Deputy head of human rights organisation, who became ill after being detained by security officials, convicted by court in Tehran A prominent Iranian human rights activist who was taken seriously ill after being detained by the authorities has been sentenced to 11 years in jail. Narges Mohammadi, 39, the deputy head of Iran’s Defenders of Human Rights Centre (DHRC), a rights organisation presided over by the Nobel peace laureate Shirin Ebadi, was picked up last year by security officials who raided her house in middle of the night without a warrant for her arrest. She was taken to Tehran’s Evin prison where she was kept in solitary confinement but was released after a month and taken to hospital. Mohammadi, a mother of two and winner of the 2009 Alexander Langer award for her human rights activities, has since developed an undiagnosed epilepsy-like disease which causes her to lose control over her muscles temporarily duringthe day. It emerged on Tuesday that a court in Tehran has now convicted her on three charges: acting against the national security, membership of the DHRC and propaganda against the regime, for which she has received an 11-year sentence in total. “I’m not involved in politics, I’m only a human rights activist,” Mohammadi said by phone from Tehran. “I was informed of the 11-year sentence through my lawyers, who were given an unprecedented 23-page judgment issued by the court in which they repeatedly likened my human rights activities to attempts to topple the regime.” Mohammadi, who is also a member of Iran’s National Peace Council, said she would appeal against the sentence. In March, the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, a US-based non-governmental organisation, reported that security forces had stolen Mohammadi’s medical records from the hospital. Her husband, Taghi Rahmani, a political activist, has spent a third of his life in jail. Ebadi said Mohammadi’s conviction showed Iran’s judiciary was manipulated by intelligence and security officials. “Whilst in jail, Mohammadi was threatened by her interrogator that she would be given at least 10 years if she did not cease her activities and now we see that the interrogator’s prediction has come true,” she said. The British Foreign Office called on the Iranian government to overturn her “harsh” sentence . “[Her conviction] is another sad example of the Iranian authorities’ attempts to silence brave human rights defenders,” the FCO said. “She has done nothing but work for a human rights NGO under difficult circumstances to fight for the legitimate rights of the Iranian people.” Amnesty International also reacted with outrage to Mohammadi’s conviction. “The verdict claims that Narges Mohammadi is a liar and has tarnished the image of Iran,” said Drewery Dyke, Amnesty’s researcher on Iran. “However, this latest verdict regrettably does exactly that by showing what Iran’s judiciary thinks of the government’s so-called commitment to uphold human rights in the country and indeed exactly how it deals with those advocating international human rights standards.” According to Amnesty, Mohammadi has campaigned for an end to death penalty for those convicted under the age of 18, for which she has long been targeted by the authorities. Other human rights activists in Iran have also been sentenced to lengthy prison terms, including women’s rights activist Shiva Nazar Ahari and lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh, whose 11-year sentence was reduced to six years in an appeals court two weeks ago. Iran Middle East Human rights Saeed Kamali Dehghan guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …The Argentina striker may well be shown the door by Manchester City after this display of staggering ego and outrageous disrespect at Bayern Munich It was getting on for 1am when they started to board flight BD1858 at Munich airport. Micah Richards and Joleon Lescott played Scrabble on an iPad. For Gareth Barry and James Milner, the game of choice was Yahtzee. Most of the players, though, sat in silence, contemplating what had just happened and what it meant. In his usual position – front row, window seat – Roberto Mancini’s face said one thing: “Leave well alone.” As the journalists filed past, Carlos Tevez probably didn’t pick the wisest moment to be sharing a joke with Pablo Zabaleta, tipping back his head with laughter, animated, seemingly without a care in the world. Did he care? It is difficult to know the answer to that, but it says something about the problems Tevez has caused behind the scenes at Manchester City that there are senior people at the club who have suspected for a while something was brewing, and have not completely ruled out the idea that what happened in the Allianz Arena was premeditated. The truth is City accepted a long time ago that what Tevez brings – the baggage, the bullshit, the occasional moments of brilliance – will always remind us of the gap between someone who is a great football player and a great football man. Until now, though, the good has always outweighed the bad. Sure, it has been a close-run thing at times, but Tevez was always worth the hassle. He could pinch you a goal, earn his team-mates a win bonus, send the crowd home happy, keep the manager in his job. What happened against Bayern Munich was something else entirely. Roberto Mancini was actually trembling with anger in his press conference . His eyes burned with fury. Mancini has built his persona on being detached and tough. Here, he looked far more emotional than any other time we have seen him in almost two years at the club. It was true, he said, that Tevez had refused to come on as a second-half substitute and, as far as he was concerned, that was it. “For me, if a player earns a lot of money playing for Manchester City, in the Champions League, and he behaves like this – no, he cannot play for us again. Never. He has wanted to leave for the last two years. For two years I have helped him, and now he has refused to play. Never again. Finished.” Tevez is Tevez and, by now, we all know controversy sticks to him like a tick on a dog, but his record of previous offences does not make the events in Germany any less shocking or dispiriting. And there must be sadness, too, that it has come to this. Tevez should be cherished in City’s history as the man who lifted the FA Cup, popular enough at the time that the supporters, for the most part, were willing to forgive him when it turned out he didn’t want to take part in the open-top bus parade. The club had to persuade Tevez, with the threat of a fine, to cancel a flight he had booked to Argentina. Four months on, we now have the faintly ludicrous situation whereby City felt it necessary to call in extra security to meet the squad at Manchester airport in the early hours of Wednesday because of the possibility that supporters would turn up to confront him. Tevez, through a cocktail of staggering ego and self-absorption, has somehow manoeuvred himself into a position whereby, in May, he was lifting the club’s first piece of silverware for 35 years and, by September, he needed a police escort to make his way through a largely deserted Terminal 3. City have to back Mancini now. If they didn’t, it would undermine the manager to the point where the Italian might feasibly consider his own position unworkable under this regime. Mancini, undoubtedly, was speaking in the heat of the moment on Tuesday, but his mood had not changed by the time the flight landed back in Manchester, and nor will it. Mancini will jeopardise his own authority if he should relax his position now. But there’s no getting way from the fact it’s a gamble. Tevez scored or set up almost half of City’s league goals last season. There aren’t many footballers who get the ball and go straight for goal like he does. Tevez gets the ball and drives forward. He makes things happen, scores from every angle, every distance. Motivated, he is a great footballer. Without him, City have only three recognised forwards – Sergio Agüero, Edin Dzeko and Mario Balotelli – and you wonder whether there may be unease in Abu Dhabi about what would happen if, say, Agüero picked up an injury that ruled him out for a couple of months. But Mancini has come to the conclusion that the situation is only going to deteriorate. Tevez has handed in transfer requests, he has fluttered his eyelashes at potential suitors and he has turned his phone off when the manager of the club currently paying him £250,000 a week wanted a couple of minutes over the summer. This is a man who craves recognition as the biggest fish in his pond. And this season, at City, he has merely been part of the shoal. Vincent Kompany is the captain these days. Agüero has taken over as first-choice striker. The club’s best player? That’s David Silva, by a country mile. The player whose name is sung the loudest? Dzeko. Or, at least, it was until the 2-0 defeat to Bayern, when the Bosnian’s reaction to being substituted was poor in the extreme and will mean he is dropped for Saturday’s game at Blackburn Rovers. A few weeks ago the Guardian highlighted Gary Neville’s comments, from his autobiography, about Tevez from two years together at Manchester United. Neville remembers someone who, in his final year, “started to toss it off a bit in training … was constantly saying his back was sore … He’d become very fond of a massage.” His conclusion from two years together at Old Trafford is that Tevez’s ego never recovered from the signing of Dimitar Berbatov. “He’s a brilliant striker, as he has proved at City. But I can judge only on what he did in that second season and, to all of us at United, it seemed his heart wasn’t in it. He was in and out of the team and he became insecure. He’d been upset by the signing of Berba, and Carlos needs to feel the love. He’s not someone who can play one game in three and be happy.” Except there is not much love for Carlos in Manchester any more. Mancini is no longer willing to spoil him and, if the manager gets his way, the authority will come from Abu Dhabi to send the offending player into isolation, without a care for what it would do to his career. A buyer may come forward in January but, then again, they may not. There are not too many clubs out there with the money to sign a player with Tevez’s financial requirements, particularly one with his history of moving on every couple of years and, in the process, leaving behind such a stink that when it happens at Eastlands they will need to fumigate the corridors. At City there has been a tendency in the past to blame his adviser, the ubiquitous Kia Joorabchian, but there comes a time when Tevez, at 27, needs to take responsibility for his own actions. Except, of course, he doesn’t seem to think he has done anything wrong . When Tevez was informed that Mancini had said he would never play for City again, his response summed it up. “I was top goalscorer here last season, I always act professionally so it is up to him.” Later, on the plane, Tevez broke off from chatting to Zabaleta to have a go at an unsuspecting member of City’s office staff. Tevez could be seen jabbing out his finger, berating him in broken English. The word “respect” could be heard. A couple of times, in fact. Tuesday began for City with a delegation from the club, led by the life-president, Bernard Halford, the assistant manager, Brian Kidd, and the former captain and manager Tony Book, laying a wreath in the Manchesterplatz to commemorate the Munich air disaster. The following day began with Tevez grinning when he saw the police escort waiting for him at Manchester airport. As one colleague put it (expletives removed): “He doesn’t care less.” Carlos Tevez Manchester City Roberto Mancini Champions League 2011-12 Champions League Daniel Taylor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Attempt to establish legal status of six advisers backed by Daily Mirror and Guardian publishers and national press body The publisher of the Daily Mail has challenged Lord Justice Leveson over the composition of his six-strong advisory panel, amid concerns that the prime minister’s appointees do not include anyone with tabloid or regional newspaper experience. The complaint is being supported by Trinity Mirror, publisher of the Mirror titles; the Newspaper Publishers’ Association, which represents the national press; and Guardian News & Media, which publishes the Guardian and the Observer. Associated is seeking to establish the legal status of the six advisers helping Leveson. Leveson told the early part of this morning’s hearing that he was eager to engage with the Daily Mail and said that he was trying to arrange for Paul Dacre, the paper’s editor-in-chief, to attend next month. The judge said: “I did ask him to participate on 6 October, but he can’t, and I’m waiting to hear from him about 12 October.” A solicitor representing Associated Newspapers told the hearing that “we do not want to be confrontational” and stressed the importance of the judge’s work, adding: “under the terms of reference [this inquiry] raises very important issues for the future conduct, regulation and ownership of the newspaper industry”. The six advisers are Sir David Bell, the former of the chairman of the Financial Times; Shami Chakribati, the director of human rights watchdog Liberty; Lord David Currie, the former chairman of Ofcom; Elinor Goodman, the one-time polictical editor of Channel 4 News; George Jones, the former political editor of the Daily Telegraph; and Sir Paul Scott-Lee, former chief constable of the West Midlands. Associated’s legal team voiced concerns that the six may be partial and “filter” their prejudices into the enquiry. However, Leveson stressed their role was only an advisory one. The judge challenged the view that the grouping had any sort of judicial role, noting that “the conclusion [of the inquiry] will be mine and mine alone.” The judge added: “I am very conscious that I am stepping into a profession that is not the one that I spent 40 years of life in. It is critiical that I obtain advice from those who have made their life in this area, not least because I would be keen to understand any flaws that I might have because of lack of experience.” •
Continue reading …Attempt to establish legal status of six advisers backed by Daily Mirror and Guardian publishers and national press body The publisher of the Daily Mail has challenged Lord Justice Leveson over the composition of his six-strong advisory panel, amid concerns that the prime minister’s appointees do not include anyone with tabloid or regional newspaper experience. The complaint is being supported by Trinity Mirror, publisher of the Mirror titles; the Newspaper Publishers’ Association, which represents the national press; and Guardian News & Media, which publishes the Guardian and the Observer. Associated is seeking to establish the legal status of the six advisers helping Leveson. Leveson told the early part of this morning’s hearing that he was eager to engage with the Daily Mail and said that he was trying to arrange for Paul Dacre, the paper’s editor-in-chief, to attend next month. The judge said: “I did ask him to participate on 6 October, but he can’t, and I’m waiting to hear from him about 12 October.” A solicitor representing Associated Newspapers told the hearing that “we do not want to be confrontational” and stressed the importance of the judge’s work, adding: “under the terms of reference [this inquiry] raises very important issues for the future conduct, regulation and ownership of the newspaper industry”. The six advisers are Sir David Bell, the former of the chairman of the Financial Times; Shami Chakribati, the director of human rights watchdog Liberty; Lord David Currie, the former chairman of Ofcom; Elinor Goodman, the one-time polictical editor of Channel 4 News; George Jones, the former political editor of the Daily Telegraph; and Sir Paul Scott-Lee, former chief constable of the West Midlands. Associated’s legal team voiced concerns that the six may be partial and “filter” their prejudices into the enquiry. However, Leveson stressed their role was only an advisory one. The judge challenged the view that the grouping had any sort of judicial role, noting that “the conclusion [of the inquiry] will be mine and mine alone.” The judge added: “I am very conscious that I am stepping into a profession that is not the one that I spent 40 years of life in. It is critiical that I obtain advice from those who have made their life in this area, not least because I would be keen to understand any flaws that I might have because of lack of experience.” •
Continue reading …Man who died in tunnel at Kellingley colliery expected to be named by pit operator UK Coal as specialists examine scene of tragedy Police and mine safety specialists have begun a detailed inquiry at the North Yorkshire colliery where one miner died and another was injured in a roof fall on Tuesday. The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, whose Pontefract and Castleford constituency borders the Kellingley colliery, which is known as Big K and one of the most productive in Europe, has interrupted her Labour party conference schedule to visit the mine. The miner who died in a tunnel 800 metres underground is expected to be named by UK Coal, which operates the pit, on Wednesday. He is understood to be in his 40s and from North Yorkshire. His colleague, who was freed from waist-high debris by a mine rescue team, is also said to be in his 40s, and is from West Yorkshire. He is recovering after treatment in hospital for minor leg injuries. Cooper said: “All the people I’ve talked to this morning – the management and the unions and the workforce – everybody’s just really shocked by what’s happened, but also thinking about the families involved. All of our thoughts must be with them this morning. “I think there’s a sense of shock still at the moment, and obviously the investigation’s really important – that’s started already. It’s really important we get detailed and full answers. “But I think the thing that’s uppermost in people’s minds is just feeling for the family, thinking about the miner who has died, and I think all our thoughts are with them.” Nigel Adams, the Conservative MP for Selby and Ainsty, said the events had been a “massive tragedy” for the community. He added: “There was a visit underground by the health and safety executive and the managing director of UK Coal last night, and I’m told that there’s no obvious cause as yet for why the roof fell in.” Adams, whose uncle worked at Kellingley for 20 years, said: “Very sadly, this is the third death we’ve had here at Kellingley in four years and, coming on the back of the Welsh tragedy, it clearly resonates with people how dangerous an industry mining is. “I understand the gentleman who lost his life is one of my constituents and so it’s clearly a shocking thing. It’s worth pointing out that colleagues of the two miners who were trapped performed heroics in trying to rescue them.” Union officials said the injured miner was out of hospital and “doing OK”, but that there was wider concern about coal mining safety following the loss of four men in a flooded pit in south Wales less than a fortnight ago. Ken Capstick, the former vice-president of the Yorkshire branch of the National Union of Mineworkers, said events in recent years had been “very, very worrying indeed in terms of safety”. “We’ve prided ourselves on being the safest mining industry in the world, and so it certainly needs some serious examination,” he said. Local people including sisters Leanne and Abby Crowther, whose father, Martin, was a member of the rescue team, went to the site. Leanne said: “It’s been horrible. We’ve just been sat at home beside ourselves. We’ve had no phone calls or anything.” The incident came on the eve of the funeral of the first of the four victims of the tragedy at the Gleision colliery in Cilybebyll, Pontardawe, which was the UK’s worst mining disaster for 30 years. UK Coal received summonses from the Health and Safety Executive in 2009 relating to four deaths in separate incidents at its collieries. Last year, the company evacuated 218 workers after methane gas seeped into the North Yorkshire area of Kellingley’s warren of tunnels and ignited. Only one of the pit’s two shafts is used by miners. The other is part of a transport system to Eggborough power station and other power stations along the M62. The pit also produces some household coal. A miner died in a rock fall at the colliery in 2008, and another was killed following an equipment failure the following year. UK Coal Mining Energy industry Martin Wainwright Ben Quinn guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Relatives lose bid to withdraw life-supporting treatment from woman known as M, who is in a minimally-conscious state A brain-damaged, minimally-conscious woman should not be allowed to die, a high court judge has ruled. The case is thought to be the first time that a judge has been asked to rule on whether life-supporting treatment should be withdrawn from a person who is not in a persistent vegetative state but is minimally conscious. Mr Justice Baker, who heard legal argument during a court of protection hearing in London in July, described the case as unique and said it raised “very important issues of principle”. Relatives wanted life-supporting treatment withdrawn and said the woman, who turned 52 earlier this month, would not want to live “a life dependent on others”. But a lawyer appointed by the high court to represent the woman opposed the relatives’ application for nutrition to be withdrawn – arguing that she is “otherwise clinically stable”. The local health authority responsible for commissioning her care also opposed the relatives’ application and said the woman’s life was “not without positive elements”. Baker heard that the woman, who cannot be identified for legal reasons and was referred to as M in court, suffered profound brain damage in early 2003 after being diagnosed with viral encephalitis. She was in a coma for several weeks and had been thought to be in a persistent vegetative state. Doctors later concluded that she was in a minimally-conscious state – just above a persistent vegetative state. Health guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Relatives lose bid to withdraw life-supporting treatment from woman known as M, who is in a minimally-conscious state A brain-damaged, minimally-conscious woman should not be allowed to die, a high court judge has ruled. The case is thought to be the first time that a judge has been asked to rule on whether life-supporting treatment should be withdrawn from a person who is not in a persistent vegetative state but is minimally conscious. Mr Justice Baker, who heard legal argument during a court of protection hearing in London in July, described the case as unique and said it raised “very important issues of principle”. Relatives wanted life-supporting treatment withdrawn and said the woman, who turned 52 earlier this month, would not want to live “a life dependent on others”. But a lawyer appointed by the high court to represent the woman opposed the relatives’ application for nutrition to be withdrawn – arguing that she is “otherwise clinically stable”. The local health authority responsible for commissioning her care also opposed the relatives’ application and said the woman’s life was “not without positive elements”. Baker heard that the woman, who cannot be identified for legal reasons and was referred to as M in court, suffered profound brain damage in early 2003 after being diagnosed with viral encephalitis. She was in a coma for several weeks and had been thought to be in a persistent vegetative state. Doctors later concluded that she was in a minimally-conscious state – just above a persistent vegetative state. Health guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Labour leader says conference speech set out ‘serious argument’ for end to ‘anything goes’ culture but stresses party remains ‘firmly in middle ground of politics’ Follow all the news from Liverpool on our conference live blog Ed Miliband has insisted that his call for a clampdown on predatory corporate practices is not anti-business, but an “anti-business as usual message”. Speaking the day after his keynote speech to the Labour conference, the party leader said he was laying out a “serious argument” for an end to the “anything goes” culture and insisted Labour remained “firmly in the middle ground of politics”. Signalling a new era for Labour, Miliband also stressed his belief that spending more was not going to be route to achieving social justice in the next decade. He also brushed off claims that his appearance struck many as “weird”, saying he did not care what people thought of the way he looked because he strongly believed that “substance wins out”. The Labour leader outlined his views on the future of the country, which he said would “resonate” with the British public. His keynote speech proposed a new capitalism built around British values that reward hard workers and producers in business and not asset-stripping “predators”, as he sought to draw a line under the “something for nothing” system from the Thatcherite era, which he said New Labour had failed to correct. He pledged to rein in excessive pay at the top of business, break up cartels and demand responsibility from the banks. But his message that a future Labour government would treat “good” and “bad” companies differently to encourage responsible behaviour brought a mixed reaction from the business sector. Miliband told BBC Radio 4′s Today programme that his message was “pro-business” and would chime with people up and down the country. “This is not an anti-business message, this is an anti-business as usual message,” he said. “That is the most important thing about my speech yesterday. “For me, predatory behaviour is when a business does something which is in its own short-term interests but does significant damage to the long-term health of the economy. “The government can’t legislate for all of that or regulate all of that, but it can set the rule of the games so that it encourages good practices. Take the reforms that are being talked about in the banking industry – that is precisely designed to prevent the kind of behaviour that we saw in the financial crisis.” Miliband denied he was seeking to make “moral judgments about individuals” in his new approach to business and welfare, saying instead that it was a matter of shaping the tax and regulatory regime so it encouraged people to act responsibly. In his speech, he offered a new bargain in which rich and poor alike can get ahead so long as they play by the rules of the “quiet majority”. He called for councils to not simply to take into account need, but also people’s contribution to society – “whether the recipients are working, whether they look after their property and are good neighbours”. He told Today the public did not want a system under which “anything goes”, saying: “It’s not about heavy-handed government. “The state sets rules in relation to our benefit system, social housing and the way our economy works. It is not like there is an option of not having rules, it’s about what kind of rules they are – are they rules based on a set of values?” He “definitely” wanted to take Britain to a new era that moved away from the 1980s culture “that as long as people maximise their short-term interest, everything will be OK in business and elsewhere”. “It was wrong … it has caused problems for our society,” he said. “We have got to choose as a society – do we change it or do we carry on as we are? Do we say: ‘We had this banking crisis but it was just a little local difficulty,’ or do we take a long hard look and have a new reckoning and things do have to change?” Asked whether he wanted to take the UK into a “post-Thatcher/Blair era”, Miliband replied: “Definitely. Definitely. Tony Blair was elected leader 17 years ago. He was dealing with different challenges. It is a new era – it has got to be a new era.” He said the new circumstances in which Britain found itself meant Labour must in future rely on change of this kind, rather than increased spending, to achieve its social goals. “For the Labour party, spending is not going to be the way we achieve social justice in the next decade,” he said. “Of course we want to get the deficit down, we want to invest in public services. But actually, unless we reform our economy, unless we find ways of tackling these issues – and this has been a problem for the Labour party for decades – unless we get that political economy right, we are not going to get the change we want to see. “It is right for the country, it is right for my party and it speaks to our values.” In a round of interviews on Wednesday, Miliband insisted Labour was not lurching to the left. He told ITV’s Daybreak: “The idea that you shouldn’t have responsibility at the top of society – it is not a leftwing thing to say that there should be responsibility. It is absolutely in the middle ground. “It is absolutely about the values of the British people, which says that everybody should show responsibility.” Labour conference 2011 Ed Miliband Labour Labour conference Regulators Economic policy Hélène Mulholland guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Financial Policy Committee says banks might need to eat into capital cushions to keep credit flowing The Bank of England has warned of “severe strains” in financial markets and appeared to concede that banks might need to eat into their capital cushions to keep credit flowing into the stagnating economy. The second report by the new Financial Policy Committee – set up by the coalition inside the Bank to be responsible for financial stability – indicated that it had considered the need for “short-term measures” to try to prevent a re-run of the 2007 credit crunch. In a two-page update of its latest meeting – which took place on 20 September – the FPC said: “The committee had advised UK banks in June that, if their earnings were strong, they should seek to build capital levels further, given the risks to the economic and financial environment. But events had lowered the likelihood that banks would be able to strengthen their balance sheets in this way over the short term.” Even so, the committee said it was recommending banks take “any opportunity” to strengthen their capital and stock of liquid assets to “absorb flexibly any future shocks without constraining lending to the wider economy”. This could be done by raising long-term funds on the markets and reducing dividends and bonuses in line with any fall in profits. The Bank’s quarterly credit conditions survey , issued alongside the committee’s report, said lenders were warning that the shaky state of financial markets could constrain credit in the coming months. The FPC, which is chaired by Bank governor Sir Mervyn King, also advised the Financial Services Authority to encourage banks “to manage their balance sheets in such a way that would not exacerbate market or economic fragility”. “For example, at the present time, some actions taken to raise capital or liquidity ratios could potentially worsen the feedback loop between the financial sector and the wider economy and so should be avoided. Moreover, the committee recognised that, in the event that severe risks crystallised, it would be natural for banks’ capital and liquidity ratios to be run down to ensure that lending to the non-financial economy was not impaired,” the committee said. After its first meeting in June , King described the eurozone as posing the “most serious and immediate” single threat to financial stability and the committee acknowledged that since then there had been “severe strains” in financial markets. But given the scale of current risks, the committee also discussed the need for shorter-term measures to reduce the risk of a significant disruption to financial stability, and so to the supply of credit to UK households and firms, which could feed back through the economy to increase the pressure on the financial system. “The committee recognised that dealing with the problems facing the international financial system as a whole would require long-term reforms to tackle unsustainable debt positions and the cumulative and persistent loss of competitiveness in a number of euro-area countries. But given the scale of current risks, the committee also discussed the need for shorter-term measures to reduce the risk of a significant disruption to financial stability, and so to the supply of credit to UK households and firms, which could feed back through the economy to increase the pressure on the financial system.” The credit conditions survey showed that the supply of loans to households increased modestly in the third quarter of the year, while the availability of lending to businesses was flat; but, “lenders pointed to adverse wholesale funding conditions as a key factor which might constrain future lending”. Some banks are heavily reliant on funding in the wholesale money markets, which are at risk of drying up as the eurozone crisis rocks confidence. The Bank added: “More recent discussions with some of the major lenders suggested that although these factors had not yet led to reduced credit availability, a period of sustained tight funding conditions could act to constrain their ability to extend loans going forward.” Lenders also told the Bank that many of their business customers are reluctant to take on new borrowing against the background of a deteriorating economic outlook. “Lenders expected a fall in demand across firms of all sizes in Q4. Lenders commented that companies are reluctant to hold increased levels of debt against a backdrop of a more uncertain economic outlook and a fall in consumer confidence,” the Bank said. The FPC does not yet have powers to intervene in markets but is calling for powers that allow it to intervene on bank balance sheets, the terms of market transactions and trading systems to help spot and tackle potential financial crises. Financial policy committee Banking Bank of England Banking reform Financial sector Jill Treanor Heather Stewart guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Web retailer to take on Apple with launch of Android-based tablet Amazon is set to join the tablet wars as it launches a rival to Apple’s best-selling iPad, a device that has made digital tombstones of all the competition so far. The online retailer has released no details ahead of Wednesday’s press conference in New York, but the device is reportedly called Kindle Fire, to tie in with its existing ebook reader. If the Fire does prove to be an iPad rival it will pitch the brainchildren of Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos, two of Silicon Valley’s most innovative tech giants, against each other in a battle analysts say will present the biggest challenge yet to Apple’s dominance of the tablet market. With so little detail available Gartner analyst Michael Gartenberg said he was reluctant to speculate too much. “But it feels like something big is about to happen,” he said. Apple has increasingly encroached on Amazon’s business in recent years as its iTunes store has poached more music, movie and now books and magazine sales. Amazon has been building its online presence, too, and entered the hardware business with the launch of Kindle. The retailer is the biggest online books seller and the US’s second largest seller of music online after Apple’s iTunes, and it has been increasingly building up its online movies and TV sales and rentals business. The company signed a deal with Fox this week that it said means it now offers more than 11,000 movies and TV shows available via its Amazon Prime service. Amazon is also competing with Apple to offer a cloud-based media storage service that would allow customers to access anything they buy on any device connected to the internet. Amazon has its own app store already and access to the purchasing habits of its millions of customers and their credit card accounts. “Amazon has tremendous reach. That makes a huge difference,” says Gartenberg. The retailer has a very different approach to Apple, he said, but that is what may make them Apple’s biggest threat to date. “The Kindle for Amazon was about selling books and magazines. Apple’s business is about selling devices. You are looking at very different approaches,” he said. Amazon hopes its brand recognition and loyal book-buying customer base will enable it to do battle with Apple, which produced 75% of the tablets sold this year. Research firm Forrester reckons the Kindle tablet could sell between 3m and 5m units in its first year. But for all Amazon’s muscle, Apple has so far proved a tough competitor. Rival products from Dell, Hewlett Packard and Blackberry maker RIM have all bombed. According to reports from technology website TechCrunch, the Kindle Fire looks like the BlackBerry PlayBook. RIM said recently it had sold 200,000 of its PlayBooks in the last three months — about what Apple sells in three days. TechCrunch says Kindle Fire will be a 7in tablet with a $250 price tag. The initial version will offer wireless functionality but no 3G; it will also have a USB port and speakers, but no camera. A bigger, more expensive model will launch next year. For Colin Gillis, analyst at of BGC Financial, the Kindle Fire sounds more iPod than iPad. Its slimmed-down design sounds like it will be aimed a mass market of people who want a device to watch movies on, read books, listen to music and don’t need all the bells and whistles of a fully functioning iPad, he said. The Kindle Fire is expected to receive a full release in the second week of November seeking to target the important Christmas market. Apple, too, is said to be working on a new iPad for imminent release – and will be watching very carefully for any signs of new gaps in the market. Gillis this to be a vicious fight. “The tablet is the new store front,” he said. Of all the tech giants to enter the tablet wars so far, Amazon is the one with the most to offer and the most to lose. Amazon.com Tablet computers Apple iPad United States Dominic Rushe Lisa O’Carroll guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …