers hailing from outside the UK. This diverse workforce spans 214 nations, including countries as varied as India, Portugal, Ghana, and smaller states like Tonga, Liechtenstein, and the Solomon Islands.

Analysis of NHS Digital data reveals that as of September 2023, 20.4% of the 1,282,623 full-time equivalent (FTE) hospital and community health service staff in England were non-UK nationals. This marks a significant increase from 13% in 2016 and 11.9% in 2009, The Guardian reported.

Danny Mortimer, CEO of NHS Employers, emphasised the critical role this international workforce plays in sustaining the NHS amidst escalating pressures. He highlighted the need for a dual focus on retention and attracting new talent to ensure a robust recruitment foundation, alongside expanding domestic training as outlined in the NHS England long-term workforce plan.

The data further shows a significant presence of non-UK nationals among nurses and doctors, with 30% of nurses and 36.3% of doctors coming from abroad.

The largest groups among nurses and health visitors are from India, 10.1% of all FTEs, the Philippines, (7.7%) Nigeria, and Ireland, (1.1%) while Indian, (8% of all medics) Pakistani, (3.7%), Egyptian, (2.9%) and Nigerian (2.0%) nationals are the most common among doctors.

There has also been an uptick in the percentage of midwives (7.1% in 2020 to 9% in 2023) and medical support staff (7.2% in 2009 to 10.3% in 2016 and 17.6% in 2023) from outside the UK.

Experts like Lucina Rolewicz, a researcher from the Nuffield Trust, and Alex Baylis from the King’s Fund have pointed out the NHS’s growing reliance on overseas recruitment to fill staffing gaps, stressing the importance of supporting these international workers through fair treatment, access to training, and career progression opportunities.

Baylis said, “Staff from overseas are – and always have been – absolutely essential to the NHS and must be recognised and valued as such.”

The Department of Health and Social Care recognizes the crucial contribution of international staff but aims to lessen dependency on overseas recruitment through significant increases in domestic training placements for doctors, nurses, and GPs as part of the NHS long-term workforce plan.

This strategy aims to reduce the international workforce component from nearly a quarter to about 10% over the next 15 years.

OPINION
Palestinians are at the end of the queue when it comes to international law

February 12, 2024 at 12:30 pm

Palestinian families seek refuge at the El-Mavasi district as they struggle to find clean water, food and medicine as the Israeli attacks continue in Rafah, Gaza on February 9, 2024. [Abed Zagout – Anadolu Agency]

by Motasem A Dalloul
abujomaaGaza

In a 45-minute phone call between US President Joe Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the former reiterated the importance of the release of the remaining 136 Israeli prisoners held by the Palestinian resistance in Gaza.

According to Israeli media reports, Biden’s relations with Netanyahu have reached their lowest level due to Israeli disrespect for American diplomacy, which allegedly wanted an end to Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza. During his long phone call with Netanyahu, though, Biden only reiterated the importance of the release of Israeli prisoners, ending Hamas rule and disarming the Palestinians in Gaza.

Indeed, the few words that Biden apparently mentioned about the Palestinians, were that the lethal force used against them should be less than we are seeing in the Israeli military offensive, and there should be fewer civilian victims.

Before Biden, his Secretary of State Antony Blinken reiterated to Israeli officials the importance of the release of Israeli prisoners and said that an Israeli invasion of Rafah, which hosts more than two thirds of the population of Gaza, should give due consideration to civilian lives. Blinken said on X that the Palestinians are human beings like him and he would continue thinking about Gaza’s children all of his life. Crocodile tears, Mr Blinken. Crocodile tears.

Such remarks have been echoed by other world leaders. The Israelis held in Gaza are the priority; it is their freedom which is important, along with being reunited with their children, no matter how many Palestinians must be held prisoner, tortured, bombed and killed to do this; and no matter how many of those killed are children.

The Palestinians are demonised and dehumanised, and their legitimate resistance to Israel’s military occupation is condemned as “terrorism” in order to make the slaughter in Gaza more palatable to Western audiences.

As was highlighted at the International Court of Justice by South Africa, this is the first ever live-streamed genocide in history. Nevertheless, Western leaders accept Israeli claims about the ongoing slaughter without question and only ask “How high?” when Israel tells them to jump. They ignore the facts on the ground and the evidence before their eyes of the atrocities, the massacres and the clear injustice of the Israeli occupation against the Palestinians, increasingly in the occupied West Bank as well as Gaza.

New evidence surfaces daily, proving that Israel is committing genocide, as the war crimes and crimes against humanity mount up. As far as the West is concerned, though, this issue only started on 7 October; they ignore 75 years of Israeli brutality, occupation and massacres of Palestinians. The occupation state is protected and supported without question; the victims of the brutal military occupation are vilified and murdered.

The world leaders who support the Israeli occupation do so blindly and are complicit in Israel’s crimes, even if their tone has changed recently, now that the Israeli claims about beheading babies and rape have been debunked, and they have witnessed massive popular support for Palestine in what is an important election year in many countries. Even so, they accepted Israel’s allegations against a tiny minority of UNRWA staff without question, and pulled the plug on funds for the only UN agency providing essential humanitarian aid to the Palestinians in Gaza in the middle of a genocide. Some now admit that they had no evidence of wrongdoing when making their decision.

OPINION: Absence of evidence: Israel’s case against UNRWA

“Just imagine we had the recording of a 6-year-old Israeli girl, desperately ringing the emergency services after Hamas militants slaughtered her relatives in a car, including 3 other kids,” British journalist Owen Jones said on X. “Imagine we also had a prior recording of her 15-year-old cousin, desperately pleading for help, before you hear her being violently murdered by Hamas gunfire. Imagine then an Israeli ambulance sent to rescue this little girl was then blown up by Hamas militants, killing both paramedics.”

Such a scenario would be offered up as evidence of the supreme evil and barbarism of Hamas, added Jones. “We would be told it showed they’re worse than the Nazis. It would also be offered up as justification for the need to wipe Hamas off the face of the earth. Every politician in the West would issue statements dripping with grief and righteous fury.”

The best that Biden could come up with so far, though, is to call Israel’s military conduct in Gaza “over the top”. That, and a further $14 billion of military aid to Israel, bypassing Congress to push this through and enable Israel to kill even more Palestinians in Gaza.

Biden’s hypocrisy knows no bounds, it seems, and it is matched by others in the West who are “deeply concerned” about an Israeli offensive in Rafah, but do nothing to stop British arms sales to the occupation entity.

At the bottom of this is the undeniable fact that people in the West have been conditioned to think “Israel good; Palestinians bad”; European guilt over anti-Jewish pogroms culminating in the Holocaust makes the Palestinians pay the price for Europe’s crimes. Some lives are worth more than others, it seems, and the Palestinians are at the end of the queue when it comes to the application of international law and the fulfilment of their legitimate rights.

ZIONIST MONSTER
Ben-Gvir calls on Israel army to shoot Gaza’s children, women

February 12, 2024

Relatives of the Palestinians killed in Israeli attacks on the house belonging to the al-Kahveci family as civil defense teams and civilians conduct search and rescue efforts in the destroyed house in Deir al-Balah, Gaza on February 12, 2024.

 [Ali Jadallah – Anadolu Agency]

Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir reportedly demanded that the army shoot Palestinian women and children in the Gaza Strip to protect the Israeli forces.

According to Israeli media reports this came in response to Israeli army Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Halevi Halevi saying: “Firing orders in the border area are modified according to the instructions of officers in the field on a daily basis.”

Ben-Gvir responded: “You know how our enemies work. They will test us, they will send women and children, and in the end they will prove to be saboteurs. If we continue like this, we will reach October 7 again.”

“The soldiers know the complexities, and if we do not coordinate orders, we will witness harsh events with soldiers shooting at other soldiers,” Halevi replied.

However, Ben Gvir insisted: “There cannot be a situation in which children and women approach us from the wall. Anyone who approaches in order to harm security must receive a bullet, otherwise we will see October 7 again.”

UN rapporteur: Israel appears to be violating ICJ orders

February 12, 2024 

Injured Palestinians, including children are brought to Kuwait Hospital for treatment following Israeli attacks on Rafah City in the south of Gaza on February 12, 2024. 

[Belal Khaled – Anadolu Agency]


Israel appears to be violating the orders of the International Court of Justice in the Gaza Strip, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, said yesterday.

Albanese said, in her statement to the British newspaper the Guardian, that “Israel appears to be in breach of the orders issued a fortnight ago by the International Court of Justice requiring it to take immediate steps to protect Palestinians’ rights and cease all activities that could constitute genocide.”

She said she disagreed with some lawyers and Israel regarding their interpretation of the ICJ’s orders, which they believe are not prohibited so long as Israel undertakes them without genocidal intent.

Albanese noted that the ICJ had mandated Israel to cease all activities that could constitute genocide.

Later, Albanese posted her interview with the Guardian on her X account, stressing that “ISR [Israel] is obligated to adhere to the Court’s order, & states must act decisively to prevent further atrocities.”

In late 2023, South Africa filed a case with the ICJ accusing Israel of failing to fulfil its obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention.

On 26 January, the World Court ordered Israel to take measures to prevent genocide against Palestinians and improve the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded to the court’s decision by saying that Tel Aviv will not stop the war on Gaza, adding that the court did not order a ceasefire.

Since 7 October, Israel has been waging a devastating genocidal war on the Gaza Strip that has killed tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians, most of them children and women, in addition to causing an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe and massive destruction of infrastructure. Occupation forces have been seen razing Palestinian neighbourhood, historical sites, schools, museums and mosques, which many have interpreted as a means to eradicate Gaza’s history and culture and any claims Palestinians have to the land.