Government gags its own employees while spying on us

Almost 5,000 civil servants and local council staff have been given lucrative severance packages which contain gagging clauses.

Over the past two years the business and climate change departments between them have signed confidentiality agreements worth over £4 million with 95 departing employees.

What has the climate change department got to hide, apart from the fact that ‘man-made global warming’ is the greatest con-trick the Government has ever pulled?

Between 2005 and 2010, for some unaccountable reason the latest figures available, the number of confidentiality deals agreed by councils soared from 179 to 1,027.

Brighton and Hove, Britain’s first Green-controlled council, topped the list, with 123 gagging agreements.

Aren’t the Greens supposed to be in favour of ‘transparency’? What are they so anxious to cover up?

I refer my honourable friend to the answer I gave earlier in relation to the department for climate change.

 

Commendably, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt and Communities Secretary Eric Pickles are both trying to combat the use of public money to buy the silence of whistle-blowers in their departments.

But I fear they are swimming against a toxic tide.

Gagging NHS managers and Town Hall dissidents is simply part of a much wider, more sinister conspiracy against free speech and freedom of information in Britain.

As the State pries ever more intrusively into our lives, it is going to unprecedented lengths to shield itself from scrutiny.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2340588/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Enough-make-gag-Spending-OUR-money-stop-US-told-truth-OUR-public-services.html#ixzz2WB1mk1TS

UK Benefits Guide: Serious lesson hiding behind the Express’s latest rights “outrage”

12 June 2013 may go down in legal history. For it was the first time a national newspaper’s main headline was about the launch of a legal textbook. In a paradoxical explosion of free publicity for said book, the Daily Express reported that a new online guide to European asylum and immigration has caused “outrage” for helping “migrants claim British benefits”.

As you might expect, the article is as full of arrant nonsense as the new guide – which can be downloaded for free here – is full of useful information. Nonsense like this:

In a list of examples of past cases, it even cites Islamist cleric Abu Qatada’s successful ­challenge under human rights laws against Home Office attempts to send him back to ­Jordan to face terror charges

Obviously, any book about “asylum, borders and immigration” law which failed to mention the Abu Qatada case, one of the most important deportation decisions of the past decade would be not worth the PDF it was encoded in.

The reported “outrage” is that of a representative from Get Britain Out, an organisation I have never heard of (perhaps readers have?), the Express’s editor and, of course, Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader.

As tempting as it is to reproduce some more silly quotes (ok, one more: “One passage points out that: “The ESC grants a right to housing, which acts as a gateway to a series of additional rights.”” NOOO!), that isn’t really the point of bringing this slow-news-day silliness to your attention. There is a serious point here to0.

It is about courts and organisations producing free legal information. The Council of Europe, which runs the European Court of Human Rights and was partly responsible for this book along with the European Court of Human Rights and European Agency for Fundamental Rights, does a brilliant job of it. Just look at what is available here. And here. The information is almost all up to date, which as anyone who runs or uses a legal information service knows, is very impressive.

No UK court comes close . Our Supreme Court does a good job of summarising judgments and has led the way in the use of social media. But our other courts are woeful – the Court of Appeal doesn’t even have a proper independent website. And as fun as it is to watch Supreme Court hearings live on Sky, it is a great shame that those same hearings cannot be accessed afterwards, as equivalent videos can be on the European Court of Human Rights website.

Of course budgets are tight. But it would take a relatively small amount of money to make huge improvements. The US Supreme Court produces free transcripts and audio recordings of its hearings. Our courts produce no record of any hearings. No court documents are released online. No transcripts are available without paying. No recordings at all, audio or video.

There is a reason why reactionary newspapers like The Express are so upset by the prospect free online legal information. People knowing about their rights and the law surrounding them makes it a lot harder to unlawfully deport, imprison, and torture them. And as anyone who follows the human rights debate knows, it is unpopular groups like migrants and prisoners who are most likely to have their rights abused when the law is unclear and access to legal information is poor. Which suits some newspapers, but isn’t great if you are the victim of arbitrary or unlawful state action.

Indeed, that is really what the European Convention on Human Rights is. Traditional British common law rights distilled into a single, readable document which the public can understand and, now, thanks to the Human Rights Act, apply in their local courts.

There is a proviso, however. The best and most efficient way of giving people access to their rights is through a lawyer. That is why so many lawyers are up in arms at the legal aid cuts which have already, and will further, reduce access to lawyers for so many vulnerable groups.

But leaving that difficult issue aside for a moment, there is a huge amount which can be achieved – for lawyers and non-lawyers – for relatively little money by providing free online legal information and resources. And that is why free handbooks like this one should be making the front pages, but for all of the right reasons.

UK Human Rights Blog

Hundreds of millions from legal aid budget helps banks defend fraud cases

'The poorest and most vulnerable people in society are being hit by cuts to the legal system while the government bankrolls the wealthiest, a senior QC said today.

The taxpayer is forced to foot a bill mounting up to hundreds of millions to deal with bank fraud cases each year while the Ministry of Justice is pushing through a £220 million annual cut to the criminal legal aid bill, said Michael Turner QC, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association.'

Read more: Hundreds of millions from legal aid budget helps banks defend fraud cases

Call for NGOs and sick and disabled individuals willing to act as "victim" in a UN complaint or inquiry

I need to hear from NGOs and sick and disabled individuals willing to act as "victim" in a UN complaint or inquiry

Please circulate this widely in Britain.

I recently contacted a human rights solicitor at Leigh Day regarding the submission of a United Nations complaint (UNCRPD) or inquiry into Britain's draconian welfare reform policies. The solicitor has expressed interest. I need to hear from NGOs and sick and disabled individuals willing to act as "victim" in the UN complaint or inquiry.

For further information, please see http://www.twitlonger.com/show/lbeqbu http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rkmam4 http://mydisabilitystudiesblackboard.blogspot.ca/2013/03/the-jobcentre-sanctions-scandal-in.html

I am especially interested in hearing from individuals (disabled and non-disabled) who have been unjustly sanctioned by Jobcentre and/or the DWP.

Please contact: Samuel Miller at disabilityinliterature@gmail.com

--
Samuel Miller

http://independent.academia.edu/SamuelMiller
http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/letter-to-the-icc-at-the-hague-re-mistreatment-of-the-disabled-and-sick
http://mikesivier.wordpress.com//?s=Samuel+Miller&search=Go
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnHBfW0_u5A&feature=youtu.be
E-Mail: disabilityinliterature@gmail.com
Blog: Hephaestus: Disability Studies
http://illnessandcivilization.blogspot.com/
Blog: My Disability Studies Blackboard
http://mydisabilitystudiesblackboard.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/Hephaestus7
(Montreal, Canada)

Whistleblowers v Big State and Big Tech: we still need Davids to bring down Goliath

Reblogged from Michael Meacher MP:

There are several huge lessons that flow from this latest explosive story about the comprehensive range of the modern surveillance State.   First, if we are ever going to know what is really going on behind the scenes and what government is getting up to, we are entirely dependent on the morality and courage of a handful of very brave whistleblowers, since government cannot be trusted to be transparent or honest.   Edward Snowden ranks alongside Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon papers about what was really happening in Vietnam, and Bradley Manning, who was responsible for the Wikileaks exposure of what was really going on in Iraq.   Now from Snowden we know that the US National Security Agency (NSA)  – and probably also Britain’s GCHQ at Cheltenham – can, and does, wiretap anyone anywhere.   The US Prism system has been in operation for a full 7 years, but of course not a word was breathed about it by its perpetrators.   First lesson, whistleblowers need to have solidly entrenched in statute a cast-iron guarantee of their protection and safety so long as what they reveal is manifestly in the public interest.

Second, the argument will continue to be used that snooping on everyone everywhere is necessary to stop jihadists’ terrorist outrages.   Of course every reasonable action should be taken to pre-empt terrorism, though ordinary intelligence detection on the ground has been regularly shown to be far more effective than an internet ‘fishing expedition’.   But the real point of these latest revelations is that the motive goes far, far beyond any plausible expectation that it will apprehend terrorists.    It is about achieving the power of full-scale surveillance of a nation, and no doubt eventually the population of the world – a power which Snowden believes, probably rightly, wsill rapidly escalate out of control.

A third disturbing lesson from this episode is how easily the Big State (the Bush and Obama Administrations) pressurised Big Tech (the 9 or more big internet companies) into handing over vast quantities of private internet traffic which went far beyond what were believed to be the legal limits.   Initially they shared data specifically required under the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), but then under pressure from government they built in separate, secure portals sometimes on company servers into which, when government requested it, companies would deposit data ready for government to retrieve it, without any of the hassle or limits of FISA procedures.

Fourth, how far did GCHQ use material garnered from the US Prism system about UK individuals and then hand it on to MI5/6?   We know that 197 intelligence reports were generated for GCHQ from Prism last year.   But why did GCHQ use Prism at all rather than the normal legal protocol to get information from an internet company in another country?   Nobody would disagree that GCHQ should access US information to monitor individuals suspected of terrorism, but the question remains unanswered whether the NSA conduit, previously unknown, has been used on a regular basis to collect information about individuals that the UK law prohibits.

Will you let Cameron abolish your rights without a fight?

Skewed view: This image (not mine) provides a startlingly accurate representation of the way British Conservatives see Europe. Do you honestly think they can be trusted to honour the human rights that European laws have granted us?

You do realise what David Cameron means when he says he wants to re-negotiate our membership of the European Union, don’t you?

For a start, he means he wants to abolish laws that protect the human rights your ancestors fought tooth and nail to win for you.

He won’t make any deals in your interest. That’s not in his nature.

If he gets his way, you could lose the right to:

• Written terms and conditions of work, and a job description – and the right to the same terms and conditions if transferred to a different employer.
• Four weeks’ paid leave from work per year.
• Not be sacked for being pregnant, or for taking time off for ante-natal appointments.
• Come back to work after maternity leave, on the same pay, terms and conditions as before the leave started.
• Health and safety protection for pregnant women, new and breastfeeding mothers.
• Parental leave.
• Equal treatment for workers employed through an agency.
• Tea and lunch breaks during the working day for anyone working six hours or more
• One day off per week.
• Time off for urgent family reasons.

In addition, Cameron could relieve employeers of the legal obligation to ensure the health and safety of their workers, including undertaking risk assessments, acting to minimise risks, informing workers of risks, and consulting on health and safety with employees and their representatives. In his cost-cutting brave new Britain you’d just have to take your chances.

Health and safety representatives from trade unions could lose the right to ask employers to make changes in order to protect workers’ health and safety, and they would lose their protection against unfair treatment by their employer for carrying out their duties in relation to this.

The ban on forcing children less than 13 years of age into work could be lost, along with the limit on the hours children aged 13 or more and young people can work.

Children who could then be forced into work, regardless of the effect on their education, would have no rules protecting their health and safety, and the rules that say they can only be employed doing “light work” could also be abolished.

Protection from discrimination or harassment at work on grounds of gender, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation – direct or indirect – could be dropped.

And the right of disabled people to expect their employers to make reasonable adjustments for them at work could also be abolished.

These are just your rights at work!

Cameron himself has said, as leader of the Opposition: “I do not believe it is appropriate for social and employment legislation to be dealt with at the European level. It will be a top priority for the next Conservative government to restore social and employment legislation to national control.”

And as Prime Minister: “Complex rules restricting our labour markets are not some naturally occurring phenomenon. Just as excessive regulation is not some external plague that’s been visited on our businesses.”

To find out what he meant by those words, we must turn to the former leader of the British Conservative MEPs, Martin Callanan, who said: “One of the best ways for the EU to speed up growth is to … scrap the Working Time Directive, the Agency Workers Directive, the Pregnant Workers Directive and all of the other barriers to actually employing people if we really want to create jobs in Europe.”

Of course, they distort the facts. These rules aren’t barriers to employing people at all; they are structures within which people may be employed responsibly.

The Tories want to ban responsibility in the workplace. They want a return to dangerous employment conditions, abuse of workers and the removal of any legal protection from such abuse that they may have.

They will tear apart your rights at work.

So, if you are living in the UK and you’ve got a job, please take a moment to consider what this means for you. You might agree with the Coalition on its benefits policy that has led to thousands of deaths of sick and disabled people; you might agree with its bedroom tax and too-low benefit cap that has led to a rapid rise in debt and homelessness among the unemployed and those on low wages.

But now you know they’re coming for you, too.

What are you going to do about it?

Are you going to sit on your thumbs and do nothing – just meekly wait for them to rock up and tell you they’ve abolished all your rights at work and you can now go and slave for them in appalling conditions with absolutely no legal protection at all?

In other words, when it’s you that’s threatened, are you going to let it happen, just like you let it happen to the sick, disabled, unemployed and low-waged?

Or are you going to take action and make a difference?

It doesn’t take much. You could write to David Cameron and to your MP at the House of Commons. You could email them – just look up the addresses on They Work For You, or you could add your name to the letter being created by Unions Together. Yes, I know Mr Cameron says the unions are a bad thing, but in this case the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

As the leader of the European Parliamentary Labour Party, Glenis Willmott MEP, says: “Our rights at work are not ‘red tape’ to be slashed away. Don’t let Cameron and the Tories get away with this great European scam.”

Vox Political

The Coming Tyranny and the Legal Aid Bill

Reblogged from kittysjones:

The Ministry of Justice’s “reforms” (Tory-speak for cuts) to legal aid undermine the fundamental principle of legal equality, breach Article 6(1) of  the European Convention of Human Rights: the right to a fair trial, and reflect a truly authoritarian agenda of tyranny. The cuts will seriously undermine access to justice and sidestep the obligation of Government accountability. The cuts will affect the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in society and allow unlawful and unfair public body decision-making to go unchallenged.  

The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s analysis in 2012 warned that reducing the scope of legal aid in a substantial number of areas in civil and family law will create serious practical barriers to access to justice, potentially in breach of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The cuts to the civil legal aid budget, which came in to effect from April 2013, mean many cases, including those about debt, private family law, employment, welfare benefits, clinical negligence and housing problems are no longer eligible for funding.

This is at a time when the Government have implemented other radical, controversial and contentious cuts to health, education and welfare, and it is no coincidence that the legal aid Bill will curtail justice for those with legitimate needs at a time when draconian Tory policies such as the bedroom tax will most likely result in a massive increase of numbers of people needing and seeking redress.

This will mean the compounding of effects of other fundamental  human rights breaches, legally unchecked, because of the profound impact of multiple, grossly unfair and unjust Tory-led policies. Each policy hitting the same vulnerable citizens to their detriment, over and over.

This sends out a truly horrific message to those of us who believed we lived in a first world liberal democracy  (one that has recognition of  individual rights and freedoms embedded in its’ Constitution, and one in which decisions from direct or representative processes prevail in State policies.) The promotion of equal opportunity to legal justice is the bedrock of a free and democratic society. It ought to be inclusive of all who cannot afford to be tried fairly. The reality is only a few can afford the legal costs to enforce contracts and against criminal prosecution. This profoundly unjust inequality is not something we expect to see in a Country which was once a beacon of Western liberty.

The only way to wed the principle of a “pursuit of economic liberty” with wider justice is by a basic notion of equality before the law, through the equal access to justice. This means that the State must fund the means of contract enforcement and free and fair trial legal costs, for those who cannot afford it. If the State fails to fulfil this contingent function, then we simply cease to be free.

“Legal aid will continue to be provided to those who most need it, such as where domestic violence is involved, where people’s life or liberty is at stake or the loss of their home. But in cases like divorce, courts should be a last resort, not first. Evidence shows that mediation can often be more successful and less expensive for all involved.”  -  Chris Grayling.

Section 10 of LASPO (Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012) provides the new Director of legal aid casework with the power to provide ‘exceptional funding’ for cases that are out of scope. Part 8 of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012 indicates that providers of legal services will not have delegated powers to grant exceptional funding. Instead, an application must be made to the Director for an ‘exceptional case determination’.

Section 10(3) of LASPO states that an exceptional case determination is a determination:
a) that it is necessary to make the services available to the individual under this part because failure to do so would be a breach of:
1) the individual’s convention rights (within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998), or
2) any rights of the individual to the provision of legal services that are enforceable EU rights, or
b) that it is appropriate to do so, in the particular circumstances of the case, having regard to any risk that failure to do so would be such a breach.

This misses a very crucial point: it’s very dangerous to allow the State to decide which cases constitute the most need. In a free, democratic and fair Society, each and every single individual has equal legal worth and entitlement to opportunity to bring about legal justice. The Government choosing which cases are most “worthwhile” undermines this very premise of legal equality which is so fundamental to the notion of liberty. Everybody has a right to take any grievances they have, which have invoked legal ramifications, to court. Everybody ought to have an absolute, inalienable right to free and fair trial in a free, democratic and liberal country.

Having cut the civil legal aid budget by £320m, the Ministry of Justice proposes to cut the criminal legal aid budget by a further £220m. Legal contracts are to be based on competitive tendering. One of the outcomes of the reform and cut to the budget is that defendants on legal aid will no longer be offered a choice of solicitor.

One of the most unfair aspects of this system is that if you are charged, the State will select a prosecutor with specialist experience in that area of the law, funded by the taxpayer. Be it a sexual offences case, a road traffic death, a murder, a drugs case or a serious assault, in each case, a prosecutor will be picked to prosecute you from a specialist team.

But when it comes to your defending yourself, however, you will be given no choice. You will either have the defence lawyer allocated by the State or you will be on your own. This cannot be right. Many legal experts have voiced their alarm at this, because it will  invariably lead to gross injustices.

Large commercial firms who are going to be paid, win or lose, will have a vested interest to encourage their clients to plead guilty, whether they are or not. At a time when people are at their most vulnerable they need a local service that listens, not a business, whose goal will be to turn around the case as fast and cheaply as possible.

The scope for dangerous consequences due to vested interests in the justice system following Justice Secretary Chris Grayling’s “reforms” is considerable, and allows potential for further erosion of legal freedom. In some cases,  the sole choice of lawyer for a defendant via legal aid will also be a representative for the organisation with an interest in ensuring a prosecution. The  tendering process – where the cheapest bid wins – would be run by companies with no record of providing legal services, resulting in a dumbing down of the profession and a race to the bottom that will mean  people being denied access to quality legal aid.

As is always the case when private companies that are driven solely by the  profit motive are involved in any service, cases will be run on the cheap by under-qualified, inexperienced, low-cost staff.  The company Serco, for example, provides prison security guards. Serco is one company bidding for the legal contracts with the Legal Aid Agency. The Department of Justice has proposed to remove defendants’ automatic right to select their own solicitors to make the contracts to bidders more profitable.

I have no doubt that the Coalition wants to see access to justice removed for those affected by its nightmarish, dystopian policies. Those people affect most are the most vulnerable citizens, as the cuts have been disproportionately aimed at sick and disabled people, and those who are unemployed. We need look no further than Clause 99 of the welfare “reform” Act to see how silencing those seeking redress is a priority for this Government.

Those wishing to appeal wrongful decisions by Atos/The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) that they are “fit for work” after having their Employment Support Allowance (ESA) unfairly  removed will find that this will be an almost impossible task, since their right to legal aid has been removed. The introduction of the  Mandatory Review in Clause 99 will mean that they have to wait an indefinite period without any ESA sickness benefit, or claim Job Seekers Allowance (JSA), whilst waiting for the DWP to conduct the review, with no time limit imposed on the DWP to do so.

That means signing on and declaring that you are fit  for work, and people are being told by the DWP, unbelievably, that they don’t qualify because they are not fit, or fully available for work. Others have been told that to claim JSA they need to close their ESA claim which means they cannot appeal a review decision. Basic rate ESA is exactly the same amount of money as JSA, so the Government cannot even claim this is a cost-cutting move.

And we also know that Atos are contracted by the Government to make “wrongful” decisions. 

The right to a lawyer of a persons’ choice, regardless of your income, race, gender or nationality, is an underpinning condition of a free and fair justice system. Having both a sense of, and access to choice, over one’s legal representative, who is there to fight for justice is paramount to basic legal equality and liberty. When this choice is removed and legal representation is essentially imposed on a passive defendant by the State (if a defendant can still access legal aid at all, that is,) our justice system becomes unacceptably authoritarian.

And it has.

Further reading:

Guidance on the exceptional funding regime

The Public Law Project scheme to assist people with making exceptional funding applications

Update

A response to this article from the International Human Rights Commission: “The IHRC strongly condemned the Bill and asked the UK Government to consider this action, which is against the norm of human rights”.

Thanks to Robert Livingstone for his excellent artwork

One law for the rich, another for the poor – and this time, literally

Reblogged from Michael Meacher MP:

There is no conceivable justification for slashing £220m from criminal legal aid and removing the defendant’s right to choose a solicitor than a wilful determination gratuitously to hobble one of the fundamental pillars of the Welfare State, namely the principle of equality before the law.   This is yet another manifestation of the Tory objective to establish a fully-fledged Market State in which what you get depends entirely on your wealth, whether created or inherited, and what you earn.   It’s not only that this is deeply unjust in a profoundly unequal society – and one which has become significantly more unequal since 2010 – but it will unquestionably lead to serious miscarriages of justice and radically undermine Britain’s well-deserved reputation for equal legal rights for all.

The essence of this backward step is that in future legal aid cointracts will be awarded, not on the basis of the defendant’s choice of solicitor which is now being taken away, but through price-competitive tendering to the lowest bidder.   This will obviously lead to lowest-cost justice at the expense of hgi-quality justice, made worse by the price cap being imposed at a level at a sixth below previous rates paid.   It is expected that the number of contracts will fall by some three-quarters, and preventing a defendant from choosing who should represent him is justified by the MOJ on the basis that it will guarantee economies of scale.

There are several other nasty little cutbacks when one comes to examine the small print.   The bizarre MOJ proposal to pay lawyers the same rate whether a guilty plea is entered early or late will lead to a perverse incentive to plead guilty.   Those who have ‘little or no conncection to this country’ will not be able to claim any support for civil legal actions in Britain.   Prisoners who complain about their treatment in jail won’t in future get any legal aid.   And if you seek to take out a judicial review of some measure, but someone in authority deems that you have less than a 50-50 chance of success, you will get no legal aid.

Significantly also legal aid is increasingly becoming a means-tested exercise, with the ceiling for eligibility now being further squeezed down further.   In future if the disposable household income, which will include the joint income of two or more earners, is more than £37,500 a year, i.e. 50% above average earnings, no legal aid will be available in the Crown court.   It need hardly be added that since employers, landlords and companies are generally well-capitalised, all these measures which curb entitlement to legal aid must substantially tilt the balance of justice against the poor and disadvantaged and increasingly put the wealthy and powerful in effect beyond the reach of the law.

Tesco will use loyalty card to snoop on shoppers

Buying pizza? Expect a healthy reminder from Tesco: Supermarket giant will use loyalty card data to see who is eating what

• The system will use Clubcard data to check what shoppers are eating
• Tesco said it wanted to play its part in battling the growing obesity crisis
  
• Might offer vouchers for healthier products and promoting a better diet via suggested recipes

By Rob Davies

Tesco will monitor the shopping habits of customers who want to slim and advise them on how to eat more healthily.

The system will work by using Clubcard data to check whether shoppers are loading up on doughnuts, chocolate and pizzas.

The supermarket giant said it wanted to play its part in battling the growing obesity epidemic.

Data: Tesco are to use their Clubcard technology to evaluate what everyone is eating

Tesco boss Phil Clarke said he would draw on the vast database of customer information held in Tesco’s Clubcard loyalty scheme, which has around 16million members.

Tesco hasn’t decided how it will use the information, but options include offering vouchers for healthier products and promoting a better diet via suggested recipes.

 

‘The information provided by Clubcard is invaluable,’ said Mr Clarke.

‘Our customers have told us they’d like help in choosing healthy options, so on an individual level, we want to see whether customers would welcome tailored suggestions for how they could shop more healthily.’ Mr Clarke promised that customers would need to ‘opt in’, rather than being bombarded by unwanted suggestions from the supermarket.

‘We won’t encourage healthier lifestyles by editing choices, but we can influence choice by making healthier options,’ he said.

Unhealthy: They want to find out how many people are eating bad food such as pizzas, doughnuts and chocolate

Mr Clarke told The Grocer magazine that the scheme ‘could be a really innovative way of highlighting those healthier options’.

The supermarket’s technology experts have built an online tool - dubbed the ‘healthy little differences tracker’ - that will measure how customers’ habits change as a result of the healthy eating drive.

It is also expected to contribute data on customers’ eating habits to government research into obesity.

Only anonymous data will be passed to health research organisations, unless customers volunteer to submit their details and waive their right to anonymity.

Tesco, which has already teamed up with charity Diabetes UK to research diet patterns, said that some 65 per cent of its customers said their lifestyle isn’t as healthy as they would like.

One other major supermarket, which asked not to be named because the plans are at an early stage, said it was conducting trials of new store layouts to encourage healthier eating.

A source at the supermarket said it had drafted in behavioural psychologists to come up with ‘nudge tactics’ to coax shoppers into the fruit and vegetable aisle.

Tesco’s plan to use Clubcard information to target obesity is part of its Tesco and Society campaign, a broader effort to show that the supermarket is contributing to British life.

Britain’s largest supermarket has already met one of its targets by reducing the number of calories sold in its own-brand soft drinks last year by one billion.

And Mr Clarke said that Tesco would also put pressure on food producers to follow suit.

Campaign: Tesco want to encourage shoppers to eat a more healthy and balanced diet.They have suggested that they might offer deals on better food

‘We want to take others with us, including suppliers,’ he said.

Tesco has also thrown its weight behind government plans to introduce a universal label on the front of packaging, informing buyers of how much fat, sugar and salt they contain.

And the supermarket has also stepped up efforts to reduce the amount of food that is wasted every day in Britain.

Mr Clarke said last week that the average British family was wasting £700 of food a year.

He said Tesco would help by cutting down on promotions that encourage customers to buy large amounts of food that has only a very short shelf life.

Tesco’s campaigns on food waste and obesity come with the reputation of supermarkets at a low ebb, after horsemeat was found in food sold by a string of major retailers.

Source

Amnesty condemns gov't for assault on disabled

At its AGM on April 14 2013, Amnesty International UK passed a resolution on the Human Rights of sick and disabled people in the UK.

The resolution read:

“This AGM calls for urgent action to halt the abrogation of the human rights of sick and disabled people by the ruling Coalition government and its associated corporate contractors.

Calls for Amnesty International UK to urgently work with grassroots human rights campaigns by and for sick and disabled people, carers and their families. And to set up a specialist Disability Human Rights network…..

To protect the human rights of people with disabilities, ill people and carers to halt this regressive and lethal assault on our rights.”

You can read the full resolution here.

This month saw the introduction of the notorious Bedroom Tax; it’s has been estimated that two thirds of the households hit by the tax contain disabled people. Atos Healthcare’s ‘fitness to work’ assessments of disabled people – a linchpin of the coalition’s welfare reforms – have also been slammed by charities and paralympians.

 

Left Foot Forward