Meeting on UK undercover policing highlights need for an independent inquiry

Paul Mitchell 

Last week a number of organisations and individuals involved in the exposure of police surveillance and infiltration of protest groups and political parties held a meeting, “Strikers & Spy cops—from Grunwick to now,” in central London.

During the course of the meeting it became clear, as the Socialist Equality Party (SEP) has maintained from the start, that the state is using the ongoing Undercover Policing Inquiry (UPI), chaired by Lord Justice Pitchford, to review and refine its repressive policies. The role of the UPI is to clean up the fall-out from several high-profile court cases, rather than conducting an independent investigation of anti-democratic measures against political organisations and individuals.

In its submission to the UPI, the SEP rejected its terms of reference, which means that hardly any political organisations have been designated as core participants. This is “especially peculiar, given that the focus of the inquiry is the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), which was specifically created as part of high-level political operations against the left.”

The SEP submission demanded “the immediate release of the names of all undercover police operatives, especially those active in the Workers Revolutionary Party (and its forerunners and successor organisations), their pseudonyms and dates of operation.”

The London meeting heard how undercover police officers from the SDS and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU) had infiltrated hundreds of political groups since 1968, using a multitude of deceptive techniques. These included using the names of at least 42 dead children, and officers forming long-term relationships with unsuspecting individuals and fathering their children, as part of building their cover story before suddenly disappearing.

The resulting court cases led to the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) admitting abuses of human rights and paying millions in compensation.

The chairperson of last week’s meeting, Eveline Lubbers from the Undercover Research Group, explained that although the UPI was established in 2014 (by then Home Secretary Theresa May) it had still not started its hearings. “It is depressing… Until now we thought the Inquiry was the best thing we could get to get to the truth and find something out,” Lubbers said, before revealing that the MPS had, on the morning of the meeting, asked for a further seven months delay.

The force claims it needs more time to process anonymity orders for the 116 former SDS officers who have been identified to the UPI. In addition, MPS lawyer Melanie Jones asked that Pitchford keep secret those undercover officers that he “wishes to subject to more considered scrutiny.” She brushed aside the criminal actions of the undercover police officers and the trauma perpetrated against their victims, declaring it would be “harrowing and upsetting” for the officers! “Some are in advanced years. Some may need to undergo distressing and confusing psychological or medical assessment, which are themselves costly in financial resources,” Jones added.

If Pitchford grants the request at a hearing planned for early April, the UPI is unlikely to start until 2018—the year it was supposed to complete its findings.

Investigative reporter Solomon Hughes told the audience that in 2006, following a request under the new Freedom of Information legislation, the MPS released a number of Special Branch files reporting in great detail on the 1976-78 Grunwick industrial dispute. At various points in the files are the words “Please index” against an individual or organisation—in other words, create a file on them.

Since 2006 Hughes explained, the MPS has refused similar requests, either saying they have lost the files, declaring those asking for the information “vexatious,” or that releasing it would “undermine national security” and lead to “more crime and terrorist incidents and place officers at risk.”

Civil rights lawyer Harriet Wistrich, who is acting for several women involved in the “fraudulent” long-term relationships with “men who turned out to be spies,” explained that the refusal of the MPS to release information was a result of the recently developed “Neither Confirm Nor Deny” policy. It now meant “we can’t get hold of anything.” She told the meeting that “over 18 months into the Inquiry…we are nowhere seeing an ounce of disclosure, nowhere near a public hearing.” Wistrich also revealed that MPS officials had shredded documents the previous week that could be relevant to the UPI.

Wistrich explained that the onus is on anyone suspecting the activities of undercover police officers, to prove they have taken place. Nearly all the cases being accepted for core participant status are those that are already in the public domain and only came to light because the names of some undercover operatives were either disclosed by the agents themselves, or uncovered by their victims.

Wistrich concluded by saying, “It’s very difficult to see anything coming out of this Inquiry.”

In the Q&A session that followed the speeches, this reporter explained, “What we are seeing is a damage limitation exercise designed to reorganise the state. The implementation of the NCND policy is a sign the state is becoming more repressive. Things must get worse because of Brexit, the election of Donald Trump and the rise of nationalism and militarism internationally. The state is gearing up to deal with the dissent and opposition these developments must inevitably produce.”

The reporter then read a section from a leaflet produced by the Campaign Opposing Police Surveillance, which states, “We have no faith in any of the ongoing police inquiries or reports, including Operation Herne, nor those from the satellite bodies such as the Independent Police Complaints Commission or Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. Several have already been thoroughly discredited.”

This is all well and good, but in the next paragraph, the leaflet then creates illusions in the UPI, declaring it “must be transparent, robust and independent” and that “it should happen without delay.”

“Surely the evidence produced by tonight’s speakers proves that the state cannot be trusted to investigate its own criminality,” the reporter continued before calling for an inquiry into policing that is truly independent of the state.

He also discussed the experiences of the 1995 independent Workers Inquiry into the killing of Joy Gardner, the first immigrant to die in Britain during a deportation. The International Communist Party, the predecessor of the Socialist Equality Party, initiated the inquiry. Using trial court evidence and testimony supplied by Joy’s family, the inquiry was able to prove that her death was the direct result of the actions of the deportation squad. In addition, her brutal treatment was the result of a concerted offensive by the British government against immigrant workers and democratic rights, which was never opposed by the Labour Party or the trade union bureaucracy.

The call for an independent inquiry found a response from another platform speaker, Marcia Rigg from the United Friends and Families Campaign against deaths in police custody (and whose brother met the same fate), who said a “Peoples’ Court” should be set up. And in concluding the meeting, Lubbers agreed the idea of a real independent inquiry was something to be thought about.

As socialists have long recognised, far from being a neutral arbiter that can be made to operate above class interests, the police are part of the state’s “special bodies of armed men,” assigned the task of keeping the capitalist class in power and the working class oppressed. The police can no more be reformed or made democratically accountable than capitalism itself.

Canada: Authorities whitewash police killing of terror suspect

Laurent Lafrance

A joint investigation by the Strathroy-Caradoc police and the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) has determined that the police killing of terror suspect Aaron Driver last August was legally justified. The federal government, which conducted its own independent review of Driver’s death, has upheld the police investigation’s conclusion.

In fact, the shooting of Driver had the hallmarks of a summary execution, and the police and government reports have done nothing to answer why police shot him multiple times when he was already incapacitated.

On the afternoon of August 10, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and Strathroy-Caradoc police, with the support of Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and Canadian Special Forces operatives, mounted a major operation to prevent Aaron Driver from committing an allegedly “imminent” terrorist attack in a public space.

The RCMP said it was acting on a tip passed to it by the FBI earlier the same day concerning an online video in which a masked Driver pledged allegiance to ISIS and vowed Canadians would pay with their blood for Canada’s involvement in the wars in the Middle East.

For hours, heavily armed security personnel clandestinely staked out Aaron Driver’s sister’s home, where the 24-year-old man was living, and essentially occupied the adjacent Strathroy neighbourhood.

Hours after the police operation began, a taxi arrived at Driver’s residence. It waited for about five minutes before Driver left his sister’s house and jumped into the car with a backpack. According to the taxi driver, Terry Duffield, Driver asked to go to Citi Plaza, a mall in nearby London.

It was only then that police intervened, blocking the cab from leaving. When police approached the car, Driver detonated a device, of which only a portion actually exploded. Police then rushed the taxi and pumped several bullets into the severely injured Driver.

Initially police refused to say how Driver had died. Only days after the event did they confirm that Driver had been killed by police gunfire and not at his own hand from the bomb blast.

Subsequently, an RCMP bomb analysis showed that if Driver’s homemade device, embedded with 139 ball bearings, had entirely exploded, it “would have caused a high risk of death to anyone within 1.5 meters of the explosion and varying risks of injury up to 7.8 meters away.”

The police inquiry maintained a veil of secrecy surrounding the circumstances of Driver’s death. The main argument to justify the killing, as stated in the report, was that the police believed Driver had more explosives. “Fearing for their safety, and believing that Mr. Driver would detonate a second device, the RCMP shot Mr. Driver fatally wounding him,” declares the report.

In fact, all evidence points to Driver having been killed while he was incapacitated. Following the police operation, Duffield, who suffered minor physical injuries from the explosion, gave the media his own account of what happened. “As I’m lying on the ground,” he told the London Free Press, “I hear an officer say, loud, ‘He’s still twitching.’ Then I hear pop, pop, pop, pop, like four or five shots, and then it was complete silence.”

Duffield also explained that although he was himself visibly injured, the police did not arrange for him to have medical care or otherwise assist him. It was the son of the taxi company owner who had to pick him up and drive him home. Duffield, who suffered from anxiety and panic attacks following the incident and as a result was not able to work for weeks, has said he may sue the police for using him as bait in their operation.

The police were clearly not interested in hearing what Duffield had to say. The taxi driver—the only civilian witness at the scene of Driver’s death—complained last November that he had not yet been questioned by the police. His account of the event is not even mentioned in the Strathroy-OPP report.

Duffield has strongly criticized the way police handled the whole situation. “I don’t know how [the shooting] is justified. If I’m lying on one side of the car and hear somebody yell ‘he’s still twitching’ it means he’s not really mobile. Did you really have to shoot him?” he said, adding, “They could’ve [used a Taser] and he would still be alive to answer questions.”

Duffield and his lawyer, Kevin Egan, have expressed anger and disappointment at the police investigation. “I’m not surprised that the police investigating themselves found that their actions were justified or that the attorney-general did as well,” Duffield said, adding, “They can finalize the justification of killing somebody, but wouldn’t give me a straight answer on who decided to jeopardize my life.”

Duffield reiterated that police had had plenty of opportunity to warn his cab company about Driver or to get him out of harm’s way as he drove to the house and waited for Driver to get into his car. Egan raised the question as to how the RCMP allowed a man who was the subject of a court-ordered “peace-bond” due to his alleged terrorist sympathies build a bomb powerful enough to have caused multiple fatalities.

Driver was a disturbed individual who declared allegiance to ISIS and expressed sympathy for the horrific terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels. His apparent plan—to detonate a bomb with the power to kill in a heavily traveled public space—was deeply reactionary and reprehensible.

But the fact that the police acted as judge, jury and executioner—culminating in what appears to have been Driver’s summary execution—should be seen as a serious warning by workers and young people.

The questions raised by the World Socialist Web Site in the wake of the August 10 events remain unanswered. Why did the police not seek to apprehend Driver before he entered the taxi? More fundamentally, why did the highly trained antiterrorism RCMP officers decide to fire multiple times at Driver while he was incapacitated?

Most disturbing of all is the fact that the media and the political establishment have demonstrated almost complete indifference to these questions, revealing the ruling elite’s contempt for democratic rights and endorsement of the most brutal methods of rule at home and abroad, including state-sanctioned killings. Days after the event, Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau congratulated the security services and police for “having managed to prevent any serious incidents related to this particular individual.”

The police’s claim that an “imminent attack” was only narrowly averted thanks to an FBI tip is highly suspect given that Driver was well-known to the Canadian security apparatus and presumably under close surveillance.

In June 2015, police detained Driver for eight days without charge, that is illegally, citing Internet postings he had made expressing sympathy for ISIS. Then in February 2016, they obtained a peace-bond that circumscribed Driver’s rights because of fears he would “participate in or contribute to, directly or indirectly, the activity of a terrorist group to facilitate or carry out a terrorist activity.”

Yet, last July when a neighbour reported hearing explosions in Driver’s backyard, the authorities inexplicably failed to investigate.

One could justifiably ask whether the RCMP knowingly permitted Driver to proceed with his planned attack to a point where a major police-military deployment could be justified. That such a scenario is far from impossible is exemplified by a recent British Columbia judge’s ruling that the RCMP had encouraged and even pressured a couple to prepare and carry out a terrorist attack on the province’s legislature on Canada Day in 2013.

It should also be underlined that in the case of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, the 2015 Paris terror attack, and most recently the Berlin Christmas market attack, the suspects were all well-known to the security forces and acted under their noses.

While it is impossible to know to what extent the state was involved in the August 10 events, the ruling elite predictably seized on it to boost their phony “war on terror” narrative. Since 9/11, the Canadian bourgeoisie, like its US counterparts, has systematically used the “fight against terrorism” to justify Canada’s participation in predatory overseas wars and to attack the democratic rights of the population at home.

Police officials were quick to cite the events in Strathroy to bolster their demands for stricter controls on online communications and further attacks on the right to privacy, including the capacity to break encryption.

In a similar fashion, the ruling elite exploited the 2014 Ottawa and St-Jean-sur-Richelieu shootings to expand police powers. Shortly after these events, the then-Conservative federal government, with the support of the Liberals, passed Bill C-51 (the 2015 “Anti-terrorism Act”) which gives the CSIS the power to break virtually any law in the name of countering “public security” threats and otherwise dramatically expands the coercive powers of the state.

Following last August’s events, Public Security Minister Ralph Goodale said stronger anti-terror measures are needed and argued that peace bonds are “tools and instruments with limited capacity” that should be revised as part of the Liberal government’s current review of national security laws and practices.

Trade growth slows to lowest level since global financial crisis

Nick Beams

Last year saw the lowest increase in global trade growth since the financial crisis of 2008–2009, according to a report issued by the World Bank on Tuesday. It was the fifth consecutive year that international trade growth has slowed.

The report said current estimates for the growth in trade in goods and services ranged from 1.9 percent to 2.5 percent but preliminary data suggested that the growth in merchandise trade volumes had increased by only 1 percent. Last year was different from all the other post-crisis years “in that trade sluggishness is a characteristic of both advanced and emerging economies.”

It attributed the trade slowdown to a number of factors including the slower pace of trade liberalisation, lower global growth, a trough in commodity prices and what it called “macroeconomic rebalancing” in China—a reference to the decisions of the Chinese government to try to cut back on investment and infrastructure spending.

While it did not consider that restrictive measures introduced by governments had led, at least to this point, to a trade slowdown, it did point to the impact of political uncertainty in 2016, reflected most notably in the Brexit vote in the UK and the victory of Trump in the US elections.

The prima facie evidence for a connection between political uncertainty and trade growth emerged from a sample study of some 18 countries extending over 30 years. On the basis of this study it found that “the increase in uncertainty in 2016 may have reduced trade growth by about 0.6 percentage points, which is equivalent to 75 percent of the difference between trade growth rates in 2015 and 2016.”

Political uncertainty impacted on trade because it reduced overall economic growth. “In a less certain environment firms may choose to postpone investment decisions, consumers may cut back on spending, and banks may increase the cost of finance.” Furthermore, to the extent that economic policy uncertainty is due to trade policy uncertainty in particular, this could affect trade directly.

While not mentioning the US president by name, this was a thinly-veiled reference to Donald Trump and his “America First” agenda and his decision to either scrap or renegotiate proposed and existing trade agreements.

It said that while protectionism could not explain the trade patterns of 2016 it was “likely that trade policy uncertainty contributed to the surge in overall political uncertainty.”

The report also pointed to some longer-term processes. Trade sluggishness was now characteristic of both advanced and emerging economies, in contrast to the years immediately following the global financial crisis when “the dynamism of emerging economies largely sustained world trade growth as advanced economies struggled to recover from the financial crisis.”

The boost in trade from emerging economies was largely the product of the massive stimulus package initiated by the Chinese government based on increased government spending and expansion of credit in response to the loss of 23 million jobs. But the boost from emerging markets was reversed in 2014 and 2015 with the fall in commodity prices and “rebalancing” in China.

One of the main boosts to world trade in the first decade of the century was the establishment of what are called global value chains (GVCs), in which major companies offshore components of the manufacturing process to take advantage of cheaper labour. Much of the trade growth resulted not from the export and import of finished goods but the shifting of components of final products around the world.

The establishment of GVCs provided a major boost to profitability as companies were able to cut costs. But the initial lift in the bottom line appears to be wearing off because cost reductions cannot be endlessly repeated. The World Bank report did not discuss this question in terms of profitability preferring to refer to what it called the “maturing of global value chains.”

“Trade appears to have grown more slowly not only because global growth is lower, but also because that growth has become less trade intensive,” the report noted.

According to the report’s authors: “We are witnessing a decline in the growth of trade as well as productivity, and the slowing expansion of global value chains can help to explain both.”

The World Bank report on trade followed the publication of its annual Global Economic Prospects report published last month.

That report painted a somewhat dismal picture of the world economy.

“Stalling global trade, weak investment and heightened political uncertainty have depressed world economic activity,” the report stated. Global growth was estimated to have fallen to 2.3 percent in 2016, the weakest performance since the global financial crisis and 0.1 percentage point below the forecast by the World Bank made in June 2016.

“Advanced economies continue to struggle with subdued growth and low inflation in a context of increasing uncertainty about policy direction, tepid investment, and sluggish productivity growth. Activity decelerated in the United States and, to a lesser degree in some other major economies.”

Advanced-economy growth was estimated to have slowed to 1.6 percent in 2016 with a small pick-up to a level of 1.8 percent expected in 2017.

The situation is no better in emerging market economies. While growth in these economies was expected to rise over 2017 and 2018, and could account for 60 percent of global growth in the coming year, the long-term outlook for these economies was “clouded by a number of factors.”

These include uncertainty about global trade prospects, advanced-economy economic policies, a weakening of potential output flowing from subdued investment and sluggish productivity growth.

The report noted that since 2010 investment growth in emerging market economies had slowed sharply. While the deceleration had been most pronounced in the largest of these markets and commodity-exporting countries, it had now spread to the rest with the result that investment growth was below its long-term average over the past quarter century, except during serious global downturns.

These economies, it pointed out, account for than more one third of global GDP and three-quarters of the world’s population and the world’s poor.

Trump administration revokes transgender rights guidance issued by Obama administration

Shelley Connor 

In May 2016 the Obama administration instructed public schools to allow transgender students to use the bathroom they felt most comfortable using; schools refusing to comply with the instructions risked losing federal funding. The guidelines also included instructions for teachers to use students’ preferred names and pronouns in class. On Wednesday, February 22, the Trump administration rescinded the instructions, arguing that states and public schools have a right to discriminate against transgender students without interference from the federal government.

In a new, superseding document that is to be sent to schools throughout the US, both the Justice and Education Departments, under the new administration in Washington, have promised to continue to analyze the legal considerations of the issue. The law at the heart of the issue is known as Title IX, and it prohibits sex discrimination in public schools. Trump and his supporters, however, dispute the meaning of the term sex discrimination. According to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a longtime advocate of states’ rights, the previous guidelines “did not contain sufficient legal analysis or explain how the interpretation was consistent with the language of Title X.”

The Obama guidelines were contested by many conservatives associated with the religious right. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton led thirteen states in a lawsuit against the guidelines. “Our fight over the bathroom directive has always been about former President Obama’s attempt to bypass Congress and rewrite the laws to fit his political agenda for radical social change,” Paxton crowed triumphantly after Trump’s revocation of the guidelines was announced. The new guidelines could grant even broader permissions to public schools than Paxton’s lawsuit argues for, allowing individual schools to set their own rules with no fear of federal “meddling.”

According to White House spokesman Sean Spicer, the White House was forced to act on the instructions now, ahead of a pending US Supreme Court case, G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board. Gavin Grimm, the Virginia boy at the center of the case, is arguing for the right to use the boy’s bathroom at his high school. In addition to revoking the guidelines issued by the Obama administration, the Trump administration’s actions on Wednesday withdrew an Education Department letter in support of Grimm’s case.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the case could have far-reaching ramifications. The Court could bypass the question of whether Title IX protections include transgender students, leaving the decision to lower courts. It is equally capable of defining Title IX protections once and for all. The case raises the longstanding tensions in the United States between those who view education as a federal concern and those who believe that education should be left to states to legislate. For many transgendered persons and their advocates, that dichotomy represents a dangerous gray area in which states could deprive transgender students of equal access to education or protection from bullying.

The conflicts between states’ rights and civil rights hearkens back to the 1950s and 1960s, when Southern states argued that they had a right to segregate white and black students. Segregationists then quibbled over the definition of “equal” in much the same way that Sessions, an ardent partisan of states’ rights for his entire political career, quibbles over the definition of “discrimination” today. Transgender legal advocates rightly criticize the states’ rights arguments, seeing them as a green light for states to restrict access to education without fear of oversight, opening up vulnerable students to attacks upon their dignity by administrators and teachers who neglect their primary concern—the education of children—in order to police community morality.

That the issue would warrant an executive order demonstrates the decay of social conditions and the Trump administration’s absolute disregard for education. In an era when America’s schools lag behind other advanced countries by almost all measures, Trump’s attacks on education are particularly harmful to the working class. Schools that have already suffered under the policies of the No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top programs of the Bush and Obama administrations are now being picked over by vultures using federalist pretexts to hide their eagerness to subordinate social interests to private profit.

The cloak of “morality” is being used to whip up social backwardness, to be used to attack education and other basic rights. The old cry of “states’ rights” should signal to the working class that the bourgeoisie is preparing new assaults upon workers and their families.

Eastern Illinois University International Student Scholarship 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 15th March 2017 for the Fall Academic session

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): United States

The Eastern Illinois University is offering Student Scholarships to international students as a partial waiver for yearly tuition fees

Eligible Field of Study: Courses offered at the University

About the Award: The International Student Scholarship was established by the Board of Trustees to assist students from other countries to attend Eastern Illinois University. Awards are competitive and designed to promote cultural exchange and diversity. Awards may be granted on the basis of one or both of the following factors: financial need and academic excellence. The scholarship pays partial tuition for the minimum full-time enrollment in EIU courses. Fees, field trips, continuing education delivery charges, travel, living expenses, and other personal expenses are not covered.

Type: Undergraduate and Postgraduate Degree

Eligibility: 

• A minimum cumulative grade point average of 2.75 (undergraduate), 3.0 (graduate), as converted to the EIU grading scale.
• Full academic admission to a degree program
• Proof of funding for living expenses and fees

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: The award amount for selected undergraduate students is $1,500 per semester and for graduate students, $4,000 per semester.

Duration of Scholarship: Duration of course

• Undergraduate Student Application
• Graduate Student Application

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Eastern Illinois University

Kingston University Postgraduate Scholarships for International Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 31st  May, 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Kingston University, UK

About the Award: Kingston University, London offers awards totaling £200,000 every year, with international scholarships each worth £4,000. These are open to prospective full-time postgraduate students in any subject area on a one-year taught masters degree based at Kingston University.

Type: Postgraduate

Eligibility: Candidate can apply for an award if they:

• are an international student (classified as ‘overseas’ for fee purposes);
• have an offer (conditional or unconditional) of a place on a course at Kingston for January 2017 entry; and
• are not currently registered on an undergraduate or postgraduate course at Kingston University.

Selection Criteria: The scholarships will be awarded on the basis of:

• academic merit;
• what you expect to gain from the course you are taking; and
• what you intend to do after completing the course

Value of Scholarship: £4,000

Duration of Scholarship: 1 year

How to Apply: Please note that you will need electronic copies of the following documents to make your application online:

• a copy of your offer letter;
• an academic reference letter;
• a copy of your academic transcript/worksheet; and
• a copy of your Academic IELTS or TOEFL result (where applicable).

Remember that the scholarships application procedure is separate from the admissions application procedure. You apply for the international scholarship via our online system and you’ll need electronic copies of the documents mentioned in the above section to attach to your application.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Kingston University

Important Notes:  If the application deadline falls during a weekend, we will continue to accept submissions until midday (UK time) on the following Monday.

Kingston University Undergraduate Scholarships for International Students 2017/2018 – UK

Application Deadline: 31st May 2017. 

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International students

To be taken at (country): Kingston University, UK

Eligible Field of Study: The scholarships are open to prospective full-time undergraduate students in any subject area.

Type: Bachelors

Eligibility: Before you begin your application, please make sure that you meet the eligibility criteria. You must:

• are an international student (classified as ‘overseas’ for fee purposes);
• have an offer (conditional or unconditional) of a place on an undergraduate degree course or foundation degree course at Kingston for 2016/17 entry; and
• are not currently registered on an undergraduate course at Kingston University.

Please note that you will need electronic copies of the following documents to make your application online:

• a copy of your Kingston University offer letter;
• an academic reference letter;
• a copy of your academic transcript/worksheet; and
• a copy of your Academic IELTS or TOEFL result (where applicable).

Selection Criteria: Scholarship will be awarded on the basis of:

• academic merit;
• what you expect to gain from the course you are taking; and
• what you intend to do after completing the course.

Number of Scholarships: several

Value of Scholarship: international scholarships each worth £4,000 per year of study.

Duration of Scholarship: three years

How to Apply: The scholarships application procedure is separate from the admissions application procedure.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Scholarship Provider: Kingston University

Important Notes: if the application deadline falls during a weekend, we will continue to accept submissions until midday (UK time) on the following Monday.

University of Oslo Postdoctoral Medical Research Fellowship for International Students 2017

Application Deadline: 31st March, 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All countries

To be taken at (country): Norway

Eligible Field of Study: Molecular Medicine (specifically Chromatin and Structural Biology)

About the Award: The Group for Structural Biology and Chromatin (Sekulic group) investigates chromatin biology and epigenetics with a biochemical and structural approach. The project aims at understanding changes in chromatin during mitosis and kinetochore formation. We use various biochemical and biophysical approaches (X-ray crystallography, SAXS, SANS, hydrogen-deuterium exchange …). In addition, we collaborate with cell biology groups to link structure with function.

A three-year position is available from August 2017 but earlier starting date can also be accommodated.We seek highly motivated individuals with an excellent track record and experience in protein purification and biophysical and biochemical characterization of proteins and protein complexes. Knowledge of chromatin and structural biology and mass spec techniques is an advantage. We offer stimulating environment with excellent working and social benefits.

Type: Post doctorate research

Eligibility: 

• A PhD’s degree in biochemistry, chemistry, molecular biology or a related area
• Hands-on experience with purification of proteins and assembly of protein complexes
• Excellent written and oral English
• Ability to operate as a team player in a multi-disciplinary environment

• Ability to independently perform experiments, analyze and interpret the results
• Documented ability to write scientific manuscripts (one or more first author papers from PhD studies will be highly valued)
• Excellent interpersonal/communication skills

Number of Awardees: Several

Value of Fellowship: The postdoctoral position will be placed as SKO 1352 (position code) postdoctoral research fellow with salary level NOK 486 100 – 567 100 per year, depending on qualifications.

Duration of Fellowship: 2 years and 6 months

How to Apply:

• Cover Letter stating motivation and research interests
• CV
• A complete list of scientific publications
• List of references (name, relation to candidate, e-mail and telephone number)

In accordance with the University of Oslo’s equal opportunities policy, we invite applications from all interested individuals regardless of gender or ethnicity.

UiO has an agreement for all employees, aiming to secure rights to research results a.o.

Note that no one can be appointed for more than one specified period at the same institution.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: The University of Oslo

Important Notes: The University of Oslo has a goal of recruiting more women in academic positions. Women are encouraged to apply. The University of Oslo also has a goal of recruiting ethnic minorities to Norway in academic positions.

Queen’s Young Leaders Mentoring Programme 2017

Application Deadline: Ongoing

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Commonwealth countries

About the Award: As a mentor on the mentors Queen’s Young Leaders Mentoring Programme, you will be connected to a unique global network of experts in enterprise, investment, education, development and more. Mentors also get a free coaching course provided by the University of Cambridge’s Institute of Continuing Education.

This voluntary role is an opportunity to give a helping hand to the next generation of young leaders from across the Commonwealth.

Type: Volunteer

Eligibility: 

• Commitment to Commonwealth values – equality, diversity, sustainability, democracy, community, universalism
• Significant relevant experience
• The ability to complete mentor orientation and an end-of-programme review
• Regular reporting to the University of Cambridge following interaction with your mentee – while respecting confidentiality.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Programme:  Successful candidates will be connected to a unique network of Commonwealth-based mentors with significant expertise.

Personal mentors are offered free training on specified University of Cambridge online coaching courses and receive a letter of recognition from the Queen’s Young Leaders partners – the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust, Comic Relief, the Royal Commonwealth Society and the University of Cambridge.

Duration of Programme: Mentoring takes place between June and December each year.

How to Apply: To apply to the Queen’s Young Leaders Mentoring Programme, you will need to provide a picture (800 x 800 pixels) and a CV as a pdf.

Visit Programme Webpage for details

Award Provider: University of Cambridge

Global Fund for Women (GFW) Up to $15,000 Travel Grants for Women Organisations 2017

Application Deadline: Ongoing

Eligible Countries: developing countries

To be taken at (country): group’s country

Offered annually? Yes

About the Award: The Global Fund for Women supports women’s groups that advance the human rights of women and girls. The Organization strengthen women’s right groups based outside the United States by providing small, flexible, and timely grants ranging from $500 to $30,000 for operating and program expenses.

Women’s rights groups that have received a grant from Global Fund for Women in the past five years can apply for a travel grant of US $5,000-$15,000 to attend national, regional, and international gatherings and events. The purpose of travel grants is to strengthen women’s rights movements, influence decisions, and mobilize resources.

Type: Grants

Selection Criteria: Please note that your group MUST meet all the following criteria to be eligible for a grant:

• It is based in a country outside the United States.
• Its primary focus is advancing women’s equality and human rights, with these goals clearly reflected in its activities. Please note that groups whose sole purpose is to generate income or to provide charity to individuals are not eligible to apply.
• It is a group of women working together.
• It is governed, directed, and led by women.

Priority is given to women’s rights groups that:

• Work with and/or are led by highly marginalized communities
• Have limited funding
• Concentrate their efforts on one or more of the following thematic areas:
• Economic & Political Empowerment
• Freedom from Violence
• Sexual & Reproductive Health & Rights
• Media & Technology
• Women’s Funds

Eligibility:

• Groups of women working together.
• Organizations that demonstrate a clear commitment to women’s equality and women’s human rights.
• Organizations that are governed and directed by women.
• Organizations based outside of the United States.

Number of Scholarships: 600

Value of Scholarship: US $5,000-$15,000

Duration of Scholarship: one year

How to Apply: The foundation will send you a note of receipt within three weeks of receiving your application.

Visit Grants webpage for details

Sponsors: Global Fund for Women

Important Notes: Please note that

• Funding for these grants is extremely limited
• Applicants must have received a grant from Global Fund for Women in the past five years
• Applicants must also have a current organizational profile
• Applications must be submitted at least 8 weeks before the start date of the event
• A group may only have one travel or event grant proposal open or under consideration at a given time

The Bitter Battle for Mosul

Patrick Cockburn

Iraqi government forces have started their offensive aimed at capturing the western half of Mosul, Isis’s last big urban stronghold in the country. There are an estimated 4,000 jihadi fighters defending the close-packed houses and narrow alleyways in the half of the city west of the Tigris River, which is inhabited by some 650,000 civilians.

Iraqi paramilitary federal police and interior ministry units are advancing from the south of Mosul with the initial aim of seizing the city airport. But the heaviest fighting is likely to come when the soldiers get into built up areas where the militant group has been digging tunnels and holes cut through the walls of houses so they can conduct a mobile defence away from artillery fire and airstrikes.

The fighting could be as fierce as anything seen in the Iraq war, which has been ongoing since the US invasion of 2003 overthrew Saddam Hussein. The operation is being largely planned by the US, which has 6,000 soldiers in Iraq and which leads a coalition that has carried out more than 10,000 airstrikes and trained and equipped 70,000 Iraqi soldiers. “Mosul would be a tough fight for any army in the world,” said Lt Gen Stephen Townsend, the commander of the coalition, in a statement.

The struggle for Mosul is the climactic battle in the bid by the Iraqi government and its foreign allies to destroy Isis, which established its self-declared caliphate in June 2014 when a few thousand fighters unexpectedly captured Mosul from a 60,000-strong government garrison. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Isis leader and self-appointed caliph, is in west Mosul according to Hoshyar Zebari, the former Iraqi finance and foreign minister, speaking to The Independent in an interview last week. This gives Isis an extra reason to hold the city to the last man.

The Iraqi prime minister Haider al-Abadi announced the start of the operation early on Sunday morning, but intense fighting has yet to start as Iraqi forces advance through empty outlying villages. Going by the well-planned resistance put up by Isis in east Mosul over the last three months since the first offensive began on 17 October, casualties on all sides are likely to be heavy.

Isis depended on mobile squads of snipers, booby traps and over 600 suicide bombers driving vehicles packed with explosives to slow the advance of the counter terrorism service and other elite formation, some of which suffered 50 per cent casualties during a snail’s pace advance. By the end of 2016, the Iraqi Kurdish health ministry was complaining that its hospitals were full to overflowing with 13,500 wounded soldiers and civilians from the fighting in Mosul.

Though Baghdad announced that it had seized all of east Mosul, its grip on captured districts appears shaky as Isis sleeper cells carry out assassinations and bombings. Two suicide bombers, who emerged today, blew themselves up, killing three soldiers and two civilians and injuring many more. Last week a restaurant owner in east Mosul, who had reopened his business and was serving soldiers, was killed by another bomber. The Iraqi army is short of well-trained troops and their dispatch to the front line means that districts already taken are vulnerable to infiltration by Isis.

While Mr Abadi called on the Iraqi forces to be careful of the human rights of civilians in Mosul, videos are emerging of young men being beaten and summarily executed in places already taken by Iraqi troops. Despite frequent claims that it is liberating Mosul, the Shia-dominated Iraqi government is effectively assaulting the last great Sunni Arab city in Iraq. Away from the television cameras Iraqi soldiers often suspect civilians in Mosul of having been much more cooperative with Isis since 2014 than they now claim.

Civilians in Mosul have no alternative but to cooperate with warring armies that are destroying their city. Iraqi planes have dropped millions of leaflets on west Mosul telling Isis fighters to surrender, and people to stay in their houses and to display white sheets to show they are not resisting. But since Isis kills anybody who shows signs of surrendering, this tactic is unlikely to be very effective.

Government military commanders say they have learned from their experiences in east Mosul and will try to advance on west Mosul from all sides in order to spread out the Isis defenders. They will also be strongly supported by US artillery and airstrikes seeking to eliminate Isis strongpoints. The government says that it is seeking to minimise civilian casualties, but it is impossible to know from a distance how many families have taken refuge in the interior of buildings or in cellars. If, as seems inevitable, government forces use greater firepower than before to capture west Mosul, then civilian loss of life and material destruction will be greater than in the east.