Volunteers in New Zealand are racing to rescue survivors after more than 400 pilot whales beached themselves.
About 300 have already died at Farewell Spit, on the South Island, in one of the worst such cases in the country.
Hundreds of locals and conservation department staff have been trying to save the survivors since early Friday morning, and have formed a human chain to refloat the whales.
Scientists do not know what exactly causes whales to beach themselves.
But it sometimes happens because the whales are old and sick, injured, or make navigational errors particularly along gentle sloping beaches.
Sometimes when one whale is beached, it will send out a distress signal attracting other members of its pod, who then also get stranded by a receding tide.
The conservation department said it had received a report about a possible stranding on Thursday night, but did not launch the rescue operation until Friday morning as it was too dangerous to attempt a rescue in the dark, reported the New Zealand Herald.
Andrew Lamason, the departments regional manager, said it was one of the largest mass beachings recorded in New Zealand.
New Zealand marine mammal charity Project Jonah. which is leading efforts to save the whales said a total of 416 whales were stranded.
It said the surviving whales are "being kept cool, calm and comfortable" by medics and members of the public.
Some of the refloated whales tried to swim back to shore, and the human chain was trying to herd them out to deeper waters, said volunteer Ana Wiles.
Thursday, February 9, 2017
Policing Donald Trump state visit will be 'challenging' - Met
Britain's top cop says policing the expected protests during Donald Trump's UK visit will be a challenge.
Scotland Yard Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe admits protests could be much bigger than the spontaneous but peaceful march by 20,000 anti-Trump demonstrators who descended on Downing Street and blocked Whitehall last week.
He said: "We have two or three state visits a year and there can often be a political issue in that country and we have to adapt to that. We have a lot of experience in dealing with that.
"It demands a lot of planning. It requires a lot of officers getting involved. But that's the nature of our job.
"In a democracy a head of state from another country should be able to visit and carry out their meetings with our government.
"It's our job to keep them safe and make sure everybody has their opportunity to protest should they want to.
"You get various challenging ones but I'm sure it will be fine and I wish my successor luck in dealing with that and I'll be thinking of them."
In an interview ahead of his retirement this month, Sir Bernard also urged the Government's Brexit negotiators to find a quick replacement for the European Arrest Warrant (EAW).
The EAW virtually guarantees the swift extradition of fugitives arrested in other EU countries, but the system is expected to be scrapped when the UK leaves the union.
He said: "I'm sure that whatever happens in the future a similar system will have to arise and the main reason is called 'shared interest', so the French don't want their rapists to come over here and get away with things, nor do we want our burglars to go to France and get away with their burglaries.
"I'm sure something will be put in place, but I suspect the bureaucracy and administration to organise that will take a lot of time."
Sir Bernard retires in two weeks' time after more than five years running the Metropolitan Police.
Applicants for his job are being interviewed this week.
Scotland Yard Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe admits protests could be much bigger than the spontaneous but peaceful march by 20,000 anti-Trump demonstrators who descended on Downing Street and blocked Whitehall last week.
He said: "We have two or three state visits a year and there can often be a political issue in that country and we have to adapt to that. We have a lot of experience in dealing with that.
"It demands a lot of planning. It requires a lot of officers getting involved. But that's the nature of our job.
"In a democracy a head of state from another country should be able to visit and carry out their meetings with our government.
"It's our job to keep them safe and make sure everybody has their opportunity to protest should they want to.
"You get various challenging ones but I'm sure it will be fine and I wish my successor luck in dealing with that and I'll be thinking of them."
In an interview ahead of his retirement this month, Sir Bernard also urged the Government's Brexit negotiators to find a quick replacement for the European Arrest Warrant (EAW).
The EAW virtually guarantees the swift extradition of fugitives arrested in other EU countries, but the system is expected to be scrapped when the UK leaves the union.
He said: "I'm sure that whatever happens in the future a similar system will have to arise and the main reason is called 'shared interest', so the French don't want their rapists to come over here and get away with things, nor do we want our burglars to go to France and get away with their burglaries.
"I'm sure something will be put in place, but I suspect the bureaucracy and administration to organise that will take a lot of time."
Sir Bernard retires in two weeks' time after more than five years running the Metropolitan Police.
Applicants for his job are being interviewed this week.
'See you in court': President Trump loses travel ban appeal
A US appeals court has upheld the suspension of President Donald Trump's controversial travel ban.
The unanimous ruling, by a panel of three judges in San Francisco, will likely pave the way for a showdown in the Supreme Court.
However, the appeals court justices expressed doubt that Mr Trump's government would be successful if it launched another appeal.
In off-camera remarks to reporters at the White House, the President insisted he was confident that his administration would eventually win the case "very easily".
Mr Trump branded the decision as "political" - and moments after the ruling, he tweeted: "SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"
Washington Governor Jay Inslee, who represents one of the states which took on the government, replied: "Mr President, we just saw you in court, and we beat you."
The US Justice Department was more measured in its response than Mr Trump - and a spokeswoman said it was "considering its options".
In their judgment, the appeals court said the US Justice Department had not offered "any evidence" of national security concerns which had justified banning migrants, visitors and refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries.
The judges concluded that the government had provided no evidence that any citizen from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Syria had perpetrated an attack on American soil.
In addition, no evidence was offered which explained the urgent need for his executive order to take effect immediately.
Lawyers from Washington state and Minnesota - which mounted the legal challenge against Mr Trump - had offered compelling evidence that even a temporary reinstatement of the travel ban would cause harm, and raised serious allegations of religious discrimination.
The ruling means migrants, visitors and refugees from the affected countries can continue to travel to the US if they have valid visas or green cards - something which Mr Trump had attempted to stop with his executive order.
In its arguments, the Justice Department had insisted that the President had the constitutional power to restrict entry to the US - and that the courts should not attempt to second-guess his determination that such measures were needed to prevent acts of domestic terrorism.
The judges said: "On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies. And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination."
Mr Trump's executive order had been temporarily suspended nationwide by Judge James Robart in Seattle last week.
Following that ruling, the President branded Mr Robart's ruling as "ridiculous" - and described him as a "so-called judge".
Sky's US Correspondent Hannah Thomas-Peter said: "As Donald Trump's tweet indicates, he is likely to be utterly furious about this ruling.
"It will embarrass a man who ran on a promise to act quickly and decisively on matters of 'national security'.
"It will sting even more that he has been thwarted by his country's court system - full of the kind of grey-haired establishment figures he railed against during his insurgent campaign.
"Donald Trump is at his most unpredictable when angry or backed in to a corner - and now, he is both these things."
The unanimous ruling, by a panel of three judges in San Francisco, will likely pave the way for a showdown in the Supreme Court.
However, the appeals court justices expressed doubt that Mr Trump's government would be successful if it launched another appeal.
In off-camera remarks to reporters at the White House, the President insisted he was confident that his administration would eventually win the case "very easily".
Mr Trump branded the decision as "political" - and moments after the ruling, he tweeted: "SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"
Washington Governor Jay Inslee, who represents one of the states which took on the government, replied: "Mr President, we just saw you in court, and we beat you."
The US Justice Department was more measured in its response than Mr Trump - and a spokeswoman said it was "considering its options".
In their judgment, the appeals court said the US Justice Department had not offered "any evidence" of national security concerns which had justified banning migrants, visitors and refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries.
The judges concluded that the government had provided no evidence that any citizen from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Syria had perpetrated an attack on American soil.
In addition, no evidence was offered which explained the urgent need for his executive order to take effect immediately.
Lawyers from Washington state and Minnesota - which mounted the legal challenge against Mr Trump - had offered compelling evidence that even a temporary reinstatement of the travel ban would cause harm, and raised serious allegations of religious discrimination.
The ruling means migrants, visitors and refugees from the affected countries can continue to travel to the US if they have valid visas or green cards - something which Mr Trump had attempted to stop with his executive order.
In its arguments, the Justice Department had insisted that the President had the constitutional power to restrict entry to the US - and that the courts should not attempt to second-guess his determination that such measures were needed to prevent acts of domestic terrorism.
The judges said: "On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies. And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination."
Mr Trump's executive order had been temporarily suspended nationwide by Judge James Robart in Seattle last week.
Following that ruling, the President branded Mr Robart's ruling as "ridiculous" - and described him as a "so-called judge".
Sky's US Correspondent Hannah Thomas-Peter said: "As Donald Trump's tweet indicates, he is likely to be utterly furious about this ruling.
"It will embarrass a man who ran on a promise to act quickly and decisively on matters of 'national security'.
"It will sting even more that he has been thwarted by his country's court system - full of the kind of grey-haired establishment figures he railed against during his insurgent campaign.
"Donald Trump is at his most unpredictable when angry or backed in to a corner - and now, he is both these things."
Bullet-proof barrier to encircle Eiffel Tower
A two-and-a-half metre high glass security barrier is to be constructed around Paris' most recognisable landmark.
The wall will replace the metal fences put in place during the Euro 2016 football tournament and is part of a plan to prevent attacks on the monument.
French tourist sites, transport systems and places of worship have been subject to increased security measures following terrorist atrocities committed in the country between January 2015 and July 2016, which claimed 238 lives.
Construction will take place later in the year and is expected to cost €20m (£17m).
Jean-Francois Martins, deputy mayor of Paris, said: "The terror threat remains high in Paris, and the most vulnerable sites, starting with the Eiffel Tower, must be the object of special security measures.
"The glass casing will prevent individuals or vehicles storming the site visited by six million people each year.
"Architects will help design the wall so that it blends in with the Seine river, which borders the tower to the north, and with the Champ de Mars park to the south."
Some councillors have been critical of the plans, warning that a wall could transform the tower into "a fortress" and might discourage tourists from visiting.
Gustave Eiffel's wrought iron masterpiece will also undergo refurbishment following Paris' formal bid to host the 2024 Olympic Games.
The wall will replace the metal fences put in place during the Euro 2016 football tournament and is part of a plan to prevent attacks on the monument.
French tourist sites, transport systems and places of worship have been subject to increased security measures following terrorist atrocities committed in the country between January 2015 and July 2016, which claimed 238 lives.
Construction will take place later in the year and is expected to cost €20m (£17m).
Jean-Francois Martins, deputy mayor of Paris, said: "The terror threat remains high in Paris, and the most vulnerable sites, starting with the Eiffel Tower, must be the object of special security measures.
"The glass casing will prevent individuals or vehicles storming the site visited by six million people each year.
"Architects will help design the wall so that it blends in with the Seine river, which borders the tower to the north, and with the Champ de Mars park to the south."
Some councillors have been critical of the plans, warning that a wall could transform the tower into "a fortress" and might discourage tourists from visiting.
Gustave Eiffel's wrought iron masterpiece will also undergo refurbishment following Paris' formal bid to host the 2024 Olympic Games.
Muhammadu Buhari's 'inconclusive' medical vacation
It was Ayodele Fayose, the Governor of Ekiti State, who first saideverything under the Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari was becoming inconclusive.
That outburst - and Fayose has quite a litany of complaints against Buhari - came after Nigeria's electoral umpire declared the Bayelsa State governorship election "inconclusive" on the third day of the exercise.
It was a happy ending for Fayose: Seriake Dickson, candidate of his party, won the election a month later. Actually, there was little to worry about in the first place.
One year on, a crisis of monstrous scale and manifold consequences is brewing. Buhari is on medical vacation in the United Kingdom, and it is so far inconclusive, even indefinite.
The announcement of Buhari's latest vacation on January 19 was itself inauspicious - not because it was his third in one year, but because he had asked the National Assembly for 10 days off when he was in fact going to be away for longer.
That a "10-day vacation" began on January 19, and was to end on February 6, offered faint indication of the president's much-guarded state of health. And it was all sudden: Yemi Osinbajo, the man Buhari temporarily handed power to, abruptly ended his participation at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
Rumours of hsi death have spread on fake news sites, and it is very worrisome that Buhari has refused to personally assure the country of his wellness. On one occasion Garba Shehu, one of his two spokesmen, tweeted a photo of Buhari supposedly watching Channels, Nigeria's leading television station, but it all seemed a cover-up.
The president could have called that same station to address his countrymen for just a minute. In such an ethnically divided country as Nigeria, such a move is crucial for the preservation of democratic sanity. With that assurance still missing, the power grabbers are already at work.
The fears of the north
Until May 2010, it seemed inconceivable that a member of a minority ethnic group would become president.
Were that even to happen, it looked like an outright impossibility that the north - a region that typically sees the number-one seat as its birthright - would be the victim of such power transfer.
But when northerner Umaru Musa Yar'Adua, the former president, left Nigeria for Saudi Arabia in November 2009 to get treatment for pericarditis and hadn't returned by February 2010, Goodluck Jonathan, from the Ijaw ethnic group, was formally declared acting president.
With Yar'Adua's death three months later, Jonathan - a man who was chosen as Yar'Adua's running mate not for his political appeal but for his reputation of "never rocking the boat" - became president.
That outburst - and Fayose has quite a litany of complaints against Buhari - came after Nigeria's electoral umpire declared the Bayelsa State governorship election "inconclusive" on the third day of the exercise.
It was a happy ending for Fayose: Seriake Dickson, candidate of his party, won the election a month later. Actually, there was little to worry about in the first place.
One year on, a crisis of monstrous scale and manifold consequences is brewing. Buhari is on medical vacation in the United Kingdom, and it is so far inconclusive, even indefinite.
The announcement of Buhari's latest vacation on January 19 was itself inauspicious - not because it was his third in one year, but because he had asked the National Assembly for 10 days off when he was in fact going to be away for longer.
That a "10-day vacation" began on January 19, and was to end on February 6, offered faint indication of the president's much-guarded state of health. And it was all sudden: Yemi Osinbajo, the man Buhari temporarily handed power to, abruptly ended his participation at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
Rumours of hsi death have spread on fake news sites, and it is very worrisome that Buhari has refused to personally assure the country of his wellness. On one occasion Garba Shehu, one of his two spokesmen, tweeted a photo of Buhari supposedly watching Channels, Nigeria's leading television station, but it all seemed a cover-up.
The president could have called that same station to address his countrymen for just a minute. In such an ethnically divided country as Nigeria, such a move is crucial for the preservation of democratic sanity. With that assurance still missing, the power grabbers are already at work.
The fears of the north
Until May 2010, it seemed inconceivable that a member of a minority ethnic group would become president.
Were that even to happen, it looked like an outright impossibility that the north - a region that typically sees the number-one seat as its birthright - would be the victim of such power transfer.
But when northerner Umaru Musa Yar'Adua, the former president, left Nigeria for Saudi Arabia in November 2009 to get treatment for pericarditis and hadn't returned by February 2010, Goodluck Jonathan, from the Ijaw ethnic group, was formally declared acting president.
With Yar'Adua's death three months later, Jonathan - a man who was chosen as Yar'Adua's running mate not for his political appeal but for his reputation of "never rocking the boat" - became president.
Leaked Trump Presidential Memo Would Free U.S. Companies to Buy Conflict Minerals From Central African Warlords
THE LEAKED DRAFT of a presidential memorandum Donald Trump is expected to sign within days suspends a 2010 rule that discouraged American companies from funding conflict and human rights abuses in the Democratic Republic of Congo through their purchase of “conflict minerals.”
The memo, distributed inside the administration on Friday afternoon and obtained by The Intercept, directs the Securities and Exchange Commission to temporarily waive the requirements of the Conflict Mineral Rule, a provision of the Dodd Frank Act, for two years — which the rule explicitly allows the president to do for national security purposes. The memorandum also directs the State Department and Treasury Department to find an alternative plan to “address such problems in the DRC and adjoining countries.”
The idea behind the rule, which had bipartisan support, was to drain militias of revenue by forcing firms to conduct reviews of their supply chain to determine if contractors used minerals sourced from the militias.
The impending decision comes as Trump held a meeting Wednesday with Brian Krzanich, the chief executive of Intel, one of the leading firms impacted by conflict mineral regulations. At the White House today, Krzanich appeared with the president to announce a new manufacturing plant in Arizona.
Human rights advocates — who had celebrated the conflicts rule as a major step forward — were appalled. “Any executive action suspending the U.S. conflict minerals rule would be a gift to predatory armed groups seeking to profit from Congo’s minerals as well as a gift to companies wanting to do business with the criminal and the corrupt,” said Carly Oboth, the policy adviser at Global Witness, in a statement responding to a Reuters article that first reported the move.
“It is an abuse of power that the Trump administration is claiming that the law should be suspended through a national security exemption intended for emergency purposes. Suspending this provision could actually undermine U.S. national security.”
Advanced computer chips, including technology used in cell phones and semiconductors, contain minerals often sourced from war-torn countries in central Africa. Firms such as Intel, Apple, HP, and IBM use advanced chips that contain tantalum, gold, tin, and tungsten — elements that can be mined at low prices in the the DRC, where mines are often controlled by militias fueling a decadeslong civil war.
American tech companies, such as Intel, lobbied directly on the rule when it was proposed. But since passage, tech firms have largely used third party business groups to stymie the rule. Trade groups representing major U.S. tech firms and other manufacturers, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable, attempted to block the rule through a federal lawsuit. In 2014, a federal court struck down a part of the rule that forced firms to reveal DRC conflict minerals on their corporate websites.
Intel is also one of the firms that has touted its effort to comply with the law, publishing a report that notes the company has conducted 40 on-site reviews of smelters in the eastern DRC.
Reuters also reported that acting SEC chief Michael Piwowar has taken steps to also weaken enforcement, asking staff to “reconsider how companies should comply.”
The memo, distributed inside the administration on Friday afternoon and obtained by The Intercept, directs the Securities and Exchange Commission to temporarily waive the requirements of the Conflict Mineral Rule, a provision of the Dodd Frank Act, for two years — which the rule explicitly allows the president to do for national security purposes. The memorandum also directs the State Department and Treasury Department to find an alternative plan to “address such problems in the DRC and adjoining countries.”
The idea behind the rule, which had bipartisan support, was to drain militias of revenue by forcing firms to conduct reviews of their supply chain to determine if contractors used minerals sourced from the militias.
The impending decision comes as Trump held a meeting Wednesday with Brian Krzanich, the chief executive of Intel, one of the leading firms impacted by conflict mineral regulations. At the White House today, Krzanich appeared with the president to announce a new manufacturing plant in Arizona.
Human rights advocates — who had celebrated the conflicts rule as a major step forward — were appalled. “Any executive action suspending the U.S. conflict minerals rule would be a gift to predatory armed groups seeking to profit from Congo’s minerals as well as a gift to companies wanting to do business with the criminal and the corrupt,” said Carly Oboth, the policy adviser at Global Witness, in a statement responding to a Reuters article that first reported the move.
“It is an abuse of power that the Trump administration is claiming that the law should be suspended through a national security exemption intended for emergency purposes. Suspending this provision could actually undermine U.S. national security.”
Advanced computer chips, including technology used in cell phones and semiconductors, contain minerals often sourced from war-torn countries in central Africa. Firms such as Intel, Apple, HP, and IBM use advanced chips that contain tantalum, gold, tin, and tungsten — elements that can be mined at low prices in the the DRC, where mines are often controlled by militias fueling a decadeslong civil war.
American tech companies, such as Intel, lobbied directly on the rule when it was proposed. But since passage, tech firms have largely used third party business groups to stymie the rule. Trade groups representing major U.S. tech firms and other manufacturers, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable, attempted to block the rule through a federal lawsuit. In 2014, a federal court struck down a part of the rule that forced firms to reveal DRC conflict minerals on their corporate websites.
Intel is also one of the firms that has touted its effort to comply with the law, publishing a report that notes the company has conducted 40 on-site reviews of smelters in the eastern DRC.
Reuters also reported that acting SEC chief Michael Piwowar has taken steps to also weaken enforcement, asking staff to “reconsider how companies should comply.”
Members of Rochdale child sex grooming gang facing deportation to Pakistan
Four members of the Rochdale child sex abuse gang are facing deportation after losing an appeal to remain in the UK.
Ringleader Shabir Ahmed and Adil Khan, Qari Abdul Rauf and Abdul Aziz were among nine gang members jailed in 2012 for grooming girls as young as 13 with drink and drugs.
They had challenged Government moves to strip them of their British citizenship.
But on Thursday, the Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber rejected their appeal.
It means the four men, all originally from Pakistan, could be removed from the UK - though the legal battle is expected to take some time.
Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk has called for the men to be deported to Pakistan "as soon as possible".
He said: "We welcome many people coming to the UK, to contribute, but if they break the law then they should lose their right to live here.
"Foreign-born criminals should not be able to hide behind human rights laws to avoid deportation."
Ahmed, who is serving a 22-year jail sentence for offences including rape, wrote a letter to the European Court Of Human Rights last year claiming his convictions were a conspiracy to "scapegoat" Muslims.
Handing down today's judgment, Mr Justice McCloskey, said the cases were "of some notoriety", and described the men's crimes as "shocking, brutal and repulsive".
He dismissed claims concerning human rights and arguments by three of the men that the Government had failed in a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of their children.
The judge also rejected a ground of appeal that the Home Office action amounted to a "disproportionate interference" with the men's rights as EU citizens.
The latest ruling does not mean the end of the matter, as the four men can apply for permission to appeal against the tribunal's decision.
Applications can only be made on a question of law, and permission is granted in less than 10% of cases.
While Ahmed remains in custody, the other three have been released on licence.
Khan, Rauf and Aziz were convicted of conspiracy and trafficking for sexual exploitation charges.
They had challenged Government moves to strip them of their British citizenship.
But on Thursday, the Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber rejected their appeal.
It means the four men, all originally from Pakistan, could be removed from the UK - though the legal battle is expected to take some time.
Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk has called for the men to be deported to Pakistan "as soon as possible".
He said: "We welcome many people coming to the UK, to contribute, but if they break the law then they should lose their right to live here.
"Foreign-born criminals should not be able to hide behind human rights laws to avoid deportation."
Ahmed, who is serving a 22-year jail sentence for offences including rape, wrote a letter to the European Court Of Human Rights last year claiming his convictions were a conspiracy to "scapegoat" Muslims.
Handing down today's judgment, Mr Justice McCloskey, said the cases were "of some notoriety", and described the men's crimes as "shocking, brutal and repulsive".
He dismissed claims concerning human rights and arguments by three of the men that the Government had failed in a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of their children.
The judge also rejected a ground of appeal that the Home Office action amounted to a "disproportionate interference" with the men's rights as EU citizens.
The latest ruling does not mean the end of the matter, as the four men can apply for permission to appeal against the tribunal's decision.
Applications can only be made on a question of law, and permission is granted in less than 10% of cases.
While Ahmed remains in custody, the other three have been released on licence.
Khan, Rauf and Aziz were convicted of conspiracy and trafficking for sexual exploitation charges.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)