Monday, February 27, 2006

Six teenagers were killed in a horrific road accident near Mildura in north-western Victoria, Australia late at night on February 18.

Cassandra Manners, aged 16, Stevie-Lee Weight, 15, Cory Dowling, 16, Shane Hirst, 16, and his sister, Abby Hirst, 17, died at the scene. Josephine Calvi, 16, was flown to the Royal Adelaide Hospital, where she later died of head injuries. Seven other teenagers were injured, including 15-year-old Marco Medici who is now in a stable but critical condition in The Alfred Hospital in Melbourne.

The accident occurred after the teenagers left a 16th birthday party and walked along Myall Road, Cardross, south-east of Mildura. A car allegedly came speeding around a bend, hit the gravel on the side of the road, lost control and struck the group. The alleged driver, later identified as 34-year-old Thomas Graham Towle, fled the scene on foot, leaving his 10-year-old daughter and four-year-old son in the car. Towle was later arrested by police in Redcliffs. He was taken to Mildura police station for questioning.

Towle has been charged with six charges of culpable driving causing death, four charges of negligently causing serious injury, one charge of failing to stop and one charge of failing to render assistance after an accident. Towle faced Mildura Magistrates’ Court on February 20. Magistrate John Dugdale remanded him into custody to reappear before the court on June 26.

Meanwhile, the town of Mildura and surrounding areas is in deep mourning. Premier Steve Bracks said the State Government will provide $AU40,000 for counselling and support services.

Around 3,000 people attended the funeral for Josephine Calvi today. Funeral services for the other five teenagers were held last week.

Tuesday, January 3, 2006

A survey to test whether exposure to alcohol advertisements affects alcohol consumption by young people found that advertising does contribute to increased drinking, including among underage drinkers.

Researchers from the University of Connecticut surveyed 15 to 26 year olds, who reported their alcohol consumption over the previous month. The research then correlated this with the respondent’s exposure to advertisement, and the money spent by companies on alcohol ads. The alcohol industry’s measured media expenditure is roughly $1.8 billion per year.

The study found that those youngsters exposed to more ads also drank more, and that markets with greater alcohol advertising expenditures also had greater alcohol consumption. These findings also oheld for drinking by those younger than the legal drinking age of 21 years.

Alcohol use by the youth has been a matter of public concern, as it has been linked with lowered educational performance, risky sexual activity, motor accidents and addiction. Other surveys have found that underage drinkers account for 20% of alcohol consumption. Alcohol advertising is not subject to federal legislation, the industry follows a voluntary code of conduct.

While many studies have found an association between alcohol advertising and use, the question of whether the link is a causal one is still unanswered. The present survey uses market-level measures of advertising to address criticism of previous studies that relying on self-reported exposure to advertisements might be biased as those who drink may be more likely to pay attention to, and remember the ads.

The study found greater ad-spending in a market was related to both higher levels of youth drinking and steeper increases in drinking over time, which continued until respondents were in their mid-twenties. The link also held the other way: less alcohol advertising associated with less drinking, more modest increases in consumption over time during the respondents’ early twenties and a steady decline in consumption after this period. The results are consistent with findings from studies of advertising bans.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

The industries voluntary guidelines specify that 70 percent of the audience for its advertising be at least 21 years old, the legal drinking age. Industry groups have claimed that its advertising affects only those older than the legal drinking age and that advertising at best causes brand switching. Reacting to the study, representatives of the alcohol industry in the UK, which has one of the highest youth drinking rates in Europe, said that there was a strict system in place controlling advertising. But studies have found that there is often greater concentrations of alcohol advertisements in media aimed at youth than at adults.

Friday, June 22, 2007

Buffalo, New York —A three alarm fire at a house owned by John and Evelyn Bencinich, two of the initiators of a lawsuit filed against the Elmwood Village Hotel proposal in Buffalo, required firefighters to rescue eight cats and two dogs in Buffalo, New York today.

At about 8:30 (eastern time) firefighters were called to the home on 48 Granger Place to put out a fire that had started in the basement. It quickly spread to the first floor where the main bathroom was destroyed. The fire did not spread to the second floor or attic.

Initial calls said that many animals were inside the house and firefighters quickly worked to rescue all the cats and dogs. At least one cat and one dog had to receive CPR and oxygen, but both are reported to be in stable condition. At least 3 cats are unaccounted for, but after a search of the house, the cats were not believed to have been inside at the time the fire started.

One elderly woman, Anna Bencinich, the mother of Evelyn, was rescued by neighbors who helped her from the burning house.

“There was smoke all over the house. The fire started in the basement and spread to a small portion of the first floor. Two firefighters were injured while fighting the fire and were transported to Erie County Medical Center,” said Division Fire Chief Thomas Ashe who also said that sections of the kitchen wall at the back of the house had to be torn out to stop the fire from spreading through the walls.

One firefighter is being treated for bite injuries to his face that he received while attempting to rescue a dog. The other firefighter was treated for injuries he received to his hand, which was believed to have been caused by glass or a cat scratching him. The names of the injured firefighters are not known. The injuries are said to not be life threatening.

According to witness reports, the home owners had a new water heater installed just last week, but it is not known if the fire was caused by the heater.

“We believe the fire was caused by an electrical (malfunction). An investigation is being conducted,” said Battalion Chief Joe Fahey who also added that they did not believe arson was the cause.

Monday, May 30, 2005

New information surfaced on Saturday, 28 May, that suggest that the US and UK increased air strikes against Iraq in mid 2002. The Ministry of Defence figures, provided in response to a question from Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, show that allied aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq beginning in May of 2002.

This apparent escalation in the number and intensity of air strikes was initiated prior to the passage of UN Resolution 1441 in November 2002 and prior to the US Congress authorizing the use of force against Iraq in October 2002. Critics claim that this was an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein or soften his military infrastructure in preparation for a more comprehensive military campaign, and that it reaffirms their assertions that the Bush administrations was determined to go to war long before the official decision was made.

In August 2002, allied commander Tommy Franks admitted that this operation was designed to “degrade” Iraqi air defences in the same way as the air attacks that began the 1991 Gulf war, but according to legal guidance appended to the Downing Street memo (dated 23 July 2002) the allied aircraft were only “entitled to use force in self-defence where such a use of force is a necessary and proportionate response to actual or imminent attack from Iraqi ground systems”.

According to military documents shown to the Sunday Express in 2002, the Allies invaded Iraq from Turkey on August 8th, 2002, after an air strike on the 6th that took out a crucial air defence system.

Pentagon officials initially denied there had been any military action or incursion, but when challenged with specific military details a spokesman called back two hours later issuing the terse statement: “We can’t comment on current or future operations.”

The evidence seems to corroborate information in the Downing Street memo:

“CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun “spikes of activity” to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.”

In light of these revelations, Representative John Conyers has sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield. A draft of the letter is available here.

In Conyer’s draft, he states:

“The allegations and factual assertions made in the May 29 London Times are in many respects just as serious as those made in the earlier article. If true, these assertions indicate that not only had our nation secretly and perhaps illegally agreed to go to war by the summer of 2002, but that we had gone on to take specific and tangible military actions before asking Congress or the United Nations for authority.”

Thus, while there is considerable doubt as to whether the U.S. had authority to invade Iraq, given, among other things, the failure of the U.N. to issue a follow-up resolution to the November 8, 2002 Resolution 1441, it would seem that the act of engaging in military action via stepped up bombing raids that were not in response to an actual or imminent threat before our government asked for military authority would be even more problematic from a legal as well as a moral perspective.

As a result of these new disclosures, I would ask that you respond as promptly as possible to the following questions:

1) Did the RAF and the United States military increase the rate that they were dropping bombs in Iraq in 2002? If so, what was the extent and timing of the increase?

2) What was the justification for any such increase in the rate of bombing in Iraq at this time? Was this justification reviewed by legal authorities in the U.S.?

3) To the best of your knowledge, was there any agreement with any representative of the British government to engage in military action in Iraq before authority was sought from the Congress or the U.N.? If so, what was the nature of the agreement?

In connection with all of the above questions, please provide me with any memorandum, notes, minutes, documents, phone and other records, e-mails, computer files (including back-up records) or other material of any kind or nature concerning or relating thereto in the possession or accessible by the Department of Defense.”

Monday, March 12, 2007

24 of 26 Swiss Cantons rejected the proposal for a single health insurance system, in which premiums would be based on income and wealth. The vote on Sunday was the latest in a series of attempts to cut rising costs and ease the financial burden on citizens.

Around 71% of voters rejected the reform. Turnout was at about 46%, slightly above the Swiss average.

As expected, voters in the main German-speaking part of the country turned down the planned reform, which was supported by the centre-left but opposed by the centre-right as well as the business community, parliament and the government.

Opposition in the French and Italian speaking regions was less pronounced. The cantons Jura and Neuchâtel in the French speaking regions voted in favor of the proposed reforms.

Health insurance premiums are higher in southern and western Swiss cantons than in German-speaking areas.

The Swiss Interior Minister Pascal Couchepin said an important part of the Swiss Population appeared to be opposed to “a revolution” in health insurance but he said that he wanted current reforms currently under discussion in the Swiss Parliament to go ahead. He called on all sides, especially health insurers and the cantonal authorities, to make efforts to reduce spending on health insurance and aim for a greater cost efficiency. Currently Switzerland has 87 private insurers providing mandatory basic health care coverage for Swiss residents under a 1996 law. But costs have sky-rocketed. Over 100,000 people are not covered by health insurance due to non payment.

Opponents to the initiative argued that a single insurance system would lead to complacency and create a two-tier system, in which the wealthy would be the only ones available to afford to have additional private insurance coverage.

Supporters of the initiative said a single health insurer would increase the system’s efficiency and allow for annual savings of at least 300 million Swiss Francs (about $245 million) in administrative costs. Currently, the funding system is unbalanced, since many clients on low incomes use state subsidies to pay their premiums, according to the Green Party and the Social Democrats.

The initiative to unite all the insurance companies and introduce premiums based on wealth and income was the most recent in a series of attempts over the past ten years to reduce the public spending on health care. A proposal, similar to this recent proposal, to modify the funding system of the health insurance companies was rejected by 73% of voters in 2003.

Switzerland has the most expensive health system in Europe. Switzerland’s expenditure on health care was 11.6% in 2005, in front of Germany and France but behind the United States.

Monday, May 25, 2009

The Church of Scientology in France is in court today, fighting charges that the organization has been a part of “escroquerie en bande organisee”, organized fraud. Prosecutors claim that the Church is engaged in illicit practices in attempts to sell their alleged self-help material. The Church also faces charges of illegally operating as a pharmacy by illegally treating individuals with prescription medications.

The charges come from an unnamed woman, who in 1998 purchased nearly 21,000 euros (US$30,000) worth of Scientology self-help material which allegedly included prescription drugs. After a few months passed, the woman said she felt like she was being scammed because her condition was not improving. Lawyers for the woman say the Church tries to make a profit by pressuring individuals into believing they are going to be cured of their illnesses.

She claims she spent her entire life savings on the organization’s products, including Scientology books, vitamins, and a device called an E-meter. Her attorneys say they will attempt to show that organized criminal fraud is inherent within Scientology practices. There were originally a total of five plaintiffs in the case, however three withdrew their complaints after coming to financial settlements with the Church of Scientology.

Following several complaints from other unnamed individuals and an investigation, investigating magistrate Jean-Christophe Hullin in January, ordered the Church’s “Celebrity Center” and bookstore in France and its seven managers to be put on trial for fraud and “illegally practicing as pharmacists”. Hullin stated that the Scientology organization is driven by “an absolute obsession with profit”, and is “first and foremost a commercial organisation”. Sophie-Helene Chateau, presiding judge in the case, stated that the court’s purpose is “to find whether the acts in question constitute a crime. … It is not up to the court to decide questions of society”.

If convicted, the managers of the Scientology organization in France under investigation could serve a ten year jail sentence in addition to a fine of one million euros. Those investigated include the Scientology Celebrity Centre in Paris itself, its manager Alain Rosenberg, and five other individuals. Rosenberg is the CEO of the Spiritual Association of the Church of Scientology-Celebrity Centre (ASES-CC), the official term for the Church of Scientology in France. One defendant died since the charges were initially filed against seven managers in the Scientology organization. The defendants are accused of “exerting a psychological hold” on vulnerable individuals so they would give money to Scientology.

In September of 2008, the Church released a statement saying that they felt “stigmatized” by the French judicial system.

“The special treatment reserved for the Church of Scientology Celebrity Center raises questions about the equality of the justice system and the presumption of innocence,” the Church said in a statement to the press. The Church denies all the charges and says that no one was manipulated into buying their material.

“If the church’s methods prove to be crooked then we must ask serious questions about whether it can be allowed to remain in business on French high streets,” said plaintiff’s attorney Olivier Maurice. If the Church is found guilty, Scientology could be fined approximately 5 million euros (US$7 million) and ordered banned in France. If banned in France, the Scientology organization then has the option to appeal, which could drag out the legal process. The trial will run until June 17.

According to French law the Scientology organization is regarded as a sect in the country, and not a religion. In 2006, a report of the parliament in France characterized Scientology as a “dangerous sect”. This is not the first time the Church has been accused of fraud in France. They have also been convicted of it several times, including the Church’s founder, L. Ron Hubbard who was convicted of fraud in 1978. In 1997 the Church was convicted of fraud in Lyon and 1999 in Marseille. “There are those who handed over tens of thousands of francs at the time. Now, it can be 300,000 euros per person, or more,” said Roger Gonet, a French former Scientologist who was a plaintiff against the organization in 1996. The 1978 convictions included Hubbard and his wife at the time, Mary Sue, both now deceased, and two other Scientologists. Hubbard, along with the two Scientologists fled France, never to return, and never served a prison term.

Monday, March 12, 2007

24 of 26 Swiss Cantons rejected the proposal for a single health insurance system, in which premiums would be based on income and wealth. The vote on Sunday was the latest in a series of attempts to cut rising costs and ease the financial burden on citizens.

Around 71% of voters rejected the reform. Turnout was at about 46%, slightly above the Swiss average.

As expected, voters in the main German-speaking part of the country turned down the planned reform, which was supported by the centre-left but opposed by the centre-right as well as the business community, parliament and the government.

Opposition in the French and Italian speaking regions was less pronounced. The cantons Jura and Neuchâtel in the French speaking regions voted in favor of the proposed reforms.

Health insurance premiums are higher in southern and western Swiss cantons than in German-speaking areas.

The Swiss Interior Minister Pascal Couchepin said an important part of the Swiss Population appeared to be opposed to “a revolution” in health insurance but he said that he wanted current reforms currently under discussion in the Swiss Parliament to go ahead. He called on all sides, especially health insurers and the cantonal authorities, to make efforts to reduce spending on health insurance and aim for a greater cost efficiency. Currently Switzerland has 87 private insurers providing mandatory basic health care coverage for Swiss residents under a 1996 law. But costs have sky-rocketed. Over 100,000 people are not covered by health insurance due to non payment.

Opponents to the initiative argued that a single insurance system would lead to complacency and create a two-tier system, in which the wealthy would be the only ones available to afford to have additional private insurance coverage.

Supporters of the initiative said a single health insurer would increase the system’s efficiency and allow for annual savings of at least 300 million Swiss Francs (about $245 million) in administrative costs. Currently, the funding system is unbalanced, since many clients on low incomes use state subsidies to pay their premiums, according to the Green Party and the Social Democrats.

The initiative to unite all the insurance companies and introduce premiums based on wealth and income was the most recent in a series of attempts over the past ten years to reduce the public spending on health care. A proposal, similar to this recent proposal, to modify the funding system of the health insurance companies was rejected by 73% of voters in 2003.

Switzerland has the most expensive health system in Europe. Switzerland’s expenditure on health care was 11.6% in 2005, in front of Germany and France but behind the United States.

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Members of Australia’s Health Services Union (HSU) will go on strike in Victoria next week in a dispute over stalled wage and career structure negotiations. Over 5000 physiotherapists, speech pathologists and radiation therapists will walk off the job next week, effectively closing the state’s 68 largest health services.

The strike will force the closure of intensive care units and emergency departments across the state.

It is feared the strike could continue into Easter.

National secretary of the HSU, Kathy Jackson said admissions would be crippled, while intensive care patients would have to be evacuated to New South Wales, Tasmania and South Australia as hospitals will not be able to perform tests or administer treatment.

“When an ambulance shows up you can’t admit a patient without an X-ray being available, you can’t intubate them and you can’t operate on them,” she said.

“If something goes wrong in an ICU you need to be able to X-ray, use nuclear medicine or any diagnostic procedure,” said Ms Jackson.

Ms Jackson said the HSU offered arbitration last year, but the state government refused. “They’re not interested in settling disputes, they hope that we are just going to go away.”

“We’re not going away, we’ve gone back and balloted the whole public health workforce in Victoria, those ballots were successful, 97 percent approval rating,” she said.

The HSU is urging the government to commence serious negotiations to resolve the dispute before industrial action commenced.

The government has offered the union a 3.25 per cent pay increase, in line with other public sector workers but the union has demanded more, but stopped short of specifying a figure.

Victorian Premier John Brumby said the claim would be settled according to the government’s wages policy. “The Government is always willing and wanting to sit down and negotiate with the relevant organisations . . . we have a wages policy based around an increase of 3.25 per cent and, above that, productivity offset,” he told parliament.

The union claims it is also arguing against a lack of career structure, which has caused many professionals to leave the health service. Ms Jackson said wages and career structures in Victoria were behind other states.

Victorian Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu said he was not in support of the proposed strike and called on the government to meet with unions. “There could not be a more serious threat to our health system than has been announced today.”

“We now have to do whatever is possible to stop this strike from proceeding,” he said.

The opposition leader will meet with the union at 11:30 AM today.

Victorian Hospitals Industry Association industrial relations services manager Simon Chant said hospitals were looking at the possible impact and warned that patients may have to be evacuated interstate if the strike goes ahead.

Saturday, June 25, 2005

Guidant Corporation recently announced another safety warning on several models of its implantable defibrillators, cautioning users for the second time in a week about the devices. No patients are known to have been injured by the devices at this time. This brings the total number of defibrillator models recalled to twelve.

According to the Associated Press article, the five defibrillator models recalled “have a magnetic switch that can become stuck in a closed position, preventing the device from treating irregular heart rhythms. The faulty switch also can limit a defibrillator’s battery life.”

After the announcement Friday, Guidant’s stock dropped 6.9 percent, or $4.70, to $63.90.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced today that an Order in Council will be made tomorrow empowering the British Treasury to prevent the funding of those suspected of planning terror. Use will be made of forensic accounting and of methods similar to those employed by the code breakers at Bletchley Park. With the help of computing power to discover relations between bits of information, they cracked the German Enigma code during WWII. Gordon Brown ranks the impact of forensic accounting at the present time with the use of fingerprinting in the 19th century and of DNA in the late 20th Century.

Speaking to Chatham House, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, Brown defined the most dangerous sources of finance for terrorists as being charities, money service businesses and financial transactions such as bureaux de change, cheque cashers and money remitters. There will be a new licensing system requiring firms to keep more detailed records of transactions. Tougher action against non-compliance is promised. New proposals about money laundering are being prepared.

The new Order will empower the Treasury, for the first time, to use closed source evidence from classified intelligence to freeze the assets of suspects. A special advocate procedure will be put in place to ensure “fair and consistent hearing of cases”. If evidence shows it to be necessary, it is Brown’s opinion that suspects should be held, without a charge being brought, for more than the present 28 days.

The Government has been defeated once already in Parliament in an attempt, in the Terrorism Act 2006, to increase the present 28 days of detention without charge to 90 days. Public opinion was very divided on that proposal and feelings in Parliament ran high with talk of a police state and of the Government pandering to public opinion.