Cyprus-Forum.com

by **yialousa1971** » Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:06 pm

John Vidal, environment editor
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 15 February 2012 15.14 GMT
Article history

Half of UK households 'could face water restrictions by April'

Caroline Spelman will hold a crisis meeting after news that this winter's average rainfall has been lowest since 1972

Cracked and dry soil during the 1976 drought. Photograph: Chris Capstick/Rex Features

Half of all households in Britain could face water restrictions unless exceptionally heavy and prolonged rain falls by April, water companies and the environment agency have warned.

The environment secretary, Caroline Spelman, will hold a crisis meeting of companies, wildlife groups and other river users next week after the Centre for Hydrology and Ecology (CEH) stated that the average rainfall so far this winter has been the lowest since 1972, and the English Midlands and Anglian regions have had their second driest years in nearly a century.

Thames Water, which supplies water to 14m households and businesses, today appealed to customers to use less. "Groundwater levels in parts of our region are lower than they were during the 1976 drought, following below average rainfall for 18 of the last 23 months. It's now not a case of whether we'll be having a drought this year, it's a case of when and how bad," it said in a statement.

"We haven't had a lot of rain, and we haven't got a lot in the ground. We cannot rule out the possibility of restrictions over the next few months," said a spokesman.

The government hopes that next week's water summit will co-ordinate the water companies' responses. "Parts of the UK are already being affected by drought this year. That's why I'm bringing together experts and key players in the water industry to make sure that we're all working in the most effective way possible. All of our activity is going to be carefully coordinated so that we are able to minimise the effects of unpredictable water availability", said Spelman.

Already parts of south-east England, Anglia and the east Midlands are officially in drought, raising the possibility of drought orders and permits being brought in within a few weeks. These could restrict farmers from drawing river water and prevent people washing their cars, filling swimming pools and watering playing fields.

"The current regional drought now extends across three winter periods with a range of impacts embracing water resources, agriculture and the aquatic environment. In the absence of an unusually wet late winter and early spring, it is now virtually inevitable that a significant degree of drought stress will be experienced in 2012. The magnitude of that stress, and its spatial extent, will be heavily influenced by rainfall over the next eight to ten weeks," said Terry Marsh, at the centre for Hydrology and Ecology.

CEH data shows exceptionally low levels of ground water are being recorded in Lincolnshire, Kent, the Thames Basin, Dorset and north Wales. But a dramatic split has emerged between south and east and north and west Britain, with Scotland receiving the heaviest rainfall since records began 100 years ago. Flood alerts were common in Scotland in January while river flows in many central and southern rivers have been notably depressed since the early autumn.

"A remarkably sustained exaggeration in the NW-SE rainfall gradient across the UK continued in January. Much of central, eastern and southern England was again relatively dry and the development of the current regional drought now extends across three winter periods with a range of impacts embracing water resources, agriculture and the aquatic environment," said the CEH.

Angling groups have advised members not to fish some rivers. "This drought is potentially devastating for wildlife and will affect hundreds of thousands of anglers. We have a major crisis on our hands with rivers already drying up and fish needing to be rescued in southern England. Less water in rivers means that pollution run-off from farms is more serious, and as we move into the spring and summer, the water will heat up and there will be less oxygen", said Mark Lloyd, Chief Executive of the Angling Trust which represents more than 1,500 angling clubs and river associations, with over 400,000 members in total.

There is little risk that drinking water will be limited. Reservoirs were near to capacity in early February across Scotland, Northern Ireland and most of Wales and, says the CEH, most have "held up well" in drought-affected regions.

The light rainfall this winter comes on top of the two dry years in SE England. Last year was the driest in south-east England in 90 years, with only the summer recording normal levels of rainfall. One more dry winter could force then drier areas of the country will have to start looking at more drastic measures like desalination plants or transporting water from wetter areas in the north or west.

According to the Met office, there is only a 15% chance of the of the next three months being abnormally wet.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... sfeed=true

by **yialousa1971** » Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:08 pm

Phone and email records to be stored in new spy plan

Details of every phone call and text message, email traffic and websites visited online are to be stored in a series of vast databases under new Government anti-terror plans.

By David Barrett, Home Affairs Correspondent
9:00PM GMT 18 Feb 2012

Landline and mobile phone companies and broadband providers will be ordered to store the data for a year and make it available to the security services under the scheme.

The databases would not record the contents of calls, texts or emails but the numbers or email addresses of who they are sent and received by.

For the first time, the security services will have widespread access to information about who has been communicating with each other on social networking sites such as Facebook.

Direct messages between subscribers to websites such as Twitter would also be stored, as well as communications between players in online video games.

The Home Office is understood to have begun negotiations with internet companies in the last two months over the plan, which could be officially announced as early as May.
It is certain to cause controversy over civil liberties - but also raise concerns over the security of the records.

Access to such information would be highly prized by hackers and could be exploited to send spam email and texts. Details of which websites people visit could also be exploited for commercial gain.

The plan has been drawn up on the advice of MI5, the home security service, MI6, which operates abroad, and GCHQ, the Government’s “listening post” responsible for monitoring communications.

Rather than the Government holding the information centrally, companies including BT, Sky, Virgin Media, Vodafone and O2 would have to keep the records themselves.

Under the scheme the security services would be granted “real time” access to phone and internet records of people they want to put under surveillance, as well as the ability to reconstruct their movements through the information stored in the databases.

The system would track “who, when and where” of each message, allowing extremely close surveillance.

Mobile phone records of calls and texts show within yards where a call was made or a message was sent, while emails and internet browsing histories can be matched to a computer’s “IP address”, which can be used to locate where it was sent.

The scheme is a revised version of a plan drawn up by the Labour government which would have created a central database of all the information.

The idea of a central database was later dropped in favour of a scheme requiring communications providers to store the details at the taxpayers’ expense.

But the whole idea was cancelled amid severe criticisms of the number of public bodies which could access the data, which as well as the security services, included local councils and quangos, totalling 653 public sector organisations.

Labour shelved the project - known as the Intercept Modernisation Programme - in November 2009 after a consultation showed it had little public support.

Only one third of respondents backed the plan and half said they feared the scheme lacked safeguards and technical rigour to protect highly sensitive information.

At the same time the Conservatives criticised Labour’s “reckless” record on privacy.

A called Reversing the Rise of the Surveillance State by Dominic Grieve, then shadow home secretary and now Attorney General, published in 2009, said a Tory government would collect fewer personal details which would be held by “specific authorities on a need-to-know basis only”.

But the security services have now won a battle to have the scheme revived because of their concern over the ability of terrorists to avoid conventional surveillance through modern technology.

They can make use of phone tapping but their ability to monitor email traffic and text messages is limited.

They are known to have lobbied Theresa May, the Home Secretary, strongly for the scheme. Their move comes ahead of the London Olympics, which they fear will be a major target for terror attacks, and amid a climate of concern about terrorists’ use of the internet.

It has been highlighted by a number of attacks carried out after radicalisation took place through websites, including the stabbing by a young Muslim woman of an MP at his constituency surgery.

Sources said ministers are planning to allocate legislative time to the new spy programme, called the Communications Capabilities Development Programme (CCDP), in the Queen’s Speech in May.

But last night privacy campaigners warned the scheme was too open to abuse and could be used for “fishing trips” by spies.

Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, a civil liberties campaign organisation, said: “This would be a systematic effort to spy on all of our digital communications.

“The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats started their government with a big pledge to roll back the surveillance state.

“No state in history has been able to gather the level of information proposed - it’s a way of collecting everything about who we talk to just in case something turns up.”

There were also concerns about the ability of phone and internet companies to keep the information secure.

And the huge databases could also be used by internet service providers, particularly to work out which advertising to target at users.

Broadband firms including BT came up with a scheme almost three years ago to target advertising, but it did not get off the ground.

However, if companies were able to exploit the information they will be compelled to keep for the CCDP, they would be much more capable of delivering advertising to computers and even mobile phones based on users’ past behaviour.

Gus Hosein, of Privacy International, said: “This will be ripe for hacking. Every hacker, every malicious threat, every foreign government is going to want access to this.

“And if communications providers have a government mandate to start collecting this information they will be incredibly tempted to start monitoring this data themselves so they can compete with Google and Facebook.”

He added: “The internet companies will be told to store who you are friends with and interact with. While this may appear innocuous it requires the active interception of every single communication you make, and this has never been done in a democratic society.”

A Home Office spokesman said: “It is vital that police and security services are able to obtain communications data in certain circumstances to investigate serious crime and terrorism and to protect the public.

“We meet regularly with the communications industry to ensure that capability is maintained without interfering with the public’s right to privacy.

“As set out in the Strategic Defence and Security Review we will legislate as soon as Parliamentary time allows to ensure that the use of communications data is compatible with the Government’s approach to civil liberties.”

Andrew Kernahan of the Internet Service Providers’ Association said: “It is important that proposals to update Government’s capabilities to intercept and retain communications data in the new communications environment are proportionate, respect freedom of expression and the privacy of users, and are widely consulted upon in an open and transparent manner.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/i ... -plan.html

by **yialousa1971** » Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:16 pm

Disabled people face unlimited unpaid work or cuts in benefit

Mental health groups and charities attack plans drawn up by Department for Work and Pensions

Some long-term sick and disabled people face being forced to work unpaid for an unlimited amount of time or have their benefits cut under plans being drawn up by the Department for Work and Pensions.

Mental health professionals and charities have said they fear those deemed fit to undertake limited amounts of work under a controversial assessment process could suffer further harm to their health if the plans go ahead.

The new policy, outlined by DWP officials in meetings with disabilities groups, is due to be announced after legal changes contained in clause 54 of the welfare reform bill have made their way through parliament.

The policy could mean that those on employment and support allowance who have been placed in the work-related activity group (Wrag) could be compelled to undertake work experience for charities, public bodies and high-street retailers. The Wrag group includes those who have been diagnosed with terminal cancer but have more than six months to live; accident and stroke victims; and some of those with mental health issues.

In official notes from a meeting on 1 December last year, DWP advisers revealed they were not intending to put a time limit on the work experience placements.

When asked at the meeting if there was a maximum duration to the placements, the reply was: "There are no plans to introduce a maximum time limit."

Currently there is an eight-week limit on non-disabled jobseekers taking part in the government's work experience programme, and a six-month limit on unpaid work for a new pilot called the community action programme.

When concerns on financial penalties were raised at the meeting, officials said: "Ministers strongly feel there is a link-up to support those moving close to the labour market, and the individual's responsibility to engage with the support. Ministers feel sanctions are an incentive for people to comply with their responsibility."

A DWP presentation on the proposal reads: "This is a supportive measure and claimants will only be asked to do this where it is suitable in their personal circumstances."

The latest figures reveal there are just over 300,000 claimants in the Wrag group – a number which is expected to rise as coalition reforms continue – and 8,440 of them have already incurred sanctions in the period from September 2010 to August 2011 for offences such as missing interview with advisers "without good cause".

The Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP) fears that managers in jobcentres and private companies who specialise in getting people back to work have inadequate health expertise and will push those with mental health issues into inappropriate placements. In a consultation response sent to the DWP, the RCP said one of its key concerns was around "the capacity of relevant members of staff in Jobcentre Plus and work programme providers to make appropriate decisions about what type of work-related activity is suitable for claimants with mental health problems".

The college also said it would prefer the placements to be optional.

Neil Bateman of the National Association of Welfare Rights Advisers said: "This proposal is very worrying. There are completely inadequate legal and medical safeguards – bearing in mind that these are people with long-term health problems and disabilities, often serious ones.

"Compulsory, unpaid work may worsen some people's health, with the consequences of the DWP's savings being passed on to the NHS at greater cost.

"If jobs are there to be done, people should get the rate for the job, instead of being part of a growing, publicly funded, unpaid workforce which, apart from being immoral, actually destroys paid jobs."

Neil Coyle, director of policy and campaigns at Disability Rights UK, said: "Sanctions should be applied only in extreme cases, given the likely impact of taking someone's sole income away. And it is questionable whether genuinely disabled people should be under mandatory and often inflexible systems when the focus for many should be on managing health conditions or rehabilitating after an accident or injury."

Coyle also suggested that it was abusive for people to work without pay. He added: "The idea that disabled people should work but receive no financial recognition for contributing is perhaps a level of abuse in and of itself.

"

"When Conservative backbench MP Philip Davies suggested [last year that] disabled people should work for less than the national minimum wage, he was castigated, but it now appears to be government policy."

Vicki Nash, head of policy and campaigns at the mental health charity Mind, said: "Work placements can be a useful bridge for people in the work-related activity group who are taking steps towards employment, but we are very worried about people being pressured into taking unpaid positions before they are ready."

Nash said the work capability assessment process run by French firm Atos remained "deeply flawed".

"Many people have been wrongly assessed and put in Wrag despite evidence to the contrary. If these people are then given a mandatory work placement this could be very damaging to their mental health, pushing them further away from the prospect of paid employment."

The DWP said that although there was nothing in the proposals to prevent terminally ill cancer patients from being financially penalised for refusing work experience placements, it believed it would be "absurd" for jobcentre managers to apply sanctions in such cases.

A DWP spokesperson said: "It is clear that some groups wish to label people with a variety of illnesses and conditions as unable to work. This is not only wrong, it is unfair to those individuals who despite their illness want to keep working.

"Our reforms look at what an individual can do and wants to do. For those claimants for whom work is not a realistic option, there will be unconditional support available."

On whether the placements would be of unlimited duration, the DWP said: "Placements would normally be short-term, but there is currently no set duration and this will generally be agreed between the adviser and claimant."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/ ... nefit-cuts

by **yialousa1971** » Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:23 pm

Department of Health apologises over tax deals 'misunderstanding'

Exclusive: Andrew Lansley faces questions after leaked emails reveal at least 25 senior staff have salaries paid to companies

Health secretary Andrew Lansley will be asked for a full explanation of the tax arrangements for senior Department of Health staff. Photograph: Steve Back / Rex Features

The Department of Health has apologised after documents sent to the Guardian showed that contrary to assurances given to parliament, more than 25 senior staff employed by the department are paid salaries direct to limited companies, with the likely effect of reducing their tax bills.

In some cases, the documents show the named individuals are being paid more than £250,000 a year, as well as additional expenses. The payments amount to almost £4.2m in one year.

The department claimed the 25 were not civil servants, or technically even staff, although a large number have been employed by the department for many years and hold very senior positions. It said the arrangements will be subject to review by the Treasury.

One Whitehall source said: "We cannot defend these arrangements, but it may be it is very common in Whitehall and this is just the tip of an iceberg."

Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury, set up a cross-Whitehall review this month into the extent of the pay arrangements after it was revealed the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills had sanctioned a similar salary deal for Ed Lester, the chief executive of the Student Loans Company.

At the time it was presented as a rare practice.

The single largest payment was £273,375. Nineteen of the staff are paid more than £100,000.

In the majority of payments at the DH, the fees were paid to companies with the same address as the home address of the staff.

The majority of companies provided to the department are registered as business and management consultancies, yet the internal DH payroll information also details the health department offices in which they work, job title and email address. In most cases the companies' names emerge to be little more than an adaptation of the individual's surname. The Guardian holds details of the payments to 25 individuals, month by month, for the tax year ending April 2011, the identity of their limited company and their work in the DH.

The staff work in a variety of areas such as the policy, strategy and finance directorate, medical directorate, the office of the chief scientific officer, and commercial contracting.

The emails handed to the Guardian also show senior civil servants at the department discussing the possible reputational damage to the department and seeking to avoid ways of revealing the nature of the payments sought in a written question last December by Gareth Thomas, the shadow Cabinet Office minister.

Asked by Thomas if any health department staff were paid by means of payments to limited companies in lieu of salary, the health minister Simon Burns said in a written parliamentary answer that no payments were being made to civil servants in this way.

He also stated: "It is not the department's policy to permit payments to civil servants by ways of limited companies."

In a fresh statement on Wednesday the department said: "The definition of staff in this context refers to civil servants, and we can confirm that no civil servant who is an employee of the Department of Health is paid in this way. To this extent it was certainly not our intention to mislead anyone involved.

"We would be happy to clarify the situation in greater detail with anyone who asks and apologise for any misunderstanding involved. We are currently carrying out a full audit of such arrangements in line with the recently announced Treasury review of tax arrangements of public sector appointments."

Health department sources said it allowed staff to define themselves for payroll purposes neither as civil servants nor payroll staff.

In the emails, Jason Skill, in the procurement centre for expertise, discusses the motivation of the written question by Thomas, saying: "There is probably an employment and taxation angle to this question though it might not be in the mind of Mr Thomas.

"Salary is paid to employee. It may be that some or all of the non-payroll workers are in reality employees and the payments made to their limited companies would be in lieu of salary, but we would not want to suggest that all payments to limited companies are in lieu of salary."

The email also goes on to discuss Revenue and Customs (HMRC) rules, including tests "to differentiate between a contractor who HMRC deem to need to pay tax like an employee and a contractor who does not".

It continued: "The department would probably want to avoid anything that implies its NPWs [non-payroll workers] are disguised employees reputationally, to avoid unnecessary employers' national insurance and because HMRC may use this to take forward IR35 cases with those NPWs."

The emails also discuss whether it would be possible to reply that an answer cannot be provided due to disproportionate cost.

Thomas said he was writing to the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, to seek clarification. "The question was clear enough and I am therefore very surprised that the Department of Health was unable to provide a complete and accurate answer.

"Given the importance of parliament being given accurate answers from government ministers I will be writing to Andrew Lansley for a full explanation. I will also be asking other departments to check whether their answers were complete and accurate, and whether they have similar numbers of staff asking for their salaries paid to companies to reduce their tax bill."

In the wake of the students loans episode, Alexander said Lester's tax and national insurance will in future be deducted at source. He urged Whitehall departments to unwind similar schemes as quickly as possible, adding: "When we all have to pull in the same direction to tackle the country's financial problems it is essential we all pay our full and fair share."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012 ... erstanding

by **humanist** » Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:51 pm

care factor zero, really

by **Me Ed** » Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:08 pm

Post this on a Greek forum so they can learn what austerity (a Greek word) actually means.

It might just spare them the humiliation of being thrown out of the EU.

by **yialousa1971** » Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:17 pm

Me Ed wrote:Post this on a Greek forum so they can learn what austerity (a Greek word) actually means.

It might just spare them the humiliation of being thrown out of the EU.

I'm posting it here so you can learn Brit boy. :mrgreen: