Category Archives: Government

Britain, Government, Legal, Military

Criminal probe launched into bullying at military base

BRITAIN

Intro: 24 years after historic allegations of abuse at Deepcut military barracks, a criminal probe is launched by Surrey Police

POLICE have launched a criminal investigation into assault allegations surrounding the suicide of a young soldier at the notorious Deepcut barracks almost 24 years ago.

Private Sean Benton, 20, was the first of four British soldiers to die in shootings at the Princess Royal Barracks in Surrey between 1995 and 2002 amid claims of bullying from more senior soldiers and other recruits.

A fresh inquest into Private Benton’s 1995 death ruled last year that he killed himself after being subjected to physical and psychological abuse.

He was found with five bullet wounds to the chest days after being “punched and kicked” by an instructor, leading to calls for a criminal prosecution.

Now, having reviewed evidence from the inquest in Woking, police have opened a new probe into allegations of assault and misconduct in public office.

The investigation was launched in October and has emerged as a fresh inquest into the death of another private, Geoff Gray, was opened earlier this week. It will cover a period from the mid-1990s to the early 2000s.

A spokesperson said: “Surrey Police reviewed the findings [of] the coroner and the Benton family’s request for a new criminal investigation into allegations including assault and misconduct in public office.

“A criminal investigation is under way into a number of allegations.” Three other recruits – Private Cheryl James, 18, Private Gray, 17, and Private James Collinson, 17 – also died at the base between 1995 and 2002 amid claims of bullying and abuse.

Private Collinson, from Perth, was the fourth person to die at the barracks. He was found dead with a single gunshot wound through his chin on March 23, 2002. An inquest into his death in 2006 returned an open verdict.

The coroner at Private Benton’s inquest, Peter Rook QC, delivered a damning five-hour narrative verdict of suicide last June, describing the harsh treatment the soldier was subjected to at the barracks.

He said: “There was a toxic culture at Deepcut at which Sean was frequently the recipient of actions.” He added that Private Benton was often on the receiving end of punishments by senior officers.

The court heard that the recruit was ordered to carry out degrading exercises by one non-commissioned officer, Sergeant Andrew Gavaghan, who has repeatedly denied allegations of abusive behaviour.

This included Private Benton having to perform press-ups on top of a female lance corporal in front of other recruits.

The court heard how a week before the death in June 1995, Sergeant Gavaghan kicked the soldier as he did press-ups.

Mr Rook added: “At times he [Sergeant Gavaghan] did lose control of himself.”

The coroner noted that Private Benton was told he was due to be discharged from the Army after a series of disciplinary problems and his feelings of shame had contributed to his state of mind.

His original inquest was held a month after his death and recorded a verdict of suicide.

But Private Benton’s family wanted the fresh inquest after allegations of bullying and a cover-up emerged at Deepcut.

The coroner also described a litany of failures with the original “woefully inadequate” police inquiry. Shortly after the inquest began, the Army apologised and said there were “a number of things that could and should have been better”.

The second inquest into the death of Private Gray has been launched after a campaign by his parents.

Standard
Britain, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

The tawdry show of Brexit goes to the brink

BREXIT

The decision by Prime Minister Theresa May to delay the “meaningful” Commons vote on her Brexit deal until March 12 – just 17 days before the UK is due to leave the EU – is, unquestionably, a gamble that takes things to the very brink. It is a colossal gamble, but one in which Mrs May had little option but to take.

MPs on all sides will finally have to choose between Mrs May’s deal, No Deal, or effectively no Brexit. This has removed all bluster and political manoeuvring. It leaves just stark choices.

A rehashed motion from Labour’s Yvette Cooper and Tory Nick Boles which is expected to pass the chamber tomorrow is likely to concentrate minds further. That motion says that if no deal is agreed before March 13, Article 50 – our formal departure from the EU – should be delayed, taking No Deal off the table.

But this has two huge drawbacks. It removes a crucial bargaining chip with Brussels. And while saying what Brexit shouldn’t be, the motion offers no viable plan for what it should be. Those who support Mrs May’s withdrawal agreement will suggest, as they have consistently done, that the only plan that is viable, honours the referendum result and averts No Deal, is the Prime Minister’s plan.

Whilst the odds are daunting, there may still be a way in which she is able to get it through.

First, the EU must offer legally binding assurances over the so-called Irish backstop to satisfy the Democratic Unionist Party that Northern Ireland’s place in the UK is not under threat. Without that, the deal is dead – with potentially calamitous consequences for the whole of Europe.

If the DUP is assuaged, Tory hardliners in the European Research Group (ERG) led by Jacob Rees-Mogg, may be persuaded to back their leader – especially in light of the Cooper-Boles amendment which could stop Brexit altogether.

True, some ERG members appear so implacably opposed to the deal that almost nothing would change their minds.

But with Labour in open rebellion against its leader, some Opposition MPs – especially those from Leave-voting areas – may be prepared to defy the Corbyn whip and make up the numbers needed to push the agreement through.

To be realised, this will require good faith on all sides – something conspicuously lacking so far. No one is totally happy with the deal, but it provides a pragmatic compromise. Tory MPs especially need to rediscover the virtues of party loyalty and service to their constituents if they wish to stay in office and by remaining the ruling party – by backing it.

The clock is ticking louder than ever towards March 29.

Standard
Britain, Government, Internet, Politics, Society

Internet safety: The era of tech self-regulation is ending

SOCIAL MEDIA

THE safety of the internet has been at the forefront of people’s minds in recent weeks. We have all heard the tragic stories of young and vulnerable people being negatively influenced by social media. Whilst the technology has the power to do good, it is clear that things need to change. With power comes responsibility and the time has certainly come for the tech companies to be held properly accountable.

. See also: Probe launched into online giants

The UK Government is serious in wishing to tackle many of the negative aspects associated with social media, and the forthcoming White Paper on online harms is indicative of their concern.

The world’s biggest technology firms, including Facebook, Twitter, Google and Apple are coming under increasing pressure from ministers who have made clear to them that they will not stand by and see people unreasonably and unnecessarily exposed to harm. They insist that if it wouldn’t be acceptable offline then it should not be acceptable online.

Safety is at the forefront of almost every other industry. The online world should be no different. Make no mistake, these firms are here to stay, and, as a result, they have a big role to play as part of the solution. It’s vital that they use their technology to protect the people – their customers – who use it every day.

It’s important not to lose sight of what online harms actually are. Yes, it includes things like cyberbullying, images of self -harm, terrorism and grooming. But disinformation – which challenges our ideas of democracy and truth – must be tackled head on, too.

Disinformation isn’t new. But the rise of tech platforms has meant that it is arguably more prevalent than ever before. It is now possible for a range of players to reach large parts of the population with false information. Tackling harms like disinformation is to be included in the Government’s White Paper. That will set out a new framework for making sure disinformation is tackled effectively, while respecting freedom of expression and promoting innovation.

In the UK, most people who read the news now do so online. When it is read across platforms like Facebook, Google and Twitter and then shared thousands of times, the reach is immense. False information on these platforms has the potential to threaten public safety, harm national security, reduce trust in the media, damage the UK’s global influence and by undermining our democratic processes.

To date, we’re yet to see any evidence of disinformation affecting democratic processes in the UK. However, that is something that the Government is continuing to keep a very close eye on.

Tools exist to enable action to be taken, particularly through the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI). We’ve already seen welcome moves from platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, which have developed initiatives to help users identify the trustworthiness of sources and which have shut down thousands of fake sites. Because voluntary measures have not been enough, the UK Government wants trustworthy information to flourish online and for there to be transparency so that the public are not duped. Parliament is said to care deeply about this, as a recent report from the Select Committee into disinformation shows.

But more needs to be done. One of the main recommendations in the Cairncross report on the future of journalism was to put a “news quality obligation” on the larger online platforms – placing their efforts to improve people’s understanding of the trustworthiness of news articles under regulatory supervision.

Online firms rely on the masses spending time online. Individuals should only really do that if they feel safe there. A safer internet is surely good for business too.

It seems apparent that we can no longer rely on the industry’s goodwill. Around the world governments are facing the challenge of how to keep citizens safe online. As the era of self-regulation comes to an end, it would now seem that the UK can and should lead the way.

 

THE internet is a liberating force, but also potentially a malign one. MPs and ministers have been all too happy to expound upon the undoubted benefits brought by the rapid growth of the digital economy. Yet they have struggled to come up with measures that would address the damage that it can cause – from social media addiction and the abuse of online platforms by child groomers and terrorists, to the links between internet use and poor mental health among children.

There are promising signs that action may be imminent, however. A new report recently released by the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee calls for technology companies to be required to adhere to a Code of Ethics overseen by an independent regulator. The code would set down in writing what is and is not acceptable on social media, and the regulator, crucially, would have teeth: the power to launch legal action against firms that breach the code.

This is, undoubtedly, a welcome proposal. Much of the trouble that children and their parents have experienced online in recent years has been a consequence of a failure by the technology companies to take responsibility for the damage that their products and services can cause. They have continued to host harmful and sometimes illegal material, for example, and it is still too easy for young children to access their sites despite age limits.

As we can no longer rely on the industry’s goodwill, self-regulation has evidently failed. The photo sharing site Instagram, for instance, committed recently to banning all images of self-harm on its platform, but only after the outcry following the tragic death of a young and vulnerable person. Without legally-enforceable penalties, such companies – with their ‘move fast and break things’ cultures – face little incentive to prioritise the safety of their users, particularly young people and the vulnerable.

The Committee’s proposal currently remains just that, and the Government has pledged to produce a White Paper setting out how it intends to take the regulation of social media forward.

Half-measures will not be enough. Ministers must impose a statutory duty of care on the social media giants.

Standard