Latest news with #UniversityofEssex
ITV News
3 days ago
- Business
- ITV News
University of Suffolk announces 35 jobs could be cut in bid to save millions of pounds
The University of Suffolk has announced it could cut more than two dozen jobs in a bid to cut costs amid "considerable financial pressure." The University said it is considering cutting 35 jobs as it needs to take "immediate action" to save £3.5 million. It has four campuses based in Ipswich, Bury St Edmunds, Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth in Norfolk. In a statement a spokesperson said, 'Like most universities, the University of Suffolk is under considerable financial pressure due to the real-terms fall in the value of the UK student tuition fee, the tightening of overseas visa rules, and rising costs, including the recent National Insurance increase. 'We also face an increasingly competitive student recruitment environment. While we have an ongoing programme to maximise efficiency savings and digital transformation, we still need to take immediate action to reduce our costs by £3.5 million. 'The University is proposing to make structural and workforce changes both to reduce costs and to create a scalable and sustainable organisation that can thrive for the future." The proposals will see the loss of around 35 occupied posts, while a number of vacant positions will not be replaced. A consultation process will run until late June. It is the latest in a series of cutbacks in higher education and comes six months after the University of Essex announced it would cut 200 jobs after a budget shortfall of £29 million. Meanwhile the University of East Anglia said in November 2024 it was looking to lose 170 positions in an attempt to save £11 million.
ITV News
21-05-2025
- Politics
- ITV News
‘A feeling of deprivation and being left behind': The truth behind last summer's riots
On 29 July last year, three young girls were stabbed to death while attending a Taylor Swift dance class during the summer holidays. Bebe King, 6, Elsie Dot Stancombe, 7, and Alice da Silva Aguiar, nine, were killed by Axel Rudakubana, who has since been jailed for a minimum of 52 years. A day after the attack, riots broke out on the streets of Southport and within six days violence had spread to more than 30 towns and cities with more than 1,000 arrests in the weeks that followed. The protests were fuelled by false claims on social media that the perpetrator of the Southport attack was a Muslim and an asylum seeker. It triggered widespread disorder - including racist attacks and anti-immigration marches - leading many branding the protestors far right and racist. Now, a leading expert, who has analysed the outbreaks of violence, has revealed what he believes to be the true underlying cause of the disorder. Professor Paul Whiteley, who specialises in government and social science at the University of Essex, told ITV News: 'Our research shows fundamentally what's underneath this, is a feeling of deprivation that people have, a feeling of being left behind. 'Because it was very clear, from census data that we looked at, that the places where the serious violence occurred often had a lot of poverty, a lot of deprivation.' Despite finding that deprivation was a driving factor behind the unrest, he said that discontent didn't actually erupt in some of the poorest areas of the country. Professor Whiteley explained: 'Funnily enough, it wasn't the most poor constituencies that rioted but ones that are a little above poverty. 'If you're really poor it makes you apathetic - people don't vote, they don't get involved. 'You need to be a little bit more, have a greater sense of efficacy- a feeling that you can do things - and a little bit more money in the community for this to happen. 'Riots don't occur in really poor areas but in areas that have been downwardly mobile - losing jobs, losing places.' Professor Whiteley and his team said they looked at four possible hypotheses behind what might have triggered the disorder across the UK last year. They considered a correlation between increase in Reform voting, recent immigration, anti-muslim sentiment, and deprivation in areas where rioting had occurred. He added: 'And of those four possibilities, the one that really stood out was deprivation. 'People feeling deprived, ignored, no jobs, poor prospects, poverty, low wages etc, builds up to create a sense of anger which can spill over if it's triggered - it needs to be triggered - but it can spill over into riots. 'And the trigger was unfortunately provided by the terrible crime as we know and false information, fake news on the internet, that this was a recent immigrant - that triggered it too.' Asked if it was too simplistic to say what we saw last year was just racism, Professor Whiteley responded: 'Yes. There's a racist element, as the analysis showed. 'But there's a funny thing about immigration which is this: recent arrivals can cause problems in a community, but the evidence shows that if you track it for a long period 10 years, 15 years, people integrate. 'The racist dimension of having a lot of people come in from other cultures, other societies goes away, gradually goes away. 'But, if there's an influx for a short period - a year or two - that can cause problems. I think it was one of the triggers in the riots, but it wasn't the most important trigger.' Professor Whiteley said that taking to the streets to protest and riot was nothing new. 'It's a phenomenon - the Urban riot - that's been with us for centuries and at one stage it was very very common,' he said. 'Democracy and giving people a voice has made it much less likely to occur. But nonetheless if governments do things which people really don't like you will get riots. 'So the possibility of violence as a form of political participation still exists, it's got much less over time, but it still exists. Asked if we could see a repeat of last year's riots, he replied: 'A repeat is certainly possible. It's not inevitable, but it's certainly possible. '[Last year] they just got carried away and all the anger came out and it became really irrational in a way. 'But the underlying causes were deep-seated and certainly the trigger event then allowed the pressure cooker to blow for a period. 'The government handled it very well by cracking down on it because you had to do that immediately but then subsequently you've got a step in and try and deal with these issues.'
RTÉ News
19-05-2025
- Health
- RTÉ News
Toolkit launched to protect child influencers
A new digital safeguarding toolkit has been launched to protect child influencers, also known as 'kidfluencers'. These are children that post content online via social media accounts that may generate economic gain in the form of monetary payments or goods. It often occurs through sponsorships, product placements or paid adverts, where the parents are approached by a brand or agency to promote a product or experience. The 'Kids as Content' Digital Safeguarding Toolkit is designed to protect children in the digital space. It is a guide for parents, industry professionals, and policymakers focussing on considerations such as child labour risks when it comes to payments. The toolkit also examines health and safety concerns, as well as risks linked to family, identity, education and dignity. It is based on the research of Dr Francis Rees, Co-ordinator for the Child Influencer Project and a Lecturer in Law at the University of Essex. "The project has identified basic workplace risks such as children not having the same entitlements to access their money," Dr Rees said. "They also wouldn't go through the normal health and safety assessments or know their working hours." "It is about getting parents to take a beat and think about what they are posting, how they are framing the child, and also to think about their own bargaining positions with brands and agencies who should be paying them properly for this work," she added. The toolkit was launched today at the Office of the Ombudsman for Children. The Ombudsman, Dr Niall Muldoon, believes new laws may be needed to protect child influencers. "If they were child actors, there would be all sorts of regulations, we have advertising standards when it comes to health and safety, remuneration, hours of work and education to make sure the child is protected at all times," Dr Muldoon said. "That's not in this sphere and we need to start upping our game and looking at the legislation around that," he added. There are also concerns about the negative comments, exposure to harmful content and unwanted followers that can come with being a child influencer. Fiona Jennings, Head of Policy and Public Affairs at the ISPCC said laws are being developed in other countries to protect child influencers. "We need to close a legislative gap that is there at the moment," Ms Jennings said. "Invariably this type of work happens within the home space and it can be difficult for a child to understand what is family life when it drifts into child influencing," she added.
08-05-2025
- Business
The Gates Foundation's first 25 years: How it changed global health and philanthropy
SEATTLE -- In its first 25 years, the Gates Foundation became one of the world's largest charitable foundations and one of the most powerful institutions in global health — an accomplishment that carried both accolades and controversy. Bill Gates and Melinda French Gates had grand ambitions for their foundation, but little experience in global health or philanthropy. They were moved by stories like those written by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof about children dying from diseases caused by a lack of sanitation. In characteristic Gates style, they tackled these problems with rigor, data and close oversight. As a result, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation — formed in 2000 by the merger of two family foundations and funded by Gates' Microsoft wealth and later, by tens of billions from investor Warren Buffett — inserted itself into the architecture of global health. Along the way, the foundation's leaders redefined what it means to be philanthropists. 'As I was learning about what children die of, you know, HIV and diarrhea and pneumonia, were all things that I was stunned how little was going into helping the poor countries,' Gates said in an interview with The Associated Press. He responded in a way few others could, by pouring billions into the foundation, which spent $100 billion in its first 25 years, with about half going toward global health. Thanks to its largesse, as well as the expertise of its employees, its connections to governments and companies, and the profile of its founders, the Gates Foundation now garners at least the same influence, if not more, in almost any global health forum as many countries. That era now has an end date. Gates announced Thursday that the foundation will close in 2045, pledging that he plans to donate 99% of his remaining fortune, which would be $107 billion today, to the nonprofit by then. Gates said the foundation can maintain its culture and workforce over that time. "We'll be showing that we're doing the most we can and give a lot of predictability to the field by (saying,) 'We'll be here all of those 20 years, but not thereafter,'" he said. The foundation's influence over global health policy and its partnerships with companies and other private sector actors have long drawn questions. Researcher Linsey McGoey, a professor of sociology at the University of Essex, who wrote the book 'No Such Thing as a Free Gift ' about the foundation, asks how charitable it is to 'give away' money to a foundation the donor controls. Others like Anuj Kapilashrami, global health professor at the University of Essex, argue the foundation's preference for low-cost treatments and interventions does not inherently help build the capacity of health systems. 'We do not tackle the causes, the underlying drivers of what is producing ill-health, but we choose areas and health issues where we can just push these magic bullets: commodities, drugs (and) bed nets,' she said. Mark Suzman, who has been with the foundation for 18 years and CEO since 2020, said close supervision of grantees and the foundation's data-driven processes are key to its success. 'We are not a 'write the check, call us in three years and let us know what it looks like,'' kind of funder, Suzman said. 'We'll be calling you up probably every week, and we'll have some opinions. But we want your opinions back.' The foundation is proud of the many vaccines, medical devices and treatment protocols it has helped develop. It is optimistic about a pipeline of innovations, including potential vaccines for malaria and HIV, as possible accomplishments in its remaining 20 years. David McCoy, a physician who was then at the University College London, argued back in 2009 that only a small portion of the foundation's spending went directly to organizations located in the countries where they work, with most going to international organizations like the World Health Organization or to groups located in the U.S. and Europe. Suzman said he has been an internal champion of shifting more of the foundation's work from Seattle to in-country offices. The foundation's flagship issue, and the main way it measures its success, is in reducing preventable childhood deaths. The Gates Foundation helped establish two major public-private partnerships: Gavi, the vaccine alliance that funds and distributes vaccines for children, and the Global Fund, which, along with governments, funds the treatment and control of HIV, tuberculosis and malaria. The foundation says the two organizations have saved tens of millions of lives and are some of the most important examples of its impact. However, Amy Patterson, politics professor at The University of the South, Sewanee, says public-private partnerships like Gavi and the Global Fund diminish the power of civil society groups and citizens compared to public health systems. 'It certainly has moved us from thinking about health as a state responsibility, which raises questions about accountability and participation,' said Patterson, who has researched the management of AIDS in African countries, including the role of civic groups. 'That is not to discount the millions of lives saved, or children immunized, or women who have access to reproductive health, or the innovations that have brought efficiency,' Patterson said. 'But if you think about the social contract between states taking care of their people, how do we have that same kind of accountability in this type of a system?' A huge moment in the early history of the foundation came in 2006 when Buffett pledged to donate a percentage of his Berkshire Hathaway shares annually, almost doubling the foundation's resources. Buffett teamed with Gates and French Gates again in 2010 to launch a new commitment for billionaires: to give away more than half their money in their lifetimes or at the time of their death. The Giving Pledge now has more than 240 people agreeing to those terms, far exceeding Gates' expectations. However, certainly not every billionaire has. Gates hopes others will surpass his giving. 'I'd love to be beat in all of this work," he said. "Somebody should try and pay more taxes than I did, and save more lives than I did, and give more money than I did, and be smarter than I've been.' He acknowledged that cuts to foreign aid and health funding under President Donald Trump's current administration, wars, and economic turmoil significantly challenge the foundation's hopes of eradicating polio, controlling malaria, and reducing the number of child and maternal deaths in the next 20 years. 'The metric that we should be measured against is the success of the whole global health field. Did we draw people in? Did we keep governments engaged, and therefore, do we get childhood death rates down from the 5 million to cut it in half again?' he said. 'I can't promise you we will, because without the partners, that's not doable. And the current trend line is not positive for that.' ___ ___
The Hill
08-05-2025
- Business
- The Hill
The Gates Foundation's first 25 years: How it changed global health and philanthropy
SEATTLE (AP) — In its first 25 years, the Gates Foundation became one of the world's largest charitable foundations and one of the most powerful institutions in global health — an accomplishment that carried both accolades and controversy. Bill Gates and Melinda French Gates had grand ambitions for their foundation, but little experience in global health or philanthropy. They were moved by stories like those written by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof about children dying from diseases caused by a lack of sanitation. In characteristic Gates style, they tackled these problems with rigor, data and close oversight. As a result, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation — formed in 2000 by the merger of two family foundations and funded by Gates' Microsoft wealth and later, by tens of billions from investor Warren Buffett — inserted itself into the architecture of global health. Along the way, the foundation's leaders redefined what it means to be philanthropists. 'As I was learning about what children die of, you know, HIV and diarrhea and pneumonia, were all things that I was stunned how little was going into helping the poor countries,' Gates said in an interview with The Associated Press. He responded in a way few others could, by pouring billions into the foundation, which spent $100 billion in its first 25 years, with about half going toward global health. Thanks to its largesse, as well as the expertise of its employees, its connections to governments and companies, and the profile of its founders, the Gates Foundation now garners at least the same influence, if not more, in almost any global health forum as many countries. That era now has an end date. Gates announced Thursday that the foundation will close in 2045, pledging that he plans to donate 99% of his remaining fortune, which would be $107 billion today, to the nonprofit by then. Gates said the foundation can maintain its culture and workforce over that time. 'We'll be showing that we're doing the most we can and give a lot of predictability to the field by (saying,) 'We'll be here all of those 20 years, but not thereafter,'' he said. With great power, comes much scrutiny The foundation's influence over global health policy and its partnerships with companies and other private sector actors have long drawn questions. Researcher Linsey McGoey, a professor of sociology at the University of Essex, who wrote the book 'No Such Thing as a Free Gift ' about the foundation, asks how charitable it is to 'give away' money to a foundation the donor controls. Others like Anuj Kapilashrami, global health professor at the University of Essex, argue the foundation's preference for low-cost treatments and interventions does not inherently help build the capacity of health systems. 'We do not tackle the causes, the underlying drivers of what is producing ill-health, but we choose areas and health issues where we can just push these magic bullets: commodities, drugs (and) bed nets,' she said. Mark Suzman, who has been with the foundation for 18 years and CEO since 2020, said close supervision of grantees and the foundation's data-driven processes are key to its success. 'We are not a 'write the check, call us in three years and let us know what it looks like,'' kind of funder, Suzman said. 'We'll be calling you up probably every week, and we'll have some opinions. But we want your opinions back.' The foundation is proud of the many vaccines, medical devices and treatment protocols it has helped develop. It is optimistic about a pipeline of innovations, including potential vaccines for malaria and HIV, as possible accomplishments in its remaining 20 years. David McCoy, a physician who was then at the University College London, argued back in 2009 that only a small portion of the foundation's spending went directly to organizations located in the countries where they work, with most going to international organizations like the World Health Organization or to groups located in the U.S. and Europe. Suzman said he has been an internal champion of shifting more of the foundation's work from Seattle to in-country offices. Lifting private partnerships in global health The foundation's flagship issue, and the main way it measures its success, is in reducing preventable childhood deaths. The Gates Foundation helped establish two major public-private partnerships: Gavi, the vaccine alliance that funds and distributes vaccines for children, and the Global Fund, which, along with governments, funds the treatment and control of HIV, tuberculosis and malaria. The foundation says the two organizations have saved tens of millions of lives and are some of the most important examples of its impact. However, Amy Patterson, politics professor at The University of the South, Sewanee, says public-private partnerships like Gavi and the Global Fund diminish the power of civil society groups and citizens compared to public health systems. 'It certainly has moved us from thinking about health as a state responsibility, which raises questions about accountability and participation,' said Patterson, who has researched the management of AIDS in African countries, including the role of civic groups. 'That is not to discount the millions of lives saved, or children immunized, or women who have access to reproductive health, or the innovations that have brought efficiency,' Patterson said. 'But if you think about the social contract between states taking care of their people, how do we have that same kind of accountability in this type of a system?' Championing philanthropy and setting the bar for billionaires A huge moment in the early history of the foundation came in 2006 when Buffett pledged to donate a percentage of his Berkshire Hathaway shares annually, almost doubling the foundation's resources. Buffett teamed with Gates and French Gates again in 2010 to launch a new commitment for billionaires: to give away more than half their money in their lifetimes or at the time of their death. The Giving Pledge now has more than 240 people agreeing to those terms, far exceeding Gates' expectations. However, certainly not every billionaire has. Gates hopes others will surpass his giving. 'I'd love to be beat in all of this work,' he said. 'Somebody should try and pay more taxes than I did, and save more lives than I did, and give more money than I did, and be smarter than I've been.' He acknowledged that cuts to foreign aid and health funding under President Donald Trump's current administration, wars, and economic turmoil significantly challenge the foundation's hopes of eradicating polio, controlling malaria, and reducing the number of child and maternal deaths in the next 20 years. 'The metric that we should be measured against is the success of the whole global health field. Did we draw people in? Did we keep governments engaged, and therefore, do we get childhood death rates down from the 5 million to cut it in half again?' he said. 'I can't promise you we will, because without the partners, that's not doable. And the current trend line is not positive for that.' ___ The Associated Press receives financial support for news coverage in Africa from the Gates Foundation and for news coverage of women in the workforce and in statehouses from Melinda French Gates' organization, Pivotal Ventures. ___
