thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-10-17--Chrissy Teigen Updates Fans Following Miscarriage: 'We Are Quiet But We Are Okay'

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Chrissy Teigen has reassured fans that she and her husband John Legend are doing “okay” after the model and author suffered a miscarriage.
The couple shared the devastating news late last month and were praised for discussing the subject publicly.
Advertisement
On Friday, John posted a moving tribute to his wife on Instagram following a mid-week performance at the Billboard Music Awards, saying he was in “awe” of the strength she has shown
Chrissy then shared the post, which she captioned: “We are quiet but we are okay. Love you all so much.”
In his tribute to his wife, Emmy, Grammy, Oscar and Tony-winning musician John said: “I love and cherish you and our family so much. We’ve experienced the highest highs and lowest lows together. Watching you carry our children has been so moving and humbling.”
Advertisement
John Legend and Chrissy Teigen Allen Berezovsky via Getty Images
He performed his song Never Break at the Billboard Music Awards, and said the ballad, which was written last year, had been inspired by his wife of seven years.
The couple are also parents to four-year-old daughter Luna and two-year-old son Miles.
Following her miscarriage, Chrissy said she was “so grateful” for her two children and for “all the amazing things we’ve been able to experience”.
“But everyday can’t be full of sunshine,” she added. “On this darkest of days, we will grieve, we will cry our eyes out. But we will hug and love each other harder and get through it.”
“We love you, Jack,” John wrote in his own message.
Useful websites and helplines:


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-10-17--This British Boxing Champion Is Teaching Kids To Fight To Help Them De-Stress

HuffPost is part of Verizon Media .
We and our partners will store and/or access information on your device through @ @ @ @ @ similar technologies , to display personalised ads and content , for ad and content measurement @ @ @ @ @ development .
Your personal data that may be used • Information about your device and @ @ @ @ @ IP address • Browsing and search activity while using Verizon Media websites and apps Find @ @ @ @ @ use your information in our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy .
To enable Verizon Media @ @ @ @ @ your personal data select ' I agree ' , or select 'Manage settings ' for @ @ @ @ @ your choices .
You can change your choices at any time by visiting Your Privacy @ @

Ashley Theophane Ashley Theophane has been training kids through lockdown.
A British boxing champion who starting training kids to fight at the start of lockdown believes it could help them get through the pandemic.
Ashley Theophane, 40, who lives in London, believes teaching kids to box can help them deal with stresses caused by Covid-19. And as the UK faces a new wave of tiered restrictions, he’s urged parents to get their children exercising as much as possible to improve their mental and physical health.
Advertisement
Theophane – who won the British title in 2011 and trained alongside world champion Floyd Mayweather – realised young people were in need of focus and stimulation when his neighbours saw him training in his garden. They asked him if he’d consider teaching their kids.
“It’s been parents who have actually reached out to me to work with their kids,” Theophane tells HuffPost UK. “I bought different equipment as they’re young and get bored quickly, so I gave them different exercises to do.”
A prospective study, published in March found even light activity among kids was linked to better mental health as they got older. The study, carried out by University College London and King’s College London, also found more time spent sitting still was linked to higher depression scores.
“Some young people have anger issues, particularly at the moment,” he says. “Boxing helps them to channel it and calms them down. It’s definitely a beneficial way to de-stress.”
Advertisement
One of the kids Theophane has taught has been a young boy with autism. “I was at the local park one day, training a different set of brothers, when a father stopped me and asked me if I could train his son,” he explains. “I didn’t know he was autistic until after. I knew nothing about autism so had to research it.
“I struggled during our first session, as I wondered why he wasn’t looking at me or reacting to certain instructions. But it’s been four weeks now, and we get on. He listens to me and I’ve built a real connection with him.”
Ashley Theophane Ashley with one of the children he's been training.
The boxer says women have also been in touch with him, wanting to learn more about self-defence. He has founded the Treasure Boxing Club, but it’s on hold due to restrictions. For now, he’ll carry on training people outside.
“Boxing is a great way for everyone to exercise,” he continues. “You don’t have to be hitting each other. There’s skipping, shadow boxing, punching the bags, pad work and technical drills.
Advertisement
“With lockdown and kids being stuck at home, it’s been my pleasure to help them where I can. I try to make the workouts enjoyable and fun.”
Theophane, who has fought and won in 12 different countries, also wrote a book during lockdown, telling of his journey from growing up in a disadvantaged area of London, to fighting in Las Vegas. His childhood experiences have made him even more determined to make a difference in children’s lives, he says.
“My aim to finish it went back to last October, when there was an ongoing knife crime issue with youths,” he says. “I was one of those kids 25 years ago. I changed my life after going to prison and had a successful boxing career.”


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-10-17--My Kids Asked Me If I'd Ever Done Cocaine. Here's What I Told Them

LOADING ERROR LOADING
“Have you ever done cocaine?”
The inflection of my son’s voice when he asked me that question was as if he had asked me to pass the peas, but his eyes were fixed on mine, waiting for my answer.
It began as a conversation about sex. My husband was out of town on a business trip, and my sons, 17 and 14, and I were bonding while eating pizza between homework and activities. It was January, before I had ever heard of Covid-19, and my biggest concern as far as their health was concerned was STIs. Neither of them was dating at the time, but I have always felt that is when information is the most helpful ― before it is needed. I am always attempting to stay several steps in front of any future calamity. Unfortunately for my boys, this can mean mealtime turns into the perfect time for a lecture about the importance of condoms. When I saw their eyes glaze over, I ended the conversation.
Advertisement
“I know you two would rather talk to Dad about this, or not at all,” I said “but I want you to feel free to talk to me about any questions you might have.”
“Really? We can ask you any question?” my oldest son asked.
“Of course,” I replied, curious about his sudden enthusiasm.
He told me his class had watched a movie at school that day about the risks of doing cocaine, and he wanted to know about my experience.
I hesitated just a moment before admitting it. Part of me wanted to lie because I don’t like the truth. Although my husband wasn’t there, I knew he would support me in disclosing my past. We have a policy of being honest with our sons in the hope of making them feel comfortable doing the same. Still, I was reluctant to reveal that painful part of my past.
I took a deep breath. I told the boys that I used cocaine during a brief period between dropping out of and returning to college. I said I had lacked the wisdom then to understand the root of my emotional problems, and coped by drifting from one shiny thing to the next to escape my pain. Cocaine, like skipping classes and dating jerks, was a self-destructive distraction.
Advertisement
I didn’t tell the boys that the first time I tried cocaine was at a party. Or that I was pressured to do so by a good friend, who had also dropped out of college. “You’ll love it!” she promised. And I did. I couldn’t remember the last time I felt that good. I didn’t know then that every time after that meant chasing, but narrowly missing, that first perfect high.
“'You’ll love it!' she promised. And I did. I couldn’t remember the last time I felt that good. I didn’t know then that every time after that meant chasing, but narrowly missing, that first perfect high.”
I lived in my parents’ house then, working retail and spending money on clothes and coke. At first I only used on the weekends, blasting the Stones and cutting lines with friends in my childhood bedroom before heading to clubs.
I once popped a blood vessel in one nostril, and switched to the other side and popped the other one. Both nostrils flooded. I shrugged, wiped the blood off the mirror, and kept going. When I glanced up again, my friend was watching me and crying. I didn’t care enough to be concerned. Coke was good about letting me not care.
Once I used in a dressing room while trying on clothes at the mall. Cocaine had gone from being a social activity to something I did alone, and even I knew that was a warning sign.
Advertisement
But it wasn’t the warning signs that made me finally decide to stop, or the nights I lay awake praying for sleep, my heart pounding in my eardrums. It was the afternoon I saw a double rainbow, yet felt nothing but grey sky. Cocaine had taken my ability to feel awe from me.
I decided to quit with the hope my brain chemistry would recover. I left my retail job and moved to Israel, where I lived on a kibbutz and chopped cucumbers and tomatoes endlessly in the dining hall. I took up running and found peace scaling the hills of Jerusalem. When I returned to the States, I was ready for college. I graduated three years later with honours and got married soon afterward.
Years later, my baby boys safely settled in the day care of our local gym, I smelled cocaine in the locker room. I couldn’t imagine how anyone could do it in a public place, or why the smell was so pervasive. Eventually, I realised the scent came from the cleaning solution they used to disinfect the counters. Ever since, I’ve wondered what exactly I was snorting up my nose all those years ago.
A friend I had used with, also currently a mom of teens, was horrified to hear that I had admitted my cocaine use to my sons.
“You wouldn’t tell your kids?” I asked. “Not even when they are older?”
“Oh hell no,” she responded. “They have asked. I denied it.”
Perhaps I inherited my penchant for transparency from my mother, who once told me she had tried LSD with college friends. “I was bored out of my mind.” she confessed. “Everyone else was excited, and talking about their hallucinations, but all I wanted to do was come back down and go to sleep.”
Advertisement
I never felt that her admission had given me permission to try LSD. In fact, hearing about her negative experience made me less inclined to try hallucinogens.
I don’t mean to trivialise my cocaine use. I know that what was a misguided, temporary experience for me could have turned into lifelong problems with addiction. I avoided getting caught ― and being sent to jail. This is a privileged account of illicit drug use ― one that many other people are not as fortunate to have ― and I know it.
“I’m not perfect and I haven’t always made the best decisions. I want my sons to know it’s possible to own their mistakes and acknowledge them.”
These days, you’re much more likely to find me drinking a green smoothie than a glass of wine. I manage my anxiety by eating well, exercising and meditating.
Given my healthy lifestyle, it would be easy to deny my past, to tell my children to do as I say and do now. But I’m not interested in sheltering them or anyone else from my truth. My cocaine use was stupid and risky, and I’m lucky I survived to be able to reflect on it ― but I’m not ashamed of it.
Advertisement
I’m not perfect and I haven’t always made the best decisions. I want my sons to know it’s possible to own their mistakes and acknowledge them. They too can choose to carry forward the lessons they’ve learned and leave the past behind. I share my stories with the hope that they learn from mine, without feeling the need to repeat them.
When I finished telling the boys about my cocaine use, my younger son rolled his eyes.
He said, “You snorted cocaine up your nose for three months? That was dumb.”
My plan seems to be working, for now.
This article first appeared on HuffPost Personal


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-10-17--Yes, We Can Afford A Second National Lockdown

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The past few days have seen feverish debate over the merits of different proposed lockdowns.
Some are advocating a local approach. Some a regional approach. Others a national “circuit breaker”.
Alongside this is justifiable concern about the impact that a lockdown will have on the economy and the public finances.
Advertisement
According to various sources, the message from the UK government to local leaders has been clear “there is no money”, so you will just have to accept the rules as they are.
This has created an understandable backlash. People are being asked to choose between their health and their livelihoods. This is not sustainable.
Some politicians are concerned about the scale of borrowing that has been required to tackle Covid-19. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that the UK could borrow £391bn to tackle this pandemic, which sounds like a huge amount of money. And it is.
Sir Edward Leigh, a Conservative MP, summed up this point for many earlier this week in Parliament when he said that we are “going bankrupt as a nation” and we cannot afford further restrictions.
Advertisement
When you interrogate the figures, however, these fears are simply not grounded in evidence. Yes, the UK’s national debt is sitting at over 100% of GDP due to the financial crisis and now Covid-19. But this is nowhere near the UK’s historic peak of 250% after the Napoleonic wars or the over 200% after the Second World War.
In both instances, the UK was able to grow and pay down the debt over time. This track record has made the UK a safe haven for investors and is part of the reason why we can borrow at cheap levels – currently around half a percent.
Anyone who owns a mortgage will tell you that the key is not the total amount you have borrowed but the repayments. Fortunately for the UK, the cost of debt interest as a percentage of GDP has been falling for decades.
“The government is badly misreading the current situation and its own self-interest.”
After the Second World War we were spending over 5% of GDP on debt interest payments. Now we are spending close to 2%. In terms of the UK Budget, we are spending around 6% of the budget on debt interest – which is a significant sum of money, but it is hardly the levels of a country on the brink of bankruptcy.
Advertisement
The government has rejected extending the furlough scheme and replaced it with a less generous Job Support Scheme mostly on the grounds of cost.
Yet, even if the UK extended the furlough scheme for an entire extra year, and used the most generous criteria, it would only cost £504m in debt interest a year for the next thirty years.
A national “circuit breaker” could cost even less, potentially around £100m a year in debt interest (depending on the support package given to businesses and workers). This is the “true cost” to the Exchequer, in the short term.
Moreover, by retaining jobs, the cost of debt interest will be offset in the short term by people paying their taxes.
So, the cost of a circuit breaker is effectively the same as building three or four academy schools every year for the next thirty years.
Advertisement
“People trust governments that get the basics right – jobs, growth and delivering good quality public services.”
We’d all prefer to spend money on building schools rather than paying gilt holders, but if the choice is between significant levels of unemployment (which will cause even larger problems) and the economy crashing (which will leave less money to pay for education in the future), then the choice is a no-brainer.
The government is badly misreading the current situation and its own self-interest. The chancellor started off this crisis in the right way, saying he would do “whatever it takes”. Cue a furlough scheme, business grants and a national consensus behind the Government.
Fast forward a few months and the chancellor told Conservative Party Conference that if “we argue that there is no limit on what we can spend, that we can simply borrow our way out of any hole, what is the point of us?”
Does any politician seriously believe that the public will support withholding funding to support businesses and jobs because it may reduce their party’s attractiveness of the electorate?
Advertisement
The chancellor also risks fundamentally misinterpreting why any government is trusted on the economy. People trust governments that get the basics right – jobs, growth and delivering good quality public services. Debt is a factor in how the public views the government, but it is not the dominant one.
Greater Manchester leaders are right to criticise the lockdown proposals which come without significant extra funding. Seeing thousands of jobs lost and business closed for lack of support is wrong.
There is still time for the government to get this right. An extension of the “flexible furlough scheme” across the country would be better than the Jobs Support Scheme for most businesses and would protect jobs.
Unlocking the £1.3bn in unspent business grants to local councils to enable them to provide cash support to important local businesses, like local social enterprises, would help to cushion the blow.
People and businesses are much more likely to get behind restrictions when they know that their jobs and livelihoods are safe.
Advertisement
It is up to politicians to decide what kind of restrictions are needed to tackle Covid, based on the science. But there is one thing that is clear, the UK can afford a proper lockdown.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-10-17--I Tried To Interview Piers Morgan. It Didn't Go As Planned

I hadn’t read the book. There, I said it.
Piers Morgan is on the promo trail for his latest tome and is so incensed that I haven’t read it after receiving it 48 hours ahead of our interview that he decides to share my news with his 7.6 million followers on Twitter. He couldn’t even wait until the end of our chat: sixteen minutes into our interview, he started tweeting about me. Not that I knew.
I’d wanted to chat to Piers about his research process for Good Morning Britain, about contradictions I believe exist within his style of interview and debate, and about more lighthearted things: perhaps some gems about what he gets up to during downtime with his celebrity pals, or a fresh perspective on Meghan and Harry.
Advertisement
But he is so annoyed that I haven’t read his book and the fact I’m not an avid viewer of Good Morning Britain, that he spends much of our interview attacking me.
I know Piers’ interviewing style well enough from watching him at work. We’ve all seen the viral videos of him raging at his interviewees; it’s such a pervasive part of his character that the show’s social media team title clips with things like “Piers erupts”.
When he keeps spinning questions on me, rather than answering them himself, I feel a bit like one of his guests on Good Morning Britain: shouted down and unable to get a word in edgeways.
During our conversation he does acknowledge the need to punch up, not down in his work, but straight off the bat, Piers reveals he’d looked me up prior to our call.
Advertisement
“I always check before I do every interview by the way, what the interviewer may have tweeted about me in the past,” he reveals.
“I found an absolute classic from 2012, I’m not even sure what I was doing in 2012: ’Piers Morgan taking moral stances is a bit like a pig taking a stance against rolling in it’s own shit.’”
“It made me laugh, don’t worry,” he adds. “I’ve had a lot worse from interviewers so in the general scheme of things I’ll take that.”
Piers later tells me others might have cancelled the interview had they seen such a tweet, but he hadn’t because he found it “entertaining”.
We truck on and have a relatively pleasant conversation until we get onto the subject of privilege.
“So what is it about your nature that you think has led you to being such a combative style of interviewer?” I ask. “I think a lot of your detractors and a lot of your supporters would say it’s coming from a position of enormous privilege,” I add.
Advertisement
“Let’s compare backgrounds,” he responds. “What’s your background?”
“Well that’s not the question” I reply.
“Well it is really, you sound quite posh to me. What is your background, is your background more or less privileged than mine?”
I explain to Piers that I do think of myself as privileged, and that I’m lucky to have got to where I am in life because I have been awarded the opportunities to do so. Then I ask him again.
“Well, I’m more privileged I guess than some people,” he says. “I’m more privileged than large swathes of the world that live in abject poverty, yes, obviously, but do I think that I have benefitted from my privilege to get where I have in the media world? No, I don’t.
“Because I see lots of people with far more privilege than me, in terms of family backgrounds and money they may have had and schools they went to, which probably afforded them more privilege if you want to use that word. Everybody is more privileged than somebody else, if you take it, again, to its logical extension.”
Piers is seemingly so annoyed that he tweets mid-interview that I am “trying to rough him up”.
This tactic of employing a stream of defensiveness in conversation and throwing questions back at me, was to stick. Guardian journalist Simon Hattenstone noted in his recent interview with Piers, that he has has the tendency to make everything personal, which often ruins the chance for proper objective debate.
Advertisement
I mention Benjamin Butterworth’s infamous appearances on Good Morning Britain. The LGBTQ journalist had been on the show on numerous occasions to discuss trans and gender issues. Piers repeatedly tells me he gave Benjamin a hard time because he’d tried to get him fired.
“Oh please, why did he come back on another time then if he was so upset?” Piers offers. “And why is he signing petitions to have people cancelled?” he adds, referring to the time Benjamin signed a petition to have Piers removed as presenter from Good Morning Britain.
“Ben, as I will tell him to his face when I speak to him tomorrow, is the perfect personification of woke cancel culture. If you don’t agree with him, you must be cancelled, you must be fired. And I think it’s completely ridiculous. If you want to defend his right to say that I should be fired, but I’m not allowed to then rough him up a bit in the interview on TV when he wants me literally taken out of the chair I’m sitting in and removed and thrown into the street, then obviously I’m not going to agree.”
I tell Piers it seems he’s fighting fire with fire. Offended that Benjamin wanted him out, he’s getting his own back by “roughing him up a bit” at what seems to be at the expense of the open and nuanced debate he tells me he likes.
Advertisement
“I don’t think my interviewing style is exactly a trade secret, I mean why did he come on if he was going to be so upset? He can’t be that upset, he’s interviewing me tomorrow, and also he sent me a few messages during the pandemic to congratulate me on my grilling of politicians.”
The conversation moves onto Piers infamously declaring that he defines himself as a two-spirit penguin in response to the idea that there were more than 100 genders.
I ask if he understands why some people would feel offended by his stance.
“Well no, I don’t really. Because I don’t know what exactly they’re offended by. If you believe in limitless gender why would you be offended if somebody chooses an obscure gender to identify as?” he chimes back.
“Is that actually what you believe?” I ask.
“Well if I said I believe in an affinity with the stars and the galaxy, would you say that’s... is that anymore ridiculous, or not?” he replies.
“I’m making the point that if you take these things to their logical extension, that’s where you end up. And it’s not me the ones creating the ridiculous environment, it’s the people that say there are limitless numbers of genders. If there are, anyone can identify as anything. I don’t think that’s a good idea, I think that’s incredibly confusing for kids. I’ve got four kids, I don’t think it should be happening.”
Advertisement
He continues: “I definitely don’t think the BBC, which I help pay for, should be doing this officially though BBC Teach. Now, if you don’t agree, I’m very happy to have that argument, but if your position with this is I gave poor old Benjamin Button [Piers mistakenly uses ‘Button’; it’s not clear whether this is a mistake or a jibe] a hard time, he came on the show because he called for me to be fired, and I wanted to hold him to account for him wanting to cancel me for having a genuinely held opinion that this BBC gender situation was absurd. So I don’t feel any need to apologise for giving him a hard time given he wanted me to be literally fired.”
“But do you think it would have been nice to let him finish his sentence on a few more occasions so he could illustrate his point clearly?” I ask.
“I think it would have been nice if he hadn’t signed a petition to have me fired,” repeats Piers.
I tell him that I don’t believe he actually wants to self-define as a two-spirit penguin. I tell him I believe he’s making up a gender for the purposes of TV.
“My position is, as your friend Ben will testify, is always to take things to their logical conclusion to the extremity,” he says. “To point out to people where their argument goes and that’s where limitless gender takes you: anyone can say they’re anything.”
Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid on Good Morning Britain. ITV
Advertisement
Later Piers tells me they had a “very good debate” that morning on Good Morning Britain about trans women in the rugby sphere. “I didn’t lose my temper, I didn’t get angry – but then she wasn’t trying to get me fired,” he says.
I refer to his recent interview with the Guardian in which he says he’s always learning. What is he learning at the moment?
“Well again, if you’d read the book, then obviously you’d know” he retorts. “I suppose the one thing I’m learning is there’s never a better motto in life than The Seven Ps. Pride, planning and preparation prevent piss poor performance. That probably is the centre of my interview technique - I’m always extremely well prepared. .
“For instance, if I’m interviewing someone about their book, I’ve normally read it.”
There it is again.
I ask whether his friends ever offer their thoughts about his interviewing style. “No, it’s only you and Benjamin Butterworth so far,” he laughs.
“And the cabinet ministers, none of whom will come on the programme. You two and the cabinet ministers. But you seem to be very upset about my interviewing style even though you haven’t read my book and you don’t watch Good Morning Britain. It does beg the question: how do you know?”
Advertisement
Towards the end of our call Piers tells me he quite likes Benjamin, despite their altercations. I ask whether he can look past disagreements and respect people regardless.
“I do,” he says. “We should all be able to do that. We should all be able to disagree with each other and respect each other’s opinions. And each can get passionate and fiery with each other. We ought to be able to reach points of consensus, at the end of it go and have a drink.”
He concludes: “I’d like to think when you finish this you might go away and read the book... And I’d be genuinely curious if you find things genuinely offensive in that book, because I doubt you will. It would have made the style of your interview with me now a little bit more interesting because you would have done it from a position or knowledge rather than guesswork.”
By the time I hang up, Piers has successfully turned me into the story: my timeline is flooded with notifications from his fanbase, calling me things like “a bellend,” a “bit of a nonce” and a “disgusting pig.” A fourth calls me a “useless journalist,” and the insults kept coming.
It feels odd for Piers to have put such a target on my back, but there’s a strange logic to it. He is so used to being in the spotlight even when interviewing other people that it maybe seems natural for him to shift the focus to me when the tables are turned.
Advertisement
Strangely enough, I feel like I’ve learnt more from interviewing Piers on the hop than I would have done had I actually read his book.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-10-17--From Gemma Collins Meeting A Polar Bear To Lewis Capaldi's Overshare – 10 Joyful Moments From This W

From Gemma Collins Meeting A Polar Bear To Lewis Capaldi's Overshare – 10 Joyful Moments From This Week

LOADING ERROR LOADING
With new lockdown restrictions introduced for even more of the country, it’s been a week of tiers and fears.
But in amongst all the doom and gloom, there’s been some genuine moments of joy that have helped us through the last seven days.
Advertisement
From Gemma Collins meeting a polar bear, to Lewis Capaldi’s overshare, here’s 10 things guaranteed to bring a smile to your face...
1. Gemma Collins encounter with a polar bear
Gemma Collins’ stint in the I’m A Celebrity jungle might have been short, but it is the stuff of TV legend, so we were delighted to see a throwback to her time in the Australian outback as her reality show Diva Forever returned this week.
The GC’s encounter with a polar bear did not exactly go to plan (despite it being in a safe, caged environment) when she got panicky and attempted to scale a fence.
Advertisement
2. Alison and Amanda get their own show
Shutterstock/ITV
Alison Hammond and Amanda Holden are two of the most joyful people on television, so we can’t believe it has taken until now for TV bosses to team them up. However, we’re pleased to report the pair are forming a dream team on the panel of new BBC show I Can See Your Face.
They will join Jimmy Carr and Paddy McGuinness on the new BBC series, so laughs are surely guaranteed with this lot.
3. Mariah gets us in the festive spirit early
It looks like the Queen of Christmas, Mariah Carey, is going to bestow us with an early present this year. The All I Want For Christmas Is You singer teased what looks to be a new Yuletide collaboration, sharing this photo on Twitter, alongside a tree emoji.
Advertisement
It didn’t take fans long to work out that “AG” and “JH” most likely stand for Ariana Grande and Jennifer Hudson, and let’s just say… there was LOTS of excitement.
4. Ariana Grande also has a gift of her own
i can’t wait to give u my album this month — Ariana Grande (@ArianaGrande) October 14, 2020
With albums from Little Mix and Kylie Minogue already on the way during Q4, another pop queen has come through with new material to keep us going until Christmas.
In a surprise announcement this week, Ariana Grande revealed she’s set to drop a whole new album before the month is out.
*combusts into glitter*
5. Peppa Pig takes on a new role (kinda)
Netflix/BBC
Advertisement
Netflix’s new horror series The Haunting of Bly Manor is full of twists and turns, but one real-life revelation has shocked fans more than anything on the show.
Many have worked out why the series’ young character Flora seems so familiar – she’s actually the voice of Peppa Pig.
6. It was 20 years since this memorable – and mortifying – awards show moment
ITV/Shutterstock
Literally anything can happen when some of the biggest names in the industry are gathered under one roof and the TV cameras are live – something Judy Finnigan knows only too well, with her appearance at the 2000 National Television Awards going down in history.
7. Netflix drops intense new trailer for The Crown
“Here is the stuff of which fairy tales are made.” Hmm, OK.
The Crown S4, coming 15 Nov. pic.twitter.com/an4m4oqL7U — Netflix UK & Ireland (@NetflixUK) October 13, 2020
Advertisement
Netflix has debuted a new trailer for the fourth series of The Crown, and it is the most intense yet.
The promo takes a closer look and Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer’s relationship and subsequent marriage, and also featured a somewhat unexpected cameo...
8. Goggleboxers introduce their loved ones
The Gogglebox gang helped us through lockdown, and this week, we got a glimpse at some of their unseen loved ones who’ve supported them over the last few months.
Advertisement
Lee shared a pic of him and Jenny with his partner Steve, while the Siddiquis introduced their mum and Sid’s wife Nasreen on their family Instagram.
9. Lewis Capaldi overshares on Instagram
📲 | Lewis Capaldi disse em seu Instagram Story, que está preocupado porque levou seu celular à Apple Store para avaliação, e não deletou as fotos privadas que tirou para ver se tinha hemorróidas, ele já tinha falado sobre esse episódio várias vezes antes. 😂
(12 de outubro) pic.twitter.com/iSIOWBxsGH — Lewis Capaldi Brasil (@capaldibr) October 12, 2020
Handing over your phone to a complete stranger for repair is always a bit of a worrying moment, but spare a thought for Lewis Capaldi who’s recent experience is the stuff of actual nightmares.
Let’s just say the story – which he shared on his Instagram – features his camera roll and an unwanted case of haemorrhoids.
10. Dame Shirley Bassey being fabulously camp
Matt Holyoak/PA
Advertisement
Shirley Bassey celebrated her 70-year career in showbusiness with what can only be described as an absolutely iconic Covid-compliant photoshoot.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-10-17--Why People Aren't Going To Follow The Three-Tier Lockdown Rules

LOADING ERROR LOADING
In March, there was a sense that “we’re all in this together”. We stayed home under the national lockdown because really, it seemed like the only option.
But now, as a range of different regional restrictions are placed on our lives through the three-tier system, some of us may feel less inclined to follow the rules than we did previously.
Advertisement
The nation is feeling variously “hopeless”, “angry”, “frustrated” and “exasperated” at the introduction of the system – according to HuffPost’s How Are You Feeling? project, which has been inviting readers to share their experience of the pandemic via this online form.
April Groen, from Woodbridge, Suffolk, is among the hundreds who’ve been in touch. She said she’s struggling to stay optimistic, now that she’s banned from visiting her daughter in Newcastle. “The hardest thing is having gone through seven months of this,” she said, ”[but] we haven’t actually achieved anything and we seem to be at the start again.”
This sense of lockdown déjà vu will inevitably test our resolve for rule following, says psychologist Dr Tara Quinn-Cirillo.
“Although we can’t ignore the science behind a tiered system, we also need to recognise the psychological processes that may occur with such a system being imposed,” she tells HuffPost UK . “Any layered system may create feelings of being ‘scolded’ if in a higher tier.”
Advertisement
Carlo Prearo / EyeEm via Getty Images
The perception of being “punished” may spur some to rebel against the rules, says Dr Quinn-Cirillo, as human beings are programmed to believe that good behaviour will be rewarded – but we have not been “rewarded” for sticking to the first lockdown.
“Throughout our childhood, in many cultures we are rewarded for adhering to rules, such a praise for being polite or waiting in a queue nicely. Reinforcement is a significant factor in rule adherence,” she says. “As adults we continue to respond to being praised or acknowledged for positive behaviour and adhering to societal rules.”
A number of readers described feeling “tired” and “drained” this autumn, which is no surprise to Dr Quinn-Cirillo, who says our motivation for rule following “may also be waning”.
“It may be important to consider that after many months of lockdown, restrictions and social isolation, people may be struggling emotionally,” she says. “This may exert an impact on their ability to empathise with others and show compassion towards others. This may invariably impact on rule adherence, in respect to perhaps putting themselves and their needs above the greater good.”
Advertisement
FG Trade via Getty Images
There is no exact science to explain why some people are inclined to be “rule breakers” while others are “rule followers”, adds Dr Quinn-Cirillo, but we do know that it’s influenced by our perception of risk.
Risk assessment occurs in the front of the brain, or the prefrontal cortex, and a number of factors will influence our conclusions, including our personal fears, previous experience of adversity and historical response to authority.
“We will judge whether we adhere to rules using consideration of the sanctions as a result of not adhering to the rules, how fair the rules are perceived to be and what we will get in return,” says Dr Quinn-Cirillo.
A “perceived element of unfairness” will dissuade many from sticking to rules, she adds. “The examples of public figures not adhering to rules are examples of this.”
Advertisement
Of course, not everyone will flout the new rules and the readers who told us they are feeling “scared” or anxious” will no doubt be trying to diligently learn the latest laws of the land. But it’s only possible to do this if we actually understand what’s being asked of us.
wanderluster via Getty Images
One Oxfordshire-based reader, who wished to remain anonymous, said they’re feeling “confused and on edge” after the announcement of the tiered system.
“The lockdown was hard but simple. Now it’s more nuanced and there are mixed messages,” they added. “The constantly changing restrictions seem to make no sense. And there is no end in sight.”
Dr Quinn-Cirillo believes the government should work to clear up confusion, because “people respond to clear and consistent information”.
Advertisement
“If we are being asked to adhere to a set of rules, it is important that we are informed as to the rationale behind the rules,” she says. “Ultimately human beings like control. When we feel lack of control it can exert an impact on how we behave.”


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-10-17--Autumn Salad Recipes That Won't Leave You Hungry

I can’t tell you how many times friends and colleagues have asked me, “What am I supposed to put on autumn salads?” Well, here’s some great news ― autumn flavours make the best salads around. While a few of the season’s best ingredients might need to be cooked in advance ― think butternut squash, sweet potatoes or crispy bacon ― no one’s allergic to a little planning.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-10-17--UK Covid-19 Deaths Rise By 150 In 24 Hours As Cases Jump By 16,000

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The UK’s coronavirus death toll has risen by 150 in a single 24-hour period, with cases jumping by more than 16,000.
The rise in deaths is the biggest single-day increase since June 10, The Mirror reported, and almost double the total recorded a week ago on Saturday, October 10.
Advertisement
The Department of Health and Social Care’s toll has now risen to 43,579, but separate figures published by the UK’s statistics agencies show there have now been 58,500 deaths registered in the UK where Covid-19 were mentioned on the death certificate.
England recorded 86 deaths in the previous 24 hour period, while Wales reported five. Northern Ireland reported two deaths, and Scotland 15. The disparity in figures between DHSC and each of the nations arises from differences in the timeframes deaths are reported within.
The government said that, as of 9am on Saturday, there had been a further 16,171 lab-confirmed cases of coronavirus in the UK. It brings the total number of cases in the UK to 705,428.
Separate figures show there were 4,814 Covid-19 patients in hospital in England on Saturday, up from 3,225 a week ago, while 494 were in ventilation beds, up from 396 a week ago.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-10-17--Detective Sergeant Who Survived Salisbury Novichok Attack Quits Force

Wiltshire Police
The detective sergeant who survived the Salisbury Novichok attack in 2018 has revealed he can “can no longer do the job” after 18 years with Wiltshire Police.
Detective sergeant Nick Bailey was left fighting for his life in hospital after coming into contact with the deadly nerve agent in March 2018, but has since spoken publicly about struggling with depression and memory loss in the wake of the attack.
Advertisement
Sgt Bailey, who had served in the force since 2002, was sent to the home of Sergei Skripal, a former Russian military intelligence officer and double agent for MI6 who was targeted in the poisoning, in the aftermath of the incident.
He was infected with nerve agent that had been administered to their door handle, despite wearing a forensic suit.
In a series of tweets Sgt Bailey wrote: “After 18 years in the police force I’ve had to admit defeat and accept that I can no longer do the job.
“I wanted to be a police officer since I was a teenager, I couldn’t envisage doing anything else, which is why this makes me so sad.
Advertisement
After 18 years in the Police Force I’ve had to admit defeat and accept that I can no longer do the job. I wanted to be a Police Officer since I was a teenager, I couldn’t envisage doing anything else, which is why this makes me so sad. Like most Police Officers, I’ve…. — Nick Bailey (@ExDsNickBailey) October 17, 2020
“Like most police officers I’ve experienced my fair share of trauma, violence, upset, injury and grief.”
He continued: “We deal with it, take it on the chin and keep going because that’s our job. But we’re still human and the impact this has shouldn’t be underestimated.
“The events in Salisbury in March 2018 took so much from me and although I’ve tried so hard to make it work, I know that I won’t find peace whilst remaining in that environment.
“Policing will remain in my heart and I feel honoured and privileged to have been part of Wiltshire Police.”
Advertisement
As well as the physical and mental toll of the attack, Sgt Bailey and his family lost their home and possessions as he had unknowingly contaminated them with the nerve agent upon returning from the Skripal home.
Skripal was hospitalised for two months following the attack, and his daughter Yulia was hospitalised for a month.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-10-17--15 Amazing Photos You Missed This Week

15 Amazing Photos You Missed This Week

We’re highlighting exceptional photos from around the world for the week that ended Friday.
Check them out below.
Above: Residents of the Kibera area of Nairobi, Kenya, form a human chain to pass water to extinguish a fire that gutted shantees in the Maranatha area of the sprawling slum that started at dusk Wednesday. (Gordwin Odhiambo/AFP via Getty Images)


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-10-18--How Trump Got Played By The Military-Industrial Complex

On March 20, 2018, President Donald Trump sat beside Saudi crown prince Muhammed bin Salman at the White House and lifted a giant map that said Saudi weapons purchases would support jobs in “key” states — including Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida and Ohio, all of which were crucial to Trump’s 2016 election victory.
“Saudi Arabia has been a very great friend and a big purchaser of equipment … but if you look, in terms of dollars, $3 billion, $533 million, $525 million — that’s peanuts for you. You should have increased it,” Trump said to the prince, who was (and still is) overseeing a military campaign in Yemen that has deployed US weaponry to commit scores of alleged war crimes.
Advertisement
Trump has used his job as commander-in-chief to be America’s arms-dealer-in-chief in a way no other president has since Dwight Eisenhower, as he prepared to leave the presidency, warned in early 1961 of the military-industrial complex’s political influence. Trump’s posture makes sense personally ― this is a man who regularly fantasises about violence, usually toward foreigners ― and he and his advisers see it as politically useful, too. The president has repeatedly appeared at weapons production facilities in swing states, promoted the head of Lockheed Martin using White House resources, appointed defence industry employees to top government jobs in an unprecedented way and expanded the Pentagon’s budget to near-historic highs ― a guarantee of future income for companies like Lockheed and Boeing.
Trump is “on steroids in terms of promoting arms sales for his own political benefit,” said William Hartung, a scholar at the Centre for International Policy who has tracked the defence industry for decades. “It’s a targeted strategy to get benefits from workers in key states.”
In courting the billion-dollar industry, Trump has trampled on moral considerations about how buyers like the Saudis misuse American weapons, ethical concerns about conflicts of interest and even part of his own political message, the deceptive claim that he is a peace candidate. He justifies his policy by citing job growth, but data from Hartung, a prominent analyst, shows he exaggerates the impact. And Trump has made clear that a major motivation for his defence strategy is the possible electoral benefit it could have.
Advertisement
Next month’s election will show if the bargain was worth it. As of now, it looks like Trump’s bet didn’t pay off ― for him, at least. Campaign contribution records, analysts in swing states and polls suggest arms dealers have given the president no significant political boost. The defence contractors, meanwhile, are expected to continue getting richer, as they have in a dramatic way under Trump.
Playing Corporate Favourites
Trump has thrice chosen the person who decides how the Defence Department spends its gigantic budget. Each time, he has tapped someone from a business that wants those Pentagon dollars. Mark Esper, the current defence secretary, worked for Raytheon; his predecessor, Pat Shanahan, for Boeing; and Trump’s first appointee, Jim Mattis, for General Dynamics, which reappointed him to its board soon after he left the administration.
Of the senior officials serving under Esper, almost half have connections to military contractors, per the Project on Government Oversight. The administration is now rapidly trying to fill more Pentagon jobs under the guidance of a former Trump campaign worker, Foreign Policy magazine recently revealed ― prioritising political reasons and loyalty to Trump in choosing people who could help craft policy even under a Joe Biden presidency.
Such personnel choices are hugely important for defence companies’ profit margins and risk creating corruption or the impression of it. Watchdog groups argue Trump’s handling of the hiring process is more evidence that lawmakers and future presidents must institute rules to limit the reach of military contractors and other special interests.
“Given the hundreds of conflicts of interest flouting the rule of law in the Trump administration, certainly these issues have gotten that much more attention and are that much more salient now than they were four years ago,” said Aaron Scherb, the director of legislative affairs at Common Cause, a nonpartisan good-government group.
Advertisement
The theoretical dangers of Trump’s approach became a reality last year, when a former employee for the weapons producer Raytheon used his job at the State Department to advocate for a rare emergency declaration allowing the Saudis and their partner the United Arab Emirates to buy $8 billion in arms ― including $2 billion in Raytheon products ― despite congressional objections. As other department employees warned that Saudi Arabia was defying US pressure to behave less brutally in Yemen, former lobbyist Charles Faulkner led a unit that urged Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to give the kingdom more weapons. Pompeo pushed out Faulkner soon afterward, and earlier this year, the State Department’s inspector general criticised the process behind the emergency declaration for the arms.
Red Crescent medics walk next to bags containing the bodies of victims of Saudi-linked airstrikes on a Houthi detention center in Yemen on Sept. 1, 2019. The Saudis military campaign in Yemen has relied on U.S. weaponry to commit scores of alleged war crimes. Mohamed Al-Sayaghi / Reuters
Even Trump administration officials not clearly connected to the defense industry have shown an interest in moves that benefit it. In 2017, White House economic advisor Peter Navarro pressured Republican lawmakers to permit exports to Saudi Arabia and Jared Kushner, the president’s counselor and son-in-law, personally spoke with Lockheed Martin’s chief to iron out a sale to the kingdom, The New York Times found.
When Congress gave the Pentagon $1 billion to develop medical supplies as part of this year’s coronavirus relief package, most of the money went to defense contractors for projects like jet engine parts instead, a Washington Post investigation showed.
“It’s a very close relationship and there’s no kind of sense that they’re supposed to be regulating these people,” Hartung said. “It’s more like they’re allies, standing shoulder to shoulder.”
Advertisement
Seeking Payback
In June 2019, Lockheed Martin announced that it would close a facility that manufactures helicopters in Coatesville, Pennsylvania, and employs more than 450 people. Days later, Trump tweeted that he had asked the company’s then-chief executive, Marillyn Hewson, to keep the plant open. And by July 10, Lockheed said it would do so ― attributing the decision to Trump.
The president has frequently claimed credit for jobs in the defence industry, highlighting the impact on manufacturing in swing states rather than employees like Washington lobbyists, whose numbers have also grown as he has expanded the Pentagon’s budget. Lockheed has helped him in his messaging: In one instance in Wisconsin, Hewson announced she was adding at least 45 new positions at a plant directly after Trump spoke there, saying his tax cuts for corporations made that possible.
Trump is pursuing a strategy that the arms industry uses to insulate itself from political criticism. “They’ve reached their tentacles into every state and many congressional districts,” Scherb of Common Cause said. That makes it hard for elected officials to question their operations or Pentagon spending generally without looking like they are harming their local economy.
Representative Chrissy Houlahan, a Democrat who represents Coatesville, welcomed Lockheed’s change of course, though she warned, “This decision is a temporary reprieve. … I am concerned that Lockheed Martin and [its subsidiary] Sikorsky are playing politics with the livelihoods of people in my community.”
The political benefit for Trump, though, remains in question, given that as president he has a broad set of responsibilities and is judged in different ways.
Advertisement
“Do I think it’s important to keep jobs? Absolutely,” said Marcel Groen, a former Pennsylvania Democratic party chair. “And I think we need to thank the congresswoman and thank the president for it. But it doesn’t change my views and I don’t think it changes most people’s in terms of the state of the nation.”
With polls showing that Trump’s disastrous response to the health pandemic dominates voters’ thoughts and Biden sustaining a lead in surveys of most swing states, his argument on defence industry jobs seems like a minor factor in this election.
Hartung of the Centre for International Policy drew a parallel to President George HW Bush, who during his 1992 reelection campaign promoted plans for Taiwan and Saudi Arabia to purchase fighter jets produced in Missouri and Texas. Bush announced the decisions at events at the General Dynamics facility in Fort Worth, Texas, and the McDonnell Douglas plant in St. Louis that made the planes. That November, as Bill Clinton defeated him, he lost Missouri by the highest margin of any Republican in almost 30 years and won Texas by a slimmer margin than had become the norm for a GOP presidential candidate.
President Donald Trump greets then-Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson at the Derco Aerospace Inc. plant in Milwaukee on July 12, 2019. Trump does not appear to be winning his political bet that increased defense spending would help his political fortunes. MANDEL NGAN via Getty Images
Checking The Receipts
The defence industry can’t control whether voters buy Trump’s arguments about his relationship with it. But it could, if it wanted to, try to help him politically in a more direct way: by donating to his reelection campaign and allied efforts.
Advertisement
Yet arms manufacturers aren’t reciprocating Trump’s affection. A HuffPost review of Federal Election Commission records showed that top figures and groups at major industry organisations like the National Defence Industrial Association and the Aerospace Industries Association and at Lockheed, Trump’s favourite defence firm, are donating this cycle much as they normally do: giving to both sides of the political aisle, with a slight preference to the party currently wielding the most power, which for now is Republicans. (The few notable exceptions include the chairman of the NDIA’s board, Arnold Punaro, who has given more than $58,000 to Trump and others in the GOP.)
Data from the Centre for Responsive Politics shows that’s the case for contributions from the next three biggest groups of defence industry donors after Lockheed’s employees.
One smaller defence company, AshBritt Environmental, did donate $500,000 to a political action committee supporting Trump ― prompting a complaint from the Campaign Legal Centre, which noted that businesses that take federal dollars are not allowed to make campaign contributions. Its founder told ProPublica he meant to make a personal donation.
For weapons producers, backing both parties makes sense. The military budget will have increased 29% under Trump by the end of the current fiscal year, per the White House Office of Management and Budget. Biden has said he doesn’t see cuts as “inevitable” if he is elected, and his circle of advisers includes many from the national security world who have worked closely with ― and in many cases worked for ― the defence industry.
And arms manufacturers are “busy pursuing their own interests” in other ways, like trying to get a piece of additional government stimulus legislation, Hartung said ― an effort that’s underway as the Pentagon’s inspector general investigates how defence contractors got so much of the first coronavirus relief package.
Advertisement
Meanwhile, defence contractors continue to have an outsize effect on the way policies are designed in Washington through less political means. A recent report from the Centre for International Policy found that such companies have given at least $1 billion to the nation’s most influential think tanks since 2014 ― potentially spending taxpayer money to influence public opinion. They have also found less obvious ways to maintain support from powerful people, like running the databases that many congressional offices use to connect with constituents, Scherb of Common Cause said.
“This goes into a much bigger systemic issue about big money in politics and the role of corporations versus the role of Americans,” Scherb said.
Given its reach, the defence industry has little reason to appear overtly partisan. Instead, it’s projecting confidence despite the generally dreary state of the global economy: Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun has said he expects similar approaches from either winner of the election, arguing even greater Democratic control and the rise of less conventional lawmakers isn’t a huge concern.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-10-18--James Bond Bosses Spent £55K On Coca-Cola For Spectacular No Time To Die Stunt

LOADING ERROR LOADING
James Bond bosses have revealed they splurged £55,000 on Coca-Cola for a stunt on the forthcoming No Time To Die.
Over 8000 gallons of the fizzy drink was poured all over a cobbled street in Matera in Italy.
Why? You may ask.
Well, once dried, the sugary beverage provided the perfect sticky residue on the stones, which allowed Daniel Craig’s stunt double to perform a spectacular stunt without slipping all over the place.
Advertisement
Daniel Craig will return as James Bond for one last time in No Time To Die. Universal
According to stunt boss Lee Morrison, Daniel Craig devised the trick allowing his stunt double rider Paul Edwards to hit a 25ft ramp at 60mph, clear a wall and land on cobbles.
“I spent nearly €60,000 spraying Coca-Cola around Matera,” Lee told this month’s Total Film.
“I’ve been spraying Coca-Cola on slippery surfaces for a very long time.”
He added that the drink also “makes things look very clean after it washes off”.
The 25th film in the 007 franchise was originally due to be released in April, but was delayed until November earlier this year amid global concern around the spread of Covid-19.
Advertisement
It has now been announced that Daniel Craig’s final outing as the British spy will now not be released until April 2021.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-10-18--Andy Burnham Demands 'Urgent Vote' In Commons On Tier 3 Lockdown

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Andy Burnham has demanded an “urgent debate and vote” in parliament in order to break the impasse over whether to place Manchester into a tier 3 lockdown.
In a letter to Boris Johnson on Sunday, the Greater Manchester mayor said MPs should agree “a fair financial framework” for regions living under the strictest restrictions.
Advertisement
Burnham has been resisting the government’s wish to place Manchester into tier 3, warning not enough support will being provided to protect people and businesses.
In inflammatory remarks, Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove on Sunday accused Burnham of having engaged in political “posturing” and called for him to accept the measures “to save people’s lives”.
Backed by Liverpool Metro mayor Steve Rotheram, Burnham called for a “full and fair furlough scheme” covering 80% of wages or at least the national minimum wage, support for the self-employed and improved compensation for businesses.
“With the challenging winter that lies ahead of the country, it is likely that most places will find themselves in Tier 3 at some point before a vaccine is found,” Burnham said.
Advertisement
“That is why we believe it is right for parliament to debate and agree what is a fair level of support for people and businesses in those areas.
“At present, local areas are agreeing individual deals with the government. It is by no means clear that these will be sufficient to cope with the pressures they will face. Also, the lack of transparency about this process and the risks of differential treatment is potentially divisive.
“Establishing clear national entitlements of the kind we had during the first lockdown will create a sense of fairness which in turn would help build public support for, and compliance with, any new restrictions.”
Earlier on Sunday, Burnham accused Johnson of having engaged in an “exaggeration” of the severity of Covid-19 in the region during a Downing Street press conference.
“It’s a serious situation but I don’t think it was the situation that was described by the prime minister on Friday evening,” the mayor told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-10-18--Michael Gove Rejects National 'Circuit Breaker' Lockdown In England

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Michel Gove has rejected calls for an immediate national “circuit-breaker” lockdown in England to control the coronavirus resurgence, but did not rule it out in the future.
Asked if the government would take the measure on Sky’s Sophy Ridge On Sunday, the Cabinet Office minister replied: “No.
Advertisement
Keir Starmer has demanded the government impose strict measures across the country in October, but Boris Johnson has instead opted to take local action.
Kate Green, the shadow education secretary, said on Sunday a two to three-week circuit-breaker would give the UK time to put better local tracing processes in place.
“Rates are continuing to rise with the measures we have now, they’re not working so we have to try something different,” she said.
Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) member Professor Jeremy Farrar said it “never too late” for national restrictions.
Advertisement
“In my view the best time to do this would have been around 20th September as Sage advised, that wasn’t decided upon then,” he said.
“The second best time to do this is now and the worst time to do this is at the end of November when things would have really got considerably worse.
He added: “It’s better to do it now than in a month’s time.”
But Gove rejected the calls. “At the moment and it would seem to me to be wrong to impose restrictions on the economic and personal life of individuals in parts of the country where the disease is not spreading so intensively,” he said.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-10-18--Coronavirus Vaccine Should Available Early Next Yeah, Says Sage Scientist

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The “worst-case scenario” of 50,000 cases of coronavirus per day across the UK is “almost exactly where we are at”, professor Jeremy Farrar has claimed.
Speaking to Sky News’ Sophy Ridge On Sunday, he said Christmas will be “tough” this year and is unlikely to be a traditional family celebration if coronavirus infections continue to increase.
Advertisement
Farrar, who is a member of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), said the UK faces a “very, very difficult” period over the next three to six months.
But the Wellcome Trust director said there is “light at the end of the tunnel”, as he believes a Covid-19 vaccine was “three to six months away”.
“I think in the first quarter of next year we will have vaccines - will have more than one vaccine,” he said.
“The ONS survey, which is the best data in the country at the moment, shows that 27,000 people are getting this infection every day. But that was until the 10th of October,” he said.
Advertisement
“Today it will be over 50,000, just as the CMO (chief medical officer) Chris Whitty and (the government’s chief scientific adviser) Patrick Vallance suggested some three weeks ago.
“It would be at 50,000 new cases across the country every single day, and that’s almost exactly where we are.”
Farrar added: “The reasonable worst-case scenario that Sage articulated has now been broached, it is worse than the situation Sage advised on three or four weeks ago. So that’s the scenario we are in today.”
Farrar said a short national lockdown known as a circuit-breaker is needed to reduce transmission rates, as previously recommended by Sage last month.
He said: “Christmas will be tough this year. I don’t think it’s going to be the usual celebration it is and all families coming together, I’m afraid.
Advertisement
“I think we have to be honest and realistic and say that we are in for three to six months of a very, very difficult period.
“The temperatures drop, we are all indoors more often, we have the other infections that come this time of year.
“It’s much better for us to be upfront and honest now, and say we are in for a really difficult time, but there is light at the end of the tunnel.”
He said the “best time” to have introduced the temporary lockdown would have been around September 20, but added “it was never too late”.
He said: “The second best time to do this is now, and the worst time to do this is at the end of November when things would have really got considerably worse.
Advertisement
“So it’s never too late, it’s better to do it now than in a month’s time.”
Meanwhile, Dr Alison Pittard, dean of the Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine in London, later told the programme that doctors’ evolving understanding of the virus has dramatically upped the survival rate.
She said doctors’ haste to mechanically ventilate patients at the start of the pandemic might have contributed to the higher rate of death in spring compared to now.
At the start of the pandemic, just 66% of people in hospital with coronavirus survived, compared to 84% in August.
Dr Pittard said: “Initially we used to put patients straight on to mechanical ventilation – so we would bring them to intensive care, sedate them and put them on ventilators.
“But we have slowly started to realise that perhaps we could manage some patients without doing that.”


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-10-18--US Politician Crowd-Surfs Without Face Mask Over Trump Supporters During President's Election Rally

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Georgia state representative Vernon Jones showed scant regard for coronavirus safety measures on Friday when he crowd-surfed over maskless Donald Trump supporters during the president’s crowded campaign rally in Macon.
Jones, a Democrat who has endorsed Trump in the 2020 election, also did not wear a mask, ignoring guidelines from the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention — which also advise only small gatherings and social distancing.
Advertisement
Georgia state Rep. Vernon Jones crowd-surfed during a campaign rally for President Donald Trump at Middle Georgia Regional Airport in Macon, Georgia. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Jones faced backlash for the stunt on Twitter, where critics pointed out how the United States currently appears to be experiencing another peak of daily infections. Others criticised Trump for holding the rally (and others in recent days) in the middle of the pandemic.
Covid-19 has now killed almost 220,000 Americans and sickened upwards of 8 million more, including the president, who was hospitalised for three days in early October.
But Jones remained defiant, boasting in one tweet that “this #trumptrain is about to steam roll” over Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.
Advertisement
In another post, he wrote: “Yes, I surfed that crowd! To the haters - stay mad! You’ll be even more mad come November 3rd!”
Yes, I surfed that crowd!
To the haters - stay mad! You’ll be even more mad come November 3rd! — Vernon Jones (@RepVernonJones) October 17, 2020
An article published by the Savannah Morning News in 2008 said Jones described himself as “an independent thinker and a conservative Democrat who supports faith-based initiatives, tough immigration laws and fiscal responsibility.” He voted twice for George W. Bush, the story noted.
As a Democratic politician, Jones announced his support for Trump earlier this year and even stumped for the president at the Republican National Convention in August. In his convention address, Jones accused fellow Democrats of not wanting “Black people to leave their mental plantation.”


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-10-18--Boris Johnson 'Exaggerated' Seriousness Of Covid Infections In Manchester, Says Andy Burnham

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham has accused Boris Johnson of having exaggerated the severity of the coronavirus situation in the region.
“It’s a serious situation but I don’t think it was the situation that was described by the prime minister on Friday evening,” he said.
Advertisement
Speaking to the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, Burnham said: “I think it was an exaggeration of the position that we’re in.”
On Friday the prime minister warned the coronavirus outbreak in Manchester was “grave” as cases had “doubled in the last nine days”.
“On present trends there will be more Covid patients in intensive care than at the peak of the first wave,” he added.
But Burnham rejected these figures. “Of course it’s a matter of concern, and we watch the figures very closely indeed,” he said.
Advertisement
“But the figures have been falling in Manchester itself in the last few days, across Greater Manchester up slightly but certainly not doubling every nine days.”
Burnham and Tory MPs in the region have rejected government demands tier 3 local lockdown restrictions be introduced.
The Labour mayor has demanded greater financial support for workers and businesses be provided before any agreement can be reached.
But Johnson has warned he is prepared, and has the authority, to impose the strictest measures even if local politicians object.
Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister, accused Burnham and MPs from his own party of “political positioning”
Advertisement
“I want them to work with us in order to ensure that we save lives and protect the NHS,” he told Sky’s Sophy Ridge On Sunday
Burnham has called for a return to the generosity of the original furlough scheme that saw the Treasury pay 80% of workers wages.
But Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, has only offered a 66% subsidy for those whose firms forced to shut by tier 3 measures.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-10-18--Been Told To Self-Isolate By Test And Trace? Police Could Get Access To Your Data

LOADING ERROR LOADING
People who have been told to self-isolate through NHS Test and Trace could have their contact details shared with police in a bid to help enforce compliance.
The Department of Health and Social Care (DHCS) said police forces will have access “on a case-by-case” basis to information, enabling them to know if an individual has been told to self-isolate.
Advertisement
It comes as the DHSC updated its online guidance on Friday about how coronavirus testing data will be handled.
People who fail to self-isolate “without reasonable justification” could have their name, address and contact details passed on to their local authority and then to the police, the DHSC’s website said.
“This may lead to enforcement action being taken against you, which could include you being fined,” the online guidance said.
“A police force may request information relating to positive Covid-19 tests from the NHS Test & Trace programme directly, where they are investigating a report of someone who may not be complying with the mandatory self-isolation period.”
Advertisement
Any police data requests would only concern those who have actually been tested and it does not affect those who are using the NHS Test and Trace app which is anonymous and does not track individuals.
This, still, has nothing to do with the app, and, still, you should install the app if you haven’t already https://t.co/mcROdXxK59 — alex hern (@alexhern) October 18, 2020
The Health Service Journal (HSJ) reported that the office of England’s chief medical officer, Professor Chris Whitty, feared the move would put people off from being tested.
Speaking to the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show on Sunday, Michael Gove defended the policy, saying that officers are operating in a “very proportionate way” and that action would only be taken over “persistent, flagrant and deliberate” breaching of the rules.
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said ministers should “reverse the policy urgently”.
He said: “Ministers’ decision to allow people’s Covid test data to be shared with the police is a huge mistake.
Advertisement
“Anything that further undermines the public’s dwindling trust in this government’s handling of the pandemic is damaging, and few things could have been better designed to do that, than this.”
Sir Ed added: “Asking our already overstretched police service to take on this task is both self-defeating and a serious misjudgment.”
PAUL ELLIS via Getty Images
People in England are legally required to self-isolate if they test positive for Covid-19.
Those who fail to do so face fines starting at £1,000 and increasing up to £10,000 for repeat offenders or serious breaches, the DHSC said.
People who have received a positive test must isolate for 10 days after displaying symptoms or their test date if they do not have symptoms, while members of their household must isolate for 14 days.
Advertisement
There is a lot of misinformation out there over how the legal duty to self-isolate works, what relevance of the NHS app has and how data can be used for prosecution.
I made a video explaining it all https://t.co/UPHegFT0HE — Adam Wagner (@AdamWagner1) October 18, 2020
A DHSC spokesperson said: “It is a legal requirement for people who have tested positive for Covid-19 and their close contacts to self-isolate when formally notified to do so.
“The Department of Health and Social Care has agreed a memorandum of understanding with the National Police Chiefs Council to enable police forces to have access on a case-by-case basis to information that enables them to know if a specific individual has been notified to self-isolate.
“The memorandum of understanding ensures that information is shared with appropriate safeguards and in accordance with the law. No testing or health data is shared in this process.”
The British Medical Association (BMA), which represents doctors in the UK, said that the test and trace system needs the “full confidence of the public” to be effective.
Advertisement
A BMA spokesman said: “We are already concerned that some people are deterred from being tested because they are anxious about loss of income should they need to self-isolate – and we are worried should police involvement add to this.”
A National Police Chiefs’ Council spokesperson said: “We will continue to encourage voluntary compliance but will enforce regulations and issue FPNs (fixed penalty notices) where appropriate and necessary. Where people fail to self-isolate and refuse to comply officers can issue FPNs and direct people to return to self-isolation.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-10-18--Sam Smith Opens Up On Panic Attacks, Anxiety And Depression: ‘It Really Hit Me Hard’

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Sam Smith has said they have been “hit hard” by issues with their mental health.
Speaking to Zane Lowe in an Apple Music interview, the singer said they think they have suffered from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Sam Smith PA
Advertisement
“I’ve always been sad, but for the first time I actually really had mental health issues, like panic attacks, anxiety, depression,” they told the programme.
“It really hit me hard. I think it was PTSD probably from before.”
The 28-year-old singer added that the ending of a relationship “didn’t help, but it was a tough time, really tough”.
“The adrenaline high that you hit when you’re on stage, that when you come off, the silence in a changing room is really, really tough,” Sam explained.
“It’s taken me six, seven years to actually work out what I need to make that OK.
“I’m nervous about the next tour too, but I think the energy will be different on the next tour.”
Sam Smith EMPICS Entertainment
Advertisement
Sam’s new album Love Goes will be released on 20 October.
It was originally titled To Die For but Sam renamed it because the title did not “feel right” amid a global pandemic.
They also told Apple Music: “The album was safe, but I’m not ashamed of that, because at a moment of such unsafety in my life, all I wanted to feel was safe.
“So that’s honest to me. Pushing myself during that second album would have been probably detrimental to my health because I wasn’t in the right space.”
Useful websites and helplines
Mind, open Monday to Friday, 9am-6pm on 0300 123 3393.
Samaritans offers a listening service which is open 24 hours a day, on 116 123 (UK and ROI - this number is FREE to call and will not appear on your phone bill).
CALM (the Campaign Against Living Miserably) offer a helpline open 5pm-midnight, 365 days a year, on 0800 58 58 58, and a webchat service.
Advertisement
The Mix is a free support service for people under 25. Call 0808 808 4994 or email help@themix.org.uk


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-10-18--Civil Servant Arrested On Suspicion Of Breaching Official Secrets Act

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A civil servant has been arrested for allegedly breaching the Official Secrets Act by leaking diplomatic cables which led the UK’s ambassador to Washington to resign.
Lord Darroch was forced to stand down last year after messages he wrote criticising the Trump White House as “inept” and “dysfunctional” were leaked to the press, PA Media reports.
Advertisement
A Metropolitan Police spokesman said officers from the force’s Counter Terrorism Command arrested a man in London on Tuesday “on suspicion of offences under the Official Secrets Act and misconduct in a public office”.
“The man was taken to a London police station and was subsequently released on police bail to a date in mid-November. Inquiries continue,” the spokesman said in a statement.
The Mail on Sunday reported that the civil servant is employed at the Department for International Trade, which the paper said has suspended him on full pay amid its own internal inquiry. The department did not respond to a request for comment.
Lord Darroch, then Sir Kim, resigned from his post in Washington last July, saying his position had become “impossible” following the leak which prompted the US president to brand him “a very stupid guy” with whom the White House could not work.
Advertisement
Boris Johnson, a Tory leadership candidate at the time, faced stiff criticism for failing to fully support the diplomat.
Following the incident, MPs said a “corrosive culture of leaking” at the heart of Whitehall should be tackled with a robust approach and tougher sanctions.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-10-18--Jim Carrey Offers Undecided Voters A Stark Choice With New Donald Trump-Bashing Art

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Jim Carrey offered help to undecided voters with his latest anti-Trump cartoon.
The actor presented a stark choice to those people still unsure about who they’ll vote for on 3 Nov ― either back President Donald Trump or vote for “decency” with Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.
Advertisement
Carrey, who has been portraying Biden on Saturday Night Live, has used his artwork to attack Trump throughout his presidency.
In January, the Truman Show star said he was done with producing politically charged pieces. But in recent weeks, he’s actually ramped up his cartoon criticism of Trump, his administration and, in particular, its catastrophic mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic.
I’m cured of the Covid. I’m totally immune. Who you gonna believe, me or some scientific test results? Regeneron is great. Every senior’s gonna get some and Mexico’s gonna pay for it! pic.twitter.com/h05oz8OndR — Jim Carrey (@JimCarrey) October 12, 2020
Trump’s evil has shifted into hyperdrive. Pushing an unproven drug he’s financially invested in to seniors. Calling for the unlawful arrest of Joe Biden.
Expect a catastrophe soon (his doing) so he can declare martial law and cancel the election.
Till then...see you Sat night. pic.twitter.com/ErdO6Zcxhq — Jim Carrey (@JimCarrey) October 9, 2020
Advertisement
Last week, Carrey also began burning Trump’s enablers with these hellish depictions of Republican Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas), Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Mitch McConnell (Ky.).
Ted Cruz, Hellbound Class of 2020 pic.twitter.com/4MdePetlp2 — Jim Carrey (@JimCarrey) October 12, 2020
Lindsey Graham, Hellbound Class of 2020 pic.twitter.com/gTVWYjeDHb — Jim Carrey (@JimCarrey) October 9, 2020


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-10-18--8 Ways The Government Has Slashed Its Own Environmental Promises

“Bounce back greener”, the “green recovery”, a government that will “lead that green industrial revolution”.
Boris Johnson’s verdant rhetoric in recent weeks – particularly in the wake of Covid-19 – certainly paints a picture of better days to come, with promises to prioritise climate change and to make the UK “a world leader in low-cost clean power generation”.
Advertisement
But how serious is he?
Campaigners point to a dire track record that has already plundered the environment more than saved it – and highlight “greenwash” legislation on the horizon.
“His government has voted down crucial amendments that would have tackled overfishing and protected our food standards from dodgy trade deals,” Greenpeace’s policy director Dr Doug Parr told HuffPost UK.
“For all the high-flown rhetoric about the green recovery, the UK government has spent 10 times less on it than France, and even less compared to Germany.
“The prime minister said that climate action should not become a victim of Covid but, for now, it looks like that’s exactly where we are.”
Advertisement
Here’s what we know about how the government is shaping up so far.
Environment Bill
The environment bill, a key piece of post-Brexit legislation described as “a truly landmark piece of legislation” by then environment secretary Theresa Villiers, has now not been seen in parliament for more than 200 days.
Its passage was paused in March as the pandemic set in, but despite other government business getting back underway and the clock ticking, the bill is nowhere to be seen.
The current government has talked a big game about its green ambitions – with the bill promising reform in air pollution, waste and resource efficiency, water management, and chemical controls.
It’s the first significant piece of environmental legislation for 20 years and would set the entire framework for how the UK combats climate change, from legal targets to a new governance system in the absence of the EU.
Friends of the Earth campaigners, pictured here outside the Royal Courts of Justice, London. Kirsty O'Connor - PA Images via Getty Images
Advertisement
Friends of the Earth (FoE) campaigner Kierra Box described the environmental protection proposed by the government as a “clear weakening” from the structures that were in place under the EU.
Box added that even the proposed Office of Environmental Protection (OEP), designed to replace the European Courts after Brexit, would have weaker powers than the EU.
But more to the point, the OEP doesn’t exist at all until the bill is passed. If it still hasn’t by January 1, 2021 – the date the UK is fully severed from EU laws after Brexit – British citizens will have no way to appeal if the government breaks environmental law.
Earlier this year HuffPost UK and Unearthed revealed there were 11 environmental protection cases that could end up in a “dead end” if they are not taken up by a new UK independent regulator after departure from the EU.
Fisheries Bill
Brexit has put the UK’s fishing industry back at the top of the agenda, with Boris Johnson warned recently by Brexit Party MEPs to “take back control” of British waters.
Advertisement
The PM has previously insisted to the EU that UK waters will be “first and foremost for British boats”, while the Fisheries Bill – again described as “landmark” legislation – will set rules for the industry for years to come.
According to a July press release, issued by the government to mark its introduction to parliament, the new bill will “ensure that fish stocks, and the marine environment, are better protected for future generations”.
But key sustainability policies have already been stripped from the legislation. In mid-September the House of Commons removed an amendment from the bill that would have required larger vessels fishing in UK waters to carry Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) systems with cameras.
Language around sustainability, designed in the House of Lords before the bill entered parliament in order to deter decisions that could lead to overfishing, was also stripped out following a Commons vote earlier in September.
Greenpeace has highlighted the government’s refusal to include legislation on a “maximum sustainable yield” – which would dictate a sustainable quota for the fishing industry to stick to in order to prevent over-fishing – and a failure to reallocate existing fishing quotas to low-impact fishers.
Advertisement
Fishermen work in the English Channel, off the coast of Hastings. Dan Kitwood via Getty Images
In a release on the Marine Conservation Society’s website, Sam Stone, head of fisheries and aquaculture at the organisation, described the shift away from sustainable policies in the bill as a “huge blow”.
“We are increasingly concerned that this government is not really interested in moving fisheries management away from the status quo,” he added.
The government insists sustainability is at the heart of its fishing policies – with a “blue belt” scheme, which sets out specifically protected waters, introduced in 2017.
Any vessel granted a licence post-Brexit to fish in British waters will need to meet UK sustainability standards – but the specifics of this have not yet been set out.
Advertisement
Agriculture Bill
As with the environmental and fisheries bills, agriculture is facing a huge overhaul in the wake of Brexit, with the government scrambling to introduce new legislation ahead of January 1, 2021.
Chlorinated chicken and hormone-feed beef have become headline fixtures in media coverage of the bill, but climate campaigners are worried environmental standards will drop alongside food regulations.
The UK’s agriculture industry pre-Brexit has followed the EU principle of cross-compliance under the common agricultural policy (CAP), which basically means farmers have to follow basic public, plant, and animal health and welfare rules.
Farmers from across the country drive tractors, trucks and cars across central London in a protest against the Agriculture Bill on July 8, 2020. NurPhoto via Getty Images
An important aspect of CAP is that it financially rewards environmentally friendly farming – with €58.82bn (£53.4bn) given to European farmers in 2018. When the UK leaves the EU for good at the end of 2020, it will no longer be party to this support.
Advertisement
The government wants to get rid of these direct payments altogether, phasing them out over the course of seven years.
But FoE has warned that farmers with less stringent environmental rules could end up being rewarded in the interim.
That’s because the government has proposed an Environmental Land Management (ELM) scheme as part of the new agricultural policy – through which farmers are paid for providing “public goods” such as cleaner air and water, though this is still in development.
Box said: “The fact that the government has opted for an interim scheme which would reward farmers for effectively obeying the law feels very much like a step back even from cross compliance under CAP.
“We had many problems with cross compliance under CAP, but paying farmers for not even doing simple things like maintaining hedgerows or rotating crops seems like a backward step.”
Advertisement
Water quality
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has repeatedly missed the targets set out by the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), with no improvement – and a probable decline – in England’s river quality since 2016.
The FoE’s Box explained that ministers had, in recent years, pointed to the WFD as an example of an outdated, unsuitable framework that the UK could improve upon after Brexit.
But it looks likely that the changes in the way we measure water quality in the wake of Brexit won’t be for the better.
Back in August it emerged that, instead of introducing more stringent quality guidelines that make water conditions safer both for wildlife and for people wild swimming, for example, the head of the Environment Agency actually supported weakening the rules.
Environmental campaigners are concerned water quality standards could drop following Brexit. Dan Kitwood via Getty Images
Advertisement
In a speech to an audience of business leaders, Sir James Bevan said he wanted to get rid of the EU’s “one out, all out” rule in England. Currently, rivers have to meet four stringent quality tests – without the complete set they can’t be graded as good (just 14% of the UK’s rivers currently meet this standard).
If the UK did take this path, and only had to meet one test for each river, the quality of its waterways would artificially rocket overnight.
There’s evidence, FoE says, that this way of thinking is making its way into post-Brexit government policy, with the government showing an “obvious intent to regress”.
This is evident in the disparity between the EU and UK’s draft agreement texts, in which the EU specifically sets out what is covered by social and environmental standards – including the aquatic environment. The UK text details no such specifics.
Bevan also said in his speech: “If changing the law will allow us to regulate better and achieve higher environmental standards, we should always be open to that” – with ministers claiming that post-Brexit legislation will be better.
Advertisement
But Box says: “If you look at what the EU is proposing in the future relationship text they’re clearly worried it [water quality standards] won’t be better. It will be different, but it will be weaker, which is why water comes up within that text proposal.”
Planning
Back in the summer the government released a consultation on sweeping planning reforms, which would speed up the planning application process so developers could supposedly get to work creating new homes much more quickly.
But concerns around the decimation of affordable homes aside, there are fears that the new approach could lead to environmental considerations being swept aside in the pursuit of building progress.
Bizarrely, in July, Boris Johnson held up newts as a key reason for the slow pace of housebuilding, claiming the process of counting the species “a massive drag on the prosperity of this country”, with little evidence. Craig Bennett, head of the Wildlife Trusts, told the BBC that the PM’s speech in question was a work of “pure fiction”.
In January 2020 the government committed to “biodiversity net gain”, which means new developments will be required to enhance biodiversity and create new green spaces. But this is part of the environment bill, which has not yet been passed by parliament.
Advertisement
In February 2020 the government also published a consultation on freeports –zones designated by leaders as areas with little or no tax to stimulate economic activity. Johnson said he wanted to open 10 new locations as part of the UK’s post-Brexit trade strategy – but doing so could obliterate environmental targets.
A consultation response by Wildlife and Countryside link, England’s largest environment and wildlife coalition, describes freeports as posing a “serious environmental risk”.
Some freeports have been tied to devastating environmental impacts, with increased water, air and land pollution. Jono Searle via Getty Images
The report adds: “Previous and existing examples of freeports from around the world have been associated with reduced environmental standards and a ‘race to the bottom’.
“Freeports (or ‘special economic zones’) in a number of countries, including China, Mexico and Vietnam, have faced serious environmental degradation, including water, air and land pollution as well as huge industrial waste.”
Advertisement
Box said: “We understand the fact that the government seem to be rushing through a number of freeports, which have lesser planning conditions – the details of which we do yet not know.
“Coupled with Boris Johnson’s previous statements around the ‘terrible’ nature of newts and how they stand in the way of effective development, and more recent comments around how free ports will ensure that environmental considerations don’t hinder effective trade, [this signals] a backwards move in terms of planning, both in local nature networks and access to biodiversity which the environment bill is meant to be promoting.”
Deposit return scheme
The broadcast of David Attenborough’s Blue Planet II in 2017 inspired much of the nation – and many around the globe – to help reduce plastics.
From bamboo straws to beeswax wrappers, millions of people were buying into low-waste options to reduce their plastic consumption. That is, before Covid-19 created a brand new demand for disposable products.
The government has taken recent action on single-use plastics, with straws, cotton buds and drinks stirrers all banned from October 1. While the move has been welcomed by many, environmental campaigners say there is still more the leaders could have done – and much more quickly.
Advertisement
A deposit return scheme has been discussed for years – but Covid has stalled already-slow progress. Leon Neal via Getty Images
Greenpeace has highlighted the “failure” of government to implement a deposit return scheme (DRS), where items such as plastic bottles are sold with at a slightly increased price to cover a deposit. Once the product is used, the bottles could then be return to recycling machines – for example in supermarkets – and the deposit returned to the customer. The system doesn’t just include plastic – cardboard, glass and aluminium have all been recycled through the schemes.
A number of countries across Europe already have this system, including Germany which has been using it since 2003, and Norway, which has had the policy in place since 1996. Despite almost a quarter of a century of use elsewhere, the UK is still far from implementing its own system.
That’s not to say the idea hasn’t already been around for years in Westminster. Back in 2018 the government published its Resources and Waste Strategy, which included a DRS, with a first consultation held in 2019. A second consultation was planned for early 2020, but this has been pushed back to an unconfirmed date in 2021.
In 2019 the government said it was hoping to have the scheme in place by 2023 – already five years after it published the strategy – but with the consultation pushed back there’s been no update on when we could finally see the scheme in the UK.
Advertisement
Green recovery spending
Britain is one of the leading voices in the global call to “build back better” as part of the green recovery from Covid-19 – with the aim of cutting Co2 emissions while reinvigorating the economy.
Johnson conceives of the UK as a world-leading nation when it comes to environmental policy, and has repeatedly described how much investment the UK is supposedly ploughing into the “green recovery”.
The government says it is setting out billions in funding for green energy, including £6bn of investment going into bringing as many houses as possible up to EPC C standard by 2035, and £2bn into the “Green Homes Grant” scheme.
In terms of specific funding set out by the government, “green recovery” funds amount to £350m. They explicitly target cutting emissions in heavy industry, construction and transport, as a means to drive economic recovery from coronavirus.
But compared with other nations, the spending doesn’t match the sentiment, environmental policy experts say.
Advertisement
Greenpeace has described the UK’s so-called green recovery spending as “weak”.
France has so far spent €30bn (£27.3bn) on its green recovery, while Germany’s efforts total €40bn (£36.4bn).
Post-Brexit legislation
In recent years, FoE’s team of legal experts have been analysing – and at times intervening in – examples of Statutory Instruments (a form of government legislation) that the government had introduced, or was planning to introduce, post-Brexit that made regulations “weaker or inoperable”.
Environmental campaigners are concerned that rapid changes to legislation could leave loopholes in the law. LincolnRogers via Getty Images
One example is an SI that removed the current EU lists of banned products and maximum residue limits for veterinary medicine used in food-producing animals – and instead committed the government to “an administrative process in the future”, which wouldn’t be made part of the legislation.
Box said: ”The government is of the view that this is akin to maintaining environmental protections as they promised, and they maintain that when they go through this administrative process they will improve these provisions.
Advertisement
“However, from our perspective, it is not maintaining guidance and bans on residue limits and on dangerous chemicals to simply delete those lists and then reestablish them again at a later date.
“In terms of scrutiny and transparency and the democratic process in the future it seems to give a lot more potential for regression than the EU system did.”
So, can the UK really call itself a world leader?
The UK will host the world’s biggest climate conference – the United Nations Climate Change Conference, also known as COP26 – in November 2021, and Johnson’s government is keen to portray itself as a leader in the field.
Friends of the Earth campaigner Box described the UK as an “aspirate leader” – but not yet a world leader in reality.
“We need to look at what the US, the EU, what other large economies around the world are doing,” she said.
Advertisement
“We need to actually look at what it would mean to be better than them, to lead them, and I think that means we need to get our own house in order in terms of domestic environmental policy.
“Our concern is that this government are very big on words and tight on action, quick to move on deregulation and loopholes, slow to move on actual new, brave thinking and actual leadership.”
In reference to the above points raised by HuffPost UK, a Defra spokesperson said: “It is imperative we build back both better and greener from the coronavirus pandemic – with a renewed and enhanced focus on protecting the environment, reducing emissions and bolstering our resilience to climate change.