Met e-crime specialists on course to exceed target due to successful operations A Metropolitan police unit claims to have saved the economy more than £140m in the past six months and is on course to exceed its four-year “harm reduction” target, the force said on Sunday. The Met said the central e-crime unit had delivered nearly 30% of its £504m target during this period. The figure relates to the amount of money the UK has been prevented from losing through cyber crime and follows a number of successful prosecutions and operations. Funding of £30m has been provided over four years to support the development of the unit as it tackles computer intrusion, denial of service attacks and internet fraud. Deputy Assistant Commissioner Janet Williams said: “In the initial six-month period the unit, together with its partners in industry and international law enforcement, has excelled in its efforts to meet this substantial commitment and has delivered in excess of £140m of financial harm reduction to the UK economy. We hope to be able to better this result in the future as we expand our national capability.” Cases include Operation Pagode, which resulted in £84m worth of harm saved. Five defendants were jailed for a total of nearly 16 years after an investigation into a group of fraudsters who set up an online “criminal forum” which traded unlawfully obtained credit card details and tools to commit computer offences. Another was Operation Dynamaphone, which resulted in £5.5m worth of harm saved. Three men were jailed for 13 years for their part in a concerted attack on the UK and international banking system. They are believed to be the first prosecutions in the UK involving such detailed evidence of an organised internet phishing operation. The investigation focused on a network of individuals who obtained large quantities of personal information, such as online bank account passwords and credit card numbers through online phishing in order to steal money from the accounts and use credit card details. Crime Metropolitan police London Police Cybercrime Computing Identity fraud guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Campaigners urge Britain to follow Denmark’s lead in fighting obesity by taxing unhealthy food products In a sunny park in Copenhagen, Mathias Buch Jensen was unimpressed. All around him, people were tucking into beer and chips. There were few signs that the latest offensive in the worldwide war on obesity was having much effect. But then Denmark might not be the best place to experiment with a “fat tax” on lardy products. “You know, Danes are big fans of butter,” Buch Jensen mused. “We love fat.” He added: “Knowing the Danes, it could have the opposite effect. Like naughty children, when they are told not to do something, they do it even more.” In a country known for butter and bacon, Denmark’s new tax is a body blow. Danes who go shopping today will pay an extra 25p on a pack of butter and 8p on a packet of crisps, as the new tax on foods which contain more than 2.3% saturated fat comes into effect. Everything from milk to oils, meats and pre-cooked foods such as pizzas will be targeted. The additional revenue raised will fund obesity-fighting measures. The move has parallels elsewhere in Europe. Hungary has recently imposed a tax on all foods with unhealthy levels of sugar, salt and carbohydrates, as well as goods with high levels of caffeine. Denmark, Switzerland and Austria have already banned trans fats, while Finland and Romania are considering fat taxes. But it is Britain which has the biggest obesity problem in Europe, and campaigners have urged the government to follow Denmark’s lead. Tam Fry, spokesman for the National Obesity Forum, said: “It is not a question of whether we should follow the Danes’ lead – we have to. If we don’t do anything about it, by 2050, 70% of the British population will be obese or overweight and that would result not only in the downfall of the NHS but also of our national workforce.” A recent study found that poor health and obesity costs the UK economy at least £21.5bn a year . Some experts argue that fat is the wrong target and that salt, sugar and refined carbohydrates should be tackled instead, but Dr Colin Waine, former chairman of the National Obesity Forum, welcomed the move. “All these things need to be looked at, but saturated fats have a higher calorie content than carbohydrates. I don’t think you can do everything all at once.” Fewer than 10% of Danes are obese, below the 15% European average , according to the OECD. Britain’s rate is 24.5%. Buch Jensen, for one, is not planning to change his eating habits. Asked if he would be giving up butter, he offered a compromise: “I would fry cabbage in butter, and add a little more butter at the end. That way at least I’m getting my vegetables.” Denmark Obesity Europe Food & drink Health Alexandra Topping guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Campaigners urge Britain to follow Denmark’s lead in fighting obesity by taxing unhealthy food products In a sunny park in Copenhagen, Mathias Buch Jensen was unimpressed. All around him, people were tucking into beer and chips. There were few signs that the latest offensive in the worldwide war on obesity was having much effect. But then Denmark might not be the best place to experiment with a “fat tax” on lardy products. “You know, Danes are big fans of butter,” Buch Jensen mused. “We love fat.” He added: “Knowing the Danes, it could have the opposite effect. Like naughty children, when they are told not to do something, they do it even more.” In a country known for butter and bacon, Denmark’s new tax is a body blow. Danes who go shopping today will pay an extra 25p on a pack of butter and 8p on a packet of crisps, as the new tax on foods which contain more than 2.3% saturated fat comes into effect. Everything from milk to oils, meats and pre-cooked foods such as pizzas will be targeted. The additional revenue raised will fund obesity-fighting measures. The move has parallels elsewhere in Europe. Hungary has recently imposed a tax on all foods with unhealthy levels of sugar, salt and carbohydrates, as well as goods with high levels of caffeine. Denmark, Switzerland and Austria have already banned trans fats, while Finland and Romania are considering fat taxes. But it is Britain which has the biggest obesity problem in Europe, and campaigners have urged the government to follow Denmark’s lead. Tam Fry, spokesman for the National Obesity Forum, said: “It is not a question of whether we should follow the Danes’ lead – we have to. If we don’t do anything about it, by 2050, 70% of the British population will be obese or overweight and that would result not only in the downfall of the NHS but also of our national workforce.” A recent study found that poor health and obesity costs the UK economy at least £21.5bn a year . Some experts argue that fat is the wrong target and that salt, sugar and refined carbohydrates should be tackled instead, but Dr Colin Waine, former chairman of the National Obesity Forum, welcomed the move. “All these things need to be looked at, but saturated fats have a higher calorie content than carbohydrates. I don’t think you can do everything all at once.” Fewer than 10% of Danes are obese, below the 15% European average , according to the OECD. Britain’s rate is 24.5%. Buch Jensen, for one, is not planning to change his eating habits. Asked if he would be giving up butter, he offered a compromise: “I would fry cabbage in butter, and add a little more butter at the end. That way at least I’m getting my vegetables.” Denmark Obesity Europe Food & drink Health Alexandra Topping guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Guardian investigation reveals PM pressed for military action and Gaddafi secretly sought figurehead role A Guardian investigation into David Cameron’s six-month Libyan campaign has revealed how the prime minister overrode scepticism from his cabinet and MI6 to press for military action, and how Colonel Gaddafi secretly wanted to become a figurehead of the country “like the Queen of England”. In interviews with senior Whitehall figures and five ministers the Guardian has established that the National Transitional Council assured Britain that sleeper cells were ready to rise up in Tripoli once rebel troops entered the capital. Defence sources say Britain provided logistical support to the rebels in the capital, as well as in the Nafusa mountains, including a bombing campaign that cleared the way for the rebels to come down from mountains towards Tripoli. Britain also took the lead in pressing, in the early summer, for the military campaign to be used to put pressure on Gaddafi from the west of Libya. The French, who had led the way in pressing for a no-fly zone in February after Gaddafi besieged the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, believed that Gaddafi could be overthrown from the east. Liam Fox, the defence secretary, describes the shift, supported by the chief of the defence staff, Sir David Richards, as “a tilt to the west”. Gaddafi told Britain in secret messages sent to the Foreign Office that he was willing to start a political process that would end with the Libyan leader becoming a head of state like the Queen. In a sign of his erratic and desperate negotiating strategy, which persuaded ministers that Gaddafi would eventually be overthrown, the Libyan leader indicated not just that he had been in power as long as the Queen , but that he was prepared to become a figurehead in the same way as her. “It would be like the Queen of England, is how they thought of it,” one minister said. “He would be a non-powerful president, not even in power. They would go as far as he would be a figurehead. But this was not on for the rebels, of course.” The Guardian investigation has also established that: • David Cameron overrode scepticism in his cabinet when he took one of the biggest gambles of his premiership in March to press for a UN security council resolution to authorise military force to protect civilians. Kenneth Clarke, the justice secretary who was described by one cabinet minister as the “biggest dove”, thought that partition was the “logical thing”. • MI6 was privately sceptical of military action, arguing “it is better to stick with the devil you know”. • The world was “48 hours from watching a humanitarian disaster unfold” in Benghazi before to the US, French and UK air strikes, according to Fox. Cameron did not want to allow another Srebrenica – the massacre of 8,000 Muslims in Bosnia in 1995 – on his “watch”. Friends say he feared he would be remembered as the “pull up the drawbridge” generation” if he did not act to defend the Arab spring. • The US, which had initially been sceptical about a no-fly zone, ended up pressing for a tougher UN security council resolution. This led to UN resolution 1973 in March which authorised “all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Libya. Fox said: “The Nato operation would have been impossible without the contribution of the Americans.” The offer from Gaddafi to serve as a figurehead, plus intelligence from within Tripoli, was one reason the foreign secretary, William Hague, remained convinced that what he described as his “Anaconda strategy” would squeeze Gaddafi from power. Hague believes Gaddafi overplayed his hand, insisting he would agree only to a political process in the course of which he would retire to the role of state figurehead. The foreign secretary, who has described the Arab spring as the most important event of the 21st century, warned that there would have been grave consequences if Britain and France had not succeeded in persuading the UN to sanction military action. “If Benghazi had fallen it would have been a huge setback for the Arab spring in countries like Egypt and Tunisia. It would have shown that a dictatorial ruler can successfully fight back and entrench himself again. That would have carried a strong message. [Syrian president] Bashar al-Assad now would be feeling in a stronger position and probably getting active assistance from a well-entrenched Gaddafi regime.” Hague added that he was stunned by the success of the high-precision GPS-guided Brimstone missiles after Fox ruled that the collateral damage target – the risks to civilians – should be set at zero. “I saw in Tripoli one of the buildings where they managed to hit the top floor to stop the sniping from the roof without damaging at all the floors underneath. This is the amazing precision of the targeting. Things have really moved on even since the Iraq war. The criterion for targeting was zero civilian casualties and that was rigorously stuck to.” Some senior Whitehall officials interviewed by the Guardian confirm that the French and the UK might have taken military action, even if they failed to secure a UN resolution, on the basis of averting a humanitarian disaster. “We would have had to look at the humanitarian necessity option. We would have had to ask the attorney general whether the situation was so grave that we could act.” Andrew Mitchell, the international development secretary, who was briefed by officials on Whitehall’s lessons from Iraq as soon as he was asked by Cameron to draw up a stabilisation plan, outlined a five-point plan on how to avoid mistakes from Iraq. It now forms the basis of the National Transitional Council’s plans. Mitchell praised Cameron for ignoring critics who said the military campaign would never work. “David was brave and proved right in the beginning, because he said we cannot allow a massacre to take place in Benghazi. All the soi-disant experts said, you can’t do it from the air, the Americans said it was naive – but he stuck to his guns.” David Cameron Muammar Gaddafi Libya Middle East Africa Arab and Middle East unrest Patrick Wintour Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Guardian investigation reveals PM pressed for military action and Gaddafi secretly sought figurehead role A Guardian investigation into David Cameron’s six-month Libyan campaign has revealed how the prime minister overrode scepticism from his cabinet and MI6 to press for military action, and how Colonel Gaddafi secretly wanted to become a figurehead of the country “like the Queen of England”. In interviews with senior Whitehall figures and five ministers the Guardian has established that the National Transitional Council assured Britain that sleeper cells were ready to rise up in Tripoli once rebel troops entered the capital. Defence sources say Britain provided logistical support to the rebels in the capital, as well as in the Nafusa mountains, including a bombing campaign that cleared the way for the rebels to come down from mountains towards Tripoli. Britain also took the lead in pressing, in the early summer, for the military campaign to be used to put pressure on Gaddafi from the west of Libya. The French, who had led the way in pressing for a no-fly zone in February after Gaddafi besieged the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, believed that Gaddafi could be overthrown from the east. Liam Fox, the defence secretary, describes the shift, supported by the chief of the defence staff, Sir David Richards, as “a tilt to the west”. Gaddafi told Britain in secret messages sent to the Foreign Office that he was willing to start a political process that would end with the Libyan leader becoming a head of state like the Queen. In a sign of his erratic and desperate negotiating strategy, which persuaded ministers that Gaddafi would eventually be overthrown, the Libyan leader indicated not just that he had been in power as long as the Queen , but that he was prepared to become a figurehead in the same way as her. “It would be like the Queen of England, is how they thought of it,” one minister said. “He would be a non-powerful president, not even in power. They would go as far as he would be a figurehead. But this was not on for the rebels, of course.” The Guardian investigation has also established that: • David Cameron overrode scepticism in his cabinet when he took one of the biggest gambles of his premiership in March to press for a UN security council resolution to authorise military force to protect civilians. Kenneth Clarke, the justice secretary who was described by one cabinet minister as the “biggest dove”, thought that partition was the “logical thing”. • MI6 was privately sceptical of military action, arguing “it is better to stick with the devil you know”. • The world was “48 hours from watching a humanitarian disaster unfold” in Benghazi before to the US, French and UK air strikes, according to Fox. Cameron did not want to allow another Srebrenica – the massacre of 8,000 Muslims in Bosnia in 1995 – on his “watch”. Friends say he feared he would be remembered as the “pull up the drawbridge” generation” if he did not act to defend the Arab spring. • The US, which had initially been sceptical about a no-fly zone, ended up pressing for a tougher UN security council resolution. This led to UN resolution 1973 in March which authorised “all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Libya. Fox said: “The Nato operation would have been impossible without the contribution of the Americans.” The offer from Gaddafi to serve as a figurehead, plus intelligence from within Tripoli, was one reason the foreign secretary, William Hague, remained convinced that what he described as his “Anaconda strategy” would squeeze Gaddafi from power. Hague believes Gaddafi overplayed his hand, insisting he would agree only to a political process in the course of which he would retire to the role of state figurehead. The foreign secretary, who has described the Arab spring as the most important event of the 21st century, warned that there would have been grave consequences if Britain and France had not succeeded in persuading the UN to sanction military action. “If Benghazi had fallen it would have been a huge setback for the Arab spring in countries like Egypt and Tunisia. It would have shown that a dictatorial ruler can successfully fight back and entrench himself again. That would have carried a strong message. [Syrian president] Bashar al-Assad now would be feeling in a stronger position and probably getting active assistance from a well-entrenched Gaddafi regime.” Hague added that he was stunned by the success of the high-precision GPS-guided Brimstone missiles after Fox ruled that the collateral damage target – the risks to civilians – should be set at zero. “I saw in Tripoli one of the buildings where they managed to hit the top floor to stop the sniping from the roof without damaging at all the floors underneath. This is the amazing precision of the targeting. Things have really moved on even since the Iraq war. The criterion for targeting was zero civilian casualties and that was rigorously stuck to.” Some senior Whitehall officials interviewed by the Guardian confirm that the French and the UK might have taken military action, even if they failed to secure a UN resolution, on the basis of averting a humanitarian disaster. “We would have had to look at the humanitarian necessity option. We would have had to ask the attorney general whether the situation was so grave that we could act.” Andrew Mitchell, the international development secretary, who was briefed by officials on Whitehall’s lessons from Iraq as soon as he was asked by Cameron to draw up a stabilisation plan, outlined a five-point plan on how to avoid mistakes from Iraq. It now forms the basis of the National Transitional Council’s plans. Mitchell praised Cameron for ignoring critics who said the military campaign would never work. “David was brave and proved right in the beginning, because he said we cannot allow a massacre to take place in Benghazi. All the soi-disant experts said, you can’t do it from the air, the Americans said it was naive – but he stuck to his guns.” David Cameron Muammar Gaddafi Libya Middle East Africa Arab and Middle East unrest Patrick Wintour Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz seems to be the “Third Way Moderate of the Month” these days. He’s everywhere, promoting his new book in all the Starbucks stores, showing up with op-eds calling for boycotts on campaign contributions to presidential candidates, and just generally inserting himself into politics more than I can recall in the past. This week he pops up on This Week, with Christiane Amanpour, echoing the right wing memes with just a soft hint of moderation to make them go down like a venti mocha with extra chocolate. Check this piece of the discussion out, where he blames the ever-amorphous “Washington”. As much as I’d like to believe he’s trying to stick a hot poker in the backs of those companies sitting on their trillions without reinvesting in jobs or growth here in the states, it’s just very difficult for me to believe. SCHULTZ: Well, I think it’s — it’s important to kind of frame the issue. As a result of the debt crisis and the debacle that took place between Congress and the president, we have a crisis of confidence in the U.S. and abroad. And that crisis of confidence is as a result of the lack of leadership coming out of Washington. Now, what I’ve also been saying, in addition to the fact that I’ve asked like-minded CEOs to suspend contributions, is that business and business leaders should not be waiting for Washington, and we need to reaffirm our faith in the economy and do everything we can to be a catalyst for change and try and do everything we can to invest back in America so we — we can affect the jobs issue. But make no mistake: The issue at hand right now is the dysfunctionality in Washington and the lack of understanding that this is no longer a crisis. This is an emergency in America. And as a result of that, we need political courage and political will to solve our problems. TAPPER: I’m sorry. I love your lattes, but I just think this is a copout. There are absolutely people in this town who are willing to compromise. Absolutely there are members of the Republican Party, of the Democratic Party who are willing to compromise. To say, “We’re not going to give money to anybody, all 435 members of Congress, all 10 Republicans running for president, President Obama,” is not doing the work of trying to figure out who actually is trying to solve these problems. AMANPOUR: Mr. Schultz? SCHULTZ: Yeah, let me — let me — let me give you some information: $4 billion was spent in 2008 in the presidential cycle, an estimated $5.5 billion in 2012. I would — I would suspect that even you would think that we can use that money much better off, for our education system, to do anything possible to create jobs in America and not to continue to fund a broken system. But that’s not the issue. The issue right now is not to point blame. The issue is, we — we must address the issue of job creation in America. Last week, as an example, I was in Europe. I had a private meeting with President Sarkozy. And in that meeting, he shared with me not only about the euro zone and the problems in Europe with regard to Greece, but the fact is that the connective tissue as it relates to the problems we’re having in America and how that spilled off as a crisis of confidence in Europe. The issues that we have right now are not just singularly focused on America and Washington. And responsibility has to be for those who are in Washington who can make the decisions necessary to bring back confidence and hope back into the country. I’m truly confused by this whole mushy frame. It’s “Washington” that has created this crisis of confidence, and business has to step up and fix it? And really, is anyone else just a little creeped out that a CEO of an American company is having a private audience with Sarkozy to discuss the Eurozone problems, which are at a crisis point? A memo to Howard Schultz: There are thousands marching in the streets, protesting corporate control over our politics, our economy, and their lives. Is this really the time to duck corporate responsibility and blame it all on Washington? The combined actions of Schultz lately are those of someone considering a run at the Presidency: Publishing a book about his vision for this country and our economy, actively boycotting political donations to the amorphous “Washington”, appearing on Sunday talking head shows, and meeting with foreign heads of state. A third-party candidate based on Third Way principles? As I see it, that could really create some serious problems for everyone, but most of all those people out there exercising their rights of assembly and free speech while speaking against the corporations and Wall Street, who would be Schultz’ first constituents.
Continue reading …enlarge Credit: Brian Malott Tina and Gordon went down to the occupy LA event on Saturday and it was overflowing with people. I want to thank all our readers and those who passed on our Solidarity Pizza action. We’re garnered over 250 donations so far from you guys and the total dollars is close to $8000 and rising. It’s amazing. It’s what makes the work that we do so fulfilling. We’ll have more soon with pictures and videos, but this is a truly grassroots movement. Pizzas went to Boston, LA, SF and New York and we’ll continue to deliver more food and drink as the days move along and as the money comes in. We’ve also gotten emails from the pizza recipients. From Occupy SF: Mr. Amato, He then delivered ~7 pizzas! in the name of crooksandliars.com . Our contingent rapidly devoured the bounty of pizza-y-goodness and walked around the square to round up any other contingents and inform them of the feast. Approximately thirty minutes later the main group had arrived and we distributed the pizza to everyone involved (with a plug that it was from you). No stomach was left behind and no pizza slice was left in a box. You guys rock, and thank you for your support. I added your website to the bottom of my sign in gratitude and displayed it all day. What you’re doing here in informing the populace of the current state of affairs is epic – keep it up. It’s our readers that rock. Another email from Occupy SF: To the fine folks of Crooks & Liars, Just wanted to thank you for the pizza’s you supplied for the assembly today at Union Square. Not only does it mean a lot that you’re supporting the movement… My wife is hypoglycemic and in the final stages of pregnancy. Just as her blood sugar was acting up, and she was starting feeling sick, the pizza’s arrived and saved the day. Blessings, K I’ve been so busy that I haven’t been able to get through all my emails or FB comments, but that’s only a sample. Tina’s work has been extraordinary and she deserves major props for doing most of the hard parts. She’s called in orders to: I’ve called all these places and they have no problems getting the food to the protesters: Al Capone’s in Boston: (617) 426-1800 Escape from New York Pizza in San Francisco (415) 421-0700 Liberatos Pizza in New York: (212) 344-3464 Rocket Pizza in LA: (213) 687-4992 I’ve been thinking about how the protesters are organizing and of course my control issues kick into play. There will be some out of control stuff, but that’s the way it begins. And It’s under way without a network like Fox News behind it – it will keep evolving. enlarge Credit: Joshua Holland With Love, C&L Digby has an good post up about the nascent movement: The New York Times did a halfway decent article today on Occupy Wall Street, refuting some of the images that seem to bother people so much: For all the bedraggled look of the mattress-and-sleeping-bag-strewn camp, it has a structure and routine. A food station occupies the center of the park, where donated meals are disbursed, especially pizza and Popeyes chicken. Sympathizers from other states have been calling local shops and pizza parlors and, using their credit cards, ordering food to be delivered to the park. There are information stations, a recycling center, a media center where a gasoline generator powers computers. At the east end sits the library, labeled cardboard boxes brimming with donated books: nonfiction, fiction, poetry, legal. There is a lost and found. A medical station was outfitted with bins holding a broad array of remedies: cough drops, Maalox Maximum Strength, Clorox wipes, bee pollen granules. The main issues have been blisters, including some from handcuffs, and abrasions. There are also a few therapists. Some out-of-work protesters are depressed. They need someone’s ear. Elsewhere is a sanitation station, with designated sanitation workers who sweep the park. The park is without toilets, a problem that many of the protesters address by visiting a nearby McDonald’s. The encampment even has a post-office box, established at a U.P.S. store, and has been receiving a steady flow of supportive letters and packages. Someone from Texas sent a bunch of red bandanas, now draped on the necks of demonstrators. Others have sent camera batteries, granola bars and toothbrushes. They still exhibited an air of anthropologists observing some lost civilization, but it was at least less condescending than their last foray into the wilds of Zuccotti Park. And after tweeting a very provocative note last week about how much this reminded him of Tahrir Square, Nick Kristoff just wrote about it on the op-ed page: “Occupy Wall Street” was initially treated as a joke, but after a couple of weeks it’s gaining traction. The crowds are still tiny by protest standards — mostly in the hundreds, swelling during periodic marches — but similar occupations are bubbling up in Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Washington. David Paterson, the former New York governor, dropped by, and labor unions are lending increasing support. I tweeted that the protest reminded me a bit of Tahrir Square in Cairo, and that raised eyebrows. True, no bullets are whizzing around, and the movement won’t unseat any dictators. But there is the same cohort of alienated young people, and the same savvy use of Twitter and other social media to recruit more participants. Most of all, there’s a similar tide of youthful frustration with a political and economic system that protesters regard as broken, corrupt, unresponsive and unaccountable. “This was absolutely inspired by Tahrir Square, by the Arab Spring movement,” said Tyler Combelic, 27, a Web designer from Brooklyn who is a spokesman for the occupiers. “Enough is enough!” The protesters are dazzling in their Internet skills, and impressive in their organization. The square is divided into a reception area, a media zone, a medical clinic, a library and a cafeteria. The protesters’ Web site includes links allowing supporters anywhere in the world to go online and order pizzas (vegan preferred) from a local pizzeria that delivers them to the square. In a tribute to the ingenuity of capitalism, the pizzeria quickly added a new item to its menu: the “OccuPie special.” He has a few recommendations for “demands” that sound useful, although I’m not sure this is really about specifics at this point so much as it is consciousness raising. In any case, a ton of good stuff has been written about this in the past week. Matt Stoller had a fine article earlier at Naked Capitalism that rings true. And this new article by Micah Sifry seems completely on point to me: [S]omething is happening here, Mr. Jones. The protest, or occupation, is now in its third week, and in addition to a steadily increasing level of media coverage, this coming Wednesday a range of local unions and progressive groups are planning to rally their members to join in. Stubborn resilience plus some outraged media attention to police brutality seems to have been enough to light the spark, but beneath that, credit must go to the horizontal adhocracy running the occupation downtown, which has developed its own infrastructure for internal and external communication and social support. And it’s doing this without obvious leaders (who could be arrested and held to suppress the movement) or institutional backers (who could be pressured), and with a wide array of networked support that is being marshaled via Internet Relay Chat, blogs, Facebook pages, Twitter, livestreaming, online video and street theatre. Some highlights: The original call to action from Adbusters; The “Global Revolution” Livestream feed, which has several thousand watching at any given time, even when it isn’t bringing live video from downtown, showing short clips from Anonymous, George Carlin and other troublemakers (132,000 likes as of October 1); The “We are the 99 Percent” Tumblr collection of autobiographical photos from people facing all kinds of economic hardship, which seems to have a lot of stories from the families of American war veterans… The Occupy Together news hub, which is curating links to Occupy efforts in more than 100 cities across the US, plus two dozen overseas, as of this writing. This movement is messy and its decision-making process is participatory in the extreme, which some people adore (because it makes room for all to have a say, compared to our elite- and money-driven political system) and others abhor (because ordinary working people typically can’t devote the time to long meetings and “structure-less” decision-making usually empowers a few people in unaccountable ways). And while we know how to use networks to develop and support “stop” energy, it’s much harder to develop and enact “do” energy around specific demands… But I think it’s time to recognize that we’re no longer in a what veteran activist Myles Horton would have called an organizational phase of political activity, where meetings have walls around them, messages have managers, advocacy is centrally paid for and done by professional lobbyists, marches have beginnings and endings, and the story line goes neatly gives from petition to legislation to reform. Instead, in America we’re now entering into a third wave of movement politics (the first being the rise of the “netroots” within the Democratic party after its leadership collapse between 2000-2003; and the second being the rise of the Tea Party after the conservative losses of 2006 and 2008). I don’t pretend to know where the “Occupy” movement is going to go, though its main purpose appears to be to show first of all that it is here to stay, and to force a different perspective into a national discourse that up until now has marginalized and ignored grassroots anti-corporate social justice advocacy. Like Sifry, I don’t know where this is going. But it’s traveling at light speed — I haven’t seen anything like it online since I started blogging. (I’m fairly tuned in whether I like it or not, as you might imagine, and this is different.) So, I’m inclined to give it some room to breathe, let go of my preconceived notions of “what has to happen” and see if the new media and communications take us in the direction we need to go. Regardless of the outcome, I think this shows that people are reaching a point where they have to do something. And that’s healthy.
Continue reading …The comic actor is starring in One Man Two Guvnors in the West End, but he fears people still associate him with the mis-steps he took after his hit with Gavin and Stacey. Will his new memoir redeem his public image? In a small side room at the Guardian, with Al Pacino glowering from a poster above us, James Corden is performing a masterclass in modesty. He is quiet, contained, thoughtful. He rubs his nose, strokes his chin, considering his answers; if he had a forelock, I suspect he’d tug it. The main message is how fortunate he is. He feels privileged to be an actor, he says, grateful to appear on television, surprised at the breadth of his career, dumbfounded to be starring at the National Theatre . “I just feel lucky that I’m able to do so many different things,” he says. “I feel constantly amazed that I’m allowed to, you know?” If he were a superhero, he would be Humility Man: leaping small molehills in a few stuttering, stumbling steps. This is not the Corden I expected to meet. It certainly isn’t the Corden that makes people shudder. Every time I tell someone I’m interviewing him they flinch visibly and a horrified noise explodes through their nose. The consensus seems to be that the actor, comedy writer, co-creator of hit sitcom Gavin and Stacey , presenter of sports gameshow A League of Their Own , is arrogant and loud, his humour laddish and dated, that he has an unappealing, thespy air of entitlement. Also, most essentially, he’s attention-seeking. The title of his new autobiography – May I Have Your Attention, Please? – confirms this last point. I had expected the book to be a mea culpa , an attempt to win people over, and it is in part. Corden emphasises that over the past 18 months or so he has changed enormously, since falling in love with charity worker Julia Carey and having baby son Max. But he certainly doesn’t hide the side of him that sucks the air from the room. In the first few pages he writes about his earliest memory, aged four, standing on a chair at his younger sister’s christening, pulling faces while people laughed. “This felt good. Really good,” he writes. “In my head it became simple: if people are looking at me, and only me, it feels amazing. And that was that. From that day forward, every day became a quest to be noticed. To have the attention of people. Of you.” I searched for some explanation for this overweening neediness, riffling the pages with rising desperation. A dead parent? Dead sibling? Dead tortoise? Nothing. Admittedly, his father was once an RAF musician, who was sent to Iraq in the early 1990s as a stretcher-bearer, and while Corden says the day this was announced was one of the worst of his life – and the day his dad arrived back the very best – it’s bizarrely flat in the telling. He writes about going to RAF Uxbridge for the homecoming, and launches into a grumpy aside about the catering. “Someone had tried to set up some kind of a ‘buffet’ in the mess, but they shouldn’t have bothered. There were just lots of little bowls of crisps – rubbish crisps – and two bowls of peanuts. Now that’s all right, but that’s not a ‘buffet’.” This continues for some time. As I’ve scrawled in the margin:
Continue reading …As conference kicks off, PM unveils new housing policy, vows to kickstart economy and seeks to keep party on centre ground The prime minister pledged to “fire up the engine of the economy” on the first day of his party conference in Manchester, pushing a new homes policy but thwarting the desires of his backbenchers for a referendum on whether Britain should stay in the EU. The Conservatives announced plans – an extension of an existing programme – to boost the “right to buy” council house scheme introduced under Margaret Thatcher’s government in the 1980s. David Cameron made the announcement to increase discounts to encourage council tenants to buy their own homes alongside a “build now, pay later” scheme to encourage developers to build on government land and only pay for the land once a house is sold. Cameron said the policies could lead to the building of 200,000 homes and the creation of 400,000 jobs. Cameron and his foreign secretary, William Hague, had warm words for their Lib Dem coalition partners alongside ploughing a fresh furrow – that it is the Tories as much as the Lib Dems who have pushed for “cuddly” policies, in the language of the prime minister. To mark this, on the first day of conference, the party sent out a pamphlet, Modern Compassionate Conservatism, as the Tories sought to emphasise they would be staying in the centre ground, despite pressure from some inside the party. “I don’t believe for a minute that this government is only held back by the cuddly Liberal Democrats,” Cameron said on the BBC’s Andrew Marr programme. “The proposal not to cut health spending came from the Conservatives.” Explaining the theme of conference, Cameron said: “I described myself as a modern, compassionate Conservative. Modern, because I think we’ve got to apply ourselves to the challenges of today … Compassionate, because we mustn’t leave people behind in our country … But I’m a Conservative because I believe, generally, if you give people more power and control over their own lives, they will actually make great decisions.” He also would not rule out asking Lib Dems to join a Tory government if they were to win a majority at the next election. He said: “What happens at the next election? We will fight as independent parties. We will be fighting to win. And whatever happens, happens.” Later in the day, Hague made a point of praising the Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, in his speech, though the mention received muted applause. He said: “Faced with a necessary but difficult decision over tuition fees, Nick Clegg stuck with it. In May, the British people affirmed by an overwhelming majority and with their usual good sense that first past the post is the best way of running our democracy and put to rest schemes of playing with the rules for a generation. He stuck with our agreement all the same. We should always have the generosity of spirit to recognise the contribution he makes to turning this country around.” The Tory leadership has had to manage disagreements with its voluble and increasingly muscular backbench and activist base over issues including Britain’s relationship with the EU and government planning reforms. The Mail on Sunday reported that MPs will get to debate the issue of whether or not there should be a referendum on Europe – because more than 100,000 people have signed a petition asking for a debate the Commons backbench committee will table it for debate in parliament. Cameron’s comments suggested government MPs will be told to vote against it. The prime minister said: “There is a European treaty that is happening right now. This is the treaty that gets us out of the bail-out mechanism that Labour got us into. Further, future treaty change is not an immediate prospect.” “For the longer term, I’ve been very clear, I think we gave too much power to Europe. There are some powers I would like to get back. Any future treaty change would be an opportunity to do that. But right now that’s not on the immediate agenda.” Another flashpoint is the Human Rights Act which, in opposition, the Tories had said they would scrap and replace with a bill of rights. The home secretary, Theresa May, confirmed this still remained her wish and later the prime minister weighed in behind her. However both politicians are hamstrung by being in coalition with the Lib Dems and subject to a commission being controlled by justice secretary Ken Clarke and Nick Clegg meaning it is unlikely that the tory party itself will do anything distinctive on the human rights act ahead of the next election. Cameron said: “One of the problems we have here is not just the Human Rights Act. It’s the chilling culture under it that means that someone drives a police van … to move a prisoner 200 yards when he was perfectly happy to walk. The Human Rights Act doesn’t say that that’s what you have to do. It’s the chilling effect of people thinking I will be found guilty under it. “I think that government can do a huge amount to communicate to institutions and individuals, let’s have some common sense, let’s have some judgment, let’s have that applying rather than this over-interpretation of what’s there.” Conservative conference 2011 Conservative conference Conservatives David Cameron Housing Communities Liberal-Conservative coalition Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …As conference kicks off, PM unveils new housing policy, vows to kickstart economy and seeks to keep party on centre ground The prime minister pledged to “fire up the engine of the economy” on the first day of his party conference in Manchester, pushing a new homes policy but thwarting the desires of his backbenchers for a referendum on whether Britain should stay in the EU. The Conservatives announced plans – an extension of an existing programme – to boost the “right to buy” council house scheme introduced under Margaret Thatcher’s government in the 1980s. David Cameron made the announcement to increase discounts to encourage council tenants to buy their own homes alongside a “build now, pay later” scheme to encourage developers to build on government land and only pay for the land once a house is sold. Cameron said the policies could lead to the building of 200,000 homes and the creation of 400,000 jobs. Cameron and his foreign secretary, William Hague, had warm words for their Lib Dem coalition partners alongside ploughing a fresh furrow – that it is the Tories as much as the Lib Dems who have pushed for “cuddly” policies, in the language of the prime minister. To mark this, on the first day of conference, the party sent out a pamphlet, Modern Compassionate Conservatism, as the Tories sought to emphasise they would be staying in the centre ground, despite pressure from some inside the party. “I don’t believe for a minute that this government is only held back by the cuddly Liberal Democrats,” Cameron said on the BBC’s Andrew Marr programme. “The proposal not to cut health spending came from the Conservatives.” Explaining the theme of conference, Cameron said: “I described myself as a modern, compassionate Conservative. Modern, because I think we’ve got to apply ourselves to the challenges of today … Compassionate, because we mustn’t leave people behind in our country … But I’m a Conservative because I believe, generally, if you give people more power and control over their own lives, they will actually make great decisions.” He also would not rule out asking Lib Dems to join a Tory government if they were to win a majority at the next election. He said: “What happens at the next election? We will fight as independent parties. We will be fighting to win. And whatever happens, happens.” Later in the day, Hague made a point of praising the Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, in his speech, though the mention received muted applause. He said: “Faced with a necessary but difficult decision over tuition fees, Nick Clegg stuck with it. In May, the British people affirmed by an overwhelming majority and with their usual good sense that first past the post is the best way of running our democracy and put to rest schemes of playing with the rules for a generation. He stuck with our agreement all the same. We should always have the generosity of spirit to recognise the contribution he makes to turning this country around.” The Tory leadership has had to manage disagreements with its voluble and increasingly muscular backbench and activist base over issues including Britain’s relationship with the EU and government planning reforms. The Mail on Sunday reported that MPs will get to debate the issue of whether or not there should be a referendum on Europe – because more than 100,000 people have signed a petition asking for a debate the Commons backbench committee will table it for debate in parliament. Cameron’s comments suggested government MPs will be told to vote against it. The prime minister said: “There is a European treaty that is happening right now. This is the treaty that gets us out of the bail-out mechanism that Labour got us into. Further, future treaty change is not an immediate prospect.” “For the longer term, I’ve been very clear, I think we gave too much power to Europe. There are some powers I would like to get back. Any future treaty change would be an opportunity to do that. But right now that’s not on the immediate agenda.” Another flashpoint is the Human Rights Act which, in opposition, the Tories had said they would scrap and replace with a bill of rights. The home secretary, Theresa May, confirmed this still remained her wish and later the prime minister weighed in behind her. However both politicians are hamstrung by being in coalition with the Lib Dems and subject to a commission being controlled by justice secretary Ken Clarke and Nick Clegg meaning it is unlikely that the tory party itself will do anything distinctive on the human rights act ahead of the next election. Cameron said: “One of the problems we have here is not just the Human Rights Act. It’s the chilling culture under it that means that someone drives a police van … to move a prisoner 200 yards when he was perfectly happy to walk. The Human Rights Act doesn’t say that that’s what you have to do. It’s the chilling effect of people thinking I will be found guilty under it. “I think that government can do a huge amount to communicate to institutions and individuals, let’s have some common sense, let’s have some judgment, let’s have that applying rather than this over-interpretation of what’s there.” Conservative conference 2011 Conservative conference Conservatives David Cameron Housing Communities Liberal-Conservative coalition Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …