Train derails near Kanpur, at least 119 killed, more than 150 injured

Rescue workers search for survivors at the site of a train derailment in Pukhrayan, south of Kanpur city, November 20, 2016. REUTERS/Jitendra Prakash--Rescue workers search for survivors at the site of a train derailment in Pukhrayan, south of Kanpur city, November 20, 2016. REUTERS/Jitendra Prakash

Rescue workers search for survivors at the site of a train derailment in Pukhrayan, south of Kanpur city, India November 20, 2016. REUTERS/Jitendra Prakash--Rescue workers search for survivors at the site of a train derailment in Pukhrayan, south of Kanpur city, India November 20, 2016. REUTERS/Jitendra Prakash

 Sun Nov 20, 2016

At least 119 people were killed and more than 150 injured when an Indian express train derailed near Kanpur in Uttar Pradesh on Sunday, with the toll set to rise amid a scramble to locate survivors.

Police officials said people were still missing as authorities tried to determine what caused 14 carriages of the train travelling between Patna and Indore to suddenly roll off the tracks in Pukhrayan, 65 km south of Kanpur city.

Authorities said they were checking the condition of the tracks but would need to look further before concluding the cause of the derailment, India's deadliest rail tragedy since more than 140 died in a 2010 collision in West Bengal.

Desperate survivors searched for family members and some tried to enter the damaged carriages to rescue relatives and collect belongings, said senior railway official Pratap Rai.

"We are using every tactic to save lives but it's very difficult to cut the metal carriages," he said from the accident site.

Kanpur district magistrate Kaushal Raj Sharma told Reuters that 119 people were confirmed dead, while 78 of the injured remained in hospital, four of them in a critical condition.

With rescue teams still looking for victims amid the wreckage, the toll from the derailment could rise to become India's worst rail tragedy in this century.

In what was probably India's worst rail disaster, a train plunged off a bridge and into a river in 1981 in Bihar state, killing an estimated 500 to 800 people.

India's creaking railway system is the world's fourth largest. It runs 11,000 trains a day, including 7,000 passenger trains carrying more than 20 million people. But it has a poor safety record, with thousands of people dying in accidents every year, including in train derailments and collisions.

Suresh Prabhu, India's railways minister, said in a tweet that the government would investigate the causes of the derailment and promised accountability with the "strictest possible action", as well as compensation for the affected passengers.

The Kremlin said Russian President Vladimir Putin had contacted Prime Minister Narendra Modi and "passed on words of sympathy and support to the relatives and loved ones of the dead and wished a fast recovery of the injured."

MANGLED CARRIAGES

The packed train, operated by the government, derailed in the early hours of Sunday when more than 500 passengers were sleeping, survivors said.

TV footage showed mangled blue carriages, with crowds of people and police on top of the wreckage searching for survivors. One carriage was almost lying on its side and appeared to have been completely torn apart.

Rescue officials with yellow helmets worked their way through the crowds, carrying victims from the wreckage as teams struggled to remove the derailed wagons from the tracks, one of the main transportation routes for goods and passengers in northern India.

"Suddenly I could feel that the carriage was overturning. I immediately held the metal rod near the bathroom door," said Faizal Khan, who was travelling with his wife and two children, all of whom survived the accident.

Another survivor, Rajdeep Tanwar, said. "I can see bodies lying near the tracks, everyone is in a state of shock. There is no water or food for us."

Buses were being pressed into service to help passengers complete their journey, said police additional director general Daljeet Singh Choudhary.

Rescue teams said they would conclude the search operation before night fall and resume it on Monday. Nearby villagers set up temporary kitchens and erected tents for survivors and officials.

PUSH TO MODERNISE

Modi, who started out selling tea outside a train station, has promised to modernise India's railways and build high-speed lines befitting Asia's third-largest economy.

His government has pledged to replace old tracks and upgrade security infrastructure but little progress has been made so far. More than 90 percent of the railways' revenues are spent on operational costs, leaving next to nothing for modernisation.

By some analyst estimates, the railways need 20 trillion rupees ($293.34 billion) of investment by 2020, and India is turning to partnerships with private companies and seeking loans from other countries to upgrade its network.

Last year, Japan agreed to provide $12 billion in soft loans to build India's first bullet train.

On Sunday, Modi took to Twitter to express his condolences.

"Anguished beyond words on the loss of lives due to the derailing of the Patna-Indore express. My thoughts are with the bereaved families," Modi said.

($1 = 68.1805 Indian rupees)

(Additional reporting by Sharat Pradhan and Tommy Wilkes; Editing by Tom Heneghan)

Big turnout as French right votes for candidate to oppose Marine Le Pen

More than 2.5m ballots cast so far in first round of contest to decide who will take on Front National leader for presidency

The centre-right candidate Alain Juppé is still favourite, but the race has recently become much tighter. Photograph: Denis Charlet/AFP/Getty Images

Angelique Chrisafis in Paris-Sunday 20 November 2016 

More than 2.5 million people voted in France on Sunday in the first round of the primary race to choose the rightwing candidate likely to face the far-right Marine Le Pen in next spring’s presidential election.

Donald Trump’s US win has thrown the spotlight on France as the next possible shake-up of the political system. Polls have consistently shown that Le Pen, the Front National leader, will make it to the final round run-off next May, but that it would be difficult for her to win.

The three leading contenders to represent the right are all establishment figures - two former prime ministers, Alain Juppé and François Fillon, and the former president Nicolas Sarkozy. They have been fighting for weeks over who could better unite French voters against the far-right in a country still struggling with mass unemployment and a major terrorism threat.

By 5pm, 2.5m votes had been cast, which party officials said showed overall turnout would be high. Any voter who signed a charter saying they agreed with the “Republican values of the centre and the right” and paid €2 (£1.70) could cast a ballot.

After a bitter row over cheating threw a separate 2012 rightwing party leadership contest into disarray, Sunday’s vote and count were held under heavy scrutiny. Several layers of checks mean the result, which is impossible to predict, will be announced very late after polls close on Sunday night.

Juppé, 71, the mayor of Bordeaux, who served as prime minister under Jacques Chirac in 1995, has led a centrist campaign promising economic reform and rejecting what he calls the “suicidal” identity politics of Sarkozy, which he says would deepen rifts in French society.

Juppé is currently France’s most popular politician and he has been favourite to win for months. A last-minute surge in the polls by Fillon, however, means the selection of two candidates to go through to the final round remains wide open.

Fillon, who served as prime minister under Sarkozy, is an admirer of Margaret Thatcher. He is socially conservative, voted against same-sex marriage and has promised the most radical free-market reform, vowing to cut 500,000 public sector jobs in five years.

Juppé used his last rally in Lille to warn against Fillon. “France needs far-reaching and radical reforms, but be careful of going too far. We must remain credible,” he said.

Fillon attracted huge crowds at his final rally in Paris, where he promised radical free-market reform. “I’m tagged with an [economically] liberal label as one would once, in the Middle Ages, paint crosses on the doors of lepers,” he said. “But I’m just a pragmatist.”

At his final rally in Nîmes, Sarkozy continued his hardline campaigning that has veered towards the far-right, warning of a France whose “identity and unity are threatened”. Having proposed to ban the Muslim headscarf from universities, he said: “Political Islam is doing battle against our values. There’s no room for compromise.”

Sarkozy jumped the long queue of voters at his polling station in the west of Paris to cast his vote, sparking criticism after the other candidates had waited patiently in line in their constituencies.

Whoever wins the final round on 27 November will instantly become the favourite to take the presidency next spring.

Enough Hysterics. Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy Isn’t Reckless or Radical.

Despite the hand-wringing of the Trumpophobes, there’s a lot of rationality and realism behind the president-elect’s evolving strategy.


BY EDWARD LUTTWAK-NOVEMBER 17, 2016

The global funk over President-elect Donald Trump’s nascent foreign policy — from Sen. John McCain’s declaration that his Russia policy is “unacceptable” to hysterical over-interpretations of his intentions regarding China and trade — will not last long. On Nov. 17, when Trump meets with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the inevitable “normalization” of the new U.S. administration will start in earnest. Trump has declared that Japan should spend more on defense to share the burden of containing China more evenly, but there will be no rude demands. At the very most, at the next summit, or the one after that, Trump might suggest that a greater Japanese effort would be welcome. Because Abe has actually done much to strengthen Japan and do more for the alliance, the two leaders will find an understanding easily enough.

As for China and its maritime expansionism, Trump’s other policies matter more than his China policy in and of itself. Disengagement from Afghanistan and Iraq — no more troops will go in and those there will soon return home — and a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin over Ukraine would release U.S. military resources for the containment of China. That will facilitate a more muscular response to China’s island-grabbing in the Philippines, aggressive patrolling around Japan’s southernmost islands, and periodic intrusions into Vietnamese waters. President Barack Obama’s White House staff kept refusing U.S. Pacific Command suggestions for “freedom of navigation” patrols through the South China Sea in the hope that verbal persuasion alone would stop Chinese incursions. In diplomatic circles, it was reported that National Security Advisor Susan Rice opined that Beijing was “shapeable,” as if China were a very small country with not much of a history. Trump is unlikely to share such illusions, and he appears not likely to stop Pacific Command from doing its job of “keeping the sea lanes open” — the polite expression for denying Chinese territorial claims over coral reefs, rocks, and shoals.

If Trump’s Russia policy is successful, it will reduce tensions and thus the need to send more U.S. forces to Europe to strengthen the NATO alliance. But subject to that, Trump has said many times that he will press for more fairness in alliance burden-sharing, especially by NATO’s richer members. Some in Europe have already said any such attempt by Trump would instead prompt the establishment of Europe’s own united armed forces, finally overcoming objections from all sides. That would indeed be a curious response, because it would mean spending very much more than Trump would ask for. The more likely outcome is that Trump will get his increases — perhaps to the agreed-upon 2 percent of GDP.

That said, no distinctive Europe policy is likely to come from Trump. His vocal support for Brexit clearly showed his Euroskepticism. Like an increasing number of Europeans, he appears to view the European Union as a failed experiment devoured by its own bureaucracy and the euro monetary system as destructive to economic growth. On the other hand, no American president can say much on the subject once he is in office, and he can do even less, because the United States has no say in Europe’s own institutions. Yet even a silent Trump will encourage Euroskeptic politicians everywhere, perhaps tipping the balance in some countries, incidentally keeping the argument focused on liberty versus bureaucracy, as opposed to authoritarian or racist arguments.

When it comes to Saudi Arabia, one might think that matters must go from very bad — its bitter quarrel with Obama over the Iran nuclear deal — to worse, given that Trump has said many times that he views “radical Islam” as a hostile ideology. Saudi Arabia has been the main source of this brand of Islam worldwide, followed by India (yes, secular India gives a tax exemption to the enormous Deobandi seminary that spawned the Taliban). But the Trump administration will not start religious quarrels and is not likely to abandon established diplomatic doctrine on sovereign immunity — despite it having been violated by the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act,” passed in late September over Obama’s veto, that allows civil lawsuits against Saudi Arabia.

Against all this, there is something much more important: In his eagerness to reach a nuclear accord with Iran, Obama disregarded Israeli and Saudi security concerns — they are under attack by Iran every day — and treated their objections with icy contempt. By contrast, Obama’s officials acted like excited teenagers with their Iranian counterparts. The Saudis took it personally as a betrayal — Washington consorting with its enemies against its friends. Although Trump will not repudiate the Iran accords he so loudly criticized (he can’t do so alone, as it’s a multilateral agreement), he will stand strong against Tehran. His officials will not tolerate any deviations from the nuclear deal, will not move toward lifting the ballistic missile and terrorism sanctions, and if Iran’s Revolutionary Guards try to humiliate Trump with naval provocations as they did with Obama, the U.S. Navy will sink a small boat or two, and U.S.-Saudi relations will be splendid once more.

For many, it was Trump’s criticism of recent trade treaties that was most alarming. A belief in free trade these days is something of a religion, and that made Trump an apostate. Yes, Trump would not sanction the Trans-Pacific Partnership that seeks to remove many customs barriers between the 12 nations that have signed the agreement, but that is as far as his apostasy will go: He will not withdraw the United States from the Word Trade Organization, and he will not cancel any existing trade treaty, including the North American Free Trade Agreement he kept attacking during the campaign. That treaty is U.S. law like any other treaty, and presidents cannot change the law; only Congress can, and it will not. On the other hand, Trump would certainly invoke the existing anti-dumping trade barrier provisions that his predecessors were very reluctant to use, for example to protect the U.S. steel industry from the flood of Chinese steel. True, that would allow the Chinese to retaliate against the dumping of U.S. exports — except there is no such thing. Look instead for fiscal measures to discourage U.S. industries to migrate abroad, offset by the lower corporate tax that will reduce the incentive to offshore anyway. So, yes, Wall Street was right to oppose Trump, and industrial workers were right to back him.

It is all very reminiscent of Ronald Reagan’s arrival. Nobody believed that the United States could renounce coexistence — going totally against the establishment consensus — but Reagan did that, simply refusing to endorse détente. The outcome was not a nuclear war and the end of the world but rather the end of the Soviet Union. This time there is something else to end: the enormously costly pursuit of wars in countries where the United States keeps failing.

Image credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

A week of Trump

Jon Snow-

20 NOV 2016

One week of preparation on – Donald Trump is revealing himself as more “Campaign Trump” than healing, “Presidential Trump”. The only vaguely “healing” appointment he’s come up with is that of Reince Priebus, Chair of the Republican National Committee. The rest are discarded right wing Republican re-treads of old – some previously discarded for their statements on race, or their incompetence.

It is far from certain that he’s going to carry support in Congress quite the way some commentators suggest. There is still a queasiness amongst some of the more establishment Republicans, although some, like Mitt Romney appear to be either going through some sort of Damascene conversion, or perhaps think they can moderate him from the inside.

The other issue is Trump’s personality. He is reliably reported to be unhappy being left on his own. At all times he is either surrounded by his family, principally his daughter Ivanka and her husband, as we saw in his first meeting with a foreign dignitary – Japan’s Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe. And if it is not the family around him, he is reportedly otherwise surrounded by his court of ideological soul mates. Then there is his attention span – said to be fifteen minutes at any one time.

Finally, there is his preparedness to do the actual job effectively. The idea that he may go on living in Trump Tower in New York City, and helicopter down to Washington when his attendance at the White House is required, seems farcical and, if it ever really comes to pass, will also surely offend many Americans who don’t want to see the tradition of their President living in the White House broken. It could also be seen to imply that he may leave many decisions to his team, despite traditionally running his own business by wielding very considerable personal power.

Trump’s Twitter feed remains a curious insight into the man. Saturday produced a petulant call for the New York theatre to apologise for the booing of VICE President Pence who was in the audience. Mr Trump is surely going to have to thicken his skin.

Follow

Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

The Theater must always be a safe and special place.The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize!

8:56 AM - 19 Nov 2016

• 42,74942,749 Retweets
• 139,974139,974 likes

There is no question but that the anxiety about Donald Trump, both inside the United States, and this side of the Atlantic, is not dissipating. His team appointments thus-far have in no way reduced the feeling of unease. It would seem to many to be a tricky moment for the UK to be casting adrift from a power bloc it has been in for four decades and which might provide some kind of bulwark against turbulent times.

If it’s true that Brexit is proving so complex to sort, then the estimates of perhaps six months before we are ready to start the process proper, could coincide with the first taste of Donald Trump in power leaving the UK a moment to review its situation. If, as seems very possible, Donald Trump is serious about questioning Nato, reducing forces abroad and charging more for those that remain, new questions will arise as to how the order which has kept the peace in the western world for 70 years is to be defended.

Many are questioning whether now really is a moment not to be attending European Ministerial summits at which these issues are going to be discussed.

Mrs. May promised that until we leave the EU, we shall remain fully engaged. At this juncture many are hoping that we do. If Britain’s national security comes into question, people will look very seriously at where Brexit is taking the United Kingdom.

South Korea: President Park’s friend, former aides indicted in corruption probe

(File) Protesters wearing cut-outs of South Korean President Park Geun-hye (right) and Choi Soon-sil attend a protest denouncing Park over a recent influence-peddling scandal in central Seoul, South Korea in October. Pic: Reuters.

20th November 2016

SOUTH Korean prosecutors said Sunday they had formally indicted a friend of President Park Geun-hye and two former aides in a corruption scandal engulfing her administration.

Choi Soon-sil, Park’s friend, and former presidential aide An Chong-bum are charged with abuse of power in pressuring conglomerates to contribute funds to foundations at the center of the scandal, said Lee Young-ryeol, head of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office.

Lee added that his team believed Park had an accomplice role in the case but said she cannot be indicted because she has constitutional immunity.

“We will continue to investigate the president,” Lee told reporters.

SEE ALSO: South Korea: Prosecutors arrest president’s ‘shaman adviser’ amid political scandal

South Korea’s presidential Blue House did not have an immediate comment.

The indictments had been expected. Choi is accused of working with An to exert improper pressure on dozens of the country’s biggest conglomerates to help raise 77.4 billion won (US$65.59 million) on behalf of two non-profit foundations, according to the prosecutors.

Park’s presidency has been rocked by allegations that Choi used her ties to the president to meddle in state affairs and wield improper influence, but she has resisted calls to resign.

Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators took to the streets of Seoul on Saturday in the fourth straight weekend of protests against her.

SEE ALSO: South Korea: 50,000 expected to attend anti-PM rally

Prosecutors also indicted a second former presidential aide, Jeong Ho-seong, with leaking classified information to Choi.

An and Jeong both stepped down late last month as the crisis deepened.

Park has pledged to cooperate in the investigation but pushed back on the prosecutors’ plan to question her last week.

South Korea’s parliament has approved a bill to appoint a special prosecutor, who will conduct a separate and a more wide-reaching probe. – Reuters

Professor Stephen Hawking says humans will be WIPED OUT in 1,000 years unless we find new planet

The world's most influential scientist says humans must continue to go into space to find a new place to live or otherwise face mass extinction

 

BYANTHONY BOND-17 NOV 2016

Professor Stephen Hawking says humans have less than 1,000 years on Earth before we are wiped out by extinction.

The celebrated physicist said humans will only survive if another planet was found to live on.

The 74-year-old said unless this happens then humans will be wiped out in a mass extinction.

Speaking at the Oxford Union, he said: “We must also continue to go into space for the future of humanity.

"I don’t think we will survive another 1000 years without escaping beyond our fragile planet.”

 

• Professor Stephen Hawking predicts future of robots, driverless cars with children battling to save the planet

The 74-year-old says nuclear war and climate change threaten the survival of humans (Photo: Adam Gerrard/Daily Mirror)

Hawking has previously warned that humans survival is at risk from nuclear war, genetically engineered viruses and global warming, the New Zealand Herald reported.

Speaking recently, Hawking said our future would be a robot world where our children battle climate change .

The world's most influential scientist said our children have a lot to look forward to with new discoveries but also face a battle to protect the world.

He said: "There are a lot of children here and I would like to speak about what the future will be like when they are older.

"They have many things to look forward to such as the development of robots, driverless cars and computers that will win every game you play.

Professor Hawking said our future will include robots and driverless cars (Photo: Getty)

Read More

'Brilliant' doctor whose husband died after medics at the hospital where she worked failed to spot the signs of heart failure wins £335,000 from the NHS 

Rohan Rupasingh died from a massive heart attack at the age of just 33 

His wife Kumudu worked as an A&E locum at Watford General Hospital 

But doctors failed to spot his heart failure and she was awarded £335,000 

Kumudu Rupasingh, 38, (pictured) worked as an A&E locum at Watford General Hospital while she trained as a consultant

By ABE HAWKEN FOR MAILONLINE-11 November 2016

A 'brilliant' doctor whose husband died after medics at her hospital failed to spot the signs of heart failure has won £335,000 compensation from the NHS. 

Rohan Rupasingh died from a massive heart attack at the age of just 33 when staff at Watford General Hospital did not detect his life was in danger in 2010. 

His wife Kumudu, 38, worked as an A&E locum at the hospital while she trained as a consultant, the High Court heard. 

And she ended up suing West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust, who admitted negligence and have now been ordered to pay her £335,000 in damages.

Mr Justice Jay said the 'intellectually brilliant' parents-of-two, from St Albans, Hertfordshire had a 'tightly-knit family life'.

The court heard that the Mrs and Mr Kumudu - an engineer - had glittering careers when he died.

Gordon Bebb QC, for Dr Rupasinghe, told the judge her husband 'died as a result of the NHS Trust's admitted breaches of duty.'

He had a family history of heart trouble and had displayed worrying signs during examinations and 'abnormal electrocardiograms,' the barrister added.

Medics should have realised that Mr Rupasinghe's heartbeat could be erratic and that he was at risk of suffering sudden cardiac failure, the court heard. 

Mr Rupasingh was the family 'breadwinner' and a 'hands on father who shared child minding duties'.

And Mr Bebb said he should have been fitted with an ICD, a type of pacemaker, which would have saved his life.

Dr Rupasinghe's hopes of becoming a consultant specialising in acute medicine were destroyed by her husband's death, the court heard.

With two young children to look after and a gruelling job as an A&E doctor, it was impossible for her to continue on her chosen career path, said the QC.

Mr Bebb told the judge: 'Dr Rupasinghe was likely to be a consultant in her chosen speciality by 2019 when she would be aged 41.'  

Had it not been for her husband's death, she would have been earning six figures by the time she was in her 50s, he added.

But the QC said: 'Between them, she and her husband would have managed child care duties. The death of Mr Rupasinghe brought an end to all these plans.

'Hiring nanny care would have meant ceding childcare of a three year old and a baby to a stranger at prohibitive cost.'

Her husband's death had left her heavily out of pocket, but Mr Justice Jay ruled that the law did not allow her to claim for her own lost earnings.

She and her children, aged nine and six, were however entitled to compensation for their bereavement and 'loss of dependency' on their husband and father.

In the witness box, Dr Rupasinghe had told the court: 'My dream was to be a consultant.' 

Terminally ill teen won historic ruling to preserve body

Tim Gibson from Cryonics UK explains how to prepare a body for cryopreservation.

18 November 2016

A 14-year-old girl who wanted her body to be preserved, in case she could be cured in the future, won a historic legal fight shortly before her death.

The girl, who was terminally ill with a rare cancer, was supported by her mother in her wish to be cryogenically preserved - but not by her father.

She wrote to the judge explaining that she wanted "to live longer" and did not want "to be buried underground".

The girl, who died in October, has been taken to the US and preserved there.

• Cryonics: A chance to come back?
• What does cryopreservation do to human bodies?
• Science fact: Sci-fi inventions that became reality

A High Court judge ruled that the girl's mother should be allowed to decide what happened to the body.

The details of her case have just been released.

The teenager, who lived in the London area and cannot be named, used the internet to investigate cryonics during the last months of her life.

The teenager's letter to the judge

"I have been asked to explain why I want this unusual thing done.

"I am only 14 years old and I don't want to die but I know I am going to die.

"I think being cryopreserved gives me a chance to be cured and woken up - even in hundreds of years' time.

"I don't want to be buried underground.

"I want to live and live longer and I think that in the future they may find a cure for my cancer and wake me up.

"I want to have this chance.

"This is my wish."

The judge, Mr Justice Peter Jackson, visited the girl in hospital and said he was moved by "the valiant way in which she was facing her predicament".

His ruling, he said, was not about the rights or wrongs of cryonics but about a dispute between parents over the disposal of their daughter's body.

It was brought to court for the first time on 26 September and the judge made his decision on 6 October.

Future hope

Cryonics is the process of preserving a whole body in the hope that resuscitation and a cure are possible in the distant future.

It is a controversial procedure and no-one yet knows if it is possible to bring people back to life.

There are facilities in the US and Russia where bodies can be preserved in liquid nitrogen at very low temperatures (less than -130C) - but not in the UK.

The cost of preserving the body for an infinite amount of time in this case was £37,000, which was paid by the girl's mother's family.

Chrissie de Rivaz, from Cornwall, has decided to be cryogenically preserved after her death - as has her husband John - and she has committed £28,000 to the plan.

"I can't see any reason to just send me up the flume and I hate the idea of being buried in the ground, so why not take this chance to come back again?"

More on Chrissie's story

---

Simon Woods, an expert in medical ethics from Newcastle University, thinks the whole idea is science fiction.

He said: "The diagnosis of death is that death is irreversible, and for people who seek cryopreservation, they've died of a serious disease, in this case it's cancer.

"The person is in a pretty bad state of health to begin with, and there's absolutely no scientific evidence that the person could be brought back to life."

'Mr Hero Peter Jackson'

The girl's solicitor, Zoe Fleetwood, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme it had been a "great privilege" to be involved with the case of an "extraordinary individual".

When the girl was told about the court's decision, she had been "delighted" and referred to the judge as "Mr Hero Peter Jackson", her lawyer said.

"It was a difficult process. Some might say the girl's mother's attention was directed towards that procedure rather than grieving at this time," Ms Fleetwood added.

"But her daughter had passed away, the procedure needed to be carried out."

The case had not set a precedent for future cases around cryopreservation, she said.

Family conflict

The girls' parents were divorced and the girl had not had any contact with her father for six years before she became ill.

While the girl's mother supported her wishes to have her body preserved, her father was against it.

He said: "Even if the treatment is successful and she is brought back to life in let's say 200 years, she may not find any relative and she might not remember things and she may be left in a desperate situation given that she is only 14 years old and will be in the United States of America."

Although he then changed his mind, saying he respected his daughter's decision, he subsequently wanted to see his daughter's body after her death - something to which she would not agree.

The judge said the girl's application was the only one of its kind to have come before a court in England and Wales - and probably anywhere else.

Need for regulation

Mr Justice Jackson said the case was an example of science posing new questions to lawyers.

The girl died peacefully in October knowing that her remains would be preserved, but the judge said there had been problems on the day she died.

He said hospital staff and bosses had expressed concerns about the way the process of preparing her body for cryogenic preservation had been handled.

This was carried out by a voluntary group in the UK before her body was flown to the US for storage.

He suggested that ministers should consider "proper regulation" of cryonic preservation for the future.

SRI LANKA: FOR THE FIRST TIME THERE IS AN EFFORT TO BUILD CONSENSUS ON DEVOLVING POWER – SAMPANTHAN

Image: President Sirisena and TNA leader Samapanthan.

19/11/2016

Speaking at the budget debate at the Parliament leader of the TNA and leader of the opposition R. Samapanthan said that ” It is anticipated that, for the first time, within the framework of a single, undivided and indivisible country, a Constitution evolved on the basis of a wide consensus, will emerge and that this Constitution will reflect the will of all the people in this country, and be the basis of the authority of Government as stated in Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For the first time, Sir, in the history of this country the political party substantially representing the Tamil people – that is the Party which I happened to belong to, the Tamil National Alliance – particularly in the North and the East of this country, will be a party to the Constitution-making process. ”

Excerpts of the speech made by Hon. Sampanthan in Parliament on 17th Nov. 2016.

It is the objective of these two political parties to give the country a new future – not merely economically but also politically and socially. That indeed was the verdict of the country at both the Presidential Election held in January, 2015 and the Parliamentary Election held in September, 2015. The former regime and its leadership were prominent participants in both those electoral contests. They sought at both elections a further mandate to govern the country.  The mandate so sought by them was denied by the people.  The people, in the exercise of their sovereignty, have given President Maithripala Sirisena and the Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe the mandate to govern the country for a period of time as stipulated in the Constitution. That is the sovereign verdict of the people which can only be dislodged in accordance with the Constitution and in no other way.  Everybody in this country wants this country to be governed in keeping with the tenets of genuine democracy.  These values, the Hon. Speaker, are sacred and need to be protected and preserved.

I want, Sir, in this regard to quote from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations to which we have acceded.  May I quote Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:

“1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

2. Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.”

Unfortunately, that rule is not observed in Sri Lanka, particularly as far as the Tamil people are concerned.

The subparagraph (3) states, I quote:

“The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.”

That is what, Sir, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights contains in regard to the will of the people and the consent of the people in regard to the governance of a country. The will of the people as expressed  in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage shall be the basis of the authority of Government and that Mr. Speaker, is manifestly clear.  In terms of our Constitution, Mr. Speaker, the term of office of Parliament and the President unless  earlier terminated  lawfully, in keeping with the Constitution, is six years. Under the Nineteenth Amendment, which the President was instrumental in introducing in Parliament, he reduced the term of office of the President to five  years though he had been elected by the people for a period of six years. Through the Nineteenth Amendment which  was passed in Parliament after the Presidential Election held on 08th January, 2015, the term  of office of the President was reduced to five years.

The Hon. Minister of Finance, in the course of his Budget Speech, defined this Government’s economic, political and social vision. May I read paragraph No. 2 of his speech. Sir, this is what he stated, I quote:

“We will continue to progress in the noble endeavor to strengthen democracy, fundamental rights, reconciliation and development for lasting peace, freedom and national integration. Fundamentally, the country is guided by a new vision of lasting peace, built on mutual respect and dialogue. To cement this process, we have formulated an ambitious reforms agenda encompassing all major spheres including social, political, economic and international relations. This national government of Yahapalanaya will focus on reforms to the constitution, restoration and strengthening of the rule of law and independence of the judiciary.”

The vision of the Government, Sir, in my respectful statement, has been very lucidly stated in the statement made by the Minister of Finance in the course of his Budget Speech. Sir, the Government, as I said earlier, is committed to giving this country a new economic, political and social future. We are, for the first time, seeking to evolve a Constitution with the consent of the two main political parties, which alternatively have ruled this country from the time we attained Independence. It has been either of the United National Party or the Sri Lanka Freedom Party which have ruled this country from the time we attained Independence and there is a joint effort now for these two parties to come together to frame a Constitution for this country with the consent of other political parties and the people of this country.

This, Sir, is something new which had not happened before. It will be based on the maximum possible consensus within the framework of a single, undivided and indivisible country. We have had three Constitutions earlier. The first Constitution in 1947 was framed at Independence by our colonial rulers. The second Constitution in 1972 was framed by the Sri Lanka Freedom Party and its left alliance partners without the consent of the other major political party, the United National Party, or the political party substantially representing the Tamil people. The third Constitution was enacted in 1978 framed by the United National Party without the consent of the other major political party – the Sri Lanka Freedom Party -or the political party substantially representing the Tamil people. In other words, Sir, both the 1972 Constitution and the 1978 Constitution were partisan and framed by one single political party with a few alliance partners, without the consent of the other major political party in the country and more particularly, without the consent or the consensus of the Tamil party substantially representing the people in this country at those points of time.

It is anticipated that, for the first time, within the framework of a single, undivided and indivisible country, a Constitution evolved on the basis of a wide consensus, will emerge and that this Constitution will reflect the will of all the people in this country, and be the basis of the authority of Government as stated in Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For the first time, Sir, in the history of this country the political party substantially representing the Tamil people – that is the Party which I happened to belong to, the Tamil National Alliance – particularly in the North and the East of this country, will be a party to the Constitution-making process. This would enable the realization of the future vision for this country as enunciated in Para 2 of Part I of the Budget Speech of the Minister of Finance.

Jaffna think-tank calls on government to confront military intelligence structures and their involvement in Aava gang

Jaffna think-tank calls on government to confront military intelligence structures and their involvement in Aava gang

18 Nov  2016

In a situation brief released today titled "Student killings, Aava gang and the Securitisation of Jaffna", the Adayaalam Centre for Policy Research (ACPR) raised alarm at the Sri Lankan government's "failure to meaningfully confront systemic policing and military intelligence issues that have once again been brought to the forefront by the recent killings of two Jaffna University students by police."

ACPR notes that rather than focus on addressing the systemic security reform required that was highlighted by the killings of Sulakshan and Kajan, the government has instead chosen to arrest dozens of individuals under the PTA, for allegedly being involved with the 'Aava' gang. ACPR questions the "resurgence" of the Aava gang, almost two years after most of their members were arrested, particularly in light of evidence linking the Aava gang to military intelligence.

Analyzing events over recent weeks, ACPR expresses concern that the "“Aava” gang resurgence is being inter alia used by the military in the North to crackdown on Tamil activism and mobilization by creating a climate of fear that is conveniently timed for the lead-up to Maveerar Naal, which annually sees a more visible military presence in the North-East."

Writing on the recent arrests of dozens of individuals alleged to be involved with Aava under the PTA by the TID, ACPR notes that, "the active use of the PTA to arrest individuals for ordinary crimes is contrary to the promise made by the Government to the UN Human Rights Council and to its own citizens that the PTA will be repealed."

"ACPR believes that the manner in which the Aava gang issue is being handled by the Government seeks to further strengthen the national security apparatus in the Tamil majority areas of Sri Lanka.  Either the Government is actively allowing the security apparatus to further this agenda of securitisation or lacks the political will to contain the security apparatus," the situation brief states.

The situation brief concludes by making a series of demands of the government including that they put an end to the use of the PTA to address gang violence in Jaffna, openly address the security sector's involvement with Aava, undertake security sector reform of police and military structures, dismantle military intelligence structures, address the demands made by Jaffna university students in their October 24 petition and demilitarize the North-East.

The full situation brief can be read here.