This was, according to President Barack Obama, an enormously productive day. The nearly 50 countries gathered here for the Nuclear Security Summit, he said, had seized the opportunity. First of all there had been agreement on the urgency and seriousness of the threat – that had not been the case before the summit. The leaders also adopted Mr Obama’s ambitious goal of securing all vulnerable nuclear materials within four years. A detailed work plan has been agreed too and progress is to be reviewed at a follow-up summit scheduled for South Korea in 2012. President Obama stressed that this summit was not about talk but about commitment to action. That said, safeguarding vulnerable nuclear materials depends upon the will of participating governments to act – and there can be no guarantees of progress. Will the political will remain strong? Will there be sufficient funding? Will, for example, Pakistan’s nuclear infrastructure – the security of which raises widespread fears – be any safer in four years’ time than it is today? Small victories The work plan includes some steps that individual governments must take and others that the international community must take in concert. The leaders have agreed to give more resources to the International Atomic Energy Agency – the UN’s nuclear watchdog – to fulfil its vital security work. It is clearly ludicrous that the IAEA’s existing budget for this kind of work depends upon it going round cap in hand for additional resources. The battle to safeguard nuclear materials will be a struggle with small victories in different parts of the world. Already at this summit Ukraine has agreed to give up all of its highly enriched uranium. Russia is to close its last reactor producing plutonium for military purposes, and Russia and the US have agreed to dispose of large quantities of weapons-grade plutonium. But this last US-Russian agreement illustrates some of the problems involved. The new protocol signed at this summit essentially updates a deal going back to the year 2000 that, for one reason or another, was never implemented. So Mr Obama is clearly right when he says that this work will require a serious and sustained effort. And it is clear that the Obama administration intends to keep this issue at the top of the global agenda. Preparation for May Hovering in the air over this summit was another issue – the future of Iran’s nuclear programme. Many of the bilateral meetings touched upon additional economic sanctions against Tehran. President Obama clearly pressed his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao, on this issue but with only limited results. China is still opposed to more sanctions though the Americans came away convinced that, at the end of the day, China, as in the past, would back additional measures. Iran too was top of the Israeli delegation’s agenda. The Israeli team was headed by Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor. His boss, Benjamin Netanyahu, had declined to attend – possibly fearing a diplomatic ambush by Arab delegations wanting to focus upon Israel’s own nuclear weapons programme (the existence of which it has never confirmed) or maybe because he just did not want to have another row with the Obama administration on Israeli building activities in east Jerusalem. Nonetheless Mr Meridor stressed in an exclusive BBC interview that while Israel backed the Obama nuclear security agenda, its main focus was still on Iran. One way or another these issues – proliferation, arms control and the security of nuclear materials – are all bound together. They will be discussed again at the forthcoming review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in New York in May. In many ways all of Mr Obama’s recent efforts – the revised US nuclear doctrine, the new Start treaty with Russia, this nuclear security conference – are all preparation for that event. The Non-Proliferation Treaty is the cornerstone of efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. It is widely regarded as ailing, badly in need of repair. That is the next item on Mr Obama’s nuclear “to do” list. This article is from the BBC News website . © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

See the original post:
Small victories

The BBC has avoided censure after Radio 5 live listeners heard Rage Against the Machine swearing in a live performance of their song Killing In The Name. Zack de la Rocha, the US band’s singer, was heard swearing four times on the station’s breakfast show in December. The band were there to discuss a Facebook campaign to make their song the Christmas number one instead of X Factor winner Joe McElderry’s. Media watchdog Ofcom said the BBC had taken the appropriate measures. While the song was being faded out, presenter Shelagh Fogarty was heard saying: “Get rid of it.” She then told her audience: “Sorry, we needed to get rid of that because that suddenly turned into something we were not, well we were expecting it and asked them not to do it, but they did it anyway – so buy Joe’s record.” Thirty-two listeners complained to the BBC. Term-time The BBC accepted that the language used by the band “was neither appropriate nor justified on a morning programme on Radio 5 live.” Fogarty’s apology was repeated by her co-presenter Nicky Campbell later in the show. The editor of the programme issued a further public apology on his blog and a full apology was given to the people who complained. The live nature of the programme was explained to the band members and their representatives on three separate occasions before the broadcast. The BBC had asked the band and its management for an assurance that they would change the original lyrics and not use strong language on-air. It said that a specific assurance was given by the band on each occasion. The corporation said that “in the live interview beforehand, the band members responded to Mr Campbell’s questions in a considered and measured manner” and gave no indication that they would not respect their assurances to not swear. Also, “the first few f-words were in fact changed when the band performed live.” The broadcaster said that while it accepted there was a degree of risk in asking the band to perform live, reasonable steps were taken to minimise this risk. Ofcom noted that the radio station was aimed at adults and that the broadcast was at 0900 during term-time so children were not likely to be listening. The watchdog acknowledged that there was editorial justification for having the band on the programme, given the media coverage the chart battle was receiving at the time. Ofcom also took into account that the apologies made during the programme would have gone some way to mitigating any offence caused by the language used. But it did criticise the BBC for allowing the band to repeat the offensive lyrics four times before fading the song out, especially given that the producers had full control over the output which was provided over a live feed from the US. But on balance, Ofcom decided the BBC had dealt with the problem and the case was resolved. This article is from the BBC News website . © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Read the rest here:
BBC avoids censure over swearing

Gordon Brown has been criticised by the UK’s statistics watchdog for misusing immigration figures. In a podcast on Friday, Mr Brown said net migration into the UK fell from 237,000 in 2007 to 163,000 in 2008 and provisionally 147,000 in 2009. The Tories accused him of selective use of figures but No 10 said he made it clear certain data was provisional. But the head of UK Statistics Authority agreed with the Tories that he had made inaccurate comparisons. It comes hours after Mr Brown talked up government progress on immigration. In a speech in London, Mr Brown said there had been a significant drop in asylum claims and net immigration thanks to Labour’s “tough and hard-headed” policy and warned would-be illegal migrants they were not “welcome” in the UK. The Conservatives said the PM’s use of statistics in Friday’s broadcast were “another extraordinary example of Gordon Brown’s dishonesty”. At the time, No 10 said the prime minister had made it clear he was using a provisional figure for 2009. ‘Care needed’ In the podcast, Mr Brown cited the figures to argue that a new points system introduced in 2008 – determining which skilled workers from outside the EU can enter the country – had “radically changed the way we are dealing with immigration”. The Tories said the net immigration figure for 2009 only covered the year up to June, and excluded asylum seekers and people overstaying original visas – a view later confirmed by the Office for National Statistics. Sir Michael Scholar, the head of independent UK Statistics Authority, said he had written to Mr Brown to point out that the figures he cited for net immigration between 2007 and 2009 were “not comparable”. In addition, he said the PM’s comments had not taken into account the fact the figure for 2007 had been revised. However, Sir Michael noted that the figures used by Mr Brown in Wednesday’s speech were correct. He added: “The Statistics Authority hopes that in the political debate over the coming weeks all parties will be careful in their use of statistics, to protect the integrity of official statistics.” The BBC’s Political Correspondent Carole Walker said the watchdog’s intervention was a “rap over the knuckles” for Mr Brown. The Statistics Authority has ticked off both Labour and the Conservatives in recent months about their use of statistics, saying they had a responsibility to ensure their claims were not misleading. This article is from the BBC News website . © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

See the original post:
PM admits migration data ‘misuse’

The fair trading regulator is considering a super-complaint about the state of the Individual Savings Accounts (Isas) market in the UK. There are 15 million holders of cash Isas and watchdog Consumer Focus believes they are missing out on

Final details of the new streamlined expenses system for MPs are to be published by Parliament’s new watchdog.

Go here to read the rest:
Expenses system for MPs unveiled

A

The London-based hedge fund, Moore Capital, was one of the firms raided by the City watchdog the FSA, the BBC has learned. One person at Moore Capital and five other City workers are being held. Those arrested are suspected of taking part in a long-running insider-dealing scheme. The arrests came after 16 addresses were searched in a joint probe by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca). Documents and computers were seized from premises in London, the South East and Oxfordshire. It is the FSA’s biggest operation against insider dealing. The joint operation, the first between the two agencies, began in 2007. Suspected dealing ring The six arrested include two senior city professionals at leading city institutions and one at the hedge fund. They are suspected of being involved in what the FSA calls “a sophisticated and long-running insider dealing ring”. It is alleged the city professionals passed inside information to traders, either directly or via middlemen. The traders then allegedly acted on this information and made significant profits as a result. A total of 143 FSA employees took part in the operation, together with officers from Soca. “There can no longer be any doubt that the FSA is serious about cracking down on City crime, especially illicit trading in shares and securities when in possession of privileged insider knowledge,” said BBC business editor Robert Peston. Did you see the arrests take place Do you live in any of the areas Please send us your eyewitness account using the form below. Please remember to include your phone number. A selection of your comments may be published, displaying your name and location. If you would like to remain anonymous, please say so in your message.

Excerpt from:
Moore Capital fund raided by FSA

A millionaire businessman is to refer himself to the Accounts Commission over his dealings with Glasgow City Council. Willie Haughey, who has given more than

National guidelines should be drawn up on how complaints about police forces are recorded, the watchdog has said. The Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland said he was concerned the system does not reveal the number of people who complained about an issue. John McNeill said this means the police have no way of knowing how significant a single issue has become. He has written to the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland chief Pat Shearer about his concerns. Mr McNeill called on Acpos to develop comprehensive, national guidance on the issue. He said: “It’s all about consistency. “The public needs to be confident that, no matter where they make a complaint, it will be recorded and reported in a consistent way across all of Scotland’s police forces. “I am looking to Acpos to take the lead in actively developing national guidance.” Scotland’s police complaints commissioner provides independent scrutiny of the way the police handle non-criminal complaints from the public.

Excerpt from:
Police complaints guidance call

Almost a third of council chief executives who leave their jobs are receiving pay-offs, a local government spending watchdog report says. The Audit Commission found some had received severance deals worth more than