More War Threatens Libya

Uncategorised No Comments
Libya has been in the throes of civil war since a NATO-backed uprising in 2011 that toppled Ghadafi. Control over the oil-rich nation is currently split between a UN-supported Tripoli government in the west and military strongman Khalifa Haftar and his Libyan National Army (LNA) in the east.  Egypt has been backing Haftar, along with the United Arab Emirates and Russia, while Tripoli government forces have been supported by Turkey, Italy and Qatar.



 Egyptian President el-Sissi has warned of a military intervention to protect Egypt’s border with Libya. The move could bring Egypt and Turkey, who support rival sides in Libya’s proxy war, into direct confrontation.



 Egypt’s parliament on Monday authorized the deployment of troops abroad after President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi threatened military intervention against Turkish-backed forces in Libya. Egypt’s House of Representatives, which is filled with el-Sissi supporters, said after a closed-door session that armed forces could be deployed outside the country to fight “criminal militias” and “foreign terrorist groups” on a “western front,” but did name Libya directly. It said the troops would be defending Egypt’s national security.



 El-Sissi said last week that Egypt, which shares its western porous desert border with Libya, would not stand idle if there was a threat to the nation’s security. He also warned that the strategic coastal city of Sirte was a “red line,” and that an attack on the town by Libyan government forces would prompt Cairo to intervene.



 With the help of Turkish support, government forces last month ended a 14-month offensive by the LNA in Tripoli. It was a major setback for Haftar, who has sought to unify Libya by force. Since reclaiming Tripoli, government forces have pushed eastward toward Sirte, which lies 800 kilometers from the Egyptian border. The city, which is the late Ghadafi’s hometown, is a gateway to Libya’s most important crude export terminals. 



  The Egyptian presidenct el-Sissi had spoken with US President Donald Trump and assured him that Egypt would “prevent further deterioration of security in Libya.” 



 https://www.dw.com/en/egypts-parliament-approves-troop-deployment-in-libya/a-54247567

More Billions for Bezos

Uncategorised No Comments

Amazon’s Jeff Bezos has set a fresh record increasing his fortune by an additional $13bn (£10bn) in a single day to take his personal wealth to an unprecedented $189bn. The $13bn increase Bezos achieved on Monday is the biggest single-day jump in anyone’s net worth since Bloomberg began tracking the daily changes in fortunes of the world’s wealthiest people in 2012. In ONE DAY Jeff Bezos made well over 4,000 times what the average American earns in their ENTIRE LIFETIME. Bezos is now $71bn richer than the next-wealthiest person on the list: Microsoft founder Bill Gates.



 Bezos’s fortune has been swelled by Amazon’s soaraway share price as hundreds of millions of people trapped at home by coronavirus lockdowns around the world turn to the online delivery giant to keep themselves fed and entertained. While many businesses have been hit hard by the pandemic and the beginnings of what threatens to be the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s, Amazon’s shares have increased by 70% since the start of the year. On Monday alone, the share price rose by 8% to a record $3,197. (By lunchtime Tuesday they were changing hands at slightly below that peak.)



  Bezos’s $189bn fortune means he is personally worth more than companies such as Exxon Mobil, Nike or McDonald’s. His total wealth now makes him worth more than Britain’s biggest company, the pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca which is valued on the stock exchange at £121bn. In the UK, Bezos has more than enough money to buy the big four banks – HSBC, Barclays, RBS and Lloyds – and have enough change left over to pick up British Airways owner IAG as well as Sainsbury’s and Marks & Spencer. The huge increase in Bezos’s wealth on Monday alone is equivalent of adding nearly 30 times the Queen’s £350m fortune. His fortune now dwarfs the GDP of Hungary, Ukraine and Qatar. And he is within striking distance of overtaking Greece and New Zealand who are ranked by the World Bank as the 51st and 52nd biggest economies in the world.

Oxfam, the global development charity, said it was “truly shocking” that Bezos had managed to make so much money during the coronavirus crisis, which has forced hundreds of millions of people around the world to rely on food banks and government support.
“It is hard to reconcile this obscene figure with the reality the rest of us are living through,” Rebecca Gowland, Oxfam’s head of inequality campaign and policy, said. “At a time when hardship is commonplace, hunger is on the increase and half a billion more people face being pushed into extreme poverty, it is truly shocking that one already extremely wealthy individual has pocketed another $74bn already this year.” 
Gowland said it showed global economic policies are “not fit for purpose” and “allow the super-rich to accumulate vast amounts of money at the expense of the rest of us when that money is desperately needed for healthcare and social safety nets”.
Bezos has donated $100m to a food bank charity to help Americans struggling with the economic fallout from the pandemic. .  Bezos’s $100m donation represents 0.05% of his fortune. Bezos has given $2bn, amounting to just more than 1% of his wealth, to the Bezos Day One Fund to help address homelessness and improve education for children in low-income families. Amazon is also pumping $25m into an “Amazon Relief Fund” to support delivery drivers and “seasonal employees under financial distress.”
Bezos would have been even richer, if he had not been required to give his ex-wife MacKenzie 25% of his Amazon shares when they divorced last year. The boom in Amazon’s share price, increased her fortune by $4.6bn on Monday and she is now the world’s 13th-richest person.

Migrant Workers Misery in Spain

Uncategorised No Comments
Thousands of migrant strawberry pickers from Morocco are trapped in Spain. Local groups call it a humanitarian crisis.

Since the late 1990s, thousands of Moroccan seasonal workers have come every year for the strawberry harvest. Around 17,000, mostly female, Moroccan seasonal workers were supposed to come this year to the southern Spanish province of Huelva for the strawberry harvest. 
Alicia Navascues thinks “this hiring model is a modern form of slavery.” If working conditions were decent, she pointed out, then locals would be keen to take on these jobs, since the province has had a high unemployment rate in the past few years. “This model of capitalistic exploitation does not work, not for these women,” she said. Yet for now it seems it will take more than a pandemic to change it.
Only 7,200 of these so-called temporeras made it there after the borders with Morocco were closed on March 13 due to the coronavirus pandemic.
But once the harvest season finished and their contracts expired, most of them have found themselves trapped as their home country kept its doors closed and refused to repatriate them.
Migrant support groups speak of a “humanitarian crisis.” The laborers’ contracts expired in mid-June, but since then only around a hundred women, who were sick or about to give birth, have been repatriated. Others have given birth during their stay in Spain, working until the day before, if not the very same day they went into labor. A midwife who assisted some of these births told DW that “these women were alone and unable to communicate.”
“They are running out of money and, as time goes by they’re becoming more and more vulnerable,” Jose Maria Castellon, a member of the rights group APDHA, told DW.
The agricultural model of Spain has been questioned for years because of the working and living conditions of its migrant workers.
Apart from seasonal pickers — mostly from Morocco, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria — hundreds of sub-Saharan migrants live year-round in shantytowns close to the fields. Last February, after a visit to the camps, the United Nations’ Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights said: “They live like animals. Their conditions are among the worst that I have seen in any part of the world.”
 At the places where they stay, many don’t have proper ventilation, toilets or running water. Social distancing is a rare privilege. 
“If they had been professional football players, they would have been sent back home right away, but they’re poor women,” Alicia Navascues, a local human rights activist, told DW.
Now it is possible for the Moroccan workers to return by plane or by ship, but only from French and Italian ports. The harvesters say they cannot afford those tickets. Without a negative test result Morocco will not let them go back home.

Malaysia Cracks Down on Refugees

Uncategorised No Comments
A group of Rohingya refugees who survived a treacherous journey at sea now face caning and seven months in jail after they were convicted under the immigration act in Malaysia, where activists have warned of an alarming rise in xenophobia and inhumane treatment of the migrants. Hundreds of arrests and a sharp rise in hate speech have shocked refugees and migrants. 
Over recent months, Malaysia has been widely condemned for turning away boats carrying Rohingya refugees fleeing desperate conditions in camps in Bangladesh. Some boats were allowed to dock, but the hundreds of refugees onboard are understood to remain in detention, according to Amnesty International.
A group of 31 Rohingya men who disembarked from a boat in April have since been convicted under the Immigration Act, and sentenced to seven months in prison, while at least 20 have been sentenced to three strokes of the cane. Nine women are also facing seven months in prison, while 14 children have been charged and are facing jail terms. The sentencing, announced in June, has been condemned as “cruel and inhuman” by Amnesty International, which has called for the decision to be overturned.
The prospect of being sent to detention centres, notorious for violence and illness, has become a most stark threat. At least 735 cases of coronavirus were reported in the centres in June, almost 10% of the country’s total. Refugees and aid workers say detention conditions are cramped and unsanitary, and food is limited.
“It was a horrible situation, the treatment they subjected us to. They took us into the prison, it was small but with so many people, and so many people were ill … it was like we were animals,” said the Yemeni refugee. “There were a lot of Covid-19 cases … the ill, and those who weren’t, were all next to each other without separation.”
Another Yemeni refugee told the Guardian: “They put me in a jail cell for three days without food, without drink or even a toilet. Then they transferred me to a cell in a big prison where there were 200 people.
“I was in the prison and then we were taken out in handcuffs, all together, and they started beating us. Four of the guards beat us and then said we’re being released. The coronavirus and the beatings were agonising.”
UNHCR said it has not had access to Malaysian detention centres since last August.
Immigration raids tarted in May followed a surge in xenophobia after Malaysia was criticised for sending boats carrying hundreds of Rohingya refugees back to sea. Almost 600 undocumented migrants were arrested in the first weekend. Authorities were criticised for rounding up residents and forcing them to sit on the ground without social distancing. A new wave of xenophobic attacks began this month. The government has announced that foreigners will be banned from mosques when they reopen. Refugee children are not allowed to attend formal schools, and rely on religious schools.
“The government is cracking down on migrants and refugees, instead of upholding everyone’s right to health during Covid,” said John Quinley, human rights specialist at Bangkok-based Fortify Rights. “The environment of fear and intimidation against migrants and refugees must end.”
Nur, a Malaysian activist, explained, “Every other day there’s new regulations and new targeted speech against the refugees and ‘illegal immigrants’.”

‘Londongrad’

Uncategorised No Comments
49. Whilst the Russian elite have developed ties with a number of countries in recent years, it would appear that the UK has been viewed as a particularly favourable destination for Russian oligarchs and their money. It is widely recognised that the key to London’s appeal was the exploitation of the UK’s investor visa scheme, introduced in 1994, followed by the promotion of a light and limited touch to regulation, with London’s strong capital
and housing markets offering sound investment opportunities. The UK’s rule of law and judicial system were also seen as a draw. The UK welcomed Russian money, and few questions – if any – were asked about the provenance of this considerable wealth. It appears
that the UK Government at the time held the belief (more perhaps in hope than expectation) that developing links with major Russian companies would promote good governance by encouraging ethical and transparent practices, and the adoption of a law-based commercial environment.

50. What is now clear is that it was in fact counter-productive, in that it offered ideal mechanisms by which illicit finance could be recycled through what has been referred to as the London ‘laundromat’. The money was also invested in extending patronage and building influence across a wide sphere of the British establishment – PR firms, charities, political interests, academia and cultural institutions were all willing beneficiaries of Russian money, contributing to a ‘reputation laundering’ process. In brief, Russian influence in the UK is ‘the new normal’, and there are a lot of Russians with very close links to Putin who are well integrated into the UK business and social scene, and accepted because of their wealth. This level of integration – in ‘Londongrad’ in particular – means that any measures now being taken by the Government are not preventative but rather constitute damage limitation.

51. It is not just the oligarchs either: the arrival of Russian money resulted in a growth industry of enablers – individuals and organisations who manage and lobby for the Russian
elite in the UK. Lawyers, accountants, estate agents and PR professionals have played a role, wittingly or unwittingly, in the extension of Russian influence which is often linked to
promoting the nefarious interests of the Russian state. A large private security industry has developed in the UK to service the needs of the Russian elite, in which British companies
protect the oligarchs and their families, seek kompromat56 on competitors, and on occasion help launder money through offshore shell companies and fabricate ‘due diligence’ reports, while lawyers provide litigation support. William Browder told the Committee that:
Russian state interests, working in conjunction with and through criminal private interests, set up a ‘buffer’ of Westerners who become de facto Russian state agents, many unwittingly, but others with a reason to know exactly what they are doing and
for whom. As a result, UK actors have to deal with Russian criminal interests masked as state interests, and Russian state interests masked by their Western agents.

52. The links of the Russian elite to the UK – especially where this involves business and investment – provide access to UK companies and political figures, and thereby a means for broad Russian influence in the UK. To a certain extent, this cannot be untangled and the priority now must be to mitigate the risk and ensure that, where hostile activity is uncovered, the tools exist to tackle it at source.

53. The extent to which Russian expatriates are using their access to UK businesses and politicians to exert influence in the UK is: it is widely recognised that Russian intelligence and business are completely intertwined. The Government must, take the
necessary measures to counter the threat and challenge the impunity of Putin-linked elites. Legislation is a key step, and is addressed later in this Report.

54. Several members of the Russian elite who are closely linked to Putin are identified as being involved with charitable and/or political organisations in the UK, having donated to political parties, with a public profile which positions them to assist Russian influence operations. It is notable that a number of Members of the House of Lords have business interests linked to Russia, or work directly for major Russian companies linked to the Russian state – these relationships should be carefully scrutinised, given the potential for the Russian state to exploit them. It is important that the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords, and the Register of Lords’ interests, including financial interests, provide the necessary transparency and are enforced. In this respect, we note that the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament requires that MPs register individual payments of
more than £100 which they receive for any employment outside the House – this does not apply to the House of Lords, and consideration should be given to introducing such a requirement. A ‘Foreign Agents Registration Act’ (an issue which is addressed in the section on Legislation) would also be helpful in this respect.

55. The Government effort on the disruption of Russian illicit financial activity in the UK is led and co-ordinated by the National Crime Agency (NCA). Its work also encompasses the investigation of UK-based professional enablers in the financial and property sectors, with the aim of hardening the UK financial and property markets from the proceeds of crime, and challenging any perception that the UK is a safe haven for illicit funds. The extent to which this money has now been invested, and reinvested, calls into question the efficacy of the recently introduced Unexplained Wealth Orders when applied to the investigation of individuals with such long-established – and to all intents and purposes now apparently legitimate – financial interests in the UK. Whilst the Orders appear to provide the NCA with more clout and greater powers, the reality is that it is highly probable that the oligarchy will have the financial means to ensure their lawyers – a key
group of professional enablers – find ways to circumvent this legislation (we return to this issue later in the Report). By contrast, the NCA lacks the resources required in terms of financial investigators, technical experts and legal expertise – this must be rectified.


‘Londongrad’

Uncategorised No Comments
49. Whilst the Russian elite have developed ties with a number of countries in recent years, it would appear that the UK has been viewed as a particularly favourable destination for Russian oligarchs and their money. It is widely recognised that the key to London’s appeal was the exploitation of the UK’s investor visa scheme, introduced in 1994, followed by the promotion of a light and limited touch to regulation, with London’s strong capital
and housing markets offering sound investment opportunities. The UK’s rule of law and judicial system were also seen as a draw. The UK welcomed Russian money, and few questions – if any – were asked about the provenance of this considerable wealth. It appears
that the UK Government at the time held the belief (more perhaps in hope than expectation) that developing links with major Russian companies would promote good governance by encouraging ethical and transparent practices, and the adoption of a law-based commercial environment.

50. What is now clear is that it was in fact counter-productive, in that it offered ideal mechanisms by which illicit finance could be recycled through what has been referred to as the London ‘laundromat’. The money was also invested in extending patronage and building influence across a wide sphere of the British establishment – PR firms, charities, political interests, academia and cultural institutions were all willing beneficiaries of Russian money, contributing to a ‘reputation laundering’ process. In brief, Russian influence in the UK is ‘the new normal’, and there are a lot of Russians with very close links to Putin who are well integrated into the UK business and social scene, and accepted because of their wealth. This level of integration – in ‘Londongrad’ in particular – means that any measures now being taken by the Government are not preventative but rather constitute damage limitation.

51. It is not just the oligarchs either: the arrival of Russian money resulted in a growth industry of enablers – individuals and organisations who manage and lobby for the Russian
elite in the UK. Lawyers, accountants, estate agents and PR professionals have played a role, wittingly or unwittingly, in the extension of Russian influence which is often linked to
promoting the nefarious interests of the Russian state. A large private security industry has developed in the UK to service the needs of the Russian elite, in which British companies
protect the oligarchs and their families, seek kompromat56 on competitors, and on occasion help launder money through offshore shell companies and fabricate ‘due diligence’ reports, while lawyers provide litigation support. William Browder told the Committee that:
Russian state interests, working in conjunction with and through criminal private interests, set up a ‘buffer’ of Westerners who become de facto Russian state agents, many unwittingly, but others with a reason to know exactly what they are doing and
for whom. As a result, UK actors have to deal with Russian criminal interests masked as state interests, and Russian state interests masked by their Western agents.

52. The links of the Russian elite to the UK – especially where this involves business and investment – provide access to UK companies and political figures, and thereby a means for broad Russian influence in the UK. To a certain extent, this cannot be untangled and the priority now must be to mitigate the risk and ensure that, where hostile activity is uncovered, the tools exist to tackle it at source.

53. The extent to which Russian expatriates are using their access to UK businesses and politicians to exert influence in the UK is: it is widely recognised that Russian intelligence and business are completely intertwined. The Government must, take the
necessary measures to counter the threat and challenge the impunity of Putin-linked elites. Legislation is a key step, and is addressed later in this Report.

54. Several members of the Russian elite who are closely linked to Putin are identified as being involved with charitable and/or political organisations in the UK, having donated to political parties, with a public profile which positions them to assist Russian influence operations. It is notable that a number of Members of the House of Lords have business interests linked to Russia, or work directly for major Russian companies linked to the Russian state – these relationships should be carefully scrutinised, given the potential for the Russian state to exploit them. It is important that the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords, and the Register of Lords’ interests, including financial interests, provide the necessary transparency and are enforced. In this respect, we note that the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament requires that MPs register individual payments of
more than £100 which they receive for any employment outside the House – this does not apply to the House of Lords, and consideration should be given to introducing such a requirement. A ‘Foreign Agents Registration Act’ (an issue which is addressed in the section on Legislation) would also be helpful in this respect.

55. The Government effort on the disruption of Russian illicit financial activity in the UK is led and co-ordinated by the National Crime Agency (NCA). Its work also encompasses the investigation of UK-based professional enablers in the financial and property sectors, with the aim of hardening the UK financial and property markets from the proceeds of crime, and challenging any perception that the UK is a safe haven for illicit funds. The extent to which this money has now been invested, and reinvested, calls into question the efficacy of the recently introduced Unexplained Wealth Orders when applied to the investigation of individuals with such long-established – and to all intents and purposes now apparently legitimate – financial interests in the UK. Whilst the Orders appear to provide the NCA with more clout and greater powers, the reality is that it is highly probable that the oligarchy will have the financial means to ensure their lawyers – a key
group of professional enablers – find ways to circumvent this legislation (we return to this issue later in the Report). By contrast, the NCA lacks the resources required in terms of financial investigators, technical experts and legal expertise – this must be rectified.


‘Londongrad’

Uncategorised No Comments
49. Whilst the Russian elite have developed ties with a number of countries in recent years, it would appear that the UK has been viewed as a particularly favourable destination for Russian oligarchs and their money. It is widely recognised that the key to London’s appeal was the exploitation of the UK’s investor visa scheme, introduced in 1994, followed by the promotion of a light and limited touch to regulation, with London’s strong capital
and housing markets offering sound investment opportunities. The UK’s rule of law and judicial system were also seen as a draw. The UK welcomed Russian money, and few questions – if any – were asked about the provenance of this considerable wealth. It appears
that the UK Government at the time held the belief (more perhaps in hope than expectation) that developing links with major Russian companies would promote good governance by encouraging ethical and transparent practices, and the adoption of a law-based commercial environment.

50. What is now clear is that it was in fact counter-productive, in that it offered ideal mechanisms by which illicit finance could be recycled through what has been referred to as the London ‘laundromat’. The money was also invested in extending patronage and building influence across a wide sphere of the British establishment – PR firms, charities, political interests, academia and cultural institutions were all willing beneficiaries of Russian money, contributing to a ‘reputation laundering’ process. In brief, Russian influence in the UK is ‘the new normal’, and there are a lot of Russians with very close links to Putin who are well integrated into the UK business and social scene, and accepted because of their wealth. This level of integration – in ‘Londongrad’ in particular – means that any measures now being taken by the Government are not preventative but rather constitute damage limitation.

51. It is not just the oligarchs either: the arrival of Russian money resulted in a growth industry of enablers – individuals and organisations who manage and lobby for the Russian
elite in the UK. Lawyers, accountants, estate agents and PR professionals have played a role, wittingly or unwittingly, in the extension of Russian influence which is often linked to
promoting the nefarious interests of the Russian state. A large private security industry has developed in the UK to service the needs of the Russian elite, in which British companies
protect the oligarchs and their families, seek kompromat56 on competitors, and on occasion help launder money through offshore shell companies and fabricate ‘due diligence’ reports, while lawyers provide litigation support. William Browder told the Committee that:
Russian state interests, working in conjunction with and through criminal private interests, set up a ‘buffer’ of Westerners who become de facto Russian state agents, many unwittingly, but others with a reason to know exactly what they are doing and
for whom. As a result, UK actors have to deal with Russian criminal interests masked as state interests, and Russian state interests masked by their Western agents.

52. The links of the Russian elite to the UK – especially where this involves business and investment – provide access to UK companies and political figures, and thereby a means for broad Russian influence in the UK. To a certain extent, this cannot be untangled and the priority now must be to mitigate the risk and ensure that, where hostile activity is uncovered, the tools exist to tackle it at source.

53. The extent to which Russian expatriates are using their access to UK businesses and politicians to exert influence in the UK is: it is widely recognised that Russian intelligence and business are completely intertwined. The Government must, take the
necessary measures to counter the threat and challenge the impunity of Putin-linked elites. Legislation is a key step, and is addressed later in this Report.

54. Several members of the Russian elite who are closely linked to Putin are identified as being involved with charitable and/or political organisations in the UK, having donated to political parties, with a public profile which positions them to assist Russian influence operations. It is notable that a number of Members of the House of Lords have business interests linked to Russia, or work directly for major Russian companies linked to the Russian state – these relationships should be carefully scrutinised, given the potential for the Russian state to exploit them. It is important that the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords, and the Register of Lords’ interests, including financial interests, provide the necessary transparency and are enforced. In this respect, we note that the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament requires that MPs register individual payments of
more than £100 which they receive for any employment outside the House – this does not apply to the House of Lords, and consideration should be given to introducing such a requirement. A ‘Foreign Agents Registration Act’ (an issue which is addressed in the section on Legislation) would also be helpful in this respect.

55. The Government effort on the disruption of Russian illicit financial activity in the UK is led and co-ordinated by the National Crime Agency (NCA). Its work also encompasses the investigation of UK-based professional enablers in the financial and property sectors, with the aim of hardening the UK financial and property markets from the proceeds of crime, and challenging any perception that the UK is a safe haven for illicit funds. The extent to which this money has now been invested, and reinvested, calls into question the efficacy of the recently introduced Unexplained Wealth Orders when applied to the investigation of individuals with such long-established – and to all intents and purposes now apparently legitimate – financial interests in the UK. Whilst the Orders appear to provide the NCA with more clout and greater powers, the reality is that it is highly probable that the oligarchy will have the financial means to ensure their lawyers – a key
group of professional enablers – find ways to circumvent this legislation (we return to this issue later in the Report). By contrast, the NCA lacks the resources required in terms of financial investigators, technical experts and legal expertise – this must be rectified.


Grenfell and the greed for profits

Uncategorised No Comments
Rydon, the main contractor on the Grenfell Tower refurbishment secretly “pocketed” £126,000 while switching the cladding to cheaper, more combustible materials, the inquiry into the deadly fire at the building has heard.

Rydon was bidding for the project in March 2014 when it told the landlord of the council block that it could save £293,368 by switching from the originally specified zinc cladding to plastic-filled aluminium panels, which the inquiry has heard had “significantly worse” fire performance.
At the time, the Kensington and Chelsea Tenants’ Management Organisation (KCTMO) was trying to cut more than £800,000 from the costs and had told Rydon it was “in pole position” to win the contract.
Rydon knew that the actual saving from the switch would be £419,627, but kept this from the client and “took some of the savings for themselves”, possibly as additional profit, Simon Lawrence, Rydon’s contract manager, admitted. The switch to the aluminium composite cladding panels, which since the fire have been banned on tall buildings, was the biggest part of more than £800,000 of savings 
Rydon promised five times to appoint fire safety advisers but failed to do so. Instead, it relied on the building control department at Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea council, which owned the block, to advise on whether there were any safety problems. Rydon did not tell the client or the architect it was not hiring a fire expert despite having said it would do so in meetings in April, June, July, September and October 2014 as works were getting under way. The absence of a fire engineer on the team meant the cladding was chosen without consulting a specialist fire safety consultant.
Rydon was also under further pressure to save money on the job because one of its employees, Frank Smith, had underpriced the total works by £212,000. Rydon was looking for ways to “compensate” for the mistake, internal company emails showed.
Richard Millett QC, counsel to the inquiry, asked Lawrence: “Was the plan in Rydon to keep the TMO in the dark about the real extent of the savings on the ACM panels and then pocket the difference to make up for Frank Smith’s £210,000 estimating error?”
Lawrence, who admitted he had known about the plan to take the savings, replied: “That could be the reason for it.”
Millett asked: “Why was it not Rydon’s responsibility to alert the TMO that Harley had advised that far greater savings could be achieved than you were letting on?”
Lawrence said: “It probably went into risk or into additional profit.”
 Chris Holt, Rydon’s site manager, asked Lawrence about the need to address fire safety, he was reassured that it was in hand. Holt said: “I was aware that as the refurbishment was to a residential block of flats, one of the main risk factors would be fire safety. When I started on the project I spoke to Simon Lawrence and asked whether I was required to consider aspects of fire safety in my role. Simon informed me that it was not part of my role and had been dealt with.”

DWP – “irrational, unjust and unlawful.”

Uncategorised No Comments
A working single parent who was benefit-capped and left up to £463 a month worse off because of the “irrational” way universal credit calculated her monthly earnings has won a high court victory against the Department for Work and Pensions.



 Justice Garnham said the system treated Sharon Pantellerisco, a 41-year-old care worker from Southport, as if she were not working, and punished her by arbitrarily reducing her overall universal credit award through the benefit cap.



 In effect, Pantellerisco had been penalised financially because her four-weekly pay cycle did not fit in with the design of universal credit. No “reasonable” secretary of state for work and pensions would have allowed the system to operate as it did in this case, the judge said.



 Pantellerisco, who has four children, worked 16 hours a week, receiving the “national living wage”, but was paid on a four-weekly basis, an arrangement that clashed with universal credit rules that calculate earnings over a calendar month. This meant her income for most universal credit assessment periods was deemed to be too low, subjecting her to the benefit cap, which in turn resulted in her benefit income being docked by up to 20% a month. This left her stressed, depressed and struggling to feed and buy clothes for her children. 



 Carla Clarke, a solicitor for Child Poverty Action Group, which brought the case, said: “A system that determines the amount of social security low-paid working claimants are entitled to on the arbitrary basis of whether they are paid monthly or four-weekly can only be irrational, unjust and unlawful.”



 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/20/universal-credit-earnings-calculations-unlawful-judge-says

Capitalism cannot be regulated

Uncategorised No Comments

Big business and banks are just as corrupt and eager to shovel profits to senior executives 10 years after the landmark banking reform legislation known as Dodd-Frank as they were during the 2008 crisis, a new report warns, because the bill’s regulations on executive pay remain unimplemented.



  It has remained unimplemented—nine years after the deadline Congress set—thanks to lobbying from the banking industry, the report found. Section 956 calls for a ban on all “inappropriate” pay structures that could lead to “excessive risk taking.” 



 Meanwhile, money that Congress allocated to bail out bank creditors in 2008 effectively went to bankers, while more than 10 million lost their homes, their jobs and their savings.



 “White collar crime pays, and until Congress enacts the rules to change it, we’ll continue to see top executives raking in off catastrophes of their own making,” report author Bartlett Naylor, financial policy advocate at Public Citizen, said.

The report lists billions in bonus cash paid out to executives over the past decade despite Dodd-Frank’s regulatory framework banning such cash-outs. 


“It’s 2008 all over again,” said Naylor. “Congress is bailing out Big Business and enriching CEOs while workers scrape by as the economy lurches downward in a pandemic.”



Promoted by the Socialist Party of Great Britain, 52 Clapham High Street, London, SW4 7UN.

All content on this website CC BY-ND 4.0 with additional translation permissions

MENU

Navigation