Syrian army retakes town of Qusair
By Anonymous on Jun 05, 2013 03:26 am 5 June 2013 Last updated at 02:48 ET 
The Syrian army has regained full control of the strategic town of Qusair, state TV and the rebels say.
The town, near the Lebanese border, has been the centre of fighting for more than two weeks between rebels and Syrian troops backed by fighters from the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.
Syrian state TV said a large number of rebels had died and many had surrendered.
It comes as key rebel leader said his men were ready to fight inside Lebanon.
Read in browser » 
Crime victims offered charges review
By Anonymous on Jun 05, 2013 03:32 am 4 June 2013 Last updated at 22:11 ET 
Victims of crime will be able to ask prosecutors to review a case
Victims of crime in England and Wales are being given the right to challenge decisions to stop prosecutions or not charge suspects.
The victims' right to review covers any decision by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) not to pursue a case.
Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer said victims had been treated as "bystanders" in the past.
The move could affect about 100,000 cases a year, but will not cover those dropped by the police.
Ministers and campaigners say it will improve the way the justice system dealt with victims.
BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said the CPS was confident it would not open the floodgates to tens of thousands of victims clogging up the system with appeals and delaying other prosecutions.
Court ruling The new policy, which is in effect now, follows a 2011 Court of Appeal ruling which stated that "as a decision not to prosecute is in reality a final decision for a victim, there must be a right to seek review of such a decision".
The ruling referred to the case of Christopher Killick, who was jailed for three-and-a-half years for violent sexual attacks on two people who, like him, have cerebral palsy.
Continue reading the main story Analysis
Danny Shaw Home affairs correspondent, BBC News
Times are changing for victims.
Thirty years ago, the DPP's policy was that charging decisions "should not remain open for reappraisal and possible reversal".
That was amended after the CPS was established in 1986 to allow prosecutions to be brought where they had previously been ruled out in "exceptional" circumstances.
Later the CPS made clear that decisions could be overturned if they were found to be "wrong".
But the latest policy goes far further: it charts an official route for victims to contest charging decisions.
Could it open the floodgates at Rose Court, CPS HQ, to tens of thousands of victims, clogging up the system with appeals and delaying other prosecutions?
Keir Starmer doesn't think so.
But it is an ambitious plan - and will need careful monitoring to ensure it works.
Killick was tried and convicted only when one of his victims complained to the CPS, prompting prosecutors to reverse their earlier decision not to press charges.
Announcing the proposals, Mr Starmer said: "The criminal justice system historically treated victims as bystanders and accordingly gave them little say in their cases."
He said this approach was supposed to inspire confidence in decisions that, once made, were final.
"But in reality it had the opposite effect," he said. "Refusing to admit mistakes can seriously undermine public trust in the criminal justice system."
Strengthen rights Prosecutors press charges only if there is enough evidence for a realistic chance of conviction and when doing so is in the public interest.
Now victims of crime will be able to ask the CPS to review a case if there is a decision not to bring charges, to discontinue proceedings or to offer no evidence.
Charity Victim Support welcomed the move, saying it would strengthen victims' rights and "help to reposition victims back at the heart of our justice system".
Chief executive Javed Khan added: "Too often victims tell us that they don't have much of a voice in our justice system."
Helen Grant, Minister for Victims and the Courts, said: "If a victim has the strength to come forward, it is right that we give them every possible chance to get the justice they so deserve."
The CPS is launching a public consultation on its new policy, to see how it works in practice.
The consultation will last for three months, after which the CPS will decide whether any alterations are needed, a spokesman explained.
Read in browser » Labour 'to keep child benefit cuts'
By Anonymous on Jun 05, 2013 12:17 am 5 June 2013 Last updated at 00:17 ET 
Labour would face a huge bill were it to reverse cuts in child benefit
A future Labour government would not reverse cuts to child benefit made by the coalition, the BBC has learned.
Labour has criticised the cuts, but its leadership believes it could not afford the £2.3bn needed to reverse them.
Earlier this week the party announced it would cut winter fuel payments for wealthier pensioners.
On Thursday, party leader Ed Miliband is due to say he supports capping the amount the next government will spend on welfare benefits.
Economic credibility When the government decided to cut child benefits from higher taxpayers, Labour attacked the move as unfair and said it proved the government was out of touch with hard-working families.
BBC political editor Nick Robinson says he understands Labour's leadership has concluded it would not be able to reverse the cuts as the money needed would be 23 times the amount that would be saved by removing the winter fuel allowance from better off pensioners - the policy unveiled by Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls.
Our correspondent says some critics are likely to see this as more evidence that Labour has abandoned its support for so-called universal benefits - those paid to all regardless of their income.
On Thursday, Mr Miliband will also declare his support in principle for an idea first suggested by Chancellor George Osborne - a cap on that part of the benefits bill which is not triggered simply by a rise in unemployment.
Our correspondent says that is a further sign that Labour is trying to restore its economic credibility by proving it has the will to curb spending.
The Conservatives are likely to respond that it is deeds and not words that really count, he adds.
Spending power Labour's plans to cut winter fuel payments for the UK's richer older people would affect about 600,000 people over 61 who pay higher and top income tax rates - saving about £100m.
Labour may also curb new free schools and police commissioners to save money.
Mr Balls said it would be "completely irresponsible" for Labour to pledge higher spending in 2015-6, after the next election, given the likely "bleak" state of the finances.
Meanwhile, a study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies has suggested that the average middle-income family in Britain is likely to be nearly £1,800 a year worse-off by 2015.
Families with two children will see a fall of £34 in their weekly incomes, after adjusting for inflation. A childless couple are likely to lose £1,248 a year, or £24 a week, it said on Tuesday.
The IFS also said that over the next three years, less well-off families would be hit harder than those with higher incomes.
The cuts in spending power were down to incomes failing to keep pace with inflation and changes to the benefits system, it added.
Read in browser » Fixed fines for middle-lane hoggers
By Anonymous on Jun 05, 2013 03:07 am 4 June 2013 Last updated at 20:34 ET 
Tailgating and middle-lane hogging will now incur fixed penalties
Motorists across Britain who put others at risk through careless driving face on-the-spot fixed penalties under new measures announced by the government.
From July police will be able to issue £100 fines and three points for offences such as tailgating or middle-lane hogging that used to go to court.
The idea is to free up the police from spending time on court cases.
Fixed penalties for using a mobile phone while driving or not wearing a seatbelt will also rise by £40 to £100.
The move brings careless driving offences into line with the penalties for similar non-motoring fixed penalties. Drivers will still be able to appeal against any decision through the courts.
'Pet hates' People guilty of careless driving will face fixed penalties or the chance to go on a driving course, but the more serious examples will continue to go through the courts, where offenders could face much higher fines and penalties.
Road Safety Minister Stephen Hammond said: "Careless drivers are a menace and their negligence puts innocent people's lives at risk.
"That is why we are making it easier for the police to tackle problem drivers by allowing them to immediately issue a fixed penalty notice rather than needing to take every offender to court."
The AA said responsible drivers would welcome the changes.
"We are also pleased to see that at long last new powers and fines will be given to the police to tackle the top three pet hates of drivers - tailgaters, mobile phone abusers and middle lane hogs," said AA president Edmund King.
Read in browser » Row over pregnancy safety advice
By Anonymous on Jun 04, 2013 07:11 pm 4 June 2013 Last updated at 19:11 ET By Michelle Roberts Health editor, BBC News online 
The RCOG says women should err on the side of caution
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has been criticised for saying pregnant women may want to "play it safe" and avoid chemicals found in many common household products.
It says there is not enough information about the chemical risks to foetuses from cosmetics and food packaging.
Items which it suggests should be avoided include tinned food, ready meals, shower gel and even new cars.
Critics say the advice is unhelpful, unrealistic and alarmist.
The RCOG says it is informing women and filling a void - until now, there has been no official advice for pregnant and breastfeeding women to turn to.
Continue reading the main story Ways of reducing exposure
- Use fresh food rather than processed
- Avoid food and drink in cans and plastic containers
- Minimise use of moisturisers, cosmetics, shower gel and fragrances
- Avoid buying new furniture, fabrics, non-stick frying pans and cars when pregnant or nursing
It is unlikely that any of the exposures are truly harmful for most babies, say the report's authors, and, based on current evidence, it is impossible to give an accurate assessment of risk.
Nevertheless, they say women should make an informed choice and at the same time "not wrap themselves up in a bubble".
Practical advice? They say pregnant women can be exposed to a complex mixture of hundreds of chemicals at low levels through the food they eat and the everyday products they use.
Chemicals, such as bisphenol A and phthalates, can leach into food packaging and containers, including food and beverage cans and plastic-wrapped ready meals, say the authors, Dr Michelle Bellingham and Prof Richard Sharpe.
Among other warnings:
- Cosmetic products and toiletries such as moisturisers, shower gel and sunscreen could, theoretically, also pose a chemical risk
- Cleaning products, air fresheners and non-stick frying pans can be added to the hazard list
- Pregnant women might also want to avoid decorating the new baby's room with fresh paint as breathing the fumes may be harmful
Continue reading the main story What risks?
- Chemicals can enter your body through your skin or when you breathe, eat or drink
- Your baby is exposed if the chemical passes from your blood, through the placenta
- There is no consensus about which common household chemicals are harmful or whether they need to be avoided
- Bisphenol A is found in drink and food cans, while phthalates are found in plastics, carpets, fabrics, cosmetics and new cars
- Smoking and drinking too much alcohol can harm the baby
- Experts agree that there are some foods - certain fish, for example - that you should avoid or cut down on when you're pregnant because they might make you ill or harm your baby
And do not assume natural or herbal products or remedies are safe, say the authors.
Prof Sharpe said: "For most environmental chemicals we do not know whether or not they really affect a baby's development, and obtaining definitive guidance will take many years.
"This paper outlines a practical approach that pregnant women can take, if they are concerned about this issue and wish to 'play safe' in order to minimise their baby's exposure."
He said women should not be alarmed and that the potential risks were likely to be small.
Many expert organisations were quick to criticise the RCOG advice.
Tracey Brown, of Sense About Science, said: "Pregnancy is a time when people spend a lot of time and money trying to work out which advice to follow, and which products to buy or avoid. The simple question parents want answered during pregnancy is: 'Should we be worried?'
"What we need is help in navigating these debates about chemicals and pregnancy. Disappointingly, the RCOG report has ducked this."
Rosemary Dodds, of the National Childbirth Trust, said it was unacceptable that pregnant women today were still having to make decisions without clear information on possible risks.
Janet Fyle, of the Royal College of Midwives, said pregnant women must take the advice with caution and use their common sense and judgement and not be unnecessarily alarmed about using personal care products, such as moisturisers, cosmetics and shower gels.
"There needs to be more scientific and evidence-based research into the issues and concerns raised by this paper," she said.
Dr John Harrison, director of Public Health England's Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, said: "We agree that it would be sensible for pregnant women to avoid using hazardous chemicals such as pesticides or fungicides as a precaution, or in line with product information. However, there is no evidence to suggest that chemicals in items such as personal care products are a risk to public health."
Dr Chris Flower of the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association said there was no for anyone - pregnant or otherwise - to worry.
"The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has advised pregnant women to take a 'safety first' approach to cosmetic products and the good news is that there are already strict laws in place for cosmetics that allow us all to do just that."
He said a full safety assessment of every cosmetic product and all its ingredients was undertaken before a product could go on the market and, by law, all of the ingredients in a cosmetic product had to be listed on its packaging.
Read in browser » Kate prank call DJ award 'bad taste'
By Anonymous on Jun 05, 2013 12:21 am 5 June 2013 Last updated at 00:21 ET 
DJ Michael Christian is back on air at a radio station in Melbourne
An Australian minister says an award given to one of the radio DJs behind a royal prank call linked to the death of a UK nurse is "in bad taste".
Michael Christian was given the "Next Top Jock" award by his employer.
Last year he and co-host Mel Greig made a prank call to the London hospital where the pregnant Duchess of Cambridge was being treated for morning sickness.
The nurse who answered the phone and believed the callers were the Queen and Prince Charles was later found dead.
Australian Communications Minister Stephen Conroy told local media he disagreed with the award.
''There were some very serious consequences of what was a prank,'' he said. ''And to be seen to be awarding people so soon after such an event I think is just in bad taste.''
Mel Greig remains off air in the wake of the incident, but Michael Christian returned to work in February, two months after the tragedy.
He now works in Melbourne, for the sister station of Sydney-based 2Day-FM - his employer at the time of the prank, both owned by Southern Cross Austereo.
Mr Christian said that winning the network's internal award - which selects from Southern Cross stations across the country and comes with a trip to Los Angeles - felt good.
"From the start I felt like I had something to prove to myself," he said in a statement. "That regardless of all that's happened in the past few months I'm still at the top of my game."
Both he and Ms Greig have apologised publicly for the prank.
Nurse Jacintha Saldanha put the Australian DJs through to another nurse at the King Edward VII's Hospital in Marylebone, who gave an update on the duchess's condition - an incident that drew widespread media coverage in the UK.
Mrs Saldanha, a 46-year-old wife and mother-of-two, was found hanged three days later. An inquest into her death has yet to be held.
In February, the UK's Crown Prosecution Service decided there was insufficient evidence to charge Mr Christian and Ms Greig with manslaughter over Mrs Saldanha's death.
Read in browser » 
No comments:
Post a Comment