Category Archives: Government

Government, North Korea, Politics, United Nations, United States

A world dangerously close to the brink

NORTH KOREA

North-Korea-missile-663759

North Korea launched a ballistic missile in the Sea of Japan. This may have been from a submarine or from a new land based launch site.

THE world has looked on in horror this week as North Korea fired a missile over Japan. That has spread panic among the 6million population of Hokkaido island and is cranking-up tension to snapping-point.

Not since the Cuban missile crisis has the world seemed as close to the brink of a genocidal nuclear exchange.

The difference is that in that terrifying stand-off of 1962, both John F Kennedy and Russia’s Nikita Khrushchev remained open to reason. For all their bluster, they saw full-scale war as unthinkable, and each was prepared to compromise.

But how confidently can the same be said of the arch protagonists in the Korean crisis?

We should all hope and believe that Donald Trump, though hugely unpredictable, is less reckless than he likes to appear. As leader of the world’s greatest democracy, he is also restrained by the US Constitution and independent-minded advisers.

But this is hardly true of the North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-un. Surrounded by sycophants too terrified or brainwashed to rein him in, he seems as deranged as he is ruthless.

Indeed, his countless victims include his half-brother, poisoned at Kuala Lumpur airport, and an uncle he blew to shreds with heavy artillery at point-blank range. The fear is that anyone capable of such barbarity may be capable of anything.

But are threats of ‘exterminating’ his regime, and demonstrations of military might, the best way to deal with a madman who seems only to fear losing face?

Or will South Korea’s menaces and bombing exercises, and President Trump’s muscle-flexing, merely heighten Kim’s paranoia and sense of isolation, spurring him to ever wilder acts of lunacy?

One thing seems sure. If the North Korean dictator will listen to anyone, it will be to his neighbours the Chinese, who have everything to fear from war in Korea. The West should be using all its energy and efforts by encouraging Beijing to bring him to reason.

Certainly, Mr Trump should leave him in no doubt that the US will support South Korea to the hilt. But if he wants to be remembered as a statesman, he will tone down the language – and, like Kennedy, work tirelessly to broker peace behind the scenes.

Goading this tyrant with threats of ‘fire and fury’ is surely not the answer. Such language is adding fuel to a fire that could become dangerously out of control. It could even provoke the unthinkable: nuclear war.

Standard
Government, Society, Technology, Transport

Autonomous-driving lorries ‘at risk of crashing in cyber-attack’

TRANSPORT

Self Driving Lorries

Self-driving and autonomous running vehicle platoons pose many risks. They include a ‘malicious takeover’ by cyber-attack putting the safety of road users at risk.

SELF-DRIVING lorries which are to be trialled on England’s motorways could be vulnerable to cyber-attack, an official report has warned.

A feasibility study of the Government’s plans said there was a risk of a ‘malicious takeover’ of the convoys, putting road users at risk.

Under the scheme, up to three wirelessly connected HGVs will move in a platoon, with acceleration and braking controlled by the lead vehicle. The lorries would still be steered by drivers.

The report, commissioned by the Department for Transport (DfT), concludes that the system has the potential to reduce accidents and emissions, while improving traffic flow. But it also outlines 20 risks, including cyber-attack and the potential for drivers in the middle and back vehicles to lose concentration.

Extreme weather conditions could lead to the sensing system keeping the vehicles a set distance apart malfunctioning. Other cars could enter the convoy by mistake, and the lead lorry could suffer a tyre blow-out.

The scheme is expected to be tried on major roads next year.

Driving in a convoy could see the front lorry push air out of the way, making the vehicles more efficient and lowering emissions. But Edmund King, AA president, said the safety of drivers must come first.

He said: ‘There have been causes of connected and autonomous vehicles and even road signs being hacked. The safety of the drivers is paramount.

‘If the platoon is hacked it could put on the brakes or try to make it accelerate.’

The study into “heavy vehicle platoons on UK roads” was carried out by the independent Transport Research Laboratory consultancy and others in 2014 but has only just been published.

One lorry drivers’ organisation, which was not named, told the authors it was worried about ‘the safety impact of running so close together,’ adding: ‘There is no fuel-saving amount that is worth risking road safety for.’

The report said the probability of a ‘malicious takeover of platoon (cyber-attack)’ was ‘very low’, but its impact would be ‘very high’ and would involve a ‘threat to road user safety, road infrastructure and reputation’ of the convoy system.

It said, ‘adverse environmental conditions’ such as fog and snow could ‘affect sensing capability’. The report also said other motorists could be unaware of the convoy and drive between the lorries. And the authors said ‘driver underload’ was a problem as they may lose concentration when they are not performing the full range of driving tasks. They suggest training drivers for ‘behavioural adaptation awareness’.

The document said: ‘It must be ensured that they will always be able to re-engage in the driving task within a few seconds.’

The report said it believed convoys would be safer overall, adding: ‘Around 90 per cent of accidents involve driver error. Automatic control (or driver assistance) reduces the magnitude of the risk of driver error.’ The DfT has not responded to a request for comment.

Standard
Britain, Business, Economic, Government

Leading firms must say how chief executive salaries compare with staff

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

LEADING companies will be forced to disclose how much their chief executive is paid compared to their average worker . . . and justify the sum.

Business Secretary Greg Clark is due to announce this week that nearly 1,000 listed firms will have to publish the ratio in a crackdown on excessive boardroom salaries.

It is also believed that a new public register will name and shame those whose investors revolt over the pay of bosses.

The plans will be announced as ministers seek to rebut criticism that they have watered down the tough approach promised by Theresa May.

Last year the Prime Minister unveiled radical proposals, such as workers being granted representation on boards, but she has since backed away from these ideas. The plans follow criticism over the high pay of executives following scandals such as the collapse of BHS.

Mr Clark will announce that the Investment Association, the fund managers’ trade body, will oversee the creation of the new register to include any company which faces opposition from at least 20 per cent of shareholders.

Ministers say the publication of ratios between bosses and UK-based workers will shine a spotlight on boardroom pay. It is unclear if the figure for chief executives would be their total package, which averaged £4.5million last year in the FTSE-100, or only their much lower base salary.

Mr Clark is also expected to say that the Government will guarantee workers at listed companies a louder voice in the boardroom by amending the Corporate Governance Code. This will be achieved, according to sources, by designating a non-executive director to represent workers, nominating a director from the workforce or a new advisory council which would have access to board members.

That would meet a commitment made in the 2017 Conservative manifesto although the Government is abandoning a general election pledge to ‘legislate to make executive pay packages subject to strict annual votes by shareholders’.

Companies will also have to produce an annual statement explaining how they acknowledge the interests of workers and wider stakeholders. In addition to the rules to be imposed on big public companies, privately owned businesses, including Sir Philip Green’s Arcadia Group, will become subject to a new voluntary code of corporate governance principles supervised by the Financial Reporting Council.

The proposals will be hailed by ministers as a robust package of reforms designed to make big firms more accountable. They come after corporate governance failings at Sports Direct International and a bitter revolt over a £14million deal for BP chief executive Bob Dudley. This has spurred the Government to pledge a crackdown on boardroom excesses.

The collapse of high street chain BHS after being sold for £1 by Sir Philip was also a factor in hardening public and political opinion against the bosses of big businesses.

This year, there were fewer major protests over the pay of executives at FTSE-100 companies but there was a significantly higher number of revolts over bosses in the FTSE-250 index.

Under Sir Vince Cable, the former Business Secretary and now Liberal Democrat leader, shareholders in public companies were handed a binding say every three years on remuneration policy.

But the annual vote on what directors receive is on a non-binding basis and looks likely to continue that way.

Standard