Sept. 12, 2018.
Skripal poisoning: Putin says suspects 'civilians, not criminals'
President Vladimir Putin says the suspects are civilians
The two suspects in the poisoning of ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter are civilians, not criminals, Russian President Vladimir Putin says.
The UK government named them as Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, and said they were from Russia's military intelligence service, the GRU.
Mr Putin said his government had found the pair and he hoped they would appear soon and tell their story.
Mr Skripal and Yulia were poisoned in Salisbury, in the UK, in March.
"We know who they are, we have found them," Mr Putin said in the far eastern city of Vladivostok.
"I hope they will turn up themselves and tell everything. This would be best for everyone. There is nothing special there, nothing criminal, I assure you. We'll see in the near future," he added.
Scotland Yard and the UK's Crown Prosecution Service have said there is enough evidence to charge the men, who are understood to have travelled to London from Moscow on 2 March on Russian passports.
Two days later, police say they sprayed the nerve agent, Novichok, on the front door of Mr Skripal's home in the Wiltshire city of Salisbury, before travelling home to Russia later that day.
UK Home Secretary Sajid Javid has warned the men, thought to be aged about 40, will be caught and prosecuted if they ever step out of Russia.
The CPS is not applying to Russia for the extradition of the two men, as Russia does not extradite its own nationals.
But a European Arrest Warrant has been obtained in case they travel to the EU.
On the Novichok suspects' trail
Det Sgt Nick Bailey also fell ill after responding to the incident in the city of Salisbury. He was later discharged from hospital, as were the Skripals.
Police are linking the attack to a separate Novichok poisoning on 30 June, when Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley became unwell at a house in Amesbury, about eight miles away.
Ms Sturgess died in hospital on 8 July.
Mr Putin said his government had found the pair and hoped they would appear soon and tell their story
UK police said the two men arrived at Gatwick Airport from Moscow on 2 March and stayed at the City Stay Hotel in Bow Road, east London.
On 4 March they travelled to Salisbury - having also visited for reconnaissance the previous day - where Mr Skripal's front door was contaminated with Novichok.
Officers believe a modified perfume bottle was used to spray the door.
The pair flew back to Moscow from Heathrow later that night.
The counterfeit perfume bottle recovered from Mr Rowley's home and the box police say it came in.
Police said Ms Sturgess and Mr Rowley were later exposed to Novichok after handling a contaminated container, labelled as Nina Ricci Premier Jour perfume.
Mr Rowley told police he found the box containing the small bottle and an applicator - all found to be counterfeit - in a charity bin.
He tried to put bottle and applicator together and got some of the contents on himself. His partner, Ms Sturgess, applied some of the contents to her wrists and became unwell.
The attack in Salisbury prompted an international row, with more than 20 countries expelling Russian envoys in solidarity with the UK, including the US, while Moscow expelled diplomats in response.
Last month the US confirmed it was implementing fresh sanctions against Russia over the incident. The UK's Prime Minister, Theresa May, has also said Britain will push for the EU to agree new sanctions.
Since the UK named the two suspects, US, France, Germany and Canada have agreed that the Russian government "almost certainly" approved the poisoning of the Skripals and have urged Russia to provide full disclosure of its Novichok programme.
In response, Russia accused the British authorities of "Russiaphobia", misleading the international community and UK citizens and of "disgusting anti-Russian hysteria".
Wednesday, September 12, 2018
John Bolton threatens ICC with sanctions: 'We will not cooperate' - Al Jazeera
Sept. 11, 2018.
John Bolton threatens ICC with sanctions: 'We will not cooperate'
National security adviser says Washington will target International Criminal Court if it probes alleged US war crimes.
The United States launched a blistering verbal attack on the International Criminal Court (ICC) and threatened sanctions against its judges if they proceed with a probe into alleged war crimes by Americans in Afghanistan.
John Bolton, President Donald Trump's national security adviser, made the announcement in a speech to the Federalist Society, a conservative group, in Washington, DC, on Monday.
"Today, on the eve of September 11th, I want to deliver a clear and unambiguous message on behalf of the president. The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court," Bolton said.
"We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC ... We will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us."
Crimes in Afghanistan?
In 2016, The Hague-based court said members of the US armed forces and the CIA might have committed war crimes by torturing detainees in Afghanistan.
Is the 'war on terror' failing?
Established in 2002 under the Rome Statute, the ICC is the world's first permanent court set up to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.
More than 120 countries are members, but superpowers - including the US, Russia and China - have not signed up.
On the ICC, Bolton said if any investigations go ahead on alleged US war crimes, the Trump administration will consider banning judges and prosecutors from entering the country, put sanctions on any funds they have in the US financial system, and prosecute them in US courts.
Bolton said the main objection is the idea that the ICC could have higher authority than the US constitution and US sovereignty.
"In secular terms, we don't recognise any higher authority than the US constitution," he said. "This president will not allow American citizens to be prosecuted by foreign bureaucrats, and he will not allow other nations to dictate our means of self-defence."
'Proudest achievements'
Trump administration announces closure of Washington PLO office
It was Bolton's first major address since joining the Trump administration. He was previously the US ambassador to the United Nations during the George W Bush government and fought against the ICC in the 2000s.
"The International Criminal Court constituted an assault on the constitutional rights of the American people and the sovereignty of the United States," he said.
"At President Bush's direction, we next launched a global diplomatic campaign to protect Americans from being delivered into the ICC's hands. We negotiated about 100 binding, bilateral agreements to prevent other countries from delivering US personnel to the ICC. It remains one of my proudest achievements."
Bolton said the US would "not sit quietly" if the ICC came after it, Israel, or other US allies.
Can the US defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan?
Following Bolton's remarks, the ICC said that would continue its work as an independent and impartial institution, backed by 123 countries.
"The ICC, as a court of law, will continue to do its work undeterred, in accordance with those principles and the overarching idea of the rule of law," it said in a statement.
Bolton also announced the closure of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) office in Washington, DC, because of the Palestinian attempt to get the ICC to investigate Israel for crimes committed during its decades-long occupation of Palestine.
The national security adviser's announcement drew applause from the conservative crowd but was sharply criticised by Palestinian leaders and officials.
The action against the PLO is the latest in a series of measures by the Trump administration against the Palestinian leadership.
"It is a declaration of war on efforts to bring peace to our country and the region," PA spokesman Yousef al-Mahmoud was quoted as saying by Wafa news agency.
PLO Secretary-General Saeb Erekat said in a statement the decision was "yet another affirmation of the Trump administration's policy to collectively punish the Palestinian people, including by cutting financial support for humanitarian services including health and education".
A Palestinian academic based in the Swiss city of Geneva said the US move "should not come as a surprise".
"This is an additional measure that must make it very clear to the current and future Palestinian leaders that the US is not an actor to be ever trusted when it comes to any matter related to "peace" negotiation and talks. This is obvious to the Palestinian people, but not to the PA/PLO leadership," said Alaa Tartir, programme adviser at Al-Shabaka: The Palestinian Policy Network.
"Trump's recent measures against the Palestinians and indeed against international norms and law must awaken the Palestinian leadership."
John Bolton threatens ICC with sanctions: 'We will not cooperate'
National security adviser says Washington will target International Criminal Court if it probes alleged US war crimes.
The United States launched a blistering verbal attack on the International Criminal Court (ICC) and threatened sanctions against its judges if they proceed with a probe into alleged war crimes by Americans in Afghanistan.
John Bolton, President Donald Trump's national security adviser, made the announcement in a speech to the Federalist Society, a conservative group, in Washington, DC, on Monday.
"Today, on the eve of September 11th, I want to deliver a clear and unambiguous message on behalf of the president. The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court," Bolton said.
"We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC ... We will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us."
Crimes in Afghanistan?
In 2016, The Hague-based court said members of the US armed forces and the CIA might have committed war crimes by torturing detainees in Afghanistan.
Is the 'war on terror' failing?
Established in 2002 under the Rome Statute, the ICC is the world's first permanent court set up to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.
More than 120 countries are members, but superpowers - including the US, Russia and China - have not signed up.
On the ICC, Bolton said if any investigations go ahead on alleged US war crimes, the Trump administration will consider banning judges and prosecutors from entering the country, put sanctions on any funds they have in the US financial system, and prosecute them in US courts.
Bolton said the main objection is the idea that the ICC could have higher authority than the US constitution and US sovereignty.
"In secular terms, we don't recognise any higher authority than the US constitution," he said. "This president will not allow American citizens to be prosecuted by foreign bureaucrats, and he will not allow other nations to dictate our means of self-defence."
'Proudest achievements'
Trump administration announces closure of Washington PLO office
It was Bolton's first major address since joining the Trump administration. He was previously the US ambassador to the United Nations during the George W Bush government and fought against the ICC in the 2000s.
"The International Criminal Court constituted an assault on the constitutional rights of the American people and the sovereignty of the United States," he said.
"At President Bush's direction, we next launched a global diplomatic campaign to protect Americans from being delivered into the ICC's hands. We negotiated about 100 binding, bilateral agreements to prevent other countries from delivering US personnel to the ICC. It remains one of my proudest achievements."
Bolton said the US would "not sit quietly" if the ICC came after it, Israel, or other US allies.
Can the US defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan?
Following Bolton's remarks, the ICC said that would continue its work as an independent and impartial institution, backed by 123 countries.
"The ICC, as a court of law, will continue to do its work undeterred, in accordance with those principles and the overarching idea of the rule of law," it said in a statement.
Bolton also announced the closure of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) office in Washington, DC, because of the Palestinian attempt to get the ICC to investigate Israel for crimes committed during its decades-long occupation of Palestine.
The national security adviser's announcement drew applause from the conservative crowd but was sharply criticised by Palestinian leaders and officials.
The action against the PLO is the latest in a series of measures by the Trump administration against the Palestinian leadership.
"It is a declaration of war on efforts to bring peace to our country and the region," PA spokesman Yousef al-Mahmoud was quoted as saying by Wafa news agency.
PLO Secretary-General Saeb Erekat said in a statement the decision was "yet another affirmation of the Trump administration's policy to collectively punish the Palestinian people, including by cutting financial support for humanitarian services including health and education".
A Palestinian academic based in the Swiss city of Geneva said the US move "should not come as a surprise".
"This is an additional measure that must make it very clear to the current and future Palestinian leaders that the US is not an actor to be ever trusted when it comes to any matter related to "peace" negotiation and talks. This is obvious to the Palestinian people, but not to the PA/PLO leadership," said Alaa Tartir, programme adviser at Al-Shabaka: The Palestinian Policy Network.
"Trump's recent measures against the Palestinians and indeed against international norms and law must awaken the Palestinian leadership."
Brexit is a project by the elites, for the elites – the rest of us were never meant to benefit from it - Independent
Sept. 11, 2018.
Brexit is a project by the elites, for the elites – the rest of us were never meant to benefit from it
Of the many Brexit cons, few are greater than the idea that this is a fight for the people
Chuka Umunna
@chukaumunna
Jacob Rees-Mogg’s City investment firm shifted money to Ireland amid concerns about being cut off from European investors; Lord Lawson is seeking residency in France; and Johnson sacked off trying to deliver what he argued for
Trump calls his response to Hurricane Maria 'incredibly successful'
Rebel Tory meeting to discuss ousting May dismissed as 'loose talk'
Trump transferred money from emergency relief to fund ICE
EU can 'certainly not' accept May's single market plan, Juncker says
In the past few days, Boris Johnson and his band of Brexiteer supporters have steadfastly refused to accept any responsibility for the unfolding chaos they have visited upon Britain, blaming everyone else but themselves. In his Mail on Sunday piece yesterday, without any sense of irony, the former foreign secretary asked: “Why are they bullying us? How can they get away with it? It is one of the mysteries of the current Brexit negotiations that the UK is so utterly feeble.”
Some in his party argue he and the 80-odd rabid Brexit champions in his party are trying to “bully” Theresa May into accepting the hardest of Brexits – something that cannot command a majority in the House of Commons.
It’s unclear how the EU can have bullied the UK since the negotiations started last June, when they had no idea what the UK government’s position was and are still unsure what the line is. The reason the Chequers summit was convened early in the summer was because this “utterly feeble” excuse for a government (in Johnson’s own words) could not agree with itself what its Brexit position should be, never mind agree anything with the EU.
Even then, the Chequers proposals prompted ex-Brexit secretary David Davis and Johnson to resign. Now former Brexit minister Steve Baker is today saying the issue will split the Tory party – in other words, there is still no common position. Perhaps that’s because, behind all the bluster, every single one of them knows how much of a disaster Britain is hurtling towards.
In June 2016, Johnson said in his Telegraph column after the Brexit vote that “we can survive and thrive as never before” and that “at home and abroad, the negative consequences are being wildly overdone, and the upside is being ignored”. That was his patter before he took to comparing Muslim women to letterboxes and bank robbers, and before he indulged in making grotesque comparisons between suicide bombs and the actions of his prime minister.
Johnson’s chat is straight out of the playbook of Nigel Farage. We know that where Farage goes, Johnson follows. So, a few days before Johnson’s piece had appeared in 2016, Farage had said of Brexit on the Andrew Marr Show that “the worst case scenario economically is better than where we are today and gives us the chance to start thinking globally, and, by the way, bringing prices down for consumers”.
And what has happened to these predictions of Britain’s Brexit elite since the 2016 vote, bearing in mind we have not even left yet?
According to the Bank of England, the average family is now £900 a year worse off. As the governor Mark Carney said: “If you look at where the economy is today, relative to that forecast, it’s more than 1 per cent below where it was despite very large stimulus provided by the Bank of England, a fiscal easing by the government and global and European economies.” No wonder Jacob Rees-Mogg, chair of the hard-right European Research Group group of Tory MPs, is campaigning for Carney’s removal.
This may be peanuts to the Brexit elite leading the charge off the cliff-edge. But it is a huge amount of money to the “just about managing” families May said would always come ahead of the “privileged few”. And the Brexit this privileged few are pushing for will make those families even poorer.
Whether you voted Leave or Remain, nobody said it would be like this and no one voted for the chaos and incompetence on the British side of the negotiating table.
It gets worse, particularly if you belong to one of Britain’s ethnic minority communities. Yes, they have experienced the same economic fallout and see the damage felt by our public services. But our different diverse communities have felt something that we thought we would not have to live through again, certainly not in the same way as the first generation who arrived here decades ago like my father: the normalisation of the hatred that this Brexit debate has unleashed.
In Britain, the level of hate crime committed rose by 49 per cent in the weeks following the referendum. This is now backed by a substantial body of academic research showing that the referendum materially increased hate crime in this country during and after it occurred. The UN’s committee on the elimination of racial discrimination concluded that “British politicians helped fuel a steep rise in racist hate crimes during and after the EU referendum campaign”.
In the evidence they gave to the cross party Home Affairs Committee, anti-hate pressure group Hope Not Hate identified Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and the campaigns of which they were a part for carrying a heavy responsibility for creating the environment in which this happened. In his exchange with me during the committee’s public evidence sessions on this in 2017, Nick Lowles, Hope Note Hate’s director, said: “I think that across the board there was a deliberate attempt to raise issues around such things as the Turkish passport. There were Boris Johnson’s comments on Obama. Those things all contributed to an atmosphere where fact and reality in a way did not matter. It was all about emotion. It was all about trying to polarise the public identity.” I could not put it better myself.
As a result, a small unpleasant minority felt licenced to engage in and vocalise hate due to the disgraceful nature of the Leave campaigns. Stoking hatred and division will be part of their appalling legacy: our BAME communities have already paid the price and are still doing so.
Stockpiling will make post-Brexit mini recession ‘almost inevitable’
Instead of taking responsibility for it, what have the Brexit elite been doing while the disaster unfolds? Rees-Mogg’s City investment firm has shifted money to Ireland amid concerns about being cut off from European investors. Lord Lawson is seeking residency in France. Farage has built up a lucrative second career as a broadcaster off the back of Brexit. And Johnson sacked off trying to deliver what he argued for, resigned as foreign secretary and has gone back to his previously £275,000 a year column-writing. He is more concerned with himself and the Tory party leadership than the country.
So, of the many Brexit cons, few are greater than the idea that this is a fight for the people against the elite. It is now beyond doubt: Brexit is a project of the elite, for the elite – and we need to ensure everyone knows this before it’s too late.
Drinking in moderation
Last week my wife and I watched possibly one of the best documentaries I’ve seen in a long time, Drinkers Like Me, where the broadcaster Adrian Chiles takes a long hard look at his own drinking habits. It is intimate and funny, and yet alarming and worrying.
We can all recognise in Chiles our own habits and excuses when it comes to excess alcohol consumption, myself included. So compelling was the programme that it prompted me to download the Drink Aware app afterwards to monitor my own consumption, in an effort to reduce my own intake. Do watch the programme and why not download the app yourself here.
Drink Aware has also today launched, with Public Health England, their Drink Free Days campaign, to encourage us all to have regular alcohol-free days every week – I’m giving that a go too. I’ll let you know how I get on. Chiles has definitely done us a favour in candidly sharing his own habits, prompting us all to consider the damage we might be doing to ourselves through what we consider every day “moderate” drinking which might be anything but.
Chuka Umunna is Labour MP for Streatham
Brexit is a project by the elites, for the elites – the rest of us were never meant to benefit from it
Of the many Brexit cons, few are greater than the idea that this is a fight for the people
Chuka Umunna
@chukaumunna
Jacob Rees-Mogg’s City investment firm shifted money to Ireland amid concerns about being cut off from European investors; Lord Lawson is seeking residency in France; and Johnson sacked off trying to deliver what he argued for
Trump calls his response to Hurricane Maria 'incredibly successful'
Rebel Tory meeting to discuss ousting May dismissed as 'loose talk'
Trump transferred money from emergency relief to fund ICE
EU can 'certainly not' accept May's single market plan, Juncker says
In the past few days, Boris Johnson and his band of Brexiteer supporters have steadfastly refused to accept any responsibility for the unfolding chaos they have visited upon Britain, blaming everyone else but themselves. In his Mail on Sunday piece yesterday, without any sense of irony, the former foreign secretary asked: “Why are they bullying us? How can they get away with it? It is one of the mysteries of the current Brexit negotiations that the UK is so utterly feeble.”
Some in his party argue he and the 80-odd rabid Brexit champions in his party are trying to “bully” Theresa May into accepting the hardest of Brexits – something that cannot command a majority in the House of Commons.
It’s unclear how the EU can have bullied the UK since the negotiations started last June, when they had no idea what the UK government’s position was and are still unsure what the line is. The reason the Chequers summit was convened early in the summer was because this “utterly feeble” excuse for a government (in Johnson’s own words) could not agree with itself what its Brexit position should be, never mind agree anything with the EU.
Even then, the Chequers proposals prompted ex-Brexit secretary David Davis and Johnson to resign. Now former Brexit minister Steve Baker is today saying the issue will split the Tory party – in other words, there is still no common position. Perhaps that’s because, behind all the bluster, every single one of them knows how much of a disaster Britain is hurtling towards.
In June 2016, Johnson said in his Telegraph column after the Brexit vote that “we can survive and thrive as never before” and that “at home and abroad, the negative consequences are being wildly overdone, and the upside is being ignored”. That was his patter before he took to comparing Muslim women to letterboxes and bank robbers, and before he indulged in making grotesque comparisons between suicide bombs and the actions of his prime minister.
Johnson’s chat is straight out of the playbook of Nigel Farage. We know that where Farage goes, Johnson follows. So, a few days before Johnson’s piece had appeared in 2016, Farage had said of Brexit on the Andrew Marr Show that “the worst case scenario economically is better than where we are today and gives us the chance to start thinking globally, and, by the way, bringing prices down for consumers”.
And what has happened to these predictions of Britain’s Brexit elite since the 2016 vote, bearing in mind we have not even left yet?
According to the Bank of England, the average family is now £900 a year worse off. As the governor Mark Carney said: “If you look at where the economy is today, relative to that forecast, it’s more than 1 per cent below where it was despite very large stimulus provided by the Bank of England, a fiscal easing by the government and global and European economies.” No wonder Jacob Rees-Mogg, chair of the hard-right European Research Group group of Tory MPs, is campaigning for Carney’s removal.
This may be peanuts to the Brexit elite leading the charge off the cliff-edge. But it is a huge amount of money to the “just about managing” families May said would always come ahead of the “privileged few”. And the Brexit this privileged few are pushing for will make those families even poorer.
Whether you voted Leave or Remain, nobody said it would be like this and no one voted for the chaos and incompetence on the British side of the negotiating table.
It gets worse, particularly if you belong to one of Britain’s ethnic minority communities. Yes, they have experienced the same economic fallout and see the damage felt by our public services. But our different diverse communities have felt something that we thought we would not have to live through again, certainly not in the same way as the first generation who arrived here decades ago like my father: the normalisation of the hatred that this Brexit debate has unleashed.
In Britain, the level of hate crime committed rose by 49 per cent in the weeks following the referendum. This is now backed by a substantial body of academic research showing that the referendum materially increased hate crime in this country during and after it occurred. The UN’s committee on the elimination of racial discrimination concluded that “British politicians helped fuel a steep rise in racist hate crimes during and after the EU referendum campaign”.
In the evidence they gave to the cross party Home Affairs Committee, anti-hate pressure group Hope Not Hate identified Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and the campaigns of which they were a part for carrying a heavy responsibility for creating the environment in which this happened. In his exchange with me during the committee’s public evidence sessions on this in 2017, Nick Lowles, Hope Note Hate’s director, said: “I think that across the board there was a deliberate attempt to raise issues around such things as the Turkish passport. There were Boris Johnson’s comments on Obama. Those things all contributed to an atmosphere where fact and reality in a way did not matter. It was all about emotion. It was all about trying to polarise the public identity.” I could not put it better myself.
As a result, a small unpleasant minority felt licenced to engage in and vocalise hate due to the disgraceful nature of the Leave campaigns. Stoking hatred and division will be part of their appalling legacy: our BAME communities have already paid the price and are still doing so.
Stockpiling will make post-Brexit mini recession ‘almost inevitable’
Instead of taking responsibility for it, what have the Brexit elite been doing while the disaster unfolds? Rees-Mogg’s City investment firm has shifted money to Ireland amid concerns about being cut off from European investors. Lord Lawson is seeking residency in France. Farage has built up a lucrative second career as a broadcaster off the back of Brexit. And Johnson sacked off trying to deliver what he argued for, resigned as foreign secretary and has gone back to his previously £275,000 a year column-writing. He is more concerned with himself and the Tory party leadership than the country.
So, of the many Brexit cons, few are greater than the idea that this is a fight for the people against the elite. It is now beyond doubt: Brexit is a project of the elite, for the elite – and we need to ensure everyone knows this before it’s too late.
Drinking in moderation
Last week my wife and I watched possibly one of the best documentaries I’ve seen in a long time, Drinkers Like Me, where the broadcaster Adrian Chiles takes a long hard look at his own drinking habits. It is intimate and funny, and yet alarming and worrying.
We can all recognise in Chiles our own habits and excuses when it comes to excess alcohol consumption, myself included. So compelling was the programme that it prompted me to download the Drink Aware app afterwards to monitor my own consumption, in an effort to reduce my own intake. Do watch the programme and why not download the app yourself here.
Drink Aware has also today launched, with Public Health England, their Drink Free Days campaign, to encourage us all to have regular alcohol-free days every week – I’m giving that a go too. I’ll let you know how I get on. Chiles has definitely done us a favour in candidly sharing his own habits, prompting us all to consider the damage we might be doing to ourselves through what we consider every day “moderate” drinking which might be anything but.
Chuka Umunna is Labour MP for Streatham
The secret life of fungi: Ten fascinating facts - BBC News
The secret life of fungi: Ten fascinating facts
By Helen Briggs
BBC News
12 September 2018
Fungi come in all shapes and sizes
They're all around us, in the soil, our bodies and the air, but are often too small to be seen with the naked eye.
They provide medicines and food but also wreak havoc by causing plant and animal diseases.
According to the first big assessment of the state of the world's fungi, the fungal kingdom is vital to life on Earth.
Yet, more than 90% of the estimated 3.8 million fungi in the world are currently unknown to science.
"It's such an interesting set of organisms and we really know so little about them," says Prof Kathy Willis, director of science at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, which led the report.
"They're really weird organisms with the most bizarre life cycle. And yet when you understand their role in the Earth's ecosystem, you realise that they underpin life on Earth."
China is rich in fungal resources
Many people are familiar with edible mushrooms or the mould behind penicillin. But fungi have a range of vital roles, from helping plants draw water and nutrients from the soil to medicines that can lower blood cholesterol or enable organ transplants.
Fungi also hold promise for breaking down plastics and generating new types of biofuels. But they have a darker side: devastating trees, crops and other plants across the world, and wiping out animals such as amphibians.
Jekyll and Hyde
Dr Ester Gaya, who leads a research project at Kew exploring the diversity and evolution of the world's fungi, says fungi are a bit like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.
"They can be good and also bad at the same time," she says. "The same fungus, it can be seen as a detrimental thing - it can be bad - but also can have a lot of potential and have a lot of solutions."
The report sheds light on a number of gaps in our knowledge of a group of organisms that may hold the answers to food security. The fungal kingdom contains some of the most damaging crop pathogens. But fungi also recycle nutrients and play a role in the regulation of carbon dioxide levels.
"We ignore fungi at our peril," says Prof Willis. "This is a kingdom we have to start to take seriously, especially with climate change and all the other challenges that we're being faced with."
There are hundreds of types of edible mushroom
Fascinating facts about fungi
Fungi are in a kingdom of their own but are closer to animals than plants
They have chemicals in their cell walls shared with lobsters and crabs
A fungus has been discovered capable of breaking down plastics in weeks rather than years
There is evidence to suggest that yeasts - a type of fungus - were being used to produce the alcoholic drink mead as long ago as 9,000 years ago
At least 350 species are consumed as foods including truffles, which can sell for thousands of dollars apiece, quorn, and those in marmite and cheese
Plastic car parts, synthetic rubber and lego are made using itaconic acid derived from a fungus
216 species of fungi are thought to be hallucinogenic
Fungi are being used to turn crop waste into bioethanol
Products made from fungi can be used as replacements for polystyrene foam, leather and building materials
DNA studies show that there are thousands of different fungi in a single sample of soil, many of which are unknown and hidden - so-called "dark taxa"
Penicillin alone has multiple uses - in antibiotics, the contraceptive pill and cheese production
The report, State of the World's Fungi, involved over 100 scientists from 18 countries. It found:
More than 2,000 new fungi are discovered each year, from a variety of sources, including a human fingernail
Hundreds of species are collected and eaten as food, with the global market for edible mushrooms worth £32.5bn a year
Only 56 types of fungi have been evaluated for the IUCN Red List, compared with more than 25,000 plants and 68,000 animals
Fungi, such as this rust pest, can cause widespread damage
At the last count, there were at least 15,000 types of fungi in the UK, some of which could be on the edge of extinction.
Citizen scientists are helping to identify fungi across the country, adding to a database of more than 1,000 new records.
Dr Brian Douglas of The Lost and Found Fungi Project says fungi are as beautiful as orchids and just as important to protect. "I think we need to teach people, invite people in to admiring fungi."
Colleague Dr Oliver Ellingham adds. "Fungi is a whole another kingdom equal if not greater than in diversity than both the plants and animals."
By Helen Briggs
BBC News
12 September 2018
Fungi come in all shapes and sizes
They're all around us, in the soil, our bodies and the air, but are often too small to be seen with the naked eye.
They provide medicines and food but also wreak havoc by causing plant and animal diseases.
According to the first big assessment of the state of the world's fungi, the fungal kingdom is vital to life on Earth.
Yet, more than 90% of the estimated 3.8 million fungi in the world are currently unknown to science.
"It's such an interesting set of organisms and we really know so little about them," says Prof Kathy Willis, director of science at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, which led the report.
"They're really weird organisms with the most bizarre life cycle. And yet when you understand their role in the Earth's ecosystem, you realise that they underpin life on Earth."
China is rich in fungal resources
Many people are familiar with edible mushrooms or the mould behind penicillin. But fungi have a range of vital roles, from helping plants draw water and nutrients from the soil to medicines that can lower blood cholesterol or enable organ transplants.
Fungi also hold promise for breaking down plastics and generating new types of biofuels. But they have a darker side: devastating trees, crops and other plants across the world, and wiping out animals such as amphibians.
Jekyll and Hyde
Dr Ester Gaya, who leads a research project at Kew exploring the diversity and evolution of the world's fungi, says fungi are a bit like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.
"They can be good and also bad at the same time," she says. "The same fungus, it can be seen as a detrimental thing - it can be bad - but also can have a lot of potential and have a lot of solutions."
The report sheds light on a number of gaps in our knowledge of a group of organisms that may hold the answers to food security. The fungal kingdom contains some of the most damaging crop pathogens. But fungi also recycle nutrients and play a role in the regulation of carbon dioxide levels.
"We ignore fungi at our peril," says Prof Willis. "This is a kingdom we have to start to take seriously, especially with climate change and all the other challenges that we're being faced with."
There are hundreds of types of edible mushroom
Fascinating facts about fungi
Fungi are in a kingdom of their own but are closer to animals than plants
They have chemicals in their cell walls shared with lobsters and crabs
A fungus has been discovered capable of breaking down plastics in weeks rather than years
There is evidence to suggest that yeasts - a type of fungus - were being used to produce the alcoholic drink mead as long ago as 9,000 years ago
At least 350 species are consumed as foods including truffles, which can sell for thousands of dollars apiece, quorn, and those in marmite and cheese
Plastic car parts, synthetic rubber and lego are made using itaconic acid derived from a fungus
216 species of fungi are thought to be hallucinogenic
Fungi are being used to turn crop waste into bioethanol
Products made from fungi can be used as replacements for polystyrene foam, leather and building materials
DNA studies show that there are thousands of different fungi in a single sample of soil, many of which are unknown and hidden - so-called "dark taxa"
Penicillin alone has multiple uses - in antibiotics, the contraceptive pill and cheese production
The report, State of the World's Fungi, involved over 100 scientists from 18 countries. It found:
More than 2,000 new fungi are discovered each year, from a variety of sources, including a human fingernail
Hundreds of species are collected and eaten as food, with the global market for edible mushrooms worth £32.5bn a year
Only 56 types of fungi have been evaluated for the IUCN Red List, compared with more than 25,000 plants and 68,000 animals
Fungi, such as this rust pest, can cause widespread damage
At the last count, there were at least 15,000 types of fungi in the UK, some of which could be on the edge of extinction.
Citizen scientists are helping to identify fungi across the country, adding to a database of more than 1,000 new records.
Dr Brian Douglas of The Lost and Found Fungi Project says fungi are as beautiful as orchids and just as important to protect. "I think we need to teach people, invite people in to admiring fungi."
Colleague Dr Oliver Ellingham adds. "Fungi is a whole another kingdom equal if not greater than in diversity than both the plants and animals."
How Facebook 'became a beast' in Myanmar - BBC News
Sept. 12, 2018.
How Facebook 'became a beast' in Myanmar
More than 700,000 Rohingya Muslims have fled Myanmar
Decades of ethnic and religious tensions, a sudden explosion of internet access, and a company that had trouble identifying and removing the most hateful posts.
It all added up to a perfect storm in Myanmar, where the United Nations says Facebook had a "determining role" in whipping up anger against the Rohingya minority.
"I'm afraid that Facebook has now turned into a beast, and not what it originally intended," Yanghee Lee, UN special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar, said in March.
The company admits failures and has moved to address the problems. But how did Facebook's dream of a more open and connected world go wrong in one south-east Asian country?
Enter Facebook
"Nowadays, everyone can use the internet," says Thet Swei Win, director of Synergy, an organisation that works to promote social harmony between ethnic groups in Myanmar.
That wasn't the case in Myanmar five years ago.
Outside influence had been kept to a minimum during the decades when the military dominated the country. But with the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, and her election as Myanmar's de facto leader, the government began to liberalise business - including, crucially, the telecoms sector.
You may also be interested in:
Is refugee crisis 'textbook ethnic cleansing'?
Genocide hate speech 'persists on Facebook'
Blow by blow: How a 'genocide' was investigated
The effect was dramatic, according to Elizabeth Mearns of BBC Media Action, the BBC's international development charity.
"A SIM card was about $200 [before the changes]," she says. "In 2013, they opened up access to other telecom companies and the SIM cards dropped to $2. Suddenly it became incredibly accessible."
For many in Myanmar, Facebook is synonymous with the internet
And after they bought an inexpensive phone and a cheap SIM card, there was one app that everybody in Myanmar wanted: Facebook. The reason? Google and some of the other big online portals didn't support Burmese text, but Facebook did.
"People were immediately buying internet accessible smart phones and they wouldn't leave the shop unless the Facebook app had been downloaded onto their phones," Mearns says.
Thet Swei Win believes that because the bulk of the population had little prior internet experience, they were especially vulnerable to propaganda and misinformation.
"We have no internet literacy," he told Trending. "We have no proper education on how to use the internet, how to filter the news, how to use the internet effectively. We did not have that kind of knowledge."
Ethnic tensions
Out of a population of about 50 million, around 18 million in Myanmar are regular Facebook users.
But Facebook and the telecoms companies which gave millions their first access to the internet do not appear to have been ready to grapple with the ethnic and religious tensions inside the country.
The enmity goes deep. Rohingyas are denied Burmese citizenship. Many in the Buddhist ruling class do not even consider them a distinct ethnic group - instead they refer to them as "Bengalis", a term that deliberately emphasises their separateness from the rest of the country.
Last year's military operation in the north-west Rakhine state was designed, the government says, to root out militants. It resulted in more than 700,000 people fleeing for neighbouring Bangladesh - something that the United Nations calls the world's fastest growing refugee crisis.
A UN report has said top military figures in Myanmar must be investigated for genocide in Rakhine state and crimes against humanity in other areas. But the government of Myanmar has rejected those allegations.
Facebook 'weaponised'
The combination of ethnic tensions and a booming social media market was toxic. Since the beginning of mass internet use in Myanmar, inflammatory posts against Rohingya have regularly appeared on Facebook,
Thet Swei Win said he was horrified by the anti-Rohingya material he has seen being shared. "Facebook is being weaponised," he told BBC Trending.
The BBC Trending podcast, from the BBC World Service
In August, a Reuters investigation found more than 1,000 Burmese posts, comments and pornographic images attacking the Rohingya and other Muslims.
"To be honest I thought we might find at best a couple of hundred examples I thought that would make the point," says Reuters investigative reporter Steve Stecklow, who worked with Burmese-speaking colleagues on the story.
Stecklow says some of the material was extremely violent and graphic.
"It was sickening to read and I had to keep saying to people 'Are you OK? Do you want to take a break?'"
Some posts on Facebook expressed the hope that fleeing Rohingya refugees would drown at sea
"When I sent it to Facebook, I put a warning on the email saying I just want you to know these are very disturbing things," he says. "What was so remarkable was that [some of] this had been on Facebook for five years and it wasn't until we notified them in August that it was removed."
Several of the posts catalogued by Stecklow and his team described Rohingyas as dogs or pigs.
"This is a way of dehumanising a group," Stecklow says. "Then when things like genocide happen, potentially there may not be a public uproar or outcry as people don't even view these people as people."
Lack of staff
The material that the Reuters team found clearly contravened Facebook's community guidelines, the rules that dictate what is and is not allowed on the platform. All of the posts were removed after the investigation, although the BBC has since found similar material still live on the site.
Has Aung San Suu Kyi turned her back on free press?
Suu Kyi 'should have resigned' on Rohingya
What will happen after UN's 'genocide' report?
'They problematic': The view from Yangon
So why did the social network fail to grasp how it was being used to spread propaganda?
One reason, according to Mearns, Stecklow and others, was that the company had difficulty with interpreting certain words.
For example, one particular racial slur - "kalar" - can be a highly derogatory term used against Muslims, or have a much more innocent meaning: "chickpea".
In 2017, Stecklow says, the company banned the term, but later revoked the ban because of the word's dual meaning.
There were also software problems which meant that many mobile phone users in Myanmar had difficulties reading Facebook's instructions for how to report worrying material.
But there was also a much more fundamental issue - the lack of Burmese-speaking content monitors. According to the Reuters report, the company had just one such employee in 2014, a number that had increased to four the following year.
The company now has 60 and hopes to have around 100 Burmese speakers by the end of this year.
Multiple warnings
Following the explosion in Facebook use in Myanmar, the company did receive multiple warnings from individuals about how the platform was being used to spread anti-Rohingya hate speech.
In 2013, Australian documentary maker Aela Callan raised concerns with a senior Facebook manager. The next year a doctoral student named Matt Schissler has a series of interactions with employees, which resulted in some content being removed.
And in 2015, tech entrepreneur David Madden travelled to Facebook's headquarters in California to give managers a presentation on how he had seen the platform used to stir up hate in Myanmar.
"They were warned so many times," Madden told Reuters. "It couldn't have been presented to them more clearly, and they didn't take the necessary steps."
Since last year, the company has taken some action. In August, Facebook removed 18 accounts and 52 pages linked to Burmese officials. One account on Instagram, which Facebook owns, was also closed. The company said it "found evidence that many of these individuals and organizations committed or enabled serious human rights abuses in the country."
How Facebook 'became a beast' in Myanmar
More than 700,000 Rohingya Muslims have fled Myanmar
Decades of ethnic and religious tensions, a sudden explosion of internet access, and a company that had trouble identifying and removing the most hateful posts.
It all added up to a perfect storm in Myanmar, where the United Nations says Facebook had a "determining role" in whipping up anger against the Rohingya minority.
"I'm afraid that Facebook has now turned into a beast, and not what it originally intended," Yanghee Lee, UN special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar, said in March.
The company admits failures and has moved to address the problems. But how did Facebook's dream of a more open and connected world go wrong in one south-east Asian country?
Enter Facebook
"Nowadays, everyone can use the internet," says Thet Swei Win, director of Synergy, an organisation that works to promote social harmony between ethnic groups in Myanmar.
That wasn't the case in Myanmar five years ago.
Outside influence had been kept to a minimum during the decades when the military dominated the country. But with the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, and her election as Myanmar's de facto leader, the government began to liberalise business - including, crucially, the telecoms sector.
You may also be interested in:
Is refugee crisis 'textbook ethnic cleansing'?
Genocide hate speech 'persists on Facebook'
Blow by blow: How a 'genocide' was investigated
The effect was dramatic, according to Elizabeth Mearns of BBC Media Action, the BBC's international development charity.
"A SIM card was about $200 [before the changes]," she says. "In 2013, they opened up access to other telecom companies and the SIM cards dropped to $2. Suddenly it became incredibly accessible."
For many in Myanmar, Facebook is synonymous with the internet
And after they bought an inexpensive phone and a cheap SIM card, there was one app that everybody in Myanmar wanted: Facebook. The reason? Google and some of the other big online portals didn't support Burmese text, but Facebook did.
"People were immediately buying internet accessible smart phones and they wouldn't leave the shop unless the Facebook app had been downloaded onto their phones," Mearns says.
Thet Swei Win believes that because the bulk of the population had little prior internet experience, they were especially vulnerable to propaganda and misinformation.
"We have no internet literacy," he told Trending. "We have no proper education on how to use the internet, how to filter the news, how to use the internet effectively. We did not have that kind of knowledge."
Ethnic tensions
Out of a population of about 50 million, around 18 million in Myanmar are regular Facebook users.
But Facebook and the telecoms companies which gave millions their first access to the internet do not appear to have been ready to grapple with the ethnic and religious tensions inside the country.
The enmity goes deep. Rohingyas are denied Burmese citizenship. Many in the Buddhist ruling class do not even consider them a distinct ethnic group - instead they refer to them as "Bengalis", a term that deliberately emphasises their separateness from the rest of the country.
Last year's military operation in the north-west Rakhine state was designed, the government says, to root out militants. It resulted in more than 700,000 people fleeing for neighbouring Bangladesh - something that the United Nations calls the world's fastest growing refugee crisis.
A UN report has said top military figures in Myanmar must be investigated for genocide in Rakhine state and crimes against humanity in other areas. But the government of Myanmar has rejected those allegations.
Facebook 'weaponised'
The combination of ethnic tensions and a booming social media market was toxic. Since the beginning of mass internet use in Myanmar, inflammatory posts against Rohingya have regularly appeared on Facebook,
Thet Swei Win said he was horrified by the anti-Rohingya material he has seen being shared. "Facebook is being weaponised," he told BBC Trending.
The BBC Trending podcast, from the BBC World Service
In August, a Reuters investigation found more than 1,000 Burmese posts, comments and pornographic images attacking the Rohingya and other Muslims.
"To be honest I thought we might find at best a couple of hundred examples I thought that would make the point," says Reuters investigative reporter Steve Stecklow, who worked with Burmese-speaking colleagues on the story.
Stecklow says some of the material was extremely violent and graphic.
"It was sickening to read and I had to keep saying to people 'Are you OK? Do you want to take a break?'"
Some posts on Facebook expressed the hope that fleeing Rohingya refugees would drown at sea
"When I sent it to Facebook, I put a warning on the email saying I just want you to know these are very disturbing things," he says. "What was so remarkable was that [some of] this had been on Facebook for five years and it wasn't until we notified them in August that it was removed."
Several of the posts catalogued by Stecklow and his team described Rohingyas as dogs or pigs.
"This is a way of dehumanising a group," Stecklow says. "Then when things like genocide happen, potentially there may not be a public uproar or outcry as people don't even view these people as people."
Lack of staff
The material that the Reuters team found clearly contravened Facebook's community guidelines, the rules that dictate what is and is not allowed on the platform. All of the posts were removed after the investigation, although the BBC has since found similar material still live on the site.
Has Aung San Suu Kyi turned her back on free press?
Suu Kyi 'should have resigned' on Rohingya
What will happen after UN's 'genocide' report?
'They problematic': The view from Yangon
So why did the social network fail to grasp how it was being used to spread propaganda?
One reason, according to Mearns, Stecklow and others, was that the company had difficulty with interpreting certain words.
For example, one particular racial slur - "kalar" - can be a highly derogatory term used against Muslims, or have a much more innocent meaning: "chickpea".
In 2017, Stecklow says, the company banned the term, but later revoked the ban because of the word's dual meaning.
There were also software problems which meant that many mobile phone users in Myanmar had difficulties reading Facebook's instructions for how to report worrying material.
But there was also a much more fundamental issue - the lack of Burmese-speaking content monitors. According to the Reuters report, the company had just one such employee in 2014, a number that had increased to four the following year.
The company now has 60 and hopes to have around 100 Burmese speakers by the end of this year.
Multiple warnings
Following the explosion in Facebook use in Myanmar, the company did receive multiple warnings from individuals about how the platform was being used to spread anti-Rohingya hate speech.
In 2013, Australian documentary maker Aela Callan raised concerns with a senior Facebook manager. The next year a doctoral student named Matt Schissler has a series of interactions with employees, which resulted in some content being removed.
And in 2015, tech entrepreneur David Madden travelled to Facebook's headquarters in California to give managers a presentation on how he had seen the platform used to stir up hate in Myanmar.
"They were warned so many times," Madden told Reuters. "It couldn't have been presented to them more clearly, and they didn't take the necessary steps."
Since last year, the company has taken some action. In August, Facebook removed 18 accounts and 52 pages linked to Burmese officials. One account on Instagram, which Facebook owns, was also closed. The company said it "found evidence that many of these individuals and organizations committed or enabled serious human rights abuses in the country."
Trump's claim of success in Puerto Rico hurricane response derided - BBC News
Sept. 12, 2018.
Trump's claim of success in Puerto Rico hurricane response derided
Trump: Puerto Rico hurricane response an "unsung success"
President Donald Trump has been criticised for hailing the US response to the deadly Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico last year as "tremendous".
The mayor of its capital tweeted: "If he thinks the death of 3,000 people is a success God help us all."
Puerto Rico only finished restoring full power last month, 11 months after the hurricane hit.
A recent report says 8% left the island after the hurricane and many died due to poor health care and other services.
The island's Governor Ricardo Rossello issued a statement on Tuesday night, describing Maria as "the worst natural disaster in our modern history. Our basic infrastructure was devastated, thousands of our people lost their lives and many others still struggle".
Puerto Rico, an unincorporated territory of the US, is home to some 3.3 million people.
What did the president say?
He was asked at the White House what lessons could be learned from Hurricane Maria as Hurricane Florence bears down on the Carolinas.
Maria, he said, was the "hardest one we had by far because of the island nature", adding: "I actually think it was one of the best jobs that's ever been done with respect to what this is all about.
Why Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico so hard
"The job that Fema [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] and law enforcement and everybody did working along with the governor in Puerto Rico, I think was tremendous. I think that Puerto Rico was an incredible, unsung success."
Mr Trump had said recently: "We have put billions and billions of dollars into Puerto Rico and it was a very tough one. I think most of the people in Puerto Rico really appreciate what we've done."
What has the response been to his latest comments?
Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rossello said in a statement: "No relationship between a colony and the federal government can ever be called 'successful' because Puerto Ricans lack certain inalienable rights enjoyed by our fellow Americans in the states."
The mayor of the Puerto Rican capital San Juan, Carmen Yulin Cruz, a vocal critic of Mr Trump who earlier described his response to Maria as a "stain on his presidency", said his latest comment "added "insult to injury".
Senator Bernie Sanders tweeted: "Nearly 3,000 people died. That is not a 'success'. That is a tragedy and a disgrace."
Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer said: "This is an offensive, hurtful and blatantly false comment from the president."
Rosa A. Clemente
✔
@rosaclemente
Thank you .@angela_rye of course he would say that the US response in Puerto Rico was great. Tell that to the over 3000 + Puerto Ricans who lost their lives. What continues to happen in Puerto Rico is mass human rights violations. Puerto Rico Rising https://youtu.be/kK8aMLR6szc
6:15 AM - Sep 12, 2018
New York Democratic primary winner Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, said: "Some of my [Puerto Rico] family just got power a few weeks ago. People are developing respiratory issues partly due to airborne fungal spores from lack of proper cleanup. The admin's response to Puerto Rico has been a disaster."
Some Trump supporters on social media accepted there had been failures but said the president had done all he could and that it was Puerto Rican officials who were to blame.
What happened in Hurricane Maria?
Maria made landfall in mid-September last year having just been downgraded to a category four hurricane, with winds of 140 mph (225 km/h) and driving rain.
It caused catastrophic damage to the north-eastern Caribbean and was the most intense cyclone worldwide in 2017.
Six graphics that sum up Puerto Rico disaster
Infrastructure was severely damaged in Puerto Rico and the territory struggled to make repairs to the power grid, only completing the work 11 months later.
Maria was estimated to have caused $100bn (£77bn) in damage.
For long the government there listed the death toll at only 64, although it acknowledged it was probably much higher.
The island's authorities finally accepted a revised toll of 2,975 after a government-commissioned report by experts from George Washington University.
This counted those who died in the six months following the storm as a result of poor healthcare and a lack of electricity and clean water. Repeated power cuts also led to an increased number of deaths from diabetes and sepsis.
The report said that those from poorer backgrounds in Puerto Rico were 45% more likely to have been killed in the aftermath of the hurricane.
Trump's claim of success in Puerto Rico hurricane response derided
Trump: Puerto Rico hurricane response an "unsung success"
President Donald Trump has been criticised for hailing the US response to the deadly Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico last year as "tremendous".
The mayor of its capital tweeted: "If he thinks the death of 3,000 people is a success God help us all."
Puerto Rico only finished restoring full power last month, 11 months after the hurricane hit.
A recent report says 8% left the island after the hurricane and many died due to poor health care and other services.
The island's Governor Ricardo Rossello issued a statement on Tuesday night, describing Maria as "the worst natural disaster in our modern history. Our basic infrastructure was devastated, thousands of our people lost their lives and many others still struggle".
Puerto Rico, an unincorporated territory of the US, is home to some 3.3 million people.
What did the president say?
He was asked at the White House what lessons could be learned from Hurricane Maria as Hurricane Florence bears down on the Carolinas.
Maria, he said, was the "hardest one we had by far because of the island nature", adding: "I actually think it was one of the best jobs that's ever been done with respect to what this is all about.
Why Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico so hard
"The job that Fema [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] and law enforcement and everybody did working along with the governor in Puerto Rico, I think was tremendous. I think that Puerto Rico was an incredible, unsung success."
Mr Trump had said recently: "We have put billions and billions of dollars into Puerto Rico and it was a very tough one. I think most of the people in Puerto Rico really appreciate what we've done."
What has the response been to his latest comments?
Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rossello said in a statement: "No relationship between a colony and the federal government can ever be called 'successful' because Puerto Ricans lack certain inalienable rights enjoyed by our fellow Americans in the states."
The mayor of the Puerto Rican capital San Juan, Carmen Yulin Cruz, a vocal critic of Mr Trump who earlier described his response to Maria as a "stain on his presidency", said his latest comment "added "insult to injury".
Senator Bernie Sanders tweeted: "Nearly 3,000 people died. That is not a 'success'. That is a tragedy and a disgrace."
Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer said: "This is an offensive, hurtful and blatantly false comment from the president."
Rosa A. Clemente
✔
@rosaclemente
Thank you .@angela_rye of course he would say that the US response in Puerto Rico was great. Tell that to the over 3000 + Puerto Ricans who lost their lives. What continues to happen in Puerto Rico is mass human rights violations. Puerto Rico Rising https://youtu.be/kK8aMLR6szc
6:15 AM - Sep 12, 2018
New York Democratic primary winner Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, said: "Some of my [Puerto Rico] family just got power a few weeks ago. People are developing respiratory issues partly due to airborne fungal spores from lack of proper cleanup. The admin's response to Puerto Rico has been a disaster."
Some Trump supporters on social media accepted there had been failures but said the president had done all he could and that it was Puerto Rican officials who were to blame.
What happened in Hurricane Maria?
Maria made landfall in mid-September last year having just been downgraded to a category four hurricane, with winds of 140 mph (225 km/h) and driving rain.
It caused catastrophic damage to the north-eastern Caribbean and was the most intense cyclone worldwide in 2017.
Six graphics that sum up Puerto Rico disaster
Infrastructure was severely damaged in Puerto Rico and the territory struggled to make repairs to the power grid, only completing the work 11 months later.
Maria was estimated to have caused $100bn (£77bn) in damage.
For long the government there listed the death toll at only 64, although it acknowledged it was probably much higher.
The island's authorities finally accepted a revised toll of 2,975 after a government-commissioned report by experts from George Washington University.
This counted those who died in the six months following the storm as a result of poor healthcare and a lack of electricity and clean water. Repeated power cuts also led to an increased number of deaths from diabetes and sepsis.
The report said that those from poorer backgrounds in Puerto Rico were 45% more likely to have been killed in the aftermath of the hurricane.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
