London, 10 June 2020 - Besides the many British who identify themselves with a culture of racism and see the removal of public statues and monuments glorifying slave traders as a deprivation 'erasing' their history, rationality and democracy are currently prevailing:
The following day the historic toppling of 17th century slave trader Edward Coulson in Bristol, local Councils in London have anticipated a wave of justifiable rage against the institutionalised racism: monument to slave trader Robert Milligan has been removed from West India Quay and many others will be 'legally toppled' at the hands of local govs.
It's clear there's huge concern across local (and national) governments over escalation of protest as anti-racism movements might go on toppling statues and horrifying symbols of colonialism still, unjustifiably, allowed across Britain and de facto giving historical and cultural ground to racism primarily against black people.
But this acknowledgement of people's need for radical change looks more a preventive measure to calm down protest and avert its mutation into 2011 style riots than a genuine will to deliver justice and a cultural step forward across the UK, apart from London where Mayor Sadiq Khan is himself a guarantee of true commitment to eradicating racism and related discrimination.
"We must use this moment as a catalyst for change to tackle racism, discrimination and inequality - he tweeted - That’s why I've tasked City Hall to work on a new, urgent action plan to be developed with community groups and look at how we improve trust and confidence".
London- Like the king swaps position with the rook when in the chess game he is under attack, Tories moved the Prime Minister in a safe corner of the political chessboard hiding him behind the pawns. The sudden 'castling' strategic move is aimed at saving government’s reputation and disguise its responsibility for the ongoing huge loss of lives: death toll passed 15.000 today.
The dynamic of Tories’ game against the helpless British population has been:
Move 1 : They introduced the herd immunity.
Move 2: They realised population and media were attacking them on herd immunity therefore suddenly changed policy when it was too late therefore decided to ‘hide’ the premier as such attacks could have led to a huge loss of consensus and possible legal action.
Move 3: Once the ‘king’ was swapped with the rook and kept out of sight in a safe corner, the pawns have been put forward to replacing him
Beware of British government's castling game
London, 4 April 2020 - Now that the opposition’s voice has been shut up by the most dangerous health, social and economic crisis since WWII, we rely on Keir Starmer to take the helm back and lead Britain in the fight for the true independence it needs: the one from the Tories, an autocratic minority that over ten years put on the sidelines the democratic voices within the Conservative party and took control of the majority of the population through media propaganda and hidden surveillance.
Over the last months the anti-Corbyn argument prevailed in describing and interpreting Starmer’s positions: the distance from Unite, a non-radical approach to Labour party stances and choices, the priority of uniting corbynians, blerites, hard-socialist, brexiters and the many other sparse souls.
Finally the 56.2% win with 275,780 votes demonstrates the choice for Keir wasn't just a reaction to the previous leadership, but a full convinced support.
Keir Starmer is the new leader of the Labour Party. The former Shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union won with 275,780 votes, a 56.2% win which is a good score if we think the exceptional hardship the election has been run.
Delay Brexit, stop no deal, win local elections, stop privatisation, stop arm production, stop the scandal of attack to journalists and free Assange, among the many hopes people put on him.
Hopes on Keir, new leader amid the challenging global emergency
London, 25 Jan 2020 - The choice of not considering Julian Assange a prisoner of conscience is not definitive, but is an 'open position' that Amnesty can change subject to the developments of the Australian journalist's trial.
On the evening of the first hearing, held at the Woolwich Crown Court next to the Belmarsh prison where the co-founder of Wikileaks is held in sole confinement with treatment amounting to torture, Massimo Moratti, Deputy Director of Europe at Amnesty International, explains Talk Europe in an exclusive interview at the orgnisation's Secretariat in London, that "if the US do not withdraw the charges, the UK is not under obligation to extradite him, as in US he could be exposed to torture, to inhumane treatment and also risk to face an unfair trial".
Massimo Moratti, Deputy Director European Office, Amnesty International
"Amnesty retains - Moratti says - that those in possession of information of war crimes, like the ones contained in the Wikileaks files, have an obligation to disclose them. Whether Assange can be considered a prisoner of conscience is a research Amnesty should still consider".
"At the moment he is not considered a prisoner of conscience; then we will have to see how the trial evolves, it's quite complex and the amount of the information is quite huge".
Amnesty open to consider Assange 'prisoner of conscience' in the future.
Massimo Moratti:"We will have to see how trial evolves; it's complex and the amount of information quite huge"
London - Crisis is a charity where people believe homelessness can be ended.
Its CEO Jon Sparkes launched an appeal for a cross-party manifesto along with the main British homeless charities, to ask all politicians to agree a common policy to tackle the issue. All parties during this extremely competitive electoral campaign, have pledged to build hundreds of thousands new homes per year.
"On its own the delivery of lots of new houses won't end homelessness, but as part of a package of interventions is hugely important. Our research says that England and Wales need 90.000 new social homes per year for the next 15 years", - Sparkles says - but this needs to be alongside other measures. With Shelter, Depaul, Homeless Link, Centrepoint, St. Mungo's, we asked several things in this elections: building social homes, change to housing benefits to ensure these meet the cost of housing, proper funding of homeless prevention services and regulation of private renting sector".
Lords' last victory before their exile?
Peers inflict fourth defeat on Tories who want to send the Upper House outside London
London, 21 January 2020 - Lords passed 300 to 220 an amendment to the EU Withdrawal Agreement Bill in order to guarantee protection to child refugees in the UK after the country leaves the EU. The 18th cross-party amendment was put forward by Labour Lord Dubs. The amendment specifically aims to maintain the rights of unaccompanied refugee children elsewhere in Europe to be reunited with their family members in the UK. (watch video).
Today's vote signs the fourth defeat to the Tory led majority in two days when on Monday Peers voted in favour of three amendments: the first from Lib Dem Jonny Oates was to ensure EU citizens resident in Britain will be given physical document showing they have a right to live in the country, passed 270 votes to 229.
Johnson lost twice in Miller and Cherry cases.
Parliament reopens the day after the historic verdict
Lady Hale, President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, while reading the decision of the judges.
London 24 Sept 2019 - There are many statements of Supreme's Court of Justice's verdict handed down today that make of it an historic one. The crucial one is: the power to prorogue cannot be unlimited.
1) Although the United Kingdom does not have a single document entitled “The Constitution”, it nevertheless possesses a Constitution, established over the course of our history by common law, statutes, conventions and practice. Since it has not been codified, it has developed pragmatically, and remains sufficiently flexible to be capable of further development.
2) The legal principles of the constitution are not confined to statutory rules, but include constitutional principles developed by the common law [...] Such principles are not confined to the protection of individual rights, but include principles concerning the conduct of public bodies and the relationships between them.
3) [...] the effect which the courts have given to Parliamentary sovereignty is not confined to recognising the status of the legislation enacted by the Crown in Parliament as our highest form of law.
4) An unlimited power of prorogation would therefore be incompatible with the legal principle of Parliamentary sovereignty...the power to prorogue cannot be unlimited.
Racism: risk of preventive appeasement of protest
as local authorities review symbols of slave trade