Police Back Private 'Drunk Tanks' For Revellers

By Gerard Tubb, Sky News Correspondent

Police chiefs have backed privately-run drunk tanks where intoxicated revellers are kept overnight and made to pay for their stay.

Chief Constable Adrian Lee, the national policing lead on alcohol harm, said drunken individuals should be held in cells run by a commercial company.

He made his comments at the start of a week-long campaign to highlight the impact of alcohol on policing.

He said: "I do not see why the police service or the health service should pick up the duty of care for someone who has chosen to go out and get so drunk that they cannot look after themselves.

"We are not the experts on health. It is quite difficult to work out where the best place to put a drunk is. Is it a police station, or do they need to be at a hospital?

Police officers have called for binge drinkers to be billed for their care

"Accident and emergency departments are under huge pressure nationally, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights.

"Why should we have drunks clogging up the A&E, causing further problems potentially? Why not put them somewhere safe where you could have private medical staff on hand?"

Sir Peter Fahy, vice president of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), said binge drinking is putting "a massive strain" on police and health services.

"Cheap drink and later opening hours only adds to the problem," he said.

The "drunk tank" idea came as it emerged that bouncers in pubs and clubs across the UK will be trained to protect people who are too drunk to look after themselves.

The Home Office has told the Security Industry Authority to teach all 100,000 licensed door-staff how to prevent "vulnerable" people from coming to harm.

Bouncers, who must be trained by the SIA to work in licensed premises, will be given a checklist of actions.

Police say they should not be responsible for dealing with drunks overnight

These include re-uniting people with friends, helping them get a taxi home and, as a last resort, calling the police.

On the streets of Newcastle, where the new training for bouncers was developed, late night drinkers admitted they "pre-loaded" with cheap booze before coming out.

At 11pm, 34-year-old Donna Davison showed Sky News a half-litre bottle of vodka she had brought from home to top up her glass during the night.

She said: "I bought [a bigger bottle] at the corner shop, filled it up and brought it with us."

Her friend Marie Thompson, 40, who claimed to have drunk a litre of vodka before arriving in the city centre at 9pm, described drink prices in clubs as "extortionate".

She said: "People on poverty who've got kids, it's not fair really, because they charge £6 for one single drink.

"We like to go out and have a good night, that's why we bring our own, it's cheaper."

Acting Superintendent Bruce Storey, from Northumbria Police, said the new training for bouncers had helped to reduce crime in Newcastle since being introduced earlier in the year.

He said: "If people have had too much to drink, quite clearly their inhibitions go, their ability to be aware of their surroundings tends to be diminished and the consequences of that are obvious."

Bouncer Chris Woodcock described the training as a form of customer service.

He said: "It's being aware of vulnerable people and making sure that everyone has a good night and they get to go home safely."

But his colleague Paul Faetz, 50, who has 32 years working on the doors in Newcastle, says binge drinkers have made the job unbearable and he is retiring.

He said: "It's been over the last five years (that) people have become more and more heavy drinkers.

"I don't really want to be around that. Now with drugs and drink, it's not a nice place to work."

12.28 | 0 komentar | Read More

Nick Clegg Says Lib Dems 'Should Feel Proud'

By Sophy Ridge, Political Correspondent

Nick Clegg will deliver his most personal speech yet at the Liberal Democrat conference in a bid to firm up support ahead of the next election.

He is expected to rally supporters by telling them they should be "proud" of what the party has achieved in government.

The Deputy Prime Minister will draw on his own background to explain why he is committed to social mobility and helping families.

He will say: "My upbringing was privileged: home counties; private school; Cambridge University. I had a lot of opportunities.

"But I also had two parents who were determined that my brothers, my sister and I knew how lucky we were. On both sides, their families had experienced huge upheavals.

"My Dutch mother had spent much of her childhood in a prisoner of war camp.

"My dad's Russian mother had come to England after her family lost everything in the Russian revolution.

"And now, as a father with three children at school, I have come to understand even more clearly than before that, if we want to live in a society where everyone has a fair chance to live the life they want - and to bounce back from misfortune too - then education is the key."

For Mr Clegg, it is family policy that divides the Lib Dems and the Tories.

The Deputy Prime Minister agreed the Conservatives could announce a tax break for married couples as long as the Lib Dems could spend a similar amount of money elsewhere, choosing to do so on free school meals for children under the age of seven.

Admitting that being a Liberal Democrat voter is often a lonely road, he will argue the party's recent struggles have been worth it.

"Every insult we have had to endure since we entered Government, every snipe, every bad headline, every blow to our support - that was all worth it, because we are turning Britain around," he is expected to say.

Mr Clegg says the Lib Dems should be proud of the coalition's achievements

He will also emphasise he is prepared to strike a deal with either David Cameron or Ed Miliband after the next election.

He will say: "Whether or not we have another coalition is determined by the British people - not me, not you, the people.

"And if that happens, only their votes can tell us what combination of parties carries the greatest legitimacy."

The Liberal Democrats are considered to have had a successful conference, aside from the tensions between Vince Cable and the leadership.

But Mr Clegg's allies are aware the polls still look dismal for the party.

Internal polling reveals three out of four voters would never consider supporting the Lib Dems.

12.28 | 0 komentar | Read More

Syria: Chemical Weapons Report Due For Release

Doctors Plea For Syria Medical Aid

Updated: 2:22am UK, Monday 16 September 2013

British doctors write an open letter in the Lancet medical journal calling for attacks on hospitals and medics to halt in Syria.

The conflict in Syria has led to what is arguably one of the world's worst humanitarian crises since the end of the Cold War.

An estimated 100 000 people have been killed, most of them civilians, and many more have been wounded, tortured, or abused.

Millions have been driven from their homes, families have been divided, and entire communities torn apart; we must not let considerations of military intervention destroy our ability to focus on getting them help.

As doctors and medical professionals from around the world, the scale of this emergency leaves us horrified.

We are appalled by the lack of access to health care for affected civilians, and by the deliberate targeting of medical facilities and personnel.

It is our professional, ethical, and moral duty to provide treatment and care to anyone in need.

When we cannot do so personally, we are obliged to speak out in support of those risking their lives to provide life-saving assistance.

Systematic assaults on medical professionals, facilities, and patients are breaking Syria's health-care system and making it nearly impossible for civilians to receive essential medical services.

According to WHO, 37% of Syrian hospitals have been destroyed and a further 20% severely damaged.

Makeshift clinics have become fully fledged trauma centres struggling to cope with the injured and sick.

According to the Violations Documentation Centre, an estimated 469 health workers are currently imprisoned, and about 15 000 doctors have been forced to flee abroad according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

Of the 5,000 physicians in Aleppo before the conflict started, only 36 remain.

The targeted attacks on medical facilities and personnel are deliberate and systematic, not an inevitable nor acceptable consequence of armed conflict.

Such attacks are an unconscionable betrayal of the principle of medical neutrality.

The number of people requiring medical assistance is increasing exponentially, as a direct result of conflict and indirectly because of the deterioration of a once-sophisticated public health system and the lack of adequate curative and preventive care.

Horrific injuries are going untended; women are giving birth with no medical assistance; men, women, and children are undergoing life-saving surgery without anaesthetic; and victims of sexual violence have nowhere to turn to.

The Syrian population is vulnerable to outbreaks of hepatitis, typhoid, cholera, and dysentery.

The lack of medical pharmaceuticals has already exacerbated an outbreak of cutaneous leishmaniasis, a severe infectious skin disease that can cause serious disability, there has been an alarming increase in cases of acute diarrhoea, and in June aid agencies reported a measles epidemic sweeping through districts of northern Syria.

In some areas, children born since the conflict started have had no vaccinations, meaning that conditions for an epidemic, which have no respect for national borders, are ripe.

With the Syrian health system at breaking point, patients battling chronic illnesses including cancer, diabetes, hypertension and heart disease, and requiring long-term medical assistance have nowhere to turn for essential medical care.

The majority of medical assistance is being delivered by Syrian medical personnel but they are struggling in the face of massive need and dangerous conditions.

Governmental restrictions, coupled with inflexibility and bureaucracy in the international aid system, is making things worse.

As a result, large parts of Syria are completely cut off from any form of medical assistance.

Medical professionals are required to treat anyone in need to the best of their ability. Any wounded or sick person must be allowed access to medical treatment.

As doctors and health professionals we urgently demand that medical colleagues in Syria be allowed and supported to treat patients, save lives, and alleviate suffering without the fear of attacks or reprisals.

To alleviate the effect on civilians of this conflict and of the deliberate attacks on the health-care system, and to support our medical colleagues, we call on the Syrian Government and all armed parties to refrain from attacking hospitals, ambulances, medical facilities and supplies, health professionals and patients; allow access to treatment for any patient; and hold perpetrators of such violations accountable according to internationally recognised legal standards.

We call on all armed parties to respect the proper functions of medical professionals and medical neutrality by allowing medical professionals to treat anyone in need of medical care and not interfering with the proper operation of health-care facilities.

Governments that support parties to this civil war should demand that all armed actors immediately halt attacks on medical personnel, facilities, patients, and medical supplies and allow medical supplies and care to reach Syrians, whether crossing front lines or across Syria's borders.

We call on the UN and international donors to increase support to Syrian medical networks, in both government and opposition areas, where, since the beginning of the conflict, health professionals have been risking their lives to provide essential services in an extremely hostile environment.

We declare that we have no conflicts of interest.

12.27 | 0 komentar | Read More

Costa Concordia Salvage Operation Delayed

By Tom Kington, In Giglio

Salvage officials will begin the mammoth task of righting the crippled Costa Concordia as jacks hoist it off rocks near the Tuscany coast.

The officials have warned the stranded vessel will bend and suffer enormous internal damage during the operation, which is expected to last up to 12 hours.

But they are confident the ship's hull will remain intact as 56 massive chains tighten around it at around 6am, avoiding the nightmare scenario of the 114,000 tonne vessel shattering and spilling its contents into the waters around the Italian island of Giglio.

Sergio Girotto, project manager for Micoperi - the Italian firm which has teamed up with US company Titan to raise the Concordia - said: "The ship will probably bend during the operation and metal inside will buckle."

Five hundred engineers and divers are working on the salvage

"We have 12,000 tons of pressure to use, which would lift two Eiffel Towers, but I hope we will only need five or six thousand."

The cruise liner capsized in shallow water 20 months ago after smashing into rock, causing the deaths of 32 passengers.

Salvage workers and local authorities confirmed on Sunday that good weather would allow the operation to start today.

That will depend how firmly the ship is wedged onto two pinnacles of underwater granite where it came to rest on the night of January 12, last year, prompting the panicked evacuation of 4,200 passengers and crew.

The two outcrops, which are embedded six metres into the hull of the ship, are the great unknown at the heart of the €600m (£503m), "parbuckling" operation, which will see the ship hoisted by jacks on to a bed of 1,000 cement bags and six underwater platforms bigger than a football pitch.

Experts have said there is little danger of pollution

Franco Gabrielli, who has supervised the Italian government's role in the operation, told reporters ahead of the salvage attempt that the operation had a 100% chance of success.

The ship is due to be hauled 65 degrees back to upright position.

Within the first hour or two, the ship should be wrenched free from the two granite outcrops it is impaled on, said Franco Porcellacchia, an engineer working on the salvage for ship owner Costa Cruises.

Four to five hours will then be needed to pull the ship upwards before gravity takes over, and its final descent into an upright position, also taking four to five hours, is controlled by adjusting the buoyancy of the massive metal tanks attached to its sides.

How the ship will look if it is successfully righted

A 12-man team will control the pulleys and tanks from a barge close to the wreck.

Marine biologist Giandomenico Ardizzone, who has been monitoring the sea bed for the ship's operator Costa Crociere, said he had dived under the vessel on Saturday to fix cameras on the points where the rocks plunge into the hull.

"We have been told to get ready for loud noises during the lifting," said Mr Ardizzone.

Mr Ardizzone said that 29,000 tons of water will pour out of the ship as it is pulled upright, an even greater amount, 43,000 tons, will enter the ship.

"That means less of the ship will be visible out of the water after the parbuckling," he said.

What does come out will be polluted water that has swilled inside the ship for months in a mix of residual fuels, heavy metals and rotten food, including more than three tons of melon, 500 litres of olive oil, 14,000 packets of cigarettes, 18,000 bottles of wine, eight tons of beef and over 11 tons of fish.

Mr Ardizzone said the quantities of heavy metals and fuels were too small to create concern for the surrounding protected marine park, a view shared by Maria Sargentini, the head of a public commission set up to monitor the operation.

12.27 | 0 komentar | Read More

Syria Crisis: Vladimir Putin's Letter To America

By Vladimir Putin, Russian President, For New York Times

Recent events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization - the United Nations - was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The United Nations' founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America's consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria's borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today's complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack - this time against Israel - cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America's long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan "you're either with us or against us."

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government's willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the president's interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States' policy is "what makes America different. It's what makes us exceptional." It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

12.27 | 0 komentar | Read More

Syria: Putin Warns Obama Against 'Brute Force'

Vladimir Putin's Letter To America

Updated: 3:58am UK, Thursday 12 September 2013

By Vladimir Putin, Russian President, For New York Times

Recent events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization - the United Nations - was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The United Nations' founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America's consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria's borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today's complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack - this time against Israel - cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America's long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan "you're either with us or against us."

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government's willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the president's interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States' policy is "what makes America different. It's what makes us exceptional." It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

12.27 | 0 komentar | Read More

Ex-BBC Boss Thompson: Patten 'Misled' MPs

Former BBC director general Mark Thompson has accused BBC Trust chairman Lord Patten of misleading Parliament over pay-offs to outgoing bosses at the corporation.

He claims Lord Patten and BBC Trustee Anthony Fry told "specific untruths and inaccuracies" in evidence to MPs investigating the controversial golden goodbye deals.

Mr Thompson is due to appear before the Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC) on Monday.

And in a written submission to the MPs ahead of the hearing he insisted that Lord Patten had been "fully briefed" about the details of severance packages to former deputy director general Mark Byford and former marketing chief Sharon Baylay.

The Guardian reported that Mr Thompson's written evidence to the committee said: "The picture painted for the PAC by the BBC Trust witnesses on 10 July 2013 was - in addition to specific untruths and inaccuracies - fundamentally misleading about the extent of Trust knowledge and involvement.

"The insinuation that they were kept in the dark by me or anyone else is false and is not supported by the evidence."

In evidence in July Mr Fry told the PAC that members of the Trust were not always included in decision-making.

He also said there was "some disconnect" in what Mr Thompson had written in a letter to the Trust about Mr Byford's pay-off, in which he had apparently declared it was within contractual arrangements, when the National Audit Office (NAO) had found it was not.

Mr Byford departed with a total payout of £949,000 and Ms Baylay's settlement was worth £394,638.

Mr Thompson reportedly claimed that Lord Patten knew in 2011 that both had received settlements of more than they were contractually entitled to and their formal notice of departure was delayed.

"In fact, Lord Patten was himself fully briefed, in writing as well as orally, about the Mark Byford and Sharon Baylay settlements soon after his arrival as chairman in 2011," Mr Thompson said.

He concludes that the evidence given to the NAO and PAC was "inadequate, and in some important instances, very misleading testimony".

A BBC Trust spokesman said: "This is a bizarre document. We reject the suggestion that Lord Patten and Anthony Fry misled the PAC.

"We completely disagree with Mark Thompson's analysis, much of which is unsubstantiated, in particular the suggestion that Lord Patten was given a full and formal briefing on the exact terms of Mark Byford's departure, which in any event took place before the current Chairman's arrival at the Trust."

12.28 | 0 komentar | Read More

Syria Crisis Dominates End Of G20 Summit

Syria: Cameron Pushes G20 For Aid

Updated: 10:16pm UK, Thursday 05 September 2013

David Cameron has said Britain will lead the humanitarian response in Syria, despite MPs having ruled out military intervention.

Speaking at the G20 summit in Russia, at which the Syrian crisis is featuring heavily, the Prime Minister said scientists at Porton Down, Wiltshire, had found further evidence of a deadly sarin gas attack in Damascus last month.

He holds Bashar al Assad's regime responsible for the assault but said he had "absolutely no regrets" after failing to win support from MPs for a strike against the Syrian government.

Mr Cameron told Sky News he had made a "strong and principled stand against the use of chemical weapons" and would push world leaders to agree to more aid for the millions of people left homeless by the civil war.

"I believe in democracy and you have to respect the will of the House of Commons," he said.

"But that doesn't stop us leading the argument about why chemical weapons are wrong and shouldn't be used, about how we get a peace process going in Syria and about the vital issue of humanitarian aid.

"Every 15 seconds there is another Syrian refugee. Millions of people are homeless and they need our help. Britain will be leading the charge at this summit to make sure they get the help they need."

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who is attending the G20 summit with UN Arab League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, urged world leaders to agree to an international peace conference to resolve the Syrian crisis.

"There is no military solution," he said. "Only a political solution can bring peace and end this bloodshed."

However, international tensions have dominated the start of the summit in St Petersburg.

US President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin smiled and shook hands but relations between the two countries are strained.

Mr Obama said he had "hit a wall" with Mr Putin, who warned the use of force without UN approval would be an "aggression" and a violation of international law.

The Russian president has suggested he would "not exclude" supporting a UN resolution on the use of force in Syria, if Mr Assad is proven to have used chemical weapons against his own people.

However, Mr Cameron said there was little sign of Russia changing its position.

"I haven't seen much evidence of that but I think it is very important the world responds to this appalling attack," he said.

"The best way of doing this is of course to have a UN resolution, a condemnation of Syria and a backing for all necessary measures to be taken.

"But I'm also clear that when America and many others in the world draw a red line over chemical weapons use, if nothing follows then that will be very bad for our world."

The Prime Minister also said Mr Obama had been "very understanding" about the Commons vote and insisted the "special relationship" between Britain and America "is as strong today as it was a week ago or two weeks ago".

Meanwhile, the military presence around Syria is growing, with the US Navy's top admiral insisting four destroyers are "fully ready" for action.

The Syrian government has written to US Congress, pleading with members not to support the use of military force, which it claims could trigger a "bloody, destructive, catastrophic" conflict.

It came as a car bomb exploded in Damascus, killing four people and injuring six others, while 11 people died in fighting in Taftanaz, around 200 miles north of the capital.

Fighting between troops and rebel fighters continued in the regime-held Christian village of Maaloula for a second day.

12.28 | 0 komentar | Read More

G20 Summit: Syria Tensions Set To Dominate

US Draft Resolution On Syria

Updated: 10:53pm UK, Wednesday 04 September 2013

The full text of the US draft resolution on action in Syria:

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the limited and tailored use of the United States Armed Forces against Syria.

Whereas Syria is in material breach of the laws of war by having employed chemical weapons against its civilian population;

Whereas the abuses of the regime of Bashar al-Assad have included the brutal repression and war upon its own civilian population, resulting in more than 100,000 people killed in the past two years, and more than 2 million internally displaced people and Syrian refugees in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq, creating an unprecedented regional crisis and instability;

Whereas the Assad regime has the largest chemical weapons programs in the region and has demonstrated its capability and willingness to repeatedly use weapons of mass destruction against its own people, including the August 21, 2013 attack in the suburbs of Damascus in which the Assad regime murdered over 1,000 innocent people, including hundreds of children;

Whereas there is clear and compelling evidence of the direct involvement of Assad regime forces and senior officials in the planning, execution, and after-action attempts to cover-up the August 21 attack, and hide or destroy evidence of such attack;

Whereas the Arab League has declared with regards to the August 21 incident to hold the "Syrian regime responsible for this heinous crime";

Whereas the United Nations Security Council, in Resolution 1540 (2004) affirmed that the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons constitutes a threat to international peace and security;

Whereas in the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, Congress found that Syria's acquisition of weapons of mass destruction threatens the security of the Middle East and the national security interests of the United States;

Whereas the actions and conduct of the Assad regime are in direct contravention of Syria's legal obligations under the United Nations Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and the Geneva Protocol to the Hague Convention on the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, and also violates standards set forth in the Chemical Weapons Convention;

Whereas Syria's use of weapons of mass destruction and its conduct and actions constitute a grave threat to regional stability, world peace, and the national security interests of the United States and its allies and partners;

Whereas the objectives of the United States use of military force in connection with this authorization are to respond to the use, and deter and degrade the potential future use of weapons of mass destruction by the Syrian government;

Whereas the conflict in Syria will only be resolved through a negotiated political settlement, and Congress calls on all parties to the conflict in Syria to participate urgently and constructively in the Geneva process; and

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States:

Now, therefore, be it,

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons".

SECTION 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION-The President is authorized, subject to subsection (b), to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in a limited and tailored manner against legitimate military targets in Syria, only to: (1) respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction by the Syrian government in the conflict in Syria; (2) deter Syria's use of such weapons in order to protect the national security interests of the United States and to protect our allies and partners against the use of such weapons; and (3) degrade Syria's capacity to use such weapons in the future.

(b) REQUIREMENT FOR DETERMINATION THAT USE OF MILITARY FORCE IS

NECESSARY- Before exercising the authority granted in subsection (a), the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that-

(1) the United States has used all appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to prevent the deployment and use of weapons of mass destruction by Syria;

(2) the Syrian government has conducted one or more significant chemical weapons attacks;

(3) the use of military force is necessary to respond to the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government;

(4) it is in the core national security interest of the United States to use such military force;

(5) the United States has a military plan to achieve the specific goals of responding to the use of weapons of mass destruction by the Syrian government in the conflict in Syria, to deter Syria's use of such weapons in order to protect the national security interests of the United States and to protect our allies and partners against the use of such weapons, and to degrade Syria's capacity to use such weapons in the future; and

(6) the use of military force is consistent with and furthers the goals of the United States strategy toward Syria, including achieving a negotiated political settlement to the conflict.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C. § 1541, et seq., the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section

5(b) of the War Powers Resolution, within the limits of the authorization established under this Section.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SECTION 3. LIMITATION. The authority granted in section 2 does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Syria for the purpose of combat operations.

SECTION 4. TERMINATION OF THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

The authorization in section 2(a) shall terminate 60 days after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution, except that the President may extend, for a single period of 30 days, such authorization if -

(1) the President determines and certifies to Congress, not later than 5 days before the date of termination of the initial authorization, that the extension is necessary to fulfill the purposes of this resolution as defined by Section 2(a) due to extraordinary circumstances and for ongoing and impending military operations against Syria under section 2(a); and

(2) Congress does not enact into law, before the extension of authorization, a joint resolution disapproving the extension of the authorization for the additional 30 day period; provided that any such joint resolution shall be considered under the expedited procedures otherwise provided for concurrent resolutions of disapproval contained in section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1546).

SECTION 5. SYRIA STRATEGY.

Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this resolution, the President shall consult with Congress and submit to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives an integrated United States Government strategy for achieving a negotiated political settlement to the conflict in Syria, including a comprehensive review of current and planned U.S. diplomatic, political, economic, and military policy towards Syria, including: (1) the provision of all forms of assistance to the Syrian Supreme Military Council and other Syrian entities opposed to the government of Bashar Al-Assad that have been properly and fully vetted and share common values and interests with the United States; (2) the provision of all forms of assistance to the Syrian political opposition, including the Syrian Opposition Coalition; (3) efforts to isolate extremist and terrorist groups in Syria to prevent their influence on the future transitional and permanent Syrian governments; (4) coordination with allies and partners; and (5) efforts to limit support from the Government of Iran and others for the Syrian regime.

SECTION 6. CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION AND REPORTING.

(a) Notification and Provision of Information. Upon his determination to use the authority set forth in section 2 of this Act, the President shall notify Congress, including the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, of the use of such authority and shall keep Congress fully and currently informed of the use of such authority.

(b) Reports. No fewer than 10 days after the initiation of military operations under the authority provided by Section 2, and every 20 days thereafter until the completion of military operations, the President shall submit to the Congress, including the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, a report on the status of such operations, including progress achieved toward the objectives specified in Section 2(a), the financial costs of operations to date, and an assessment of the impact of the operations on the Syrian regime's chemical weapons capabilities and intentions.

SECTION 7. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. The authority set forth in Section 2 of this resolution shall not constitute an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war except to the extent that it authorizes military action under the conditions, for the specific purposes, and for the limited period of time set forth in this resolution.

SECTION 5. SYRIA STRATEGY.

Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this resolution, the President shall consult with Congress and submit to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives an integrated United States Government strategy for achieving a negotiated political settlement to the conflict in Syria, including a comprehensive review of current and planned U.S. diplomatic, political, economic, and military policy towards Syria, including: (1) the provision of all forms of assistance to the Syrian Supreme Military Council and other Syrian entities opposed to the government of Bashar Al-Assad that have been properly and fully vetted and share common values and interests with the United States; (2) the provision of all forms of assistance to the Syrian political opposition, including the Syrian Opposition Coalition; (3) efforts to isolate extremist and terrorist groups in Syria to prevent their influence on the future transitional and permanent Syrian governments; (4) coordination with allies and partners; and (5) efforts to limit support from the Government of Iran and others for the Syrian regime.

SECTION 6. CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION AND REPORTING.

(a) Notification and Provision of Information. Upon his determination to use the authority set forth in section 2 of this Act, the President shall notify Congress, including the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, of the use of such authority and shall keep Congress fully and currently informed of the use of such authority.

(b) Reports. No fewer than 10 days after the initiation of military operations under the authority provided by Section 2, and every 20 days thereafter until the completion of military operations, the President shall submit to the Congress, including the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, a report on the status of such operations, including progress achieved toward the objectives specified in Section 2(a), the financial costs of operations to date, and an assessment of the impact of the operations on the Syrian regime's chemical weapons capabilities and intentions.

SECTION 7. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. The authority set forth in Section 2 of this resolution shall not constitute an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war except to the extent that it authorizes military action under the conditions, for the specific purposes, and for the limited period of time set forth in this resolution.

12.28 | 0 komentar | Read More

Police Chief: 60% Of Crimes Not Investigated

The head of Britain's second largest police force has admitted that 60% of all crimes reported in his area are not investigated.

Greater Manchester Police Chief Constable Sir Peter Fahy said his officers are only able to follow up about 40% of offences.

He said his force targets persistent offenders who commit the most crimes.

His admission comes against a backdrop of huge cuts to police spending, which will see force budgets slashed by 20% in real terms by 2015.

Sir Peter, who is vice-president of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), said: "In the same way that the health service concentrates on the most serious illnesses and the treatments likely to have most effect, the police have to concentrate on the most serious crimes and those where there are lines of investigation likely to produce evidence of the offender.

"In practice, this translates into about 40% of crime being actively pursued at any time.

"We look at all crimes to identify patterns of offending and to build the picture of where we need to target police patrols. In many crimes there are no witnesses, no CCTV and no forensic opportunities."

Sir Peter Fahy says officers are only able to follow up about 40% of crimes

Blackley and Broughton Labour MP Graham Stringer criticised his comments and said taxpayers expect officers to investigate criminal behaviour.

"That sounds like bureaucratic gobbledegook. De-prioritising the majority of crime is bound to lead to a loss of confidence in the police force," he told the Manchester Evening News.

"I think those victims (whose crimes aren't investigated) have every right to be angry. They have an expectation, having paid their council tax, that they have a better service from the police force."

Javed Khan, chief executive of independent charity Victim Support, said: "It is clearly for the police to decide how best to catch criminals, and prioritise their resources in line with this.

"However, for victims and the public to have confidence in the police, they need to know that, when they make a report, it will be taken seriously and adequately assessed.

"Likewise, any decisions to pursue or otherwise must be properly explained to them."

12.28 | 0 komentar | Read More