high tide and low tide in great britain. photographs by michael marten
Posts tagged UK
When police carried out a routine stop-and-search of her boyfriend on the London Underground, Gemma Atkinson filmed the incident. She was detained, handcuffed and threatened with arrest. She launched a legal battle, which ended with the police settling the case in 2010. With the money from the settlement she funded the production of this animated film, which she says shows how her story and highlights police misuse of counterterrorism powers to restrict photography
If you live in the UK and are an advocate for the authorities using their power as delegated - and not abusing it - watch this 7 minute video to learn how one women challenged police authority and won … and then lost. Spread like wildfire, my pretties!
Text: the Guardian
Is this a fair wind for employers who have a responsibility only to short-term profit? It seems so; under the hellfire rhetoric of triple-dip recession, workers’ rights recede into myth as we race, ever faster, to the bottom. When profits rise, will rights be reinstated? Even now David Cameron is in Europe, seeking to pull us out of its progressive employment legislation.
Excellent little rant by Tanya Gold on the Guardian discussing the rolling back of workers’ rights, and particularly female workers’ rights. A must read.
![Have you seen the If campaign?
If you live in the UK you likely have, as we are hosting the G8 Summit in June. The IF campaign has received a lot of press from the Guardian lately, and I’m slowly getting more and more into it.
As a agricultural political economist, what I really like about If is that it combines the issue of global hunger (1 billion hungry) with the issue of factory farming and animal welfare.
The photo above is from this Guardian piece today, “If Obama and Cameron listen, there will be enough food for everyone”, and the caption sums up a large portion of If well.
Small farms [such as this one in Kenya] account for 90% of agricultural production in Africa, but aid is not reaching them, and they struggle to get a fair price for their food.
Do me, the world, and yourself a favour and learn a little about the If campaign today. If has the potential to solve/contribute positively to multiple food-related issues (obesity, food-related illnesses, hunger, malnutrition, development, fair trade, animal health and welfare, GMOs, the North/South divide, global inequality, GDP, etc) all under one umbrella. There’s a short film if you don’t fancy reading multiple articles or if you’re in education (students LOVE youtube clips!)
This is the difference between talking about global issues and DOING SOMETHING - becoming aware of what can make a difference and spreading the word.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/bda106c215d1026c39373c992d483487/tumblr_mh4pi24NSR1qh8c1zo1_400.jpg)
Have you seen the If campaign?
If you live in the UK you likely have, as we are hosting the G8 Summit in June. The IF campaign has received a lot of press from the Guardian lately, and I’m slowly getting more and more into it.
As a agricultural political economist, what I really like about If is that it combines the issue of global hunger (1 billion hungry) with the issue of factory farming and animal welfare.
The photo above is from this Guardian piece today, “If Obama and Cameron listen, there will be enough food for everyone”, and the caption sums up a large portion of If well.
Small farms [such as this one in Kenya] account for 90% of agricultural production in Africa, but aid is not reaching them, and they struggle to get a fair price for their food.
Do me, the world, and yourself a favour and learn a little about the If campaign today. If has the potential to solve/contribute positively to multiple food-related issues (obesity, food-related illnesses, hunger, malnutrition, development, fair trade, animal health and welfare, GMOs, the North/South divide, global inequality, GDP, etc) all under one umbrella. There’s a short film if you don’t fancy reading multiple articles or if you’re in education (students LOVE youtube clips!)
This is the difference between talking about global issues and DOING SOMETHING - becoming aware of what can make a difference and spreading the word.
That’s it. I’ve had it.
Dear World,
No.Just stop.It’s enough.
You are being an asshole for the pure enjoyment of being an asshole. I’ve got enough on my plate with this crippling poverty and pressure to finish my PhD. We’re STUDENTS for fuck’s sake.
Best,
L.
*sorry for the potty mouth.
UKBA has announced changes to the immigration rules for over-stayers that come into effect from 1st October 2012. Previously if you over-stayed in the UK you were permitted to make a new extension application in the UK, even though your immigration permission had expired. However, under the new immigration rules, if your immigration permission has expired more than 28 days ago, if you apply for an extension from the UK, your application will be refused. This means that if you have over-stayed in the UK for more than 28 days you need to go home to make a new application. If you have over-stayed in the UK by more than 90 days you cannot make a new application from the UK or from overseas which means you would be subject to a 12 month ban from returning to the UK.
If you make an extension application in the UK while your immigration permission is still valid and your application is rejected you will be classed as an over-stayer from the date that you are notified that your application has been rejected, not from the date that your immigration permission expired. The date you are considered to have been notified is the second day after the date on the letter from UKBA.
This is Theresa May. Learn her face; learn her name. She is heading this government’s ‘war’ on UK migration; well, let’s be fair - England’s war on migration.
On Sunday, May confirmed that Britons will not be allowed to bring in non-EU spouses who earn less than £18,500/year. That’s a link about why its ‘nasty’. This is a piece by UK-born (Pakistani by culture) comedian Shazia Mirza about why May’s plan won’t make a difference in the government’s pre-existing ‘brokeness’. And this is an piece on why and how immigration in the UK has become SO political.
The ‘thing’ is twofold:
1) Many people discount the experience of being an immigrant in the UK today. Try living under this thumb. I’ve always been at the stick end of public policy (because I’m female), but this is truly the -excuse me- shit end. Living every day knowing the date on my visa is no longer valid, and seeing news like this EVERY MONTH. Well, I know it will sound like a ‘middle class problem’ because obviously I can still afford to undertake my PhD here (see current debt total). However, its really a tough world to exist in when whether I open my mouth or show my face, I will be discriminated against. Tough world to write a PhD thesis in Politics, at least. And I’ve got it better than most…
2) THIS IS CLASS WAR! Most people in Britain KNOW that non-EU migration is not the problem, but what reason do most Britons have to stick out there neck and say, “This is wrong.” If you’re not from a migrant family, you’re not really affected. Considering the relative costs of political participation … well, there’s not much hope for us migrants, is there?
The UN has an app called UN Country Stats where you can select up to 3 countries to compare on one, predetermined variable at a time.
The app, like all things, has its limitations (mostly the variables), but IT DOES PASS THE TIME and provide some interesting info. Just look at this insane comparison I’ve done on the US (where I used to live), the UK (where I currently live), and Switzerland (where I likely will live).
I’ve done LOADS of these on trains. ENJOY!
thank you.
‘This is a film about the reality faced by many of us in the UK. We made it because we need to expose the hidden poverty amongst children and young people of our age.’
UNICEF’s Report Card 10, published today, warns that previous success on fighting child poverty is at risk due to government cuts. Many children in the UK live in poverty, but what does it actually mean day to day?
This video was made by students at St. Kentigern’s Academy in West Lothian, Scotland, to raise awareness of what poverty is really like for children in the UK.
Find out more about the report here
Both the US and the UK have suggested they are losing patience with Kofi Annan’s peace initiative amid continuing reports of breaches in the ceasefire. The UK warned of “robust” action … if Annan’s mission failed.
Is everyday for (Hon.) Kofi Annan Groundhog’s Day?
…get it?
The US said it won’t wait 90 days if Syria continues to flout the initiative. Russia urged the international community to stick by Annan’s plan.
Source: Guardian
Update: its (still) raining in Manchester
After over a year of being apart, my husband returns to Britain (legally) tomorrow evening. I’ve been trying to control my squees with countless dinners and dates with the colleagues (hence no tumbling), but I SIMPLY CANNOT CONTAIN MYSELF ANY LONGER!!!!
The way ‘we’ have conceptualised (im)migration is entirely inaccurate and unjust/unequal/unfair. I’m here to say, if you are a non-EU citizen and you want to (im)migrate to an EU nation, you must have money, especially if you want to stay for more than 5 years (Theresa May). My husband and I exhausted the books on visa options that would grant us a life with an annual income over £11,000 (my student aid), but Britain simply will not have it. After being apart for over a year, succumbing to exhaustion and poor mental and physical health, we caved and lobbied my family for £8,000 a year until January 2015. £19,000 a year teeters on the edge of the poverty line, but at a certain point in life you realise it IS better to be poor and miserable together than poor and miserable apart.
So this is me, first hand - a Politics PhD (in progo) w a CV that warrants merited funding (w/out actually receiving any because of my fee status as an overseas student) - saying if you want to expatriate from the United States and move to Europe (short OR long-term), you better come from money. …and that there is something inherently flawed about our system of (im)migration.
nb: don’t expect ANY posts from me next week. i won’t make you wonder where I’ll be, but it won’t be near tumblr.
Part 2 of 2: Breaking down thepoliticalnotebook’s ‘This Week In War’
Part 2 is of course (if you follow me), from thepoliticalnotebook’s post on drones.
Here’s what interested me enough to break down the article:
Legislation: ‘H.R. 658, the “FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012,” which authorizes budget resources for the Federal Aviation Administration through FY 2015 and encourages acceleration of the Next Generation Air Transportation System and air traffic control modernization.’ Signed by President Obama on, awww, Valentines’ Day, 14 February 2012.
The Why: ‘Congress is demanding drones in the air over the United States – without considering the civil liberties issues. Within the span of three days last week, the House and then the Senate passed a law – H.R. 658 – requiring the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to speed up, within 90 days, its current licensing process for government use of drones domestically and to open the national airspace to drone aircraft for commercial and private use by October 2015. While the law requires the FAA to develop guidance on drone safety, the law says absolutely nothing about the privacy or transparency implications of filling the sky with flying robots.’
The Issues:(Source: all quotes below pulled from ‘on drones’ link above)
- ‘The FAA has issued more than 300 temporary licenses - mostly to law enforcement agencies and research institutions.’
- ‘The agreements must allow law enforcement and other public safety agencies to operate drones under certain restrictions (i.e., within the line of sight of the operator, under 400ft., during daylight conditions).’
- ‘The Secretary must determine if certain types of drones (government and non-government) can operate in the national airspace before completion of the comprehensive plan, rulemakings, or guidance required… The Secretary must base this determination on whether the drone can perform without hazard to the public or national security.’
- The Secretary must issue guidance regarding the operation of government drones. The guidance must include ways to expedite the issuance of FAA authorizations to use drones.
- The Secretary must develop a “comprehensive plan” to integrate non-government drones into the national airspace system by Sep. 30, 2015. The plan is required to contain several elements, including recommendations on acceptable standards for operation, certification, and licensing of non-government drones. The recommendations in this plan will influence subsequent rulemakings.’
- ‘Feb. 14, 2013: Deadline for the comprehensive plan’
- ‘Sep. 30, 2015: Integration of non-government drones’
- ‘Dec. 14, 2015: Final rule to implement the comprehensive plan’
Here is some TERRIBLE guidance for use of non-government drone use (from previous post).
And finally, here is some advice from the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Systems Association (UAVSA), ‘a trade group that represents the drone industry to the UK government,’ (Source: the Guardian) on how to get civilian populations to accept drones in their daily lives…
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?
*excuse me*
…the thing is, there’s nothing a citizen can do. Private contractors/corporations have been successfully marketing drones to all levels of government. These things have been in flight for several months. They lobby; they’ve got money; they’ve got the ear… as you and me go… we’re pretty much powerless to voice our concern and dissent against the domestic use of drones.
In case you didn’t know… other than the whole privacy issue… here’s why drones are bad for your psyche.
That’s about all the linkingiest rantingiest I’ve got in me.
Who needs a drink?
New Batch Scheme from UKBA being released 6 April.
Expected:
- end of the post study work visa
- increase in monthly financial requirements per dependent (in and outside of London)
- increase in fees required to process new/updated visas internally
- 5-year maximum stay for all migrants earning less than £32/£35,000 per annum
(Source: thesubversivesound)
Again, I’m so sorry for the crappy format of this post.
This was in the FT (7 March 2012, pg. 4)
Headline: Clark defends use of secret hearings
Text: Ken Clarke, the justice secretary, admitted he had been “most unsettled” by the backlash prompted by his plan to expand the use of secret hearings, designed so that the security services can challenge civil suits brought against them.
Speaking at the joint committee on human rights yesterday, Mr Clarke sought to deflect criticism from civil liberties groups and politicians across the party spectrum that argue the government is “sleep walking” into the creation of a system of “secret trials” to protect the interest of the UK security services.
Reiterating his firm belief in “open justice”, Mr Clarke said: “I don’t think justice should ever take place behind close doors unless there is some extremely compelling reason. National security can sometimes be one of those reasons.”
He dismissed the suggestion that intelligence could be discussed in open court. “Are we saying that a judge should be able to disclose the contents of intelligence that we’ve received from the United States or other sources? If that’s the case, the US will not share intelligence with us,” he said.
Mr Clarke unveiled proposals last year in a green paper aiming to deal with the problem of how the security services, MI5 and MI6, could present secret evidence in civil trials where they may be accused of wrongdoing.
The need to deal with the issue arose in 2010, when Binyam Mohamed, a Guantanamo Bay detainee, brought a civil action against the security services, claiming that they had been complicit in his detention and ill treatment.
The government was forced to grant an out-of-court settlement to Guantanamo Bay detainees last year because of the security services were unable to present evidence in open court to defend themselves.
(editorial comment pg. 12)
There are two parts that I would like to highlight:
1. Mr Clarke: “I don’t think justice should ever take place behind close doors unless there is some extremely compelling reason.”
When we start making exceptions for open justice, we began a long, slow decent into closed-door ‘justice’. Plain and simple. Also, I do not believe the US has a ‘good’ track record, so to speak, on open-court justice, ESPECIALLY in Guantanamo Bay. I wouldn’t exactly consider the US a model for open justice.
2. FT text: “The government was forced to grant an out-of-court settlement to Guantanamo Bay detainees last year because of the security services were unable to present evidence in open court to defend themselves.”
Governments are hardly ‘forced’ into settlements in ‘just’ cases. They are the government; they make the rules. So saying that a government is ‘forced’ to settle is, well, fairly incorrect. Additionally, I understand that just as the detainees in Gitmo have the right to seek fair trial, so do the security services. However, if ‘evidence’ required to ‘defend’ security forces cannot be released in open court because it conflicts with National Security… then I think the issue is less about security forces having access to a fair trial, and more about the secret operations that keep places like Guantanamo Bay operational.
There’s is clearly something the FT is missing here. …and I think its this.
