EU calls for reversal of controversial plan to add 1,100 new homes to Gilou settlement Israeli authorities approved in principle the construction of 1,100 homes in an East Jerusalem settlement on Tuesday, putting at risk international efforts to persuade Israeli and Palestinian negotiators to return to talks. Lady Ashton, the EU’s foreign policy chief, swiftly called for the plan to be reversed, saying settlement expansion “threatens the viability of an agreed two-state solution”. The expansion of Gilo, a settlement built across the Green Line, was authorised by a Jerusalem planning committee and would be subject to public consultation before final approval. The plan was condemned by the Palestinian Authority. In reference to its efforts to get recognition of a Palestinian state, the authority stated that the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, had said “there should be no unilateral steps – but there could be nothing more unilateral than a huge, new, round of settlement building on Palestinian land”. The Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat called the move a “slap in the face to all international efforts to protect the fading prospects of peace in the region”. Following the Palestinian submission of their request to be admitted to the UN as a full member state, the Middle East Quartet – the US, UN, Russia and the EU – called for both parties to return to the negotiating table. In a statement setting out a timetable for talks, the Quartet urged the parties “to refrain from provocative actions”, which was interpreted as a coded call for Israel to hold back from settlement expansion. Neither party has formally responded to the Quartet statement, but the Palestinians have made clear they want a further settlement freeze before more talks. The UN announced that it was very concerned about the decision to build further in Gilo. “Today’s decision … ignores the Quartet’s appeal of last Friday to the parties to refrain from provocative actions,” said a spokesman for Robert Serry, the UN special coordinator for the Middle East peace process. “This sends the wrong signal at this sensitive time. Settlement activity is contrary to the Road Map and to international law, and undermines the prospect of resuming negotiations and reaching a two-state solution to the conflict.” The expansion of Gilo, a huge settlement built on land between Jerusalem and Bethlehem that was captured and later annexed by Israel in 1967, has been on the table for more than two years. The settlement is illegal under international law. The Israeli government asserts it has the right to build Jewish settlements anywhere in the city. The approval came as the chairmen of several rightwing parties in Israel wrote to Netanyahu to urge him to annex all West Bank settlements and accelerate settlement construction in response to the Palestinian bid for statehood. They also called for financial sanctions and curbs on Palestinian construction in areas of the West Bank controlled by Israel. Tensions in the West Bank between settlers and Palestinians have risen sharply this September with the demand for Palestinian statehood at the UN. An Israeli police investigation concluded that a settler and his infant son, who were killed when their car overturned last Friday, had been struck by a rock thrown by Palestinians. At their funeral on Sunday night, a rabbi called for “collective punishment” of Palestinians, saying “there are no innocents in a war”. The Israeli security service, Shin Bet, confirmed that it had urged the education ministry to halt funding to a religious school in the settlement of Yitzhar. According to a report in the news service Haaretz, security services said that senior rabbis were inciting students to attack Palestinian villagers. A Palestinian man was shot dead by Israeli soldiers during a protest last Friday against settlers in the West Bank village of Qusra. Israel Middle East Palestinian territories United Nations European Union Harriet Sherwood guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …EU calls for reversal of controversial plan to add 1,100 new homes to Gilou settlement Israeli authorities approved in principle the construction of 1,100 homes in an East Jerusalem settlement on Tuesday, putting at risk international efforts to persuade Israeli and Palestinian negotiators to return to talks. Lady Ashton, the EU’s foreign policy chief, swiftly called for the plan to be reversed, saying settlement expansion “threatens the viability of an agreed two-state solution”. The expansion of Gilo, a settlement built across the Green Line, was authorised by a Jerusalem planning committee and would be subject to public consultation before final approval. The plan was condemned by the Palestinian Authority. In reference to its efforts to get recognition of a Palestinian state, the authority stated that the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, had said “there should be no unilateral steps – but there could be nothing more unilateral than a huge, new, round of settlement building on Palestinian land”. The Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat called the move a “slap in the face to all international efforts to protect the fading prospects of peace in the region”. Following the Palestinian submission of their request to be admitted to the UN as a full member state, the Middle East Quartet – the US, UN, Russia and the EU – called for both parties to return to the negotiating table. In a statement setting out a timetable for talks, the Quartet urged the parties “to refrain from provocative actions”, which was interpreted as a coded call for Israel to hold back from settlement expansion. Neither party has formally responded to the Quartet statement, but the Palestinians have made clear they want a further settlement freeze before more talks. The UN announced that it was very concerned about the decision to build further in Gilo. “Today’s decision … ignores the Quartet’s appeal of last Friday to the parties to refrain from provocative actions,” said a spokesman for Robert Serry, the UN special coordinator for the Middle East peace process. “This sends the wrong signal at this sensitive time. Settlement activity is contrary to the Road Map and to international law, and undermines the prospect of resuming negotiations and reaching a two-state solution to the conflict.” The expansion of Gilo, a huge settlement built on land between Jerusalem and Bethlehem that was captured and later annexed by Israel in 1967, has been on the table for more than two years. The settlement is illegal under international law. The Israeli government asserts it has the right to build Jewish settlements anywhere in the city. The approval came as the chairmen of several rightwing parties in Israel wrote to Netanyahu to urge him to annex all West Bank settlements and accelerate settlement construction in response to the Palestinian bid for statehood. They also called for financial sanctions and curbs on Palestinian construction in areas of the West Bank controlled by Israel. Tensions in the West Bank between settlers and Palestinians have risen sharply this September with the demand for Palestinian statehood at the UN. An Israeli police investigation concluded that a settler and his infant son, who were killed when their car overturned last Friday, had been struck by a rock thrown by Palestinians. At their funeral on Sunday night, a rabbi called for “collective punishment” of Palestinians, saying “there are no innocents in a war”. The Israeli security service, Shin Bet, confirmed that it had urged the education ministry to halt funding to a religious school in the settlement of Yitzhar. According to a report in the news service Haaretz, security services said that senior rabbis were inciting students to attack Palestinian villagers. A Palestinian man was shot dead by Israeli soldiers during a protest last Friday against settlers in the West Bank village of Qusra. Israel Middle East Palestinian territories United Nations European Union Harriet Sherwood guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …NYT Blames Conservative Victims for ‘Diversity Bake Sale’ Backlash, Threats on Left-Wing Campus
September 27, 2011 No CommentPolitical dissent on campus – acceptable when it involves left-wing protesters shouting down conservative speakers, but hurtful and possibly dangerous when performed in a peaceful, parodic nature by conservatives. That’s the impression left by the New York Times. Malia Wollan visited the campus of the University of California at Berkeley for Tuesday’s report, “ A ‘Diversity Bake Sale’ Backfires on Campus .” The parody “bake sale,” mocking affirmative action in California college admissions, has not in fact taken place yet, but the threats and intimidation are already pouring in on the Republican activists — things the Times isn't overly bothered about. A bake sale sponsored by a Republican student group at the University of California, Berkeley, has incited anger and renewed the debate over affirmative action by asking students to pay different prices for pastry, depending on their race and sex. Last week, the Berkeley College Republicans announced its “Increase Diversity Bake Sale,” scheduled for Tuesday. On Facebook, the group listed the price for a pastry at $2 for white students, $1.50 for Asian students, $1 for Latinos, 75 cents for African-Americans and 25 cents for Native Americans. Women of all races were promised a 25-cent discount. “Hope to see you all there! If you don’t come, you’re a racist!” the Facebook event page said. (It has since been taken down and replaced with milder text.) “We expected people to be upset,” the group’s president, Shawn Lewis, 20, a third-year political science major, said Monday in a telephone interview. “Treating people differently based on the color of their skin is wrong, and we wanted people to be upset about that.” The bake sale was scheduled to protest a phone bank organized by the Associated Students of the University of California, the campus student government group, where students planned to call Gov. Jerry Brown and urge him to sign a Senate bill that would allow public universities to consider race, gender and ethnicity in admissions decisions. In 1996, voters in the state passed a ballot initiative, known as Proposition 209, prohibiting affirmative action in admissions.
Continue reading …NYT Blames Conservative Victims for ‘Diversity Bake Sale’ Backlash, Threats on Left-Wing Campus
September 27, 2011 No CommentPolitical dissent on campus – acceptable when it involves left-wing protesters shouting down conservative speakers, but hurtful and possibly dangerous when performed in a peaceful, parodic nature by conservatives. That’s the impression left by the New York Times. Malia Wollan visited the campus of the University of California at Berkeley for Tuesday’s report, “ A ‘Diversity Bake Sale’ Backfires on Campus .” The parody “bake sale,” mocking affirmative action in California college admissions, has not in fact taken place yet, but the threats and intimidation are already pouring in on the Republican activists — things the Times isn't overly bothered about. A bake sale sponsored by a Republican student group at the University of California, Berkeley, has incited anger and renewed the debate over affirmative action by asking students to pay different prices for pastry, depending on their race and sex. Last week, the Berkeley College Republicans announced its “Increase Diversity Bake Sale,” scheduled for Tuesday. On Facebook, the group listed the price for a pastry at $2 for white students, $1.50 for Asian students, $1 for Latinos, 75 cents for African-Americans and 25 cents for Native Americans. Women of all races were promised a 25-cent discount. “Hope to see you all there! If you don’t come, you’re a racist!” the Facebook event page said. (It has since been taken down and replaced with milder text.) “We expected people to be upset,” the group’s president, Shawn Lewis, 20, a third-year political science major, said Monday in a telephone interview. “Treating people differently based on the color of their skin is wrong, and we wanted people to be upset about that.” The bake sale was scheduled to protest a phone bank organized by the Associated Students of the University of California, the campus student government group, where students planned to call Gov. Jerry Brown and urge him to sign a Senate bill that would allow public universities to consider race, gender and ethnicity in admissions decisions. In 1996, voters in the state passed a ballot initiative, known as Proposition 209, prohibiting affirmative action in admissions.
Continue reading …
Jury rules that officers who cornered gunman Raoul Moat and fired a Taser at him behaved properly during six-hour stand-off The fugitive gunman Raoul Moat took his own life after police fired an unapproved Taser at him, an inquest jury decided on Tuesday. The jury concluded that the armed officers had behaved properly during the six-hour stand-off with the 37-year-old former bouncer at Rothbury, Northumberland, in July 2010. Moat had been on the run for a week after shooting his ex-girlfriend Samantha Stobbart, 22 and killing her new partner Chris Brown, 29. He went on to shoot and blind an unarmed traffic officer, PC David Rathband, after declaring “war” on police. The three-week inquest at Newcastle crown court had been told that Moat was hit by an experimental Taser round fired by marksmen who believed he was about to kill himself. The Taser had no effect, aand Moat shot himself in the head. The inquest was told that Moat had likened himself to King Kong while on the run . The jurors spent five hours considering their verdict . Summing up, the coroner David Mitford said the jury should consider either a verdict of suicide or an open verdict. He told them they had to answer five questions linked to whether police should have used the untested XRep X12 Taser that had not been approved by the Home Office. It had been the first time it had been used in the UK during a police operation. The coroner said the jury had to be “satisfied so you are sure” before returning a verdict of suicide. An Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigation into the operation found no evidence of misconduct by officers. The IPCC looked at the period from the sighting of Moat until his death, including strategy and tactics and the deployment of XRep Tasers. It concluded that there may be “some learning” for Northumbria Police from the investigation but there was no evidence any police officers had committed misconduct. One area the jury had to consider was whether the use of Tasers was appropriate. It found no evidence of improper behaviour by police. Moat’s brother Angus told the inquest that he should have been allowed to negotiate with his brother, but this request was turned down by police. He said Raoul responded to aggression and threat “but he also responded to kindness and friendship”. The inquest had been told that Moat has said he would “take the shoot-out” rather than go back to jail. He left a message on a dictating machine three or four days before he was cornered by police marksmen. In it, he described losing the only two people who mattered to him – his grandmother and his former girlfriend. Moat’s brother Angus told the inquest that Raoul had attempted suicide in 1999 and was treated in hospital for a drug overdose. While on the run, their mother had spoken to the press and said Raoul would be better off dead, but Angus Moat had disagreed. He said she had bipolar disorder and was “severely mentally ill and incapable of being a parent”. He said if he had been able to speak to his brother, he thought he would be able to change the way he was feeling and the way he would act. Raoul Moat Police Crime Helen Carter guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Party leader promises to end ‘fast buck’ capitalism, presenting himself as the man willing to ‘break the consensus’ Ed Miliband has promised to rip up decades of irresponsible “fast buck” capitalism in the most radical analysis of Britain’s plight offered by any Labour leader since 1945. In a high-risk speech to the Labour conference in Liverpool, Miliband presented himself as the man “willing to break the consensus rather than succumb to it”. He promised a tough fight to recast a new capitalism built around British values that reward the hard-working grafters and producers in business, and not the asset-stripping “predators”. Miliband’s aides insisted the speech did not represent a lurch to the left, as immediately claimed by the Conservatives, but instead a decisive break from “a something for nothing” system that grew up under Thatcherism and that New Labour had been unable to correct. “Britain’s problems stemmed from the way we have chosen to run our country, not just for a year or so, but for decades,” Miliband said. New Labour “had brought good times, but this did not mean we had a good economic system. We changed the fabric of our country, but we did not do enough to change the values of our country.” Accusing David Cameron of being the last gasp of an old system, he said the country was crying out for a society in which the hard-working grafters are rewarded and the closed circles at the top of society are broken up. He promised to regulate and tax companies according to whether firms invested for the long term, rather than for the fast buck, recruiting apprentices and not simply stripping assets. Miliband’s pedestrian, drooping delivery did no justice to the ambition of his argument, leaving the packed conference hall sometimes flat. He was not helped when the TV live feed went down for at least 20 minutes. He was also startled when part of the audience cheered when he told them he was not Tony Blair, a reaction that left some former cabinet members despairing. Overall, the halting delivery will do little to convince those who question his prime ministerial qualities. But his aides said the speech had proved he was his own man, and no one could not now underestimate the radicalism of his diagnosis. “We have thrown the dice and now we will find out whether the voters agree,” said one. Some Blairites were privately alarmed by what they regarded as an anti-business tone. This was denied by Miliband’s circle, who are convinced the successive crises have created a once-in-a-generation mood for change in the country. Miliband – not Cameron – would be seen as the man to tear up the old rules that no longer work for the hard-working majority. There was a smattering of newly sketched policies: support for employees on company remunerations boards, government contracts only given to firms that hire apprentices, a break-up of energy companies and a commitment to allocate social housing according to behaviour, not just need. But he offered little on how he would regulate to reward what he described as good companies such as Rolls Royce, as opposed to the predators such as the private care home chain Southern Cross. But most of all he drew together the disparate British crises in banking, media, parliament and in the inner cities to make a broader argument that a quiet crisis was gripping the country. He said: “We have allowed values which say take what you can, I’m in it for myself, to create a Britain that is too unequal. The people at the top taking unjustified rewards is not just bad for the economy. It sends out a message throughout society about what values are OK. And inequality reinforces privilege and opportunity for the few.” He also tried to present himself to a sceptical country as someone with leadership qualities and a valuable, personal backstory. He said he had the heritage of the outsider and the vantage point of the insider, making him the “guy who is determined to break the closed circles of Britain”. Referring to the highlight of his year-old leadership – his decision to attack Rupert Murdoch over phone hacking – he said the episode had taught him to be true to himself and his values. “The lesson I have learnt most closely in the past year is that you have got to be willing to break the consensus, not succumb to it,” he said. “I am my own man,” he asserted to wide applause. Miliband has repeatedly refused to define himself against his own party, but passages of his speech did challenge traditional Labour on the deficit, welfare and aspects of the Thatcher settlement. In a passage at the start of the speech, he admitted the party had lost the electorate’s trust on the economy and said many of the cuts will not be reversed. If the deficit was not eliminated in this parliament, a Labour government would finish the task, he said. He was “determined to prove the next Labour government will only spend what it can afford”. But as part of the new bargain that requires responsibility at the top and at the bottom, he also said welfare cheats would have to be tackled. He went on to draw strong applause when he questioned why the prime minister was so eager to cut the 50p tax rate for people earning over £3,000 a week. Only David Cameron, he said, “could believe you make ordinary families work harder by making them poorer and you make the rich harder by making them richer”. But Miliband said nothing about the coming strikes on pensions or the future of the union party link. Lady Warsi, the Conservative party co-chairman, dismissed the speech: “What we heard was a weak leader telling his party what it wanted to hear. He’s moved Labour away from the centre ground and come up with no solutions to the something-for-nothing culture that he helped Labour create. “All he promised was more of the same spending, borrowing and debt that got us into this mess in the first place.” Ed Miliband Labour conference 2011 Labour conference Labour Economic policy Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …The DNC has a new ad out that demonstrates how similar would be Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and media mogul Donald Trump really are…and how little they care about most Americans. The only I problem I see is that anyone who is still supporting these conservative policies after the last three decades of Republican destruction to the American middle class isn’t smart enough to realize that they’re voting against their own interest. Again.
Continue reading …
• All tonight’s latest scores are here • The world’s league tables are here • Email barry.glendenning@guardian.co.uk with your thoughts • Or follow him on ‘The Twitter’ • Follow Man Utd v Basel here 12 min: “I am not in any way condoning the use of ‘Munich’ as a perjorative, and I find ‘Munich’ chants horrible and unacceptable, but …” writes Don. “I have heard all sorts of vile comments, both from individuals and organised, at football grounds all over the country, and those are almost never, ever, commented upon in the media- or addressed at the time, for that matter. I believe that if the media and Manchester United could refrain from knee-jerking to every instance of ‘Munich’, that would take the word’s power away from the ‘knuckleheads’ who say it looking for a response.” 10 min: Deep in Manchester City territory, Bayern Munich win a throw-in and take it quickly, catching Manchester City’s players unaware and allowing right-back Rafinho to try his luck from the corner of the penalty area. His effort goes high and wide. 9 min: Manchester City attack down the left flank, with four men committed to the outskirts of the Bayern penalty area. Edin Dzeko runs down a blind alley, is dispossessed by a defender and the home side clear their lines. 8 min: Sergio Aguero sends a weighted through-ball down the inside left channel for David Silva to chase. His pass isn’t weighted enough and the ball runs out of play for the Spanish winger can chase it down. 6 min: David Silva is hobbling a little with an ankle injury after a challenge from Jerome Boateng that he thought was worthy of a penalty. Referee Viktor Kassai didn’t concur. 4 min: Micah Richards bombs down the right flank and drills a low cross to Edin Dzeko, unmarked at the near post. his effort is weak and doesn’t trouble Manuel Neuer unduly. That was a glorious opportunity to put Manchester City one up, but he just didn’t put his boot through the ball. 3 min: Not much going on so far, with the ball spending most of its time being passed around midfield, with play occasionally punctuated by the occasional foul. 1 min: Manchester City kick off, lining up in a 4-4-2 and playing from left to right. Within 40 seconds, Bayern Munich defensive midfielder Luiz Gustavo goes down in a heap under a heavy challenge, but is quickly on his feet, grimacing with pain but fit to continue. Not long now: Click-clack, click-clack, click-clack. The teams march out the tunnel, with Bayern Munich’s players wearing red shirts, shorts and socks with white trim. Manchester City’s wear their customary sky blue shirts and shorts, with blue and white hooped socks. Philipp Lahm wins the toss after Vincent Kompany is asked to call “yellow or blue” (it’s probably a token from one of the Oktoberfest tents) and opts for yellow. Hats off to the Manchester City delegation , led by life president Bernard Halford, current assistant manager Brian Kidd and former captain and manager Tony Book, who laid a wreath in the Manchesterplatz in Munich to commemorate the Munich air disaster earlier today. It’s common knowledge that 23 people died when the plane that was carrying them crashed on the runway on 6 February 1958, but many of those knucklehead City fans who spent Saturday afternoon at Goodison Park referring to Phil Neville as “a dirty Munich bastard” may not be aware that one of those who perished was the journalist Frank Swift, a former City goalkeeper. Or perhaps they are aware, but just don’t care. Who knows? How Bayern Munich will line up: It looks like they’ll go with a 4.2-3-1, with Bastian Schweinsteiger and Luiz Gustavo screening the back four and Mario Gomez playing alone in front of a three-man support act comprised of Franck Ribery and Thomas Muller on the left and right of Toni Kroos. Some scene-setting: On Sky Sports, former Bayern Munich legend Alan McInally speaks from his position in the Allianz Arena. “There’s a lot of German people really looking forward to this because Manchester City have come on the scene and spent a lot money,” he says, adding that the same folk would like to see their team put City back in their box after Roberto Mancini promised, in the immediate aftermath of his side’s draw with Napoli, that City would beat Bayern Munich in Munich. Bayern Munich: Neuer, Rafinha, Van Buyten, Boateng, Lahm, Schweinsteiger, Gustavo, Muller, Kroos, Ribery, Gomez. Subs: Butt, Petersen, Robben, Usami, Contento, Alaba, Tymoschuk. Man City: Hart, Richards, Kompany, Toure, Clichy, Nasri, Barry, Toure Yaya, Silva, Aguero, Dzeko. Subs: Pantilimon, Zabaleta, Lescott, Milner, Kolarov, Tevez, De Jong. Referee: Viktor Kassai (Hungary) Good evening all. Manchester City’s players will be hoping their travelling supporters are sober enough to unhand their steins and lurch from the Oktoberfest Schottenhamel tent to the Allianz Arena for their first away fixture in the Champions League this evening. City’s task could hardly be more daunting as they march into the belly of a Bayern beast that has won its last nine Bundesliga and Champions League matches, scoring 26 goals and conceding none. Yes, none. Nada. Nil. Null. Since shipping the only goal of the game against Borussia Mönchengladbach on the opening day of the season, Bayern goalkeeper Manuel Neuer has not conceded for 838 minutes. For anyone who’s interested, the world record for the length of time a a goalkeeper has gone without conceding is held by Geraldo Pereira de Matos Filho of Vasco Da Gama and stands at a whopping 1,816 minutes. That’s the length of time it takes to boil 602 eggs, presuming you like them very runny and do them one after the other in the same saucepan, rather than all together in one big pot. Anyway, I digress … With Bayern top of the group having torpedoed the Yellow Submarine of Villarreal in their opening game, Manchester City are already playing catch-up after creditable but ultimately disappointing draw at home with Napoli on their maiden Champions League voyage. ” It is fantastic to play against a club like Bayern,” said Roberto Mancini in the run-up to the game. “We do not want to lose the game, that is for sure. We want to win it – as we always want to win. But we have to improve a lot. We are a good team already, but if we want to become a team like Bayern, to become part of the history of football, we have to learn a lot; we have just played one game in the Champions League.” Bayern manager Jupp Heynckes, who takes on English opposition in Europe for the first time this evening despite 139 previous matches, was equally complimentary when discussing his opposite number. “They have an Italian coach, but still they play quite attacking football,” he said. “We anticipate a tactical game on a very high level. For viewers it will very, very interesting. The type of players they have tells us how we can expect them to play – quite attacking! But we are in a good shape and I am confident we can improve further. We are very well prepared. Man City have a very strong team but so do we. It will be a challenge for both clubs.” Heynckes revealed that former City player Jérôme Boateng will start against old club tonight, while Arjen Robben, Mario Gomez, Daniel Van Buyten and Luiz Gustavo all returned from injury to play against Bayer Leverkusen last weekend. Ivica Olić and Breno (knee and under arrest on suspicion of an arson attack on his own house) miss out tonight, while Holger Badstuber has flu and will see how he feels later. For Manchester City, Mario Balotelli will sit this one out on the naughty step, while Nigel de Jong is still suffering from an ankle injury he picked up against Swansea City back in August. We’ll bring you the line-ups just as soon as they appear on the news wires. Or Twitter, which tends to be a quicker, if less reliable source of news than the actual news wires these days. Champions League 2011-12 Champions League Bayern Munich Manchester City Barry Glendenning guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Michael Jackson doctor trial begins with jury told of singer’s final moments
September 27, 2011 No Comment
Photos of Jackson lying dead in a hospital bed shown at LA manslaughter trial of Jackson’s doctor Conrad Murray More than two years after Michael Jackson’s death from an overdose of a powerful surgical anaesthetic, the irrepressible circus surrounding the King of Pop was back in full swing on Tuesday as the personal physician who attended to him in his dying hours stood trial for involuntary manslaughter. Fans with gold “MJ” armbands and T-shirts bearing the silkscreen likeness of their idol crammed the courthouse in downtown Los Angeles for a glimpse of the courtroom entourage – and a shot at one of the few open seats in the public gallery. Bloggers, gossip columnists and news crews were also out in force, just as they were at Jackson’s child molestation trial in 2005 and at the rehearsals for the ill-fated final tour – hauntingly named This Is It – that never took place in 2009. Inside judge Michael Pastor’s courtroom, an altogether more sober David Walgren, representing the district attorney’s office, delivered an opening statement laying out the evidence that Conrad Murray was single-handedly responsible for Jackson’s death. “The acts and omissions of Michael Jackson’s personal doctor, Conrad Murray, directly led to his premature death at the age of 50,” Walgren said. “He … repeatedly acted with gross negligence, repeatedly denied appropriate care to his patient … it was Dr Murray’s repeated incompetent and unskilled acts that led to Michael Jackon’s death.” Using a video monitor to present still photographs, charts, extracts from voicemail and other recordings, Walgren walked the jury through Jackson’s final two and a half months. Grim photos of Jackson lying dead in a hospital bed were juxtaposed with a picture of the singer rehearsing the day before his death. In that period, Murray ordered a staggering 15.5 litres of the surgical anaesthetic propofol, the prosecutor said. Walgren alleged that Murray relied on the drug – which Jackson referred to as his “milk” – to get the singer to sleep every night, even though it has no known application as a sleeping aid, and routinely administered it without monitoring equipment to check Jackson’s response. The prosecutor gave a stark narrative of how Murray realised he had lost his patient – apparently while he was on the phone to a cocktail waitress he regarded as his girlfriend – on the morning of 25 June 2009. This was just moments after he emailed an insurance agent for Jackson’s upcoming tour and said that press reports of health problems were entirely “fallacious”. Walgren said Murray did not ask his girlfriend, Sade Anding, to call the emergency services. Nor did he ask Jackson’s personal assistant, Michael Williams, when they spoke about 20 minutes later. Instead, according to the prosecutor, Murray said “Mr Jackson had a bad reaction” and urged Williams to come over to the star’s plush hillside mansion right away. When the paramedics who eventually arrived asked Murray what he had given Jackson, he made no mention of propofol. Nor did he mention it to the emergency room team at UCLA Medical Center where Jackson was pronounced dead shortly after. Only two days after Jackson’s death, according to Walgren, did he acknowledge to the police that he had administered the drug – and then said he had injected just 25mg, diluted with another drug called lidocaine. “The evidence will reveal that much more than 25mg was given to put Michael Jackson to sleep,” Walgren told the jury. Murray, crisply dressed in a white shirt and pale blue tie, showed no reaction as Walgren painted him as a man willing to abandon his medical responsibilities to earn a lucrative $150,000 per month paycheque. He was equally impassive as Walgren characterised his activities in the minutes after realising Jackson was dead as those of a man frantic not to be caught. Also in attendance were Jackson’s parents, Joe and Katherine, and his magician, Majestic Magnificent. Walgren described how Alberto Alvarez, who also worked for Jackson, came into the upstairs bedroom where Jackson’s lifeless body was laid out on the all-white bed covers and saw Murray administering CPR with one hand. Murray, according to Alvarez’s testimony, told him to grab a bag and started filling it with medicine vials and a saline bag which he told Alvarez to get rid of. Alvarez was also struck by the sight of a catheter running out of Jackson’s penis – a urine-collecting device usually used on patients knocked unconscious for major surgery. A jug of urine sat on a chair, and the jacket and trousers Jackson had worn to a rehearsal the night before lay strewn on the floor. Walgren’s opening statement was relatively brief, lasting about an hour and half, and was expected to be followed by the defence. Murray’s lawyers have previously indicated they intend to place much of the blame for the death on Jackson himself, characterising him as a propofol addict whom Murray tried in vain to wean away from the drug. United States Michael Jackson trial California Michael Jackson Andrew Gumbel guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Abdul Hakim Belhaj, head of Tripoli Military Council, issues warning after administration negotiations founder Libya’s Islamist groups “will not allow” secular politicians to exclude or marginalise them in the intensifying battle for power in the post-Gaddafi era, the country’s most powerful Islamist leader has said. Abdel Hakim Belhaj, head of the Tripoli Military Council and founder of a jihadi group that was later disbanded, appears to be firing a shot across the bows of liberal, western-backed rivals after negotiations over broadening the rebel administration foundered. “We must resist attempts by some Libyan politicians to exclude some of the participants in the revolution,” Belhaj writes in the Guardian. “Their political myopia renders them unable to see the huge risks of such exclusion, or the serious … reaction of the parties that are excluded.” More than a month since Tripoli fell to rebel brigades backed by Nato, the National Transitional Council (NTC) has failed to expand to be more representative, generating a sense of division and drift about the future that western diplomats and many Libyans admit is worrying. It is now clear there will be no deal before the liberation of the whole country is formally declared. That requires the defeat of Gaddafi loyalists in the deposed leader’s coastal hometown of Sirte, where heavy fighting continued on Tuesday. In Bani Walid, south of Tripoli, there is a stalemate. “Consultations have led to a decision to postpone the formation of a government until after liberation,” NTC member Mustafa el-Huni said in Benghazi. The scale of the political challenge ahead is enormous in a country that has not held an election since 1952 and is just emerging from 41 years of dictatorship. Belhaj – who was transferred to Libya with the help of the CIA and MI6 to serve seven years in Gaddafi’s most infamous prison – was the head of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which fought in Afghanistan until abandoning its jihadi ideas and disbanding in 2009. It then became the Libyan Islamic Movement for Change. He is seen as the leader of the country’s Islamist camp, his own and like-minded rebel brigades directly armed and financed by the Gulf state of Qatar, and his military council effectively controlling the capital. The Libyan national army, which includes many former Gaddafi officers, and answers to the NTC, looks like the junior partner. Belhaj is close to Ali Sallabi, an influential cleric who lived in exile before returning after the start of the revolution in Benghazi. Sallabi angered many Libyans in a recent interview with Qatari-owned al-Jazeera TV in which he directly attacked Mahmoud Jibril, the NTC’s prime minister-designate. Jibril is a technocratic figure who did much to drum up western support for the Libyan rebels but he has emerged as the focus for bitter debates about the future. Jibril is resented by some for his role in promoting economic development under the aegis of Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi, the former leader’s son, who was embraced by the west as a reformer until the uprising. Mustafa Abdel Jalil, the NTC head, had already acknowledged that “differences in views” had delayed a deal, which is also complicated by regional rivalries. Misrata, which suffered badly during the uprising, is insistent that its position be recognised. “We are faced with the Libyan mentality that every tribe, every region, every city has a share in the new government,” Jibril said. One analyst in Tripoli said: “Jibril and others appear to be offering an expanded NTC with some extra ministerial posts, but those outside want something much more fundamental – a fully representative council which would then elect a transitional government.” Nato said on Tuesday that about 200,000 Libyan civilians were still threatened by Gaddafi loyalists, mainly in Sirte and Bani Walid. “Remaining Gaddafi forces refuse to recognise their defeat,” said a spokesman. RAF Tornados were said to have been in action on both fronts on Monday, hitting ammunition stores, a psychological warfare centre and a firing position. Libya Middle East Africa Arab and Middle East unrest Islam Ian Black guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …