Probe into banned activist in UK

29 June 2011 Last updated at 14:12 GMT Sheikh Raed Salah was detained on Tuesday evening An investigation has been launched after a leading Israeli-Arab activist managed to enter the UK despite being banned.

Home Secretary Theresa May said Sheikh Raed Salah had been excluded from the UK and the UK Border Agency was taking steps to remove him.

But his solicitor said Sheikh Salah had "no knowledge" of a travel ban and had not tried to conceal his identity.

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper accused the government of incompetence.

Sheikh Salah has Israeli citizenship and is the leader of the Islamic Movement in Israel.

The movement, whose stated aim is to advocate Islam among Arab Israelis, offers education and social services and promotes a Palestinian nationalistic stance.

Sheikh Salah was detained by police late on Tuesday evening in London after he returned from a meeting in Leicester, where he had addressed a 500-strong audience.

Islamic leader Sheikh Raed Salah addressed a 500-strong audience in leicester yesterday before being detained last night in London.

The Home Office said he had been accused of making anti-Semitic remarks and was not allowed into this country because his presence would be "not conducive to the public good".

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) said he was the leader of a legitimate political organisation.

PSC director Sarah Colborne said he rejected all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism.

"This is a legitimate organisation, which Israel has never moved to ban," she said.

"Before coming to Britain, he faced horrific allegations of anti-Semitism, which he completely refuted.

"He has clarified his position of being opposed to all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and racism against his own people, the Palestinians."

'Incompetent sham'

Mrs May said although the government did not normally comment on individual cases, in this case it was important to do so.

"I can confirm he was excluded and that he managed to enter the UK. He has now been detained and the UK Border Agency is now making arrangements to remove him.

"A full investigation is now taking place into how he was able to enter."

But Labour's Yvette Cooper said the government's rhetoric of being tough on border controls had been "exposed as an incompetent sham", amid planned cuts of 5,000 UKBA jobs.

"The Home Secretary needs to urgently explain why an individual banned from this country was allowed to walk in and instead of being stopped at the border had to be pursued by the police instead.

"Only this week Theresa May said that coming to this country was a privilege and she would refuse entry to Britain of anyone that she deemed not conducive to the public good. Her words now ring very hollow indeed."

Israel's Arab community numbers about 1.4 million, some 20% of the population. It includes Palestinians who remained in Israel after the 1948 establishment of the Jewish state and their descendants.

View the original article here

Hidden card charges to be banned

28 June 2011 Last updated at 14:37 GMT The OFT has warned it will take action if companies do not comply Travel companies have been ordered to end the use of hidden surcharges for passengers paying by card.

Airline, ferry and rail passengers typically have to click through four to six pages of an online booking before the charge is added to the price.

Now the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has ordered them to make all debit or credit card charges clear immediately.

It also wants the law changed to abolish altogether charges for using debit cards.

The OFT said travellers spent ?300m on card surcharges in the airline industry alone in 2010.

It warned that if travel firms did not comply, it would take action against them, using consumer protection laws.

"We will take enforcement action against any businesses that do not respond to today's announcement and instead continue to use misleading surcharging practices," said Cavendish Elithorn, of the OFT.

Super-complaint

The OFT's announcement comes in response to a super-complaint by the consumers' association Which?.

Continue reading the main story

A designated consumer group can make a super-complaint to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) if an issue is "significantly harming the interests of consumers".

The OFT has 90 days to respond by stating what action, if any, it plans to take on the issue and the reasons behind its decision.

Earlier this year it had called for customers to be told upfront about charges.

It had also argued that charges to customers should be the same as the cost to retailers, and that retailers should absorb the cost of debit card payments.

Which? had pinpointed low-cost airlines as the worst offenders, with cinemas, hotels and even some local authorities starting to copy them.

Peter Vicary-Smith, chief executive of Which?, said the OFT's report was a victory for consumers.

"We want to see the measures recommended by the OFT put in place as quickly as possible and finally put an end to the practice of card surcharging," he said.

Continue reading the main story

There is frustration when people think they are paying for paying, rather than paying for the product”

End Quote Cavendish Elithorn OFT "Businesses can start to be upfront and fair over card charges today - there's no point waiting until the OFT forces action."

Consumer minister Edward Davey said: "We will work with the OFT to make sure that consumers paying by card do not have to pay excessive surcharges."

He added that the government was supporting the introduction of European rules, which would stipulate that surcharges must reflect the costs to businesses. It could be up to two years before these are adopted in UK law.

'Paying for paying'

Airline Easyjet charges a surcharge of ?8 for payments by debit card and ?8 plus 2.5% of the total transaction for credit card users, the OFT's report said.

An Easyjet spokesman said: "We would like to see card charges incorporated into the headline fare, however, for consumers to benefit there needs to be a level playing field.

"The only way to ensure consumers can make easier price comparisons is if a common treatment of card charges can be agreed across the whole of the transport sector in Europe, including train operators and online travel agents."

Ryanair charges a fee of ?6 per journey for both credit and debit card users.

Ryanair responded to the OFT's move by arguing that its administration fees, which include card charges, were optional and "fully avoidable" for customers using a pre-paid card.

But the OFT said that for many people charges such as these were, in effect, compulsory.

Trader Credit card surcharge Debit card surcharge

7% per transaction (min ?4.99)

3.5% per transaction (min ?4.99)

Some travel companies have agreed with the regulator that they will include these charges in their headline price online.

The OFT's Mr Elithorn said he expected this change to be in place within six months.

But he admitted that the surcharge did not have to reflect the cost to companies of processing these payments.

He accepted that this could be annoying for consumers.

"There is frustration when people think they are paying for paying, rather than paying for the product," he said.

Airline Monarch, which has already stopped levying debit card fees, said: "There is no justification for charging excessive fees on credit and debit cards."

Rail booking service Thetrainline.com said: "We will be working with the OFT to make credit card charges clearer within the booking process."

Pricing

At present, using a credit card can offer extra protection for customers if things go wrong, such as a travel company collapsing.

The regulator believes that by banning a surcharge for those using a debit card, competition will force down the cost of credit card surcharges.

In December, the OFT warned retailers about tricking customers with misleading price offers, including "drip pricing" which involves adding compulsory delivery costs.

Businesses must include any compulsory extras in their headline price on their website.

For example, if an airline charges customers a fuel duty surcharge, this must be included in the advertised price of the flight.

Super-complaints have been in the armoury of consumer groups since 2002.

Examples so far have included complaints about bank charges, payment protection insurance, prison call costs and doorstep lending.

View the original article here

Could outdoor smoking be banned?

23 May 2011 Last updated at 08:59 GMT New York is introducing an outdoor smoking ban. But could the UK and other countries follow suit, asks Tom de Castella.

It is a city heralded for attracting incomers from around the world, but New York has just become less hospitable to one group - smokers.

Under measures approved by local authorities, swathes of outdoor public places including beaches, municipal parks and even Times Square have become tobacco-free.

And with smoking legislations, as with so much else, where New York leads, the rest of the world can find itself following.

After the city banned smoking in restaurants, bars and clubs in 2003 - itself following Los Angeles, which introduced similar curbs a decade earlier - it helped drive a global trend.

France, India, Ireland and Italy were among the nations which introduced bans after New York. Scotland prohibited smoking in enclosed public spaces in 2006 and the rest of the UK followed the year after.

So it is not surprising that the latest development in New York is attracting global interest.

As a result of the ban, New Yorkers could face fines if they light up outdoors

The city's latest anti-smoking measures cover public golf courses and sports grounds as well as plazas like Herald Square.

Smoking will be allowed on pavements outside parks, and car parks in public parks. One area the ban does not cover is "median strips" - known as the central reservation in the UK - the sliver of land in the middle of a large road.

City authorities say they hope the new law will be enforced by New Yorkers themselves. But if someone refuses to stop, the public is advised to inform park wardens, and should someone refuse to stop smoking they could be fined.

The New York ban itself comes after Spain outlawed smoking near hospitals or in school playgrounds from January 2011. But whether other countries follow suit largely depends, of course, on whether the move proves effective.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's office has cited studies suggesting that sitting three feet away from a smoker outdoors can expose people to the same passive smoking risk as would occur indoors.

Not all those who oppose smoking believe the ban is justified, however.

Continue reading the main story Tom Geoghegan BBC News, Washington DC

Many New Yorkers remain unaware of the new ban but among those most affected - smokers - there is a great deal of anger.

They say the science behind the mayor's passive smoking fears is false and the ban unenforceable. A public flouting of the law is planned at Brighton Beach in Brooklyn on Saturday, when smokers will gather for a group puff.

One invoked the civil rights movement when she described it to me as "our Rosa Parks moment".

In a country which is very sensitive to any sign of government intrusion in their lives, there are some non-smokers who also believe this represents a step too far.

Earlier in the year, the New York Times newspaper, which supported the initial law, said its extension takes "the mayor's nannying too far".

Michael Siegel, professor of community health sciences at Boston University, wrote in the New York Times that the ban was "pointless" from a public health perspective and could, in fact, increase the risk of passive smoking by creating "smoke-filled areas" near park entrances.

Whichever way the debate in New York is resolved, it will be watched closely abroad. Prof John Britton, chair of the Royal College of Physicians Tobacco Advisory Group, says the very existence of the ban could have an impact on countries like the UK.

He says the risks of second-hand smoke outdoors are "quite small unless you're right next to the smoker".

However, Prof Britton believes that seeing such a system in operation would convince those who might otherwise argue that such legislation would be unworkable.

"They did it when smoking on the London Underground was banned [in the 1980s]," he says. "Then they did it with the smoking ban in July 2007. But once it comes in, not only do people accept it, they say 'Why didn't we do it before?'"

Indeed, smoking bans are coming into effect in countries where observers would not have easily imagined citizens giving up their cigarettes.

China - home to one-third of the world's smokers - outlawed smoking in bars, restaurants and buses from 1 May 2011 and Russia plans to implement similar legislation from 2015.

This July will be the fourth anniversary of the ban on smoking in public places having reached all parts of the UK.

In the year following its introduction, more than two billion fewer cigarettes were smoked and 400,000 people quit, according to researchers at University College London.

Continue reading the main story Australia - Smoking banned in airports, workplaces, government offices, health clinicsIndia - Ban on smoking in public places introduced in October 2008. Direct and indirect advertising of tobacco is also forbiddenRussia - Plans to outlaw advertising and promotion of cigarettes in 2011 and smoking in enclosed spaces by 2015Spain - Already had tough anti-smoking restrictions, but in 2011 these were extended to open areas near hospitals, schools and children's playgroundsSyria - In 2010, became the first Arab country state to ban smoking in public places including restaurants, cinemas, theatres and on public transport. The restrictions apply to the nargile, or hubble-bubble pipeAs a result, the UK smoking lobby is watching developments across the Atlantic with trepidation.

Simon Clark, director of Forest, which campaigns against smoking bans, believes the New York initiative is "ludicrous" and that there is no evidence that anyone is at risk as a result of someone else smoking in the open air.

Some political leaders in the British Isles have already begun looking at tightening the law further.

In March 2011, the public health department in Jersey said it was considering whether to ban smoking in all motor vehicles on the island.

Martin Dockrell, director of research and policy at the campaign group Action on Smoking and Health (Ash), acknowledges that there is no clear evidence of a significant harm to health from second-hand outdoor tobacco smoke.

But he says there are compelling reasons for banning smoking in some outdoor areas, such as children's play parks, as a means of shifting long-term attitudes.

And he argues that if such a ban is put into place, it will not be due to the influence of New York - but because the tide of UK public opinion has hardened against smoking.

"It already has happened in the UK," he says. "Glasgow has smoke-free parks. In the north-west of England there are a number of parks that have gone smoke-free.

"We'll see more of this incrementally as more and more communities become non-smoking."

Smokers and non-smokers alike will make up their own minds in the months ahead.

What remains to be seen is not just whether the new ban can make it in New York, but whether it can make it anywhere.

View the original article here