Leaked Brexit Document Reveals UK Hardline Plan To Deter EU Immigrants

According to a document leaked by the Guardian and prepared by the Home Office, the UK has prepared a “hardline” Brexit plan according to which Britain will end the free movement of labor immediately after Brexit and introduce restrictions “to deter all but highly-skilled EU workers.” The proposal seeks to drive down the number of lower-skilled EU migrants, as well as a phased-in introduction to a new immigration system ending the right to settle in Britain for most European migrants.

While the end of free labor mobility was largely expected, the 82-page paper – marked as extremely sensitive and dated August 2017 – provides previously unreleased clarity and sets out for the first time how Britain intends to approach the controversial issue of immigration, “refocusing policy to put British workers first.”

As the document summarizes, “to be considered valuable to the country as a whole, immigration should benefit not just the migrants themselves but also make existing residents better off.”

Specifically, the controversial draft proposes measures to drive down the number of lower-skilled EU migrants – offering them residency for a maximum of only two years, in a document likely to cheer hardliners in the Tory party. Those in “high-skilled occupations” will be granted permits to work for a longer period of three to five years. Additionally, showing a passport will be mandatory for all EU nationals wanting to enter Britain. The paper also proposes introducing a system of temporary biometric residence permits for all EU nationals coming into the UK after Brexit for more than a few months.

The Home Office paper, entitled the Border, Immigration and Citizenship System After the UK Leaves the European Union, makes clear the proposals within it have yet to be endorsed by ministers, and are “subject to negotiations with EU”. But, as the Guardian writes, with the help of examples and flowcharts, the document sets out the direction of Home Office thinking in one of the most controversial subjects of the Brexit debate.

Plans to restrict EU immigration by giving “preference in the job market to resident workers”. The government could also restrict EU nationals from seeking work, reduce the opportunities for workers to settle in the UK long-term, and limit the number of EU citizens able to come to the UK to do low-skilled work.

Among the EU immigration proposals are:

  • Proposals for a “stepping stone” temporary implementation period for “at least two years” after Brexit day. That would be followed by the introduction of the full immigration policy for EU nationals.
  • Plans to scrap EU rules on the rights of extended family members to reside in the UK. The document says “there is virtually no limit on the distance of the relationship between the EU citizen and the family member” in the current system. “We propose to define family members as direct family members only, plus durable partners,” it adds.
  • If an EU national living in the UK wants to bring their spouse from outside the EU here, he or she will have to earn a minimum of £18,600 a year, bringing EU nationals in line with the restriction already imposed on Britons.
  • No new border checks for EU nationals entering the country, although they will be required to travel on a passport not a national identity card. Instead all new EU arrivals will have “deemed leave” to enter Britain for as yet unspecified period likely to between three and six months. After that, to stay longer, they will have to apply for a biometric residence permit, which may include a fingerprint.
  • In contrast to the “free movement directive”, residence permits will not be granted to jobseekers. A specific “income threshold” will be introduced for “self-sufficient” migrants.
  • Plans to introduce “right to work” checks. These would have to be carried out by employers, with criminal sanctions possible against companies and individuals if illegal working is discovered.

The draft’s release comes at a tenuous time for the UK’s Brexit negotiations, with recent soundbites from EU negotiators stating that “no progress” has been made on any of the key underlying issues. Since the proposals have yet to be endorsed by government ministers, they could merely be a trial balloon to gauge negotiation and market impact.

That said, it is unclear what the new document’s impact on sterling will be: with the GBPUSD having surged above 1.300 today on the latest plunge in the dollar, cable appears to have caught a bid following the report’s release on what some say is incremental clarity into Theresa May’s Brexit negotiating position, although it remains to be seen if the proposals will be sufficient to appease the crowd during the October EU summit, during which a determination must be made if enough Brexit progress has been to proceed to the next stage.

Earlier today, Bloomberg reported that the EU’s deputy Brexit negotiator told German lawmakers that she’s “skeptical” talks with the U.K. will be able to move on to trade in October. Sabine Weyand briefed a special session of the European Affairs Committee of the lower house, or Bundestag, in Berlin on Monday and told lawmakers that no movement had been made in the key areas under discussion, those who attended the hearing said.

Given the scant advance made so far, Weyand said there’s no indication that the fourth round of negotiations scheduled to begin on Sept. 18 will yield any more progress than the third, according to one of those present. As a result, she doesn’t currently see EU leaders agreeing when they next meet to turn to the U.K.’s relationship with the bloc after Brexit, both of those attending said.

Weyand, who is deputy to the chief European Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, told the Bundestag committee that she doesn’t see any progress being made before Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservative Party conference at the beginning of October, according to one of those present. “In any case, the EU summit scheduled for Oct. 19-20 was never a binding date to agree to move on to the next phase of negotiations.”

The full leaked document can be found here.

via http://ift.tt/2w3tu4f Tyler Durden

Is Edinburgh Really Investigating a Student for Mocking ISIS on Facebook?

Robbie TraversThe University of Edinburgh is investigating a law student, Robbie Travers, for allegedly harrassing and discriminating against minority students. As evidence of this behavior, the person making the accusation cited a Facebook post in which Travers celebrated the bombing of an ISIS stronghold in Afghanistan last April.

“I’m glad we could bring these barbarians a step closer to collecting their 72 virgins,” Travers wrote.

These and other Facebook rants directed at Muslim extremists were deemed offensive by an Edinburgh student, who submitted screenshots of them to the administration as evidence that Travers “has consistently mocked, disparaged, and incited hatred against religious groups and protected characteristics on numerous occasions.”

Travers tells me he stands accused of the following campus infractions:

12.3 Violent, indecent, disorderly, threatening or offensive behaviour or language (whether expressed orally, in writing or electronically) including harassment of any Person whilst engaged in any University work, study or activity.

12.7 Harassing, victimising or discriminating against any Person on grounds of age, disability, race, ethnic or national origin, religion or beliefs, sex, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, pregnancy, maternity, marriage or civil partnership, colour or socio-economic background.

He also shared with me the text of the complaint and screenshots of the posts that landed him in trouble. They are provactive statements, often aimed at members of the left. (In one such post, Travers chides “prissy, hypocritical, over-sensitive minorities” who accused the Lou Reed song “Walk on the Wild Side” of being transphobic.) But they hardly seem violent, indecent, or harassing. If a university forbids merely offensive speech, then almost any statement could qualify.

The Daily Mail‘s story about the investigation cites Edinburgh student Esme Allman as Travers’ accuser, but the copy of the complaint I received suggests that another student who objected to Travers’s behavior toward Allman filed the complaint on her behalf. This student alleged that Travers quoted Allman out of context when he publicized a comment she had made referring to black men as “trash.” Allman is a candidate for student government, and a “self-proclaimed feminist and womanist” with a “strong interest in intersectionality,” so one can see why she might be angry about being associated with racist comments.

“Travers published a decontextualized quote by Allman from a privileged conversation generated by minority students in a safe space he is neither subscribed to nor a member of without her consent,” according to the complaint. This student accused him of putting “minority students at risk and in a state of panic.”

The university confirmed the investigation into Travers but disputed the way it has been characterized by the media.

“We can confirm that complaints alleging misconduct have been received against Mr. Travers and these are being investigated,” university spokesperson Ronnie Kerr tells me. “It is, however, untrue to suggest that Mr. Travers is ‘under investigation’ for ‘mocking ISIS’.”

Kerr is right. It’s more accurate to say that Travers’ Facebook post mocking ISIS was submitted as evidence that he makes violent and abusive statements about minorities. This is not quite as scandalous as The Mail‘s headline, but it’s still fairly absurd.

Edinburgh is a public university in Scotland. Its students don’t enjoy the same free speech protections as American public university students, and so the university might very well be within its rights to investigate Travers. As Kerr said in his statement, “We are committed to providing an environment in which all members of the University community treat each other with dignity and respect. Our Code of Student Conduct sets out clear expectations of behaviour.”

But do those clear expectations of behavior actually prevent a student from writing a Facebook post that belittles the views of religious extremists, or takes the social justice left to task for casually labelling a trans-friendly song transphobic? If a student wanted to make the case that Travers had mistreated Allman, the student should have focused on that. By including all those screenshots of Travers’ posts, his accuser lends credence to Travers’ contention that his opponents are “prissy, hypocritical, and over-sensitive,” though it remains to be seen whether pointing this out is some kind of crime at Edinburgh.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2eIdAtt
via IFTTT

Simple Charts Showing Why Gold Stocks Are Poised To Blast Off

When gold began to rally in late 2015, investors breathed a sigh of relief. The longest resource bear market was finally over, and capital slowly began finding its way back into the mining sector.

During the beginning of gold’s rally, gold stocks actually declined as investors could not get a true pulse on the market. However, when the recovery was apparent, gold stocks soared, eventually yielding over 150% returns in less than a year.

Unfortunately, with such rapid gains a pull-back was inevitable and healthy. From its peak, gold decreased -17% while gold stocks gave back up to -38% in aggregate.

It appears the pull-back is now over, and gold is once again on the mends.

Since late 2016 gold has recovered 16%, but the Junior Gold Miners ETF (GDXJ) and the Arca Gold BUGS Index (HUI) are only up 21% and 29%, respectively. Just like when gold was first recovering, investors are reluctant to begin deploying capital. However, once this recovery is apparent, we expect gold stocks to once again continue its precipitous ascent.

via http://ift.tt/2gDPDQY Palisade Research

The ‘Hysteria’ Curve Crashes To 12-Month Lows

Whichever way you look at it – the Trump-flation trade is over…

 

What what SnakeHoleLounge.com calls "The Hysteria Curve" – TSY 2s10s – crashing to just 78bps, its lowest since August 2016…

Choose your hysteria to explain the Treasury market:

1) debt ceiling crisis,

2) hurricane (Global Warming) crisis,

3) North Korean nuclear attack crisis,

4) Trump’s Russian collusion investigation crisis,

5) the DACA (“Dreamer”) crisis,

6) Brexit crisis,

7) NAFTA crisis or

8) fill-in-the-blank crisis dejure.

Please tune to CNN or MSNBC (and even Bloomberg) for the latest in hysteria.

via http://ift.tt/2eHGlXg Tyler Durden

Florida Governor Activates National Guard As “Monster” Hurricane Irma Approaches

With the monster Cat-5 Hurricane Irma fast approaching what looks increasingly like an inevitable Florida landfall later this week, Governor Rick Scott has just announced that he has activated 100 members of the Florida Air and Army National Guard, with an additional 7,000 members expected to be activated Friday morning. Per the Miami Herald:

About 100 members of the Florida Air and Army National Guard were activated Tuesday to begin preparations for Hurricane Irma and all 7,000 members will report for duty Friday morning, Gov. Rick Scott said.

 

In activating the Guard, Scott said if additional resources are needed before Friday, “then I stand ready to activate as many guard members needed to support our aggressive preparedness actions.”

 

“With Hurricane Irma now a category 5 storm, we must do all we can to prepare our families and communities for any potential impact from this major weather event,” Scott said in a statement. “We do not know the exact path of this storm, but weather can change in an instant and while we hope for the best, we must prepare for the worst.”

 

As we pointed out earlier this morning, Hurricane Irma has recently strengthen to a Cat-5 storm packing sustained winds of 180 mph with gusts of up to 220 mph just as it approaches it first landfall in the Eastern Caribbean.  Meanwhile, the NHC Atlantic Ops twitter page also confirmed earlier that Irma is now the strongest hurricane in the Atlantic basin outside of the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico in NHC records (for more details see: “Monster” Irma Is Now The Strongest Atlantic Hurricane On Record, Florida Preps For “Catastrophic System”).

Meanwhile, activation of the Florida National Guard follows Governor Scott’s move last night to preemptively declare a “state of emergency.”

Of course, with FEMA resources already spread thin in Southern Texas, Florida is going to need all the emergency services personnel they can muster.

via http://ift.tt/2gDoayw Tyler Durden

Why Aren’t We Discussing the Things We Agree On?

The political environment since Trump’s election seems to get worse and worse by the day, as much of the American public becomes increasingly divided, embittered and downright insane. People across the political spectrum are enthusiastically fueling this destructive behavior in their varied quests to show how right they are and how hopelessly wrong everyone else is. Meanwhile, those who truly wield power in our society continue to laugh all the way to the bank.

Earlier today, I came across a prescient and powerful article written by Pamela B. Paresky in Psychology Today titled, Angry About the Election?

Although the piece was composed only a few weeks after the 2016 election, the writing was already on the wall and she identified and warned about the dangerous direction we were headed in. Here are a few choice excerpts:

continue reading

from Liberty Blitzkrieg http://ift.tt/2gIYunZ
via IFTTT

The Rule Of 20 & The Risk To Passive

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

The Rule Of 20

Byron Wien recently asked the question of where we are in terms of the economy and the market to a group of high-end investors. To wit:

“The one issue that dominated the discussion at all four of the lunches was whether or not we were in the late stages of the business cycle as well as the bull market. This recovery began in June 2009 and the bull market began in March of that year. So we are more than 100 months into the period of equity appreciation and close to that in terms of economic expansion.“

Importantly, it is not just the length of the market and economic expansion that is important to consider. As I explained just recently, the “full market cycle” will complete itself in due time to the detriment of those who fail to heed history, valuations, and psychology.

“There are two halves of every market cycle. “

“In the end, it does not matter IF you are ‘bullish’ or ‘bearish.’ The reality is that both ‘bulls’ and ‘bears’ are owned by the ‘broken clock’ syndrome during the full-market cycle. However, what is grossly important in achieving long-term investment success is not necessarily being ‘right’ during the first half of the cycle, but by not being ‘wrong’ during the second half.

 

Will valuations currently pushing the 3rd highest level in history, it is only a function of time before the second-half of the full-market cycle ensues.

 

That is not a prediction of a crash.

 

It is just a fact.”

As Wien states, Howard Marks, via Oaktree Capital Management, and arguably one of the most insightful thinkers on Wall Street recently penned a piece discussing the risk to investors. I suggest you read the whole piece, but here is the relevant passage:

“Today’s financial market conditions are easily summed up:  There’s a global glut of liquidity, minimal interest in traditional investments, little apparent concern about risk, and skimpy prospective returns everywhere. Thus, as the price for accessing returns that are potentially adequate (but lower than those promised in the past), investors are readily accepting significant risk in the form of heightened leverage, untested derivatives and weak deal structures.  The current cycle isn’t unusual in its form, only its extent. There’s little mystery about the ultimate outcome, in my opinion, but at this point in the cycle it’s the optimists who look best.”

Unfortunately, that was also a repeat of a passage he wrote in February 2007.

In other words, while things may seemingly be different this time around, they are most assuredly the same.

This brings us to the “Rule of 20.” The rule is simply inflation plus valuation and should be “no more than 20.” Interestingly, while the rule is pushing the 3rd highest level in history, only behind 1929 and 2000, Mr. Wien states that such levels only suggest the market is “fully priced” rather than “egregiously overvalued.” Regardless of what definition you choose to use, the math suggests forward 10-year returns will be substantially lower than the last.

In a market where momentum is driving an ever smaller group of participants, fundamentals are displaced by emotional biases. Such is the nature of market cycles and one of the primary ingredients necessary to create the proper environment for an eventual crash.

Notice, I said eventually.

I do agree the markets are indeed currently bullish and therefore, as stated above, portfolios remain tilted towards equities currently. However, just because fundamentals are currently ignored by “greed” and “momentum,” does not mean such will always be the case.

As David Einhorn once stated:

“The bulls explain that traditional valuation metrics no longer apply to certain stocks. The longs are confident that everyone else who holds these stocks understands the dynamic and won’t sell either. With holders reluctant to sell, the stocks can only go up – seemingly to infinity and beyond. We have seen this before.

 

There was no catalyst that we know of that burst the dot-com bubble in March 2000, and we don’t have a particular catalyst in mind here. That said, the top will be the top, and it’s hard to predict when it will happen.”

Is this time different?

Probably not.

The Risk To Passive

The other potential danger noted by Wien was ETF’s (Exchange Traded Funds). To wit:

“One other potential danger that investors seem too complacent about is Exchange Traded Funds. While most know these instruments as a great convenience in getting or reducing exposure to sectors or asset classes, they may prove to be less liquid than their participants believe and could destabilize the financial markets.”

But most importantly:

“Most owners of ETFs don’t know what’s in them. What happens when everyone wants to get out at the same time?”

As I noted in “Rise Of The Robots:”

“At some point, that reversion process will take hold. It is then investor “psychology” will collide with “margin debt” and ETF liquidity. As I noted in my podcast with Peak Prosperity:

 

‘It will be the equivalent of striking a match, lighting a stick of dynamite and throwing it into a tanker full of gasoline.’

 

When the ‘robot trading algorithms’  begin to reverse, it will not be a slow and methodical process but rather a stampede with little regard to price, valuation or fundamental measures as the exit will become very narrow.

 

Importantly, as prices decline it will trigger margin calls which will induce more indiscriminate selling. The forced redemption cycle will cause catastrophic spreads between the current bid and ask pricing for ETF’s. As investors are forced to dump positions to meet margin calls, the lack of buyers will form a vacuum causing rapid price declines which leave investors helpless on the sidelines watching years of capital appreciation vanish in moments.

 

If you don’t believe…just go look at what happened on September 15th, 2008.

 

It happened then.

 

It will happen again.”

While investors insist the markets are currently NOT in a bubble, it would be wise to remember the same belief was held in 1999 and 2007. Throughout history, financial bubbles have only been recognized in hindsight when their existence becomes “apparently obvious” to everyone. Of course, by that point, it was far too late to be of any use to investors and the subsequent destruction of invested capital.

This time will not be different. Only the catalyst, magnitude, and duration will be.

Investors would do well to remember the words of the then-chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission Arthur Levitt in a 1998 speech entitled “The Numbers Game:”

“While the temptations are great, and the pressures strong, illusions in numbers are only that—ephemeral, and ultimately self-destructive.”

But it was Howard Marks which summed up our philosophy on “risk management” well when he stated:

“If you refuse to fall into line in carefree markets like today’s, it’s likely that, for a while, you’ll (a) lag in terms of return and (b) look like an old fogey. But neither of those is much of a price to pay if it means keeping your head (and capital) when others eventually lose theirs. In my experience, times of laxness have always been followed eventually by corrections in which penalties are imposed. It may not happen this time, but I’ll take that risk.” 

I will receive a lot of emails from this article trying to pose counter-arguments, explain to me why this time is different, or that I am missing out.

I am okay with that.

Client’s don’t pay a fee to chase markets. They pay a fee to employ an investment discipline, trading rules, portfolio hedges and management practices that have been proven to reduce the probability a serious and irreparable impairment to their hard earned savings.

Unfortunately, the rules are REALLY hard to follow. If they were easy, then everyone would be wealthy from investing. They aren’t because investing without a discipline and strategy has horrid consequences.

So, what’s your plan for the second-half of the full market cycle?

via http://ift.tt/2eBU6mv Tyler Durden

Barclays: “Hurricane Irma’s Insured Damage Could Be The Largest Ever”

Hurricane Harvey was supposed to be a “1 in a 1000” year storm, in terms of damage. Well, just a few days later we have another “monster” storm to account for, and according to Barclays’ analyst Jay Gelb, Hurricane Irma’s insured damage in Florida could equal that inflicted by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Actually scratch that – according to the just released note, Irma’s insured damage in Florida could be the largest ever in the US” with some estimating a repeat of the 1926 Miami
hurricane which could result in $125-130bn of insured damage.

According to Barclays, “in a worst case scenario, catastrophe modelers AIR Worldwide and Karen Clark and Co. have estimated a repeat of the 1926 Miami hurricane could result in $125-130 billion of insured damage”, which is substantially higher than the insured damage expected in Texas as much of the damaged property was not covered by flood insurance. This explains why insurer stocks are in freefall today as traders shift their attention from potential damage by Harvey to potential damage by Irma.

With winds topping 180 mps, Hurricane Irma has now been classified as the strongest Atlantic hurricane on record. And as Barclays writes, “this potentially devastating hurricane could directly impact southern
Florida early next week. Given the potential magnitude of this storm as well as the
potential to impact a highly populated area, we think Irma’s insured damage in Florida
could be the largest ever in the US perhaps equivalent to Hurricane Katrina in 2005
($50bn on an inflation-adjusted basis). In a worst case scenario, catastrophe modelers
AIR Worldwide and Karen Clark and Co. have estimated a repeat of the 1926 Miami
hurricane could result in $125-130bn of insured damage.”

“We would view Irma as more of a risk to the traditional reinsurers as well as third-party providers of reinsurance capital than the primary commercial insurers and personal lines insurers based on the industry’s long-standing view that Florida poses substantial windstorm risk. Of the companies we cover, reinsurers expected to have among the largest exposures to a Florida hurricane could include RE, XL, VR, RNR, and AHL. Among primary commercial insurers, we would expect AIG to have among the largest exposure.”

The reinsurance companies cited by Barclays have seen their stocks fall over 5% today, with Validus down the most at 6.5 percent. XL Group was the single worst performer in the S&P 500, down 6 percent

The good news is that Gelb believes the net exposure (including reinsurance protection) of commercial and personal lines insurers such as CB, TRV, HIG, and ALL should be comparatively limited. Companies with large personal and commercial auto exposure in Florida which could be storm-exposed include Berkshire Hathaway’s GEICO unit as well as PGR. Notably, Berkshire has largely exited the property catastrophe reinsurance market due to weak pricing.

He adds that the possibility also exists for mandatory assessments on insurers from the state’s Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund which would add to insurers’ costs, making the hit to equity even worse.

“From the insurance industry’s perspective, we would expect a substantial hurricane possibly impacting Florida as well as just after Hurricane Harvey to possibly halt further reinsurance price declines for the first time in many years,” concluded the Barclays analysts. “However, insurers’ earnings and book values would also be expected to suffer a large hit.“

And then, once Irma passes, there is Jose to worry about…

via http://ift.tt/2w3KOG5 Tyler Durden

Left, Right, and Center Call on Congress to Save DACA

Jeff SessionsThe response has been swift and furious to today’s announcement that in six months the Trump administration will rescind the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy, which deferred deportations and granted work permits to some 800,000 individuals who’d been brought illegally to the United States by their parents.

As you’d expect, the move has received unconditional condemnation from civil liberties groups. The American Civil Liberties Union’s Gabriela Melendez, for example, issued a statement saying that “there is no humane way to end DACA before having a permanent legislative fix in place. President Trump just threw the lives and futures of 800,000 Dreamers and their families, including my own, into fearful disarray, and injected chaos and uncertainty into thousands of workplaces and communities across America.” Elected Democrats struck a similar tone, with Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeting: “Turning our backs on Dreamers makes us weaker, makes us less safe, & betrays our values.”

It’s not just lefties opposing the change. Right-leaning business groups have come out against Trump’s plan as well, saying the move would be bad for businesses, workers, and the economy. “Terminating their [DACA recipients] employment eligibility runs contrary to the president’s goal of growing the U.S. economy,” said Chamber of Commerce Senior Vice President Neil Bradley, adding that the his organization wants Trump and Congress to “work together to quickly find a legislative solution before the program expires.”

The decision has critics within the GOP as well. Arizona Sen. John McCain—a frequent Trump critic—called it “the wrong approach to immigration policy at a time when both sides of the aisle need to come together to fix our broken immigration system and secure the border.” McCain promised to work with Democrats to pass a legislative fix, saying that the proposed DREAM Act, which would give DACA recipients permeant legal status, is on the table for him.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul offered a somewhat similar sentiment, though he declined to call out Trump by name. “President Obama’s executive order [DACA] was illegal,” he tweeted. “However, this is a real problem we should solve in a bipartisan fashion.” He also said that “There are ways to make sure people who have been here for many years since childhood are allowed to stay,” adding that any legislative action on DACA should include efforts to “reduce and reform immigration in other areas.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan, a necessary participant in any immigration reform, said he hoped for “a permanent legislative solution that includes ensuring that those who have done nothing wrong can still contribute as a valued part of this great country.”

Running through all these reactions is a seemingly widespread consensus that immigrants brought here illegally by their parents should not be the targets of immigration enforcement, and that the ball is in Congress’ court to protect DACA recipients.

Trump himself has said as much, and in a Tuesday morning tweet urged Congress to act: “Congress, get ready to do your job – DACA!”

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2vHZEH0
via IFTTT

Utah Nurse’s Abuse by Police Detective Goes Viral; Does the Outrage Actually Mean Anything?

Alex WubbelsA Utah hospital that became the center of a holiday weekend media blitz has enacted new controls on police access in order to avoid a repeat of a nurse’s abuse and arrest.

A Salt Lake City police detective’s terrible treatment of University of Utah nurse Alex Wubbels was the outrage story of the weekend. In the July incident, Wubbels refused to comply with Det. Jeff Payne’s demands for the blood of a man put in a coma when he was struck during a high-speed chase. (The patient in question was an innocent bystander, and he was not suspected of any misconduct.) This past Thursday, Wubbels released body camera footage that showed Payne responding to her refusal by roughly manhandling and briefly arresting her.

Everything about the video footage cast Payne in a terrible light. Wubbels didn’t just randomly decide on her own to defy his orders: She had hospital administrators on the phone with her to explain that she was following hospital policy. Payne didn’t have a warrant, the patient was not under arrest, and the patient was not able to consent to the blood draw. Wubbels said she was not permitted to assist. Payne responded by dragging her out of the hospital.

On Monday, hospital officials revealed that they were so appalled by Payne’s behavior that they’ve changed their rules to control how and where police officers may seek access. (This policy shift had apparently already happened before the publicity caused by the videos.) Police are no longer permitted in patient care areas, and they’ll have to go higher up the supervisory ladder when they have requests rather than dealing directly with the nurses.

To see how little support Payne is receiving even from other authority figures, consider the reaction from one of the employers of the comatose patient, William Gray of Idaho. Gray is a trucker, but he’s also a reserve police officer with the Rigby Police in Idaho. As Wubbels’ story was going viral, the Rigby Police posted a message on Facebook that, in no uncertain terms, defended the nurse’s decision to resist Payne’s orders:

Within the first hours of Officer Gray being admitted into the burn unit, an incident occurred between hospital staff and an officer from an agency in Utah who was assisting with the investigation. The Rigby Police Department was not aware of this incident until August 31st, 2017. The Rigby Police Department would like to thank the nurse involved and hospital staff for standing firm, and protecting Officer Gray’s rights as a patient and victim. Protecting the rights of others is truly a heroic act.

The Rigby Police Department would also like to acknowledge the hard work of the involved agencies, and trusts that this unfortunate incident will be investigated thoroughly, and appropriate action will be taken.

It is important to remember that Officer Gray is the victim in this horrible event, and that at no time was he under any suspicion of wrongdoing. As he continues to heal, we would ask that his family be given privacy, respect, and prayers for continued recovery and peace.

Possibly not getting enough attention in all this is Wubbels’ concern that what happened to her might not be an isolated incident. I don’t mean the arrest; I mean nurses being pressured to assist police in drawing blood when the cops don’t have warrants and the patients are not consenting. In interviews since she’s gone public (such as this one with KUTV2), Wubbels has said that her original goal in releasing the videos was to reach nurses and police in rural areas of Utah to “get the education out there” about appropriate conduct in these cases.

At Reason we have regularly documented brutal police searches. Cops frequently run roughshod over citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights in zealous attempts to get evidence of even the pettiest of crimes. It would not come as a surprise if other nurses felt like they had little choice but to cooperate with police demands to draw blood, even after the Supreme Court ruled a year ago that a warrant was required under such circumstances.

It’s good that Wubbels’ treatment by Payne (and by his watch commander—let us not forget that Payne was “following orders”) inspired mass outrage. But it’s not just Wubbels, or just nurses, who face this problem. This is part of a much larger pattern of police routinely violating the Fourth Amendment, often aided and abetted by courts.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2w3eQcZ
via IFTTT