MICRO-CREDIT Don’t throw the baby with the bath water

Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, the founder of Grameen Bank, which is generally considered the first modern microcredit institution. 

1 June 2019

Micro-credit has been a blessing to tens of thousands in Sri Lanka and for millions the world over. The year 2005 was named the year of Micro-credit. Professor Muhammed Yunus was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 for his efforts towards poverty alleviation through Micro-credit.   

But today in Sri Lanka Micro-credit has become a bad word. How come?   
All micro-credit initiatives historically in all parts of the world evolved out of a development initiative. Even if there was a stand alone micro-credit provider which was a very rarity it was more of a social action initiative rather than a commercial venture.   

All micro-credit initiatives historically in all parts of the world  evolved out of a development initiative. Even if there was a stand alone  micro-credit provider which was a very rarity it was more of a social  action initiative rather than a commercial venture

However, in the mid two thousands, a few profiteering, registered finance companies entered the micro-finance space and followed the micro-credit methodology religiously without understanding its ethos.   

This resulted in multiple loans and over indebtedness of the poor.   

When I ventured into this field way back in 2002, one of the principles in our organisation was that we would NOT enter and start working in any village or may it be urban or rural if there was any other entity other than Sanasa and Sarvodaya.   

For the benefit of those who do not know about Sanasa and Sarvodaya, these two micro-credit and development oriented entities have served our nation for more than half a century in thousands of our villages.   

But with the entry into this space of a few Profiteering Finance Companies who would open branch offices in every town wherever there were other micro-credit providers.   

Are we an idiotic nation to tolerate this kind of exploitation? What is  stance of the government and the Central Bank in these operations? Are  we waiting for a dozen suicidal deaths to take place for the government  to take action like what happened in Jaffna?

A micro-credit provider who is based in Hatton recently told me that there were 22 micro-credit providers in Hatton. Could you believe this? Hatton which is not a big town by any standard has 22 micro-credit providers.   

Into this fray there entered another animal. This is the sophisticated money-lender, who function as ‘XXX Credit Limited’ under the guise of a micro-credit provider. Unfortunately the regulatory authorities recognize these predators too as micro-credit providers. Why do I call them sophisticated money lenders? Their loans are short term (60 to 90 days) with the repayment installments being collected daily, making the installment quite small and seemingly affordable and they issue receipts at the time of recovery using a posh machine. The only hitch is that when you calculate the interest it works out to 120% per annum!

So today when it is reported that on an average one poor woman has four to five loans, which she is required repay once a week, it is not a lie but a sad reality.   

So these poor financially illiterate people who got out of the clutches of the money lenders (who were charging them 10% to 20% per month) by seeking refuge of the micro-credit providers have now been forced to go back to them so that they could settle the weekly installments to the micro-credit companies.   

So these poor financially illiterate people who got out of the clutches  of the money lenders (who were charging them 10% to 20% per month) by  seeking refuge of the micro-credit providers have now been forced to go  back to them so that they could settle the weekly installments to the  micro-credit companies

But the circus does not stop there. Now there are international money-lending operations who have entered the market openly advertising via social media that they make money available at astronomical rates too! But who cares?   

Are we an idiotic nation to tolerate this kind of exploitation? What is the stance of the government and the Central Bank in these operations? Are we waiting for a dozen suicidal deaths to take place for the government to take action like what happened in Jaffna?   

The Golden Key saga of yesteryear bears ample testimony of what happens to both people and their money when the regulators turn a blind eye. I am sure that none of us wants a repeat performance of that, do we?   

So, in conclusion I sincerely hope that you will understand that Micro-credit and Micro-credit Providers are NOT the problem. It is the few profit-oriented Finance Companies, who have entered this market and distorted this sector. That is the problem along with the ‘XXX credit limited’ type of sophisticated money lenders who are now joined by the social media-promoting international money lenders who are NOT micro credit providers by any stretch of the imagination.   

So let’s protect the micro-credit industry and the micro-credit provides who have been diligently working towards eradicating poverty in our country during the past few decades and let us get rid of these errant entities who have entered this development-oriented industry and make sure that these unscrupulous types do not enter this space ever again.   

Let us not throw the Baby with the Bath water!

To restore Internet access after a massive earthquake, the Peruvian government turned to balloons

Loon balloons provide internet service and are sent 12 miles above the Earth's surface.

By Peter Holley-May 31 at 2:59 PM

 

One of the biggest challenges in the wake of any disaster is restoring communication networks.

When Hurricane Harvey flooded Houston in 2017, the Cajun Navy relied onapps like Zello to coordinate large-scale rescue efforts. Others have relied on Twitter and mobile charging stations to maintain communication when power disappears or first responders are overwhelmed.

On Sunday, when a magnitude 8.0 earthquake struck remote parts of Peru’s Amazon region, Loon — an Internet-providing balloon service owned by Alphabet, Google’s parent company — dispatched a group of balloons to the impacted area, the company’s CEO, Alastair Westgarth said in a statement this week. By Tuesday morning, the company said, the balloons were providing people on the ground with wireless broadband communication. To get the service up and running, Loon partnered with the multinational telecommunications and mobile network provider company Telefónica.

In his statement, Westgarth said that this isn’t the first time the company has intervened after a disaster. In 2017, he noted, Loon responded to flooding in northern Peru and later that year provided service to Puerto Ricans devastated by Hurricane Maria.

[The ‘Cajun Navy’s’ secret weapon for saving lives: The human voice]

“What is different this time is the speed with which we were able to respond," Westgarth wrote. "In Puerto Rico, it took about four weeks for our balloons to begin providing service. In this instance, we were able to begin providing service in about 48 hours, because we had already deployed the building blocks of the Loon network.”

Reached by email, a company spokesperson said Loon was not compensated by the Peruvian government or by Telefónica, but acknowledged that the company is working with Telefónica “toward a commercial arrangement that would bring Loon to Peru on a sustained, non-emergency basis."

More than half the world’s population — about 3.9 billion people — were using the Internet by the end of 2018, according to an annual report released by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). That report found that in developed countries, four out of five people are online, but in developing countries, only 45 percent of individuals use the Internet, leaving “ample room for growth.”

Started in 2013, Loon’s goal is to create high-altitude, solar-powered balloons that provide WiFi connectivity to remote locations in developing markets. The effort is an ambitious one. The company’s balloons take the most essential components of a cell tower — redesigned for lightness and durability — and hoists them more than 12 miles above the earth’s surface to the edge of space.

Putting that height and the challenges that accompany it in perspective, in 2014 The Washington Post’s Dominic Basulto wrote:

Most commercial airplanes fly at 30,000 feet (approximately 10 kilometers) above the earth’s surface, but these new balloons will fly in the stratosphere, at 20 kilometers above the earth’s surface. If you want to really understand how high up the stratosphere is, rewatch the amazing space jump of Felix Baumgartner, who jumped more than 128,000 feet from the edge of outer space in 2012.

The Washington Post

Before balloons can provide customers below with service, “ground infrastructure” must be installed and overflight approval secured. When Loon is already active in a country, Westgarth wrote, their response to a natural disaster is measured in days instead of weeks.

[Carpal tunnel, back pain and social anxiety: Inside the injury-plagued world of professional gaming.]

“Of course the promise of Loon is to provide service to the billions of people who need it every day, not just when a disaster hits,” Westgarth added. "That’s why we’re working to launch commercial service later this year, including in Africa, that will bring mobile internet access to unserved and underserved communities. "

Related Links:

Modi politics to embrace minorities

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi took the oath of office as the Prime Minister of India for a second term at the forecourt of Rashtrapati Bhavan on Thursday. Prime Minister Modi greeting the crowds.

Saturday, June 1, 2019

Narendra Modi has been ceremonially sworn in for his second term as Prime Minister of India at the Rashtrapathi Bhavan, following the massive electoral victory of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) with the Bharathiya Janatha Party (BJP) at its lead. The poll result that saw 353 NDA members with 303 BJP Members of Parliament in the Lok Sabha gives a new five-year term to Prime Minister Modi, who in the immediate post-election phase has indicated he seeks to change the substance of politics in his second term in office.

His victory in the polls was despite major failures of his BJP-led government to carry out many of the electoral promises given in the campaign for Modi’s first victory in 2014. The unemployment rate had risen very high and the agricultural sector was in great failure. There was corruption in governance and India had not gained the expected gains in economic growth. However, Modi was able to lead his party and its alliance to the resounding victory with his emphasis on national security, especially after the Pakistani terrorist attack in Kashmir, shortly before the poll campaign was launched, and the response of the Indian Security Forces to the Pakistani terrorist attacks. Narendra Modi was seen as the ‘Defender of India’ in a campaign that moved away from economics, agriculture, unemployment and other day-to-day issues of importance, to one of national security and protection of the national borders.

With this electoral victory, the larger political expectation was that Modi and the BJP, with the strong ties to powerful Hindu dominance organisations, would push forward the rising politics of Hindu nationalism. However, Narendra Modi has given indications of a new approach that recognizes the political importance of minorities, and especially the Muslims of India.

In his speech to the MPs of the new BJP-led government soon after election Modi made a major change with new outreach to the minorities in India, and especially to the Indian Muslims. “Minorities have been deceived in the country through an imaginary fear for the purpose of vote-bank politics”, he said, stressing on the “need to pierce this deception – to gain trust”. Emphasizing the need to bring the minorities within the wider political embrace he said: “Now we cannot see anyone as an outsider. Those who voted for us are ours. Those who severely opposed us, are also ours”.

Modi’s new emphasis on minorities is especially directed at the Muslim population of India, whose trust neither the BJP nor Modi have achieved while in government. There isn’t a single Muslim member in the 303 BJP MPs elected to the government. The new reach to the minorities, and especially the Muslims, was seen by Narendra Modi’s new addition “Sabka Vishvas” (trust of all) to his earlier political slogan “Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas” – ‘together with all, development of all’. Modi shows signs of moving to an all-embracing sense of leadership, and possibly away from the narrow and separatist politics of the strong Hindutva forces in his political ranks. Many see his call for the “Trust of All” has much to do with bringing India’s second-largest religious community – the nearly 200 million Muslims into the active political landscape. Modi has stated that even though elections are won on the principle of “Bahumat” – majority, a government can be run and the country can march ahead only on the principle of “Sarvamat” – consensus and cooperation of all. However, it is also noteworthy that his strongest pro-Hindu leaders of the BJP and its allies remain very close to Modi in his new leadership.

Political analysts see Modi’s new emphasis on gaining the support of minorities, and especially the Muslims has to do with Indian Foreign Policy realities too. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States have been supportive of India and Modi in the recent confrontations with Pakistan, and there is a need for good relations with the Saudi and Gulf States for the anticipated economic progress of India. With all his wider diplomacy, the Prime Minister of Pakistan was not invited to Modi’s ceremonial swearing-in. Instead of the SAARC leadership, the invitees were from BIMSTEC - the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation - an international organisation of seven nations of South and South East Asia.

European Polls

The elections to the European Parliament have not produced the expected populist surge that would have challenged the unity of the European Union. The populist forces had more of a ripple in the wider European vote, although the far right did make noticeable gains in some countries, but lost in most countries.

The strong showings of the far right came from Hungary, Italy and France. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s Fidesz Party took more than half the national vote on strong anti-immigration policies, Italy’s Interior Minister Matteo Salvini’s Lega Party had a major draw of the Italian polls, and France’s Marine Le Pen’s National Rally narrowly topped the poll in the race, defeating French President Macron’s party. Interestingly, the traditional big parties in many European countries had losses, far from all of those votes going to the far-right or populist parties that claimed much popularity in the approach to the poll; they had to face the reality of increased support for the Greens and other pro-European forces doing well.

Nationalist and far-right parties will have more representation in the new European parliament than in any previous one. However, Italy’s Salvini has failed in the attempt to capitalize on a populist mood and bring a grand coalition of anti-immigrant and far-right parties. But a combination of personalities, policy differences on issues such as cooperation with Russia saw them fail, and the far-right parties are finding it hard to build a coherent bloc in the new European parliament.

The results of the European Poll have shown the increased fragmentation of the party systems in European countries. The big parties are fast being reduced, and what is seen as mainstream parties are now medium-sized and even small parties. There is a rise in anti-establishment parties with more emphasis on issues such as the Environment and Climate Change, as seen in the success of the Green parties.

The biggest change was seen in the United Kingdom, where the two major national parties – Conservatives and Labour - lost badly, while the newly formed Brexit Party led by Nigel Farage came on top with 29% of votes. The shows the continuing chaos in the Brexit related politics in the UK, with Theresa May announcing her resignation from the Conservative leadership on June 7, and the campaign on for a new party leader who will be the next prime minister. The elected UK members of the European Parliament will not take their seats if the UK leaves the EU before the first parliamentary session in June. The result of the UK-European poll shows the overall failure of Theresa May’s Brexit policy over the past three years, and the prevailing divisions within the UK in the exit from the EU.

US and Trump issues

As the tensions in the Gulf region gets tenser in the increasing confrontation between the United States and Iran, there is also rising calls for the impeachment of President Donald Trump by US Democrat Representatives and presidential candidates, after Special Counsel Robert Mueller made his first public remarks, on his report on the Trump presidential poll and alleged related Russian interference. Mueller has said his investigation had not exonerated Trump of obstruction of justice, contradicting the president's claims. He was tasked with investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. He detailed 10 instances where Trump had possibly attempted to impede the investigation but said that charging the president with a crime was not an option for the special counsel.

“The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,” he said, in what was seen as a reference to the ability of Congress to start an impeachment process.

Importantly, he also said that if his team had had confidence that Trump “clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so”.

But Mueller's remarks prompted three leading Democratic presidential hopefuls to join the chorus calling for impeachment, bringing the total to 10 of 23 declared candidates.

At the White House on Thursday morning, Trump said Mueller was “a totally conflicted person” and a “true Never Trumper”, referring to his Republican critics in the 2016 White House race.

He also said impeachment was a “dirty, filthy disgusting word” and the inquiry was “giant presidential harassment”.

Responding to Mueller's statement, House Speaker Ms Pelosi said: “The Congress holds sacred its constitutional responsibility to investigate and hold the President accountable for his abuse of power.”

Israel-Fresh Polls

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who won a majority in the Knesset in April this year will have to face a fresh election after failing to form a coalition government.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has to face a fresh national election after his failure to form a coalition government, with a strong ally of his Likud Party.

After the failure of the coalition move by the Prime Minister, the members of the Knesset voted to dissolve parliament. The new election will be held on September 17 this year.

Netanyahu was unable to reach a deal on a right-wing coalition following an impasse on a military conscription bill that governs exemptions for ultra-Orthodox Jewish seminary students, in talks with former Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman, whose support in the talks became vital for Netanyahu and his Likud Party. This is the first time in Israel's history that a prime minister-designate has failed to form a coalition. The situation exposes the growing political weakness for the premier, with his political rivals aware of his vulnerability; and some see his decade in office may be entering its closing stages. Netanyahu - who is on course to become Israel's longest-serving prime minister in July - will now remain in power until September's vote.

He faces another challenge in the coming months in the form of possible fraud and bribery charges and has been accused of attempting to secure for himself immunity from prosecution. He is alleged to have accepted gifts from wealthy businessmen and dispensed favours to try to get more positive press coverage. Netanyahu denies all wrongdoing.

If he is indicted, the Supreme Court will determine whether he must resign.

The European Parliament

First Mistake Of Modi Government In Second Term

The Dalai Lama had to flee to India with his followers to escape from the Chinese government and has been living in India since then.

 

by N.S.Venkataraman-31 May 2019

 

It is reported that leader of Tibetan government in exile Mr. Lobsang Sangey was not invited to Mr. Narendra Modi’s swearing in ceremony for his second term as Prime Minister of India.

 

However, the Tibetan leader was invited for Mr. Modi’s swearing in ceremony for the first term in 2014. Why is this change now ?

 

 

One cannot but get an impression that by denying the invitation to Tibetan leader, Mr. Modi has gone out of the way to appease China and keep it in good humour. This is so, even as China is claiming that Indian province Arunachal Pradesh belongs to it and is occupying large Indian territory annexed by China during the 1962 Indo China war.

 

Millions of Indians who voted for Mr. Modi overwhelmingly in the recent election as Prime Minister did so, since Mr. Modi is viewed as a strong man adhering to his principles and faith and not yielding to compulsions to achieve short term ends.

 

It is well known that China occupied Tibet in 1950s by invading the country and massacred thousands of Tibetans. The Dalai Lama had to flee to India with his followers to escape from the Chinese government and has been living in India since then.

 

Jawaharlal Nehru who was the Prime Minister of India then, did not protest against China’s aggression and looked the other way even when China’s massacre continued in Tibet. Obviously, Jawaharlal Nehru who was a well read historian and knows Tibet’s culture and background very wel,l kept silent as he wanted to keep China in good humour and maintain good relations. Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai, which means, in Hindi, "Indians and Chinese are brothers" was Mr. Nehru’s passionate slogan then.

 

However, China stabbed India and Mr. Nehru at the back and started a war with India claiming Indian territory in 1962.

 

In the last several decades, China has not changed it’s methods and policies and believes in violence when convenient and clever strategies as per the needs with least regard for ethical standards or good will for other countries.

 

What causes concern about Mr. Modi declining invitation to Tibetan leader is that whether Mr. Modi no more lacks the will and the desire to stand against China on the basis of principles , for the sake of economic and trade gains. Several countries in the world are not speaking against China though several human rights violations are taking place in China and China’s occupation of Tibet , as they are more concerned about their trade relationship with China. Mr. Modi now gives an impression that he is no different from others.

 

India has to necessarily protect the interests of Tibet and should not disown interests of Tibet for the sake of political expediency. If Mr. Modi would adopt such approach, it would be a historical mistake as much as the historical mistake of Jawaharlal Nehru in dealing with China.

 

Pakistan has already lost itself to China and Sri Lanka and other smaller Asian countries are increasingly becoming vulnerable to China’s dictates. Should not India guard itself against such negative trends in dealing with China ? .Denial of invitation to Tibetan leader is sending disturbing signal.

Cyberattack hits New Zealand budget

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern speaks during a press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel after a meeting at the chancellery in Berlin, Germany, April 17, 2018. Source: Reuters/ Hannibal Hanschke

@AsCorrespondent-May 28 at 11:26 PM 

THE New Zealand government said Wednesday that a “systematic” and “deliberate” cyberattack was behind an embarrassing leak of secret finance documents ahead of this week’s budget.

Treasury Secretary Gabriel Makhlouf said he had referred the matter to police on the advice of intelligence services.

Makhlouf said hackers attacked government systems 2,000 times over 48 hours in a partially successful attempt to obtain documents relating to the budget, which is not due to be released until Thursday.

“Somebody managed to penetrate and get some information, not the whole budget,” he told Radio New Zealand on Wednesday.

Makhlouf did not know whether the cyberattack originated in New Zealand or offshore, saying that was a matter for police to determine.

He dismissed “absolutely” suggestions from the opposition National Party, which published leaked budget details on Tuesday, that the data was released accidentally by Treasury staffers.

SEE ALSO: Is New Zealand’s relationship with China on the rocks?

“What I do have are these multiple, persistent, systematic, deliberate attempts to access our systems,” he said.

Budget documents are a closely guarded secret and Makhlouf said the department was treating the security breach extremely seriously.

This year’s document is the centre-left government’s inaugural “well-being” budget, which it says is a world-first attempt to change the way economic progress is measured, putting people ahead of growth.

National leader Simon Bridges refused to say where the information he published came from but denied his party was responsible for any hacking.

“We have acted entirely appropriately. We have done nothing illegal,” he told reporters.

The actual information released as a result of the hack is fairly mundane, including increased foreign aid and defence spending, as well as the establishment of a Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission.

© Agence France-Presse

U.S. Justice Department prepares Google antitrust probe: sources

Diane Bartz-MAY 31, 2019

(Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department is preparing an investigation of Alphabet Inc’s Google to determine whether the tech giant broke antitrust law in operating its sprawling online businesses, two sources familiar with the matter said.

Officials from the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division and Federal Trade Commission, which both enforce antitrust law, met in recent weeks to give Justice jurisdiction over Google, said the sources, who sought anonymity because they were not authorised to speak on the record.

The potential investigation represents the latest attack on a tech company by the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has accused social media companies and Google of suppressing conservative voices on their platforms online.

One source said the potential investigation, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, focused on accusations that Google gave preference to its own businesses in searches.

A spokesman for the Justice Department said he could not confirm or deny that an investigation was being considered. Google declined comment.

Early in 2013, the FTC closed a long-running investigation of Google, giving it a slap on the wrist. Under FTC pressure, Google agreed to end the practice of “scraping” reviews and other data from rivals’ websites for its own products, and to let advertisers export data to independently assess campaigns.

Google’s search, YouTube, reviews, maps and other businesses, which are largely free to consumers but financed through advertising, have catapulted it from a start-up to one of the world’s richest companies in just two decades.

Along the way, it has made enemies in both the tech world, who have complained to law enforcers about its market dominance, and in Washington, where lawmakers have complained about issues from its alleged political bias to its plans for China.

TripAdvisor chief executive and co-founder Stephen Kaufer welcomed news that Google could face Justice Department antitrust scrutiny.

“TripAdvisor remains concerned about Google’s practices in the United States, the EU and throughout the world,” Kaufer said in a statement.

“For the good of consumers and competition on the internet, we welcome any renewed interest by U.S. regulators into Google’s anticompetitive behavior.”

Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has pushed for action to break up Google, as well as other big tech companies. Senator Kamala Harris, who is also running for president on the Democratic ticket, has agreed.

“This is very big news, and overdue,” Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican Google critic, said on Twitter, regarding the investigation.

FILE PHOTO: An illuminated Google logo is seen inside an office building in Zurich, Switzerland 

December 5, 2018. REUTERS/Arnd Wiegmann/File Photo

Google has faced a plethora of overseas probes.

Europe’s competition authority, for one, hit Google with a 2.4-billion-euro ($2.7-billion) EU fine two years ago for unfairly promoting its own comparison shopping service.

Google has since offered to allow competitors to bid for advertising space at the top of a search page, giving them the chance to compete on equal terms.

British Steel collapse: 25,000 jobs at risk as assets liquidated

The steelmaker employs nearly 5,000 workers in Lincolnshire, and a further 20,000 jobs depend on its supply chain.

22 May 2019

British Steel has been ordered into compulsory liquidation after talks with the government failed to secure a bailout, threatening the jobs of about 5,000 employees, with another 20,000 jobs in the supply chain.

The steelmaker had requested an emergency $38m bailout loan from the British government following dwindling European sales amid Brexit uncertainty, and an ill-fated decision to sell off excess carbon credits earlier this year.

Just three weeks ago, the government had given a $150m loan to the company.

"The government can only act within the law, which requires any financial support to a steel company to be on a commercial basis," Business Secretary Greg Clark said in a statement emailed to Al Jazeera.

"I have been advised that it would be unlawful to provide a guarantee or loan on the terms of any proposals that the company or any other party has made."

The company's 5,000 workers are mostly at a giant plant in the northern town of Scunthorpe, and a further 20,000 jobs are dependent upon its supply chain.

"This is devastating, awful news for steelworkers and their families, and for everybody related to the community and the area," Nic Dakin, MP for Scunthorpe, told the BBC.

"What's really important is that steps are taken to retain steelmaking in Scunthorpe and the other areas affected because this is crucial to our future as an independent, modern economy, modern nation.

"If it's necessary for the government to take a public stake in the future of this industry, that's what the government should do. Let's take one step at a time," he said.

Unions had urged the government to hammer out a deal after the beleaguered manufacturer asked the government for a $95m loan last week.

The loan was refused, and the steelmaker's owners, Greybull Capital, agreed to put up some of the money themselves, reducing the loan request to $38m.

"This will be a deeply worrying time for the thousands of dedicated British Steel workers, those in the supply chain and local communities," said Clark.

"In the days and weeks ahead, I will be working with the Official Receiver and a British Steel support group of management, trade unions, companies in the supply chain and local communities, to pursue remorselessly every possible step to secure the future of the valuable operations in sites at Scunthorpe, Skinningrove and on Teesside."

New British warships should be built from British-sourced steel to provide a lifeline for the embattled industry, an MP urged.

The Royal Navy is due to build a new fleet of support vessels, but the Ministry of Defence has so far "refused to confirm" if it will buy UK-produced steel for the ships, Labour MP Nick Smith told the House of Commons on Wednesday.

About 70 percent of British Steel's products are exported to either the EU or Turkey and North Africa [Scott Heppell/Reuters] 

Brexit blamed

British Steel, whose assets now face compulsory liquidation, has blamed Brexit uncertainty for a thinning order book.

Three weeks ago, the government agreed to provide a $150m loan so that the company could make its payments to a European Union environmental scheme and avoid a $630m fine from European regulators.

Under the scheme, companies are awarded a certain number of "carbon credits" based on their target emissions outputs.

If they perform well and emit less carbon, as British Steel did from 2013 to 2018, they can sell their remaining credits to those companies emitting more carbon into the atmosphere. British Steel sold off its remaining credits when Britain was expecting to leave the EU at the end of March.

Then Brexit was delayed by six months and the manufacturer faced a huge shortfall in its credits, facing a huge fine.

On Tuesday, pro-Brexit politicians in the House of Commons urged their colleagues to pass Theresa May's EU Withdrawal Agreement when it returns to parliament in order to give some certainty to businesses.

The steelmaker told The Guardian last week that its EU orders had dried up. In the event of a "no-deal" Brexit, WTO tariffs on steel would be 20 percent - a significant disincentive for European buyers.

About 70 percent of British Steel's products are exported to either the EU or Turkey and North Africa, according to the Financial Times.

But British Steel's problems go back further still. Formerly part of Tata Steel's European operations, a deal to sell off the division fell apart in 2015, with would-be buyers citing China's dumping of steel onto global markets causing unpredictable price fluctuations as a major reason for abandoning the purchase.

In 2016, Greybull Capital, a private investment firm, bought Tata's steel division for a token amount of £1 ($1.27 at the current rate) - and renamed it British Steel, saving thousands of jobs.

Now, Greybull itself is facing additional scrutiny. In the two years following the acquisition, Greybull charged British Steel more than $20m a year in interest on loans it had itself provided, the Financial Times reported.
The newly owned British Steel also made a $50m investment in a French steelmaker.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: What happened to the freedom of speech? Why Assange's indictment should upset you

Judge Napolitano: What happened to the freedom of speech?

Judge Napolitano's Chambers: Judge Andrew Napolitano explains why WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange should not be charged for federal crimes of espionage by the Department of Justice for publishing stolen military documents.

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano -30 May 2019

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly states, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ..."

When James Madison agreed to be the scrivener at the Constitutional Convention during the summer of 1787, he could not have known that just three years later he'd be the chair of the House of Representatives committee whose task it was to draft the Bill of Rights.

 

In doing so, he insisted that the word "the" precede the phrase "freedom of speech" in what was to become the First Amendment, so as to reflect its pre-existence; meaning, the freedom of speech pre-existed the United States.

WHO IS JULIAN ASSANGE? WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT THE WIKILEAKS FOUNDER

Madison believed that the pre-political rights, which he enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are natural to our humanity, and he articulated as much in the Ninth Amendment and in his speeches in support of the ratification of what would become the first 10 amendments.

Madison knew that when he wrote, "Congress shall make no law abridging ... the freedom of speech, or of the press" he and the ratifiers meant no law. As direct and unambiguous as those words are -- the Constitution as amended is the supreme law of the land -- Congress and the courts have not always been faithful to them.

Thus, at the height of the anti-immigrant hysteria whipped up by President Woodrow Wilson and his supporters, Congress enacted the Espionage Act of 1917, which punished speech deemed harmful to America's war efforts. Wilson was determined to win the First World War at the price of the suppression of ideas that he hated or feared.
The Espionage Act was used aggressively and successfully (from Wilson's vantage point) during the war and in the immediate years following.

Then, a series of Supreme Court decisions instructed that the Act is probably unconstitutional as its sole purpose and effect is to suppress speech. These opinions harkened back to Madison, who believed that the only moral and constitutional remedy for hateful or harmful or even seditious speech was not suppression and punishment but rather more speech.

That attitude prevailed generally in the legal and judicial communities and at the Department of Justice for a few generations -- even during World War II -- until now.

Now, the Trump DOJ has indicted a non-American whose alleged crimes took place in Europe for numerous violations of the Espionage Act, and it has done so in direct defiance of a Supreme Court decision that ruled against this during the Nixon years.

The non-American is Julian Assange, a radical and unorthodox publisher of truthful information that often exposes the hypocrisy of government. His entity for exposure is WikiLeaks -- the website known for receiving stolen data and for posting true and accurate copies of them.

It was Assange and WikiLeaks that published the infamous Democratic National Committee emails in October 2016, which contained the "dirt" on Hillary Clinton once offered by Russian agents to Trump campaign officials, and for which then-candidate Trump lavished public praise on WikiLeaks.

Yet, back in 2010, Assange arranged to receive and publish stolen copies of top-secret military materials that revealed American military personnel in Afghanistan at their worst. It showed them knowingly killing innocent civilians -- and doing so gleefully.

The data that Assange revealed had been stolen for him by an Army private then named Bradley Manning. Manning was tried and convicted of the theft and was sentenced to 35 years in a military prison, much of it in solitary confinement. In January 2017, President Barack Obama commuted Manning's sentence to time served.

If this sounds a bit like history repeating itself from the Nixon years, it is. In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg, a civilian employee of the Nixon Department of Defense, revealed that he had stolen thousands of pages of top-secret materials showing that former President Lyndon B. Johnson and some of his generals had serially lied to the American public and to Congress about the Vietnam War.

When he delivered the stolen materials to The New York Times and to The Washington Post for publication, and the Nixon DOJ got wind of the delivery, it persuaded two federal judges to enjoin the publication of the documents.

In a landmark decision, known as the Pentagon Papers case, the Supreme Court ruled that a publisher may reveal whatever materials come into the publisher's possession, no matter how they got there, so long as the materials are themselves material to the public interest.

Stated differently, the thief -- Ellsberg then, Manning today -- can be tried for theft, but the publisher is absolutely protected by the "no law" language of the First Amendment.

Ellsberg was indicted and prosecuted, but the charges were dismissed by a federal judge whose conscience was shocked when he learned that FBI agents broke into the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist to get "dirt" on him.
Assange is also protected by the values underlining that "no law" language. The whole purpose of the First Amendment, numerous courts have written, is to promote and provoke open, wide, robust political debate about the policies of the government.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

That simply cannot be done when the government operates in secret. Even when publishers tell the possessors of state secrets how to deliver them -- as Times and Post reporters surely did to Ellsberg -- they cannot be silenced or punished.

Why was Assange indicted?

Government killers are a mob, and mobs love anonymity. Assange assaulted their love by ending that anonymity. When the government kills and rejoices and lies about it in our names, we have a right to know of its behavior. Democracies spy on us all, yet they persist in punishing, to the ends of the earth, those who dare to shine a light upon them. Tyrannies do the same.

Philippines ships dumped trash back to Canada

Scavengers collect valuable waste at Sidoarjo garbage dump in East Java, on June 5, 2018. About eight million tonnes of plastic waste are dumped into the world's oceans every year - the equivalent of one garbage truck of plastic being tipped into the sea every minute... of every day. Over half comes from five Asian countries: China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam, according to a 2015 study in Science journal. Source: Juni Kriswanto/AFP

@AsCorrespondent-31st May 2019

TONNES of garbage sent to the Philippines years ago was shipped back to Canada on Friday after a festering diplomatic row, as Asian nations increasingly reject serving as dumping grounds for international trash.

After a long campaign to urge Canada to take back the rotting waste, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte lashed out at Ottawa last week and ordered the refuse returned immediately.

The 69 shipping containers of garbage were loaded onto a cargo vessel at Subic Bay, a former US naval base and shipping port northwest of Manila, and began the lengthy trip to Canada.

“Baaaaaaaaa bye, as we say it,” Philippine Foreign Secretary Teodoro Locsin wrote on Twitter, along with images of the vessel leaving.

Canada’s Environment Minister Catherine McKenna welcomed the news of the trash being returned, telling reporters on Thursday: “We committed with the Philippines and we’re working closely with them.”

SEE ALSO: Poorer countries refusing plastic waste imports could make the system fairer

Just days earlier Malaysia announced it was shipping 450 tonnes of imported plastic waste back to its sources, including Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and the United States.

For years China had received the bulk of scrap plastic from around the world, but closed its doors to foreign refuse last year in an effort to clean up its environment.

Huge quantities of waste plastic have since been redirected to Southeast Asia, including Malaysia, Indonesia and to a lesser degree the Philippines.

“We’ve seen pristine communities… transformed into dumpsites because of a tsunami of waste shipments from the US, UK and Australia as a result of the China ban,” said Von Hernandez, global coordinator from Break Free From Plastic advocacy group.

300 million tonnes of waste

The Philippine row centres on dozens of containers which a Canadian firm sent to the Southeast Asian nation in 2013 and 2014 — incorrectly labelled as recyclables.

The issue has polluted Manila-Ottawa ties for years, but it blew up when Duterte said in an April speech: “Let’s fight Canada. I will declare war against them.”

Since then Canada pledged to take back the waste, but after it missed a Manila-imposed May 15 deadline the Philippines recalled its envoys to Ottawa.

A man washes plastic for recycling in a murky pond at Payatas district, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines January 21, 2018. Source: Reuters/Dondi Tawatao

Duterte’s spokesman, Salvador Panelo, ratcheted up the pressure by saying Manila would ship the trash back on its own “immediately” and threatened to dump the waste in Canadian waters.

From the Philippine side there were immediate signs the departure of the trash would stabilise Manila-Ottawa relations.

“To our recalled posts, get your flights back. Thanks and sorry for the trouble you went through to drive home a point.” Foreign Secretary Locsin tweeted on Friday.

Global concern over plastic pollution has been spurred by shocking images of waste-clogged rivers in Southeast Asia and accounts of dead sea creatures found with kilos of refuse in their stomachs.

Around 300 million tonnes of plastic are produced every year, according to the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), with much of it ending up in landfills or polluting the seas, in what has become a growing international crisis.

Ron LOPEZ © Agence France-Presse

Austerity to blame for 130,000 ‘preventable’ UK deaths – report

Two decades of public health improvements have stalled, says IPPR thinktank
PE has been reduced in schools across England, the IPPR finds, despite a pledge of more funding. Photograph: Paula Solloway/Alamy

Toby Helm-Sat 1 Jun 2019 

More than 130,000 deaths in the UK since 2012 could have been prevented if improvements in public health policy had not stalled as a direct result of austerity cuts, according to a hard-hitting analysis to be published this week.

The study by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) thinktank finds that, after two decades in which preventable diseases were reduced as a result of spending on better education and prevention, there has been a seven-year “perfect storm” in which state provision has been pared back because of budget cuts, while harmful behaviours among people of all ages have increased.

Had progress been maintained at pre-2013 rates, around 131,000 lives could have been saved, the IPPR concludes. Despite promises made during the NHS’s 70th birthday celebrations last year to prioritise prevention, the UK is now only halfway up a table of OECD countries on its record for tackling preventable diseases.

The report is concerned with preventable diseases or disorders such as heart disease, lung cancer or liver problems, which can be caused by unhealthy lifestyles and habits, formed often at a young age. It finds evidence of disturbing reductions in physical activity in schools and chronic underfunding of health visitors.

The lead researcher and author, Dean Hochlaf, said: “We have seen progress in reducing preventable disease flatline since 2012. At the same time, local authorities have seen significant cuts to their public health budgets, which has severely impacted the capacity of preventative services.

“Social conditions for many have failed to improve since the economic crisis, creating a perfect storm that encourages harmful health behaviours. This health challenge will only continue to worsen.”
The IPPR calls for a “radical new prevention strategy” involving a renewed and increased commitment to the state’s role in preventing disease.

“No longer can we place the burden of responsibility exclusively upon the individual, while turning a blind eye to a social environment which makes healthy lifestyles difficult to achieve. This means investing in public health and ensuring the government takes a greater responsibility to create a healthy environment.”

On cuts to physical education in school, it says: “PE has been reduced in schools across England, with a 5% reduction at key stage 3 and a 21% reduction across key stage 4 reported between 2011 and 2017. This is despite the noted benefits of physical education – not simply on physical development, but also through promoting healthier lifestyles and helping to enhance people’s cognitive and social skills.”

The report adds: “Funding for physical education – supposedly coming from the sugar tax revenues – was reduced in 2017 from £415m to £100m, to part fund an increase in the core school budget. The lost funding should be replenished, potentially funded by an expansion of the sugar levy to other drinks and confectionery with high sugar content.”

Five compulsory health visits should be made to every child during their early life, with an additional visit six months before a child starts nursery school, the IPPR says. “These should be carried out by a trained professional. Health visitors should be provided with additional training to collect vital information on key health indicators and be prepared to offer support and guidance to encourage breastfeeding based on clinical evidence and ensuring that parents are vaccinating their children.”
Researchers found the system of health visits creaking under the strain.

“An estimated two in five (44%) of health visitors reported caseloads in excess of 400 children, well above the recommended level of 250 per visitor needed to deliver a safe service.” The report recommends another 5,100 training places for health visitors.

In a statement, the Local Government Association said the government urgently needed to reverse the £700m reduction in public health funding since 2015 and plug a £3.6bn gap in funding for adult social care by 2025.