Skip to content or view screen version

Latest Corporate Watch Newsletter: housing and corporations

Loukas | 04.04.2005 15:35 | Ecology | Social Struggles | Oxford

The April-May Corporate Watch Newsletter focuses on aspects of Labour's housing policy -- and how it is set up to help construction and property corporations while possibly evicting thousands of tenants from their homes.

Plus international and local news and features

DEMOLISHING THE COMMUNTY
What this country's poorest really need is higher house prices. That's the basis of the government's Housing Renewal Pathfinder schemes - demolishing 400,000 houses across the North of England to build more expensive homes.
Read more:  http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/newsletter/issue23/part1.htm

ACTION!
TAKING ACTION AGAINST PATHFINDER
Corporate Watch talks to Natasha LeaJones, secretary of Home Environments at Redearth Triange (HEART), one of the groups taking action against the Elevate East Lancashire Housing 'Pathfinder' scheme in Darwen, Lancashire.
Read more:  http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/newsletter/issue23/part9.htm

FIGHTING FOR OUR HOMES
Community resistance to Prescott's Pathfinder demolitions...
Read more:  http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/newsletter/issue23/part8.htm

THE GREAT COUNCIL HOUSING BLACKMAIL
Labour's current policy amounts to nothing less than the destruction of council housing as we know it. Cllr Matt Sellwood, Oxford City Council Green Group.
Read more:  http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/newsletter/issue23/part10.htm

WORLD

SAVING ICELAND: THE BUCK STOPS HERE
In March 2004, the government of Iceland held a conference in the capital Reykjavik. It was a private conference, attended by representatives of the top multinational corporations, Rio Tinto, Alcoa and Alcan among them, and the population were not told about it in advance. Iceland, a government spokesman informed its people afterwards, was now open for business.
Read more:  http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/newsletter/issue23/part11.htm

‘SUSTAINABLE’ GREEN DESERTS
Vast eucalyptus monocultures are taking over giant swathes of the Brazilian landscape, feeding the pulp/paper and iron industries. Now 'forestry' corporations are claiming carbon credits for these green deserts, giving Western companies a license to burn more fossil fuels, at the expense of the indigenous people with a rightful claim to the land.
Read more:  http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/newsletter/issue23/part12.htm

RESISTING THE ECONOMIC WAR IN IRAQ
Interview with Hassan Juma'a Awad, president of the Basra Oil Union By Greg Muttitt of Platform.
Read more:  http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/newsletter/issue23/part13.htm

UK NEWS

GOVERNMENT COMMISSIONS, IGNORES, NANOTECH REPORT
Last year's Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineers (RS/RAE) report Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties, although narrow in its remit, was far from glowing in its assessment of nanotechnology. The report was significant in that it was the first time that such pillars of the scientific establishment as the RS/RAE had urged caution about nanotechnology. '.
Read more:  http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/newsletter/issue23/part7.htm

UK DEVELOPMENT AID FUELS CLIMATE CHANGE AND POVERTY
UK aid money is creating an 'oil curse' for developing economies, according to a new report from Plan B. 'Pumping Poverty: Britain's Department for International Development and the oil industry' (17 March, 2005). The report finds that taxpayers' money is being spent on supporting energy projects which benefit UK and US oil companies, but do little to help the countries where they are based.
Read more:  http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/newsletter/issue23/part5.htm

Download Corporate Watch newsletter in pdf format:
 http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/newsletter/issue23/newsletter23.pdf

Help Corporate Watch survive! Make a donation or subscribe to the paper newsletter here:  http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/pages/support_us.html

Loukas
- Homepage: http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk

Comments

Hide the following 20 comments

nanotechnology?

06.04.2005 17:01

I hear your comments about nanotechnology and although the names of those involved makes me suspicious I do not know enough to be against it. Yes, small particles floating around to inhale is worring but isn't it nanotechnololy which has given us mobile phones and computers which many people use all the time?

Please someone give me a sensible answer, thank you.

interested

where do you get your info?

06.04.2005 17:16

Please could you tell me, where do you get your info for your reports?

How do you deal with mistakes you have made in previous reports?

Do you have a 'customer service' dept. who politly and promptly deal with enquiries?

I like the idea of an organisation who watch (big) corporations and try to ensure that they behave in a morally responsible way but not at the expense of truth and honesty. That would be too much like Tony Blair's relience on so called 'intelligence' in order to agree with George Bush's desire to attack Iraq!

intelligence seeker

Mistakes?

06.04.2005 22:35

It's impossible for anyone to answer your claims of mistakes, as you don't specify what they are. Don't make accusations you can't substantiate.

rjh

is there anybody out there?

07.04.2005 13:58

I'm heartened that I'm not the only one with inaccuracies (still) to correct.

My experience of pointing out errors to Corporate Watch is that it takes ages to get any sort of acknowledgement from them, let alone be able to give them information correcting what they've written. It's unfortunate, as they do raise relevant issues and open up areas of corporate operation that many would prefer weren't put on display. However, if a corporate customer response machine was as bad as CW's own, CW would no doubt be complaining bitterly about it.

Come on CW, take your own medicine and talk to us who want to get things right!

Radjel

not the only one to see mistakes then

07.04.2005 14:59

I tried to tell CW of a mistake in the newsletter last year but no one bothered to get back to me. Has this happened to others too? I was not impressed.

jm

Correcting mistakes

07.04.2005 15:03

I'm heartened that I'm not the only one with inaccuracies (still) to correct.

My experience of pointing out errors to Corporate Watch is that it takes ages to get any sort of acknowledgement from them, let alone be able to give them information correcting what they've written. It's unfortunate, as they do raise relevant issues and open up areas of corporate operation that many would prefer weren't put on display. However, if a corporate customer response machine was as bad as CW's own, CW would no doubt be complaining bitterly about it.

Come on CW, take your own medicine and talk to us who want to get things right!

Radjel

Corrections?

08.04.2005 11:26

Would the people who have mentioned 'mistakes' in Corporate Watch like to specify what they are talking about -- or get in touch direct? We have a duty to supply our readers with accurate information and are always interested to hear of correction and clarifications.

On the question of our sources, we footnote as much of our work as possible, so it should be possible for people to check our stories agains the data that we have researched it from.

Loukas

Corrections please

08.04.2005 16:21

Loukas:

OK, so you are "interested" to hear about "correction and clarifications". But what are you going to do when these things are pointed out? Will (do?) you publish the correct information, giving it as much prominence as the original article, or will you ignore it or give it much less prominence - like the mainstream media?

As to sources, CW's credibility should be such that we can trust what you publish, and not have to check your stories ourselves. Knowing that even one item is incorrect calls into question the truth of anything you publish.

Radjel

Whats your problem?

08.04.2005 17:45

Radjel,

While holding CW to account is perfectly fine, you seem to be overly sceptical about their motivation. The people who work at Corporate Watch do so for pretty crappy pay in order to expose corporate behaviour that otherwise would go unnoticed and unremarked. Whats your agenda? I note that you have also gone on a long rant about the Dissent! network on another thread, again for no particular reason other than a seemingly generalised distrust of progressive organisations.

If you have a specific complaint, then fair enough, but why are you going around the IMC casting aspersions on honest people's work?

Matt

Matt S

Not a problem for me

09.04.2005 10:41

Matt:

I'm not sure what your point is, other than a (obviously completely unjustified in my view) emotive personal attack. If you count comments on two threads across the whole of IndyMedia as "going around", there are probably many more culpable candidates than me that you should be trying to slag off (stop?) first. I thought IndyMedia was a forum for anyone to express views, make comments and try and move alternative thinking forwards. If you only want people who agree with each other all the time, what's the point? The world won't change unless the majority of people in it want it to - that's the real challenge. And I don't necessarily disagree - I just would like information to help me decide.

CW : no attempt to hold them to account, what they want to do is up to them. I don't know how much they get paid (what exactly do you call "crappy pay"?) - whatever it is is totally irrelevant to information they post. If CW wants to be seen as credible, and believed, then they have to make sure that what they put on their website is correct. If people point out an error, or want to offer more information, I would expect CW to welcome any such approach and put such corrections/additions out there as well. They also should be able to speak for themselves, and give us all the information that "intelligence seeker" (posting above) is after.

Dissent! Network : suggest you reread my posts. If you can't accept there's an irony in a well-organised, branded and logo'ed campaign against global capitalism, that's a shame. And if other posters prefer to indulge in attempted sarcasm rather than give me more information, that's also a shame. You say I have a "seemingly generalised distrust of progressive organisations" - I think you are inferring far more from my observations than is justified. Apart from the irony, it did seem that D!N were keeping their underlying principles (PGA Hallmarks) very much to themselves, there for those who look rather than those who merely participate in response to a notice. I see that on a later IMC newsthread they have "come out". About time; and it would be good if they made this clear every time a D!N event was advertised.

And what's your agenda Matt? Are you policing IMC on behalf of y0urself, or someone else? Do you (and if so, why?) object to me making comments in 1, 2 or more threads? Are you trying to stop me post at all? Of more relevance to this thread, what involvement do you have with CW and can you provide any answers to the questions being posed here?

Radjel

Not a problem

10.04.2005 07:50

Matt:

I'm not sure what your point is, other than a (obviously completely unjustified in my view) emotive personal attack. If you count comments on two threads across the whole of IndyMedia as "going around", there are probably many more culpable candidates than me that you should be trying to slag off (stop?) first. I thought IndyMedia was a forum for anyone to express views, make comments and try and move alternative thinking forwards. If you only want people who agree with each other all the time, what's the point? The world won't change unless the majority of people in it want it to - that's the real challenge. And I don't necessarily disagree - I just would like information to help me decide.

CW : no attempt to hold them to account, what they want to do is up to them. I don't know how much they get paid (what exactly do you call "crappy pay"?) - whatever it is is totally irrelevant to information they post. If CW wants to be seen as credible, and believed, then they have to make sure that what they put on their website is correct. If people point out an error, or want to offer more information, I would expect CW to welcome any such approach and put such corrections/additions out there as well. They also should be able to speak for themselves, and give us all the information that "intelligence seeker" (posting above) is after.

Dissent! Network : suggest you reread my posts. If you can't accept there's an irony in a well-organised, branded and logo'ed campaign against global capitalism, that's a shame. And if other posters prefer to indulge in attempted sarcasm rather than give me more information, that's also a shame. You say I have a "seemingly generalised distrust of progressive organisations" - I think you are inferring far more from my observations than is justified. Apart from the irony, it did seem that D!N were keeping their underlying principles (PGA Hallmarks) very much to themselves, there for those who look rather than those who merely participate in response to a notice. I see that on a later IMC newsthread they have "come out". About time; and it would be good if they made this clear every time a D!N event was advertised.

And what's your agenda Matt? Are you policing IMC on behalf of y0urself, or someone else? Do you (and if so, why?) object to me making comments in 1, 2 or more threads? Are you trying to stop me post at all? Of more relevance to this thread, what involvement do you have with CW and can you provide any answers to the questions being posed here?

Radjel

Reasonable

10.04.2005 16:56

I wrote one piece of analysis for Corporate Watch in 2002 and have a very short article in their latest newsletter - I know some of the people who work there, though being part of the East Oxford activist scene, and somewhat resent your implications which seem to suggest that they are somehow negligent in their work or have some kind of ulterior motive for what they do.

If that is not the impression you wish to give, then fair enough - I simply point out that on both this thread and the one on Dissent! you have been fairly scathing about organisations which, in my opinion, are in the main *excellent* and very positive.

You're perfectly entitled to your opinions, of course - I'm just saying that to some people they read as rather *too* sceptical - you can hold people to account without seeming to suggest that they are somehow dishonest.

Matt

Matt S

What mistakes?

11.04.2005 09:54

Corporate Watch has already told you it welcomes corrections - so what were these mistakes exactly? Otherwise you're just casting unsubstantiated aspersions.

rjh

Unanswered questions..

11.04.2005 16:45

rjh

"casting unsubstantiated aspersions?" Nothing of the kind. And, on this thread at least, CW have not told me that "it welcomes corrections". That's exactly what I would like to hear - look at the post from Loukas on 08.04, and my response. My point was/is that they haven't said what they will do with corrections, and haven't answered the questions posted by "intelligence seeker".

Radjel

Completely reasonable

11.04.2005 17:00

Matt

I have carefully tried to address the points you raised in your post on 08.04, but you seem to have avoided both recognising the points I am trying to make and answering the questions being raised by various posters on this thread.

Are CW negligent? Haven't the faintest idea, not that bothered, people can make up their own minds and I certainly wouldn't seek to influence others through posts using emotive language such as yours and those of rjh. All I would like to know is CW's approach to corrections. So far I've seen Loukas' post. I would expect them to be more than just
"always interested". And what I can't understand is why it is so difficult to get this out of them.

Not sure where the "ulterior motive" bit comes from, can't see that fits with this topic. Suggest that if you want to give me more information about D!N then we switch back to that thread. Dishonest? Your word, not mine - if I think someone is being dishonest then I will say so, and give my reasons.

Radjel

To clarify

12.04.2005 16:50

To answer radjel and intelligence seeker -- yes, Corporate Watch will correct and alter our stories if we are presented with eveidence that we've got it wrong. We have no customer relations department, being a tiny organisation, and so maybe past queries have got lost? If so, I apologise and confirm that I will be interested to hear any corrections and to implement them on our website if they turn out to be correct.

Loukas

Thank you

12.04.2005 17:38

That's great - thanks Loukas.

Radjel

at last, thankyou

13.04.2005 08:41

Thank you Loukas for your last posting. I look forward to seeing how you deal with new info you recieve now.

I notice that no-one has responded to the enquiry on nanotechnology...

intelligence seeker

where is my comment

13.04.2005 19:20

where is my last comment?
how long do i have to wait to see my comment?

where

Some stuff on Nanomaterials

14.04.2005 12:39

Interested:
Here's my take for what it's worth.

There's nothing inherently wrong with nanomaterials - the particle size is extremely small, but the chemical composition isn't any different. The small particle size means an extremely large surface area, and this leads to different physical properties and more complete/effective chemical reactions.

The main concern is that free particles of nanomaterial may have physical properties like other substances of a similar size with identifiable risk eg asbestos. Once the nanos are fixed (like in paint, or makeup) then there is little likelihood of any risk - they've been used like this for many years already without known numbers of the population keeling over.

There is a nanomaterial known commercially as Envirox, a diesel additive, that Stagecoach is adopting for all its vehicles - the advantage is that fuel consumption is improved by about 10%, but the consequence is (potentially) that the exhaust fumes contain free nanoparticles, and such emissions are not covered by any healt/safety regulation, and not enough testing has been carried out (eg do nanos cause the same disease as asbestos?).

I have contacted the developers, Oxonica, (www.oxonica.co.uk) who gave me the courtesy of a reply, but it was fairly content free - follow all current regulations/tests etc. I sent a follow up with more quizzing on health testing they might have thought of doing themselves before unleashing such stuff into the atmosphere, but have yet to get a response.

I'm sure there's lots more that others can add, but hope this little helps.

Radjel