It’s hard to win the battle of words when media outlets insist on calling conservative Democrats “moderate” and “centrist.” When polls show that the vast majority of voters in both parties support raising taxes on the rich, insisting on protecting the revenue stream of millionaires and billionaires is hardly a “moderate” position. Just sayin’, Josh Marshall: Moderate Senate Democrats are signaling strong resistance to tax increases in the President’s deficit-reduction plan, and the early disapproval within his own party will no doubt give Republicans on the deficit super committee plenty of cover to block any and all revenue-raising aspects of Obama’s plan. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) told reporters Monday night that he’s put off by all the talk about increasing taxes when he believes the primary and only goal of the deficit super committee should be finding cuts to hack away at the deficit. “Tax increases have to come second to cutting,” he said. “I was just home over the weekend and that’s what [my constituents] we’re all talking about.” Which constituents, Ben? Oh, you mean your largest donors , like Big Pharma and the finance industry! Bless your heart! Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), who represents a state whose economy is dependent on energy production, last week said the offset for Obama’s new spending plans, which includes the elimination of oil and gas subsidies, “was not going to fly .” “Terrible,” Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) told Politico last week when asked about the president’s ideas for how to pay for the $450 billion price tag. “We shouldn’t increase taxes on ordinary income . … There are other ways to get there.” Clearly trying to withhold her opposition — at least for the day, Landrieu ducked into an elevator when reporters tried to stop her Monday night to ask her opinion about the President’s speech. Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), a co-chair of the deficit super committee, gave an oblique response when asked Monday night about her response to the President’s speech and how it would affect the super committee’s work, noting that she hopes the panel can take a “fair and balanced” approach. “Fair and balanced.” Hmm. Where have I heard that one before? Oh yeah, it’s wingnut foreplay – i.e. the sweet nothings they whisper in your ear right before they stick it to you!
Continue reading …
Barack Obama welcomes repeal of 18-year ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy as gay lobby groups across US celebrate Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – the US military’s 18-year ban on openly gay and lesbian service personnel – has officially been repealed, ushering in a new era for the country’s armed forces. In a statement President Barack Obama welcomed the end of a policy that he said had forced gay and lesbian members to “lie about who they are”. The repeal, which took effect from midnight on Tuesday, was celebrated as “momentous news” by gay lobby groups across the US, who have long fought against the policy, and among the military’s estimated 65,000 serving gay and lesbian servicemen and women. Obama said he was confident that lifting the ban would enhance national security. Previously, serving gay and lesbians who did not keep their sexuality a secret faced being discharged from the military. Opponents had argued that allowing openly gay troops to serve would hamper military effectiveness. “As of today, patriotic Americans in uniform will no longer have to lie about who they are in order to serve the country they love,” Obama said in a statement. “As of today, our armed forces will no longer lose the extraordinary skills and combat experience of so many gay and lesbian service members. “Today, every American can be proud that we have taken another great step toward keeping our military the finest in the world and toward fulfilling our nation’s founding ideals.” Last December, the president signed legislation to repeal the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy (DADT), which had been passed by congress and signed into law in 1993 under then-President Bill Clinton. Obama paid tribute to gay and lesbian troops who had been discharged as a result of the policy, and to those who had lost their lives to serve their country. More than 14,500 US service personnel have been thrown out of military service since the DADT policy took effect, according to the non-profit watchdog and lobby group, the Servicemembers Legal DefenseDefence Network. In a memo, the Pentagon said that the policy would not harm military readiness, unit cohesion or recruiting and retaining members. “Effective today, statements about sexual orientation or lawful acts of homosexual conduct will not be considered as a bar to military service,” said Clifford Stanley, the US under secretary of defence for personnel and readiness. Nor would they prevent admission military academies and other programs. “All service members are to treat one another with dignity and respect, regardless of sexual orientation,” he said, warning that “harassment or abuse based on sexual orientation” would not be tolerated in the military. The Pentagon said recruiters are now accepting applications from openly gay people. In a statement, the US army said: “From this day forward, gay and lesbian soldiers may serve in our army with the dignity and respect they deserve.” At one minute past midnight on Tuesday, Stanley put out a statement from the Pentagon to the work force. “The department of defense is committed to promoting an environment free from personal, social or institutional barriers that prevent service members from rising to the highest level of responsibility possible regardless of sexual orientation.” Across the US, groups that have long lobbied for the change welcomed the news. Mike Thompson, of the media monitoring group Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, said: “Today, America took a momentous step forward in the pursuit of full equality by fully repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and opening its military to every brave man and woman willing to serve, whether straight or gay.” He said: “The courage, perseverance and patriotism displayed by the American military shines even more brightly today as our nation strengthens its national security and takes a firm stand against discrimination in our armed forces.” Mike Breen, a former army captain and vice president of the Truman National Security Project, a security thinktank, said he was “overjoyed” that the policy is over. “It is long overdue and has no place in a military at war time.” Breen, who led a group of paratroopers in the Korengal and Pech valleys in Afghanistan, often in support of special forces, has first-hand experience of how DADT robbed the military of first-rate soldiers. A section leader under his command in Afghanistan, whom he recommended and who was later awarded a Bronze Star for heroism, had left the military because of the policy, he said. “When a helicopter crashed, he tackled a young private in his charge, shielding him with his body. He showed the sort of leadership we tend to lionise in the military. He loved being a soldier, but he left in part because he wanted a personal life.” Many campaigners paid tribute to those who have suffered as a result of the policy. Lieutenant Daniel Choi is a former US officer and now rights campaigner who was kicked out of the army for being gay after serving in Iraq in 2007. He said: “This is not a moment when I have been out chugging beers. There are still a lot of unknowns for us who want to go back. I also think this is a moment when I remember those who were kicked out and even those who committed suicide after they were kicked out … this is still just the beginning.” The US defence department will now publish revised regulations to reflect the new policy. The lifting of the ban also brings a halt to all pending investigations, discharges and other administrative proceedings that were begun under the law. Marine Corps veteran Corporal Evelyn Thomas, a lesbian who was discharged after four years of service, said: “It is remarkable. It is wonderful that this time has come.” In 2009, Thomas founded The Sanctuary Project Veterans, which aims to look after the concerns of those affected by the now repealed law. She said: “When I was in the military, I had to serve in secret. I had to compromise my integrity.” However, like other gay rights advocates, she said the repeal of DADT was just part of a wider battle. She said many gay veterans discharged under DADT were often told – wrongly – that they were not eligible for full healthcare benefits through the US department of veterans’ affairs. Thomas said that her organisation would now put advocacy on this issue at the forefront of its mission. “There are a lot of veterans who are eligible for these benefits, but they don’t know about it. We are going to educate lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender veterans,” she said. US military Gay rights Barack Obama United States Karen McVeigh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Barack Obama welcomes repeal of 18-year ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy as gay lobby groups across US celebrate Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – the US military’s 18-year ban on openly gay and lesbian service personnel – has officially been repealed, ushering in a new era for the country’s armed forces. In a statement President Barack Obama welcomed the end of a policy that he said had forced gay and lesbian members to “lie about who they are”. The repeal, which took effect from midnight on Tuesday, was celebrated as “momentous news” by gay lobby groups across the US, who have long fought against the policy, and among the military’s estimated 65,000 serving gay and lesbian servicemen and women. Obama said he was confident that lifting the ban would enhance national security. Previously, serving gay and lesbians who did not keep their sexuality a secret faced being discharged from the military. Opponents had argued that allowing openly gay troops to serve would hamper military effectiveness. “As of today, patriotic Americans in uniform will no longer have to lie about who they are in order to serve the country they love,” Obama said in a statement. “As of today, our armed forces will no longer lose the extraordinary skills and combat experience of so many gay and lesbian service members. “Today, every American can be proud that we have taken another great step toward keeping our military the finest in the world and toward fulfilling our nation’s founding ideals.” Last December, the president signed legislation to repeal the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy (DADT), which had been passed by congress and signed into law in 1993 under then-President Bill Clinton. Obama paid tribute to gay and lesbian troops who had been discharged as a result of the policy, and to those who had lost their lives to serve their country. More than 14,500 US service personnel have been thrown out of military service since the DADT policy took effect, according to the non-profit watchdog and lobby group, the Servicemembers Legal DefenseDefence Network. In a memo, the Pentagon said that the policy would not harm military readiness, unit cohesion or recruiting and retaining members. “Effective today, statements about sexual orientation or lawful acts of homosexual conduct will not be considered as a bar to military service,” said Clifford Stanley, the US under secretary of defence for personnel and readiness. Nor would they prevent admission military academies and other programs. “All service members are to treat one another with dignity and respect, regardless of sexual orientation,” he said, warning that “harassment or abuse based on sexual orientation” would not be tolerated in the military. The Pentagon said recruiters are now accepting applications from openly gay people. In a statement, the US army said: “From this day forward, gay and lesbian soldiers may serve in our army with the dignity and respect they deserve.” At one minute past midnight on Tuesday, Stanley put out a statement from the Pentagon to the work force. “The department of defense is committed to promoting an environment free from personal, social or institutional barriers that prevent service members from rising to the highest level of responsibility possible regardless of sexual orientation.” Across the US, groups that have long lobbied for the change welcomed the news. Mike Thompson, of the media monitoring group Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, said: “Today, America took a momentous step forward in the pursuit of full equality by fully repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and opening its military to every brave man and woman willing to serve, whether straight or gay.” He said: “The courage, perseverance and patriotism displayed by the American military shines even more brightly today as our nation strengthens its national security and takes a firm stand against discrimination in our armed forces.” Mike Breen, a former army captain and vice president of the Truman National Security Project, a security thinktank, said he was “overjoyed” that the policy is over. “It is long overdue and has no place in a military at war time.” Breen, who led a group of paratroopers in the Korengal and Pech valleys in Afghanistan, often in support of special forces, has first-hand experience of how DADT robbed the military of first-rate soldiers. A section leader under his command in Afghanistan, whom he recommended and who was later awarded a Bronze Star for heroism, had left the military because of the policy, he said. “When a helicopter crashed, he tackled a young private in his charge, shielding him with his body. He showed the sort of leadership we tend to lionise in the military. He loved being a soldier, but he left in part because he wanted a personal life.” Many campaigners paid tribute to those who have suffered as a result of the policy. Lieutenant Daniel Choi is a former US officer and now rights campaigner who was kicked out of the army for being gay after serving in Iraq in 2007. He said: “This is not a moment when I have been out chugging beers. There are still a lot of unknowns for us who want to go back. I also think this is a moment when I remember those who were kicked out and even those who committed suicide after they were kicked out … this is still just the beginning.” The US defence department will now publish revised regulations to reflect the new policy. The lifting of the ban also brings a halt to all pending investigations, discharges and other administrative proceedings that were begun under the law. Marine Corps veteran Corporal Evelyn Thomas, a lesbian who was discharged after four years of service, said: “It is remarkable. It is wonderful that this time has come.” In 2009, Thomas founded The Sanctuary Project Veterans, which aims to look after the concerns of those affected by the now repealed law. She said: “When I was in the military, I had to serve in secret. I had to compromise my integrity.” However, like other gay rights advocates, she said the repeal of DADT was just part of a wider battle. She said many gay veterans discharged under DADT were often told – wrongly – that they were not eligible for full healthcare benefits through the US department of veterans’ affairs. Thomas said that her organisation would now put advocacy on this issue at the forefront of its mission. “There are a lot of veterans who are eligible for these benefits, but they don’t know about it. We are going to educate lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender veterans,” she said. US military Gay rights Barack Obama United States Karen McVeigh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Postmodernism is the star of a new exhibition at the V&A, but what’s it all about? What are its landmarks? And why is it so heavy on the irony? 1972: The demolition of the Pruitt Igoe housing scheme The modern world died at 3.32pm in St
Continue reading …One More Reason to Raise Taxes on the Rich: Bill O’Reilly Threatens to ‘Pack It In’
September 20, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Apparently Bill O’Reilly is terribly upset that President Obama might want to raise his taxes on capital gains, so much so that he actually threatened that he and his ilk of fellow investors who potentially could be taxed higher on their “sweat equity” might “pack it in” during his “Talking Points Memo” on this Monday’s The O’Reilly Factor . O’REILLY: Here’s the unintended consequence of Mr. Obama’s revenue enhancing plan, and I must tell you, I want the feds to get more revenue. I don’t want to starve them, as some people do. We need a robust military, a good transportation system and protections all over the place. But if you tax achievement, some of the achievers are going to pack it in. I’m not quite sure just where O’Reilly and his buddies are going to “pack it in” to, but let me be the first to say that if it means you not being on the air any more at Fox, please go… and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out to wherever in the hell you plan on going. And apparently O’Reilly has absolutely no idea what the term “sweat equity” means. I would recommend him spending a little time watching either HGTV or the DIY networks if he would like to get a clue on what that term actually means. UPDATED: Steve Benen explains: In Ronald Reagan’s first term, for example, the top rate was — you guessed it — 50% . Did Reagan’s “oppressive” tax rates prevent robust economic growth? Did “the achievers” decide to “pack it in”? No and no. For nearly all of Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency, the top rate was 91% . That’s not a typo. Did this Republican president’s “oppressive” tax policy prevent the U.S. economy from growing in the 1950s? Apparently not. That said, if O’Reilly is contemplating retirement to avoid helping America pay its bills, I’m not inclined to discourage him Hullabaloo That’s the best reason I’ve yet heard for raising taxes on these creeps. What’s funny is that O’Reilly is under the illusion that he’s one of the big job creators in our culture who can’t be asked to give up even one penny of his massive income lest he lose all reason to wake up in the morning. Well sorry — he’s one of the entertainers, not one of the producers. He may be irreplaceable to curmudgeonly old FOX News, but it won’t make a bit of difference to the economy. So, buh bye. But that’s not why I say he’s a moron. He’s a moron because he doesn’t know how marginal tax rates work and when you make the ridiculous sums of money he makes, you really ought to. On the other hand, if he’s so dumb that he thinks Obama is actually proposing a 50% tax rate and then whines publicly to a country full of poor people about it, then maybe we should just take his money .
Continue reading …
Probably the best compliment that can be paid to Manchester United is that their reserves play with the style and panache we have come to expect of the first team. They made this an ignominious night for Leeds United, dismantling the Championship side with so little difficulty that it was easy to forget sometimes that Sir Alex Ferguson had given his first XI the night off. Michael Owen scored two of the goals for a team rippling with confidence. Ryan Giggs scored the other and for Leeds the final whistle must have had the effect of smelling salts. In truth, it had become apparent much earlier that there would not even be a hint of an upset. Ferguson’s team had scored all their goals by half-time and even if they sometimes give the impression they do not entirely cherish the Carling Cup at Old Trafford, this still represented an evening of huge satisfaction for a team who began with no recognised centre-halves and four centre-forwards. Even by Ferguson’s standards of experimentation, it was an eccentric selection. Michael Carrick, a midfielder once likened to Glenn Hoddle, made an unorthodox centre-half. He was partnered by Ezekiel Fryers, a youth-academy graduate making his first-team debut 11 days after turning 19. Fryers, tipped by Rio Ferdinand to play for England in the 2018 World Cup, is normally a left-back. Mame Biram Diouf and Federico Macheda, two reserve strikers, started as wingers. Antonio Valencia, signed as Cristiano Ronaldo’s replacement on the wing, was at right-back. Ben Amos, the third-choice goalkeeper, was a virtual spectator for long spells, having been promoted ahead of David de Gea and Anders Lindegaard. The seven substitutes were aged 18 to 20, including five players with no first-team experience. This was a team that ought to have been vulnerable – but Leeds never even sought to investigate. Faced by such a makeshift team, it was peculiar in the extreme that Leeds were so passive, as if forgetting they had beaten these opponents in the FA Cup two seasons ago. They began the game encouragingly, with Dimitar Berbatov of all people having to make two important clearances from inside the six-yard area. But the Leeds challenge quickly tailed off. The disappointment for their manager, Simon Grayson, was that they seemed not to want to find out if Carrick and Fryers were susceptible. The gulf between the clubs was apparent from the start. Ferguson’s team may have had a makeover, but they played with the confidence and fluency that has been evident in five Premier League matches that have brought 21 goals and maximum points. They knocked the ball around with an ease that was infuriating for Grayson and by half-time the match had become an exercise in damage-limitation for Leeds. A lot is made of the crowd’s hostility on these occasions but Ferguson had enough players with big-game experience for his team to play with a seen-it-all-before air. Berbatov was prominently involved. Giggs was magnificent in his 45 minutes before he made way for a debutant, Paul Pogba. As for Owen, this was the best way possible to demonstrate why he believes he should have more time on the pitch. The first goal stemmed from a flowing move on the right, Giggs linking with Berbatov before Park Ji-sung turned the ball into Owen’s path. The striker’s first touch took him inside Tom Lees; the second was a left-footed shot through the defender’s legs and just inside the post. The shot was scuffed and a little fortuitous but Owen’s second goal could hardly have been struck more cleanly. It was something of a rarity, too – an Owen goal from outside the penalty area. Again, it originated on the right. Diouf, an enthusiastic runner, crossed. Owen took one touch before driving a brilliant shot into the top corner. Leeds’s big night was turning into an ordeal. In first-half stoppage-time Giggs ran at Aidan White, slipped the ball through his legs and continued into the penalty area. His shot flicked off Luciano Becchio to deceive the goalkeeper, Andy Lonergan, for 3-0. Leeds were probably fortunate that, with the game effectively won, their opponents did not play with the same urgency after the interval. Even so, Fryers must have been wondering whether it will always be this easy and Carrick coasted through the game like an old hand at this defensive lark. It was as if the players in white did not fully comprehend the significance of the fixture. Or maybe they did, and simply did not have the nerve to attack their opponents. All that could be said for certain was that it was difficult to go through the Leeds team and identify one player who had stood out for the right reasons. Carling Cup 2011-12 Leeds United Manchester United Daniel Taylor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Probably the best compliment that can be paid to Manchester United is that their reserves play with the style and panache we have come to expect of the first team. They made this an ignominious night for Leeds United, dismantling the Championship side with so little difficulty that it was easy to forget sometimes that Sir Alex Ferguson had given his first XI the night off. Michael Owen scored two of the goals for a team rippling with confidence. Ryan Giggs scored the other and for Leeds the final whistle must have had the effect of smelling salts. In truth, it had become apparent much earlier that there would not even be a hint of an upset. Ferguson’s team had scored all their goals by half-time and even if they sometimes give the impression they do not entirely cherish the Carling Cup at Old Trafford, this still represented an evening of huge satisfaction for a team who began with no recognised centre-halves and four centre-forwards. Even by Ferguson’s standards of experimentation, it was an eccentric selection. Michael Carrick, a midfielder once likened to Glenn Hoddle, made an unorthodox centre-half. He was partnered by Ezekiel Fryers, a youth-academy graduate making his first-team debut 11 days after turning 19. Fryers, tipped by Rio Ferdinand to play for England in the 2018 World Cup, is normally a left-back. Mame Biram Diouf and Federico Macheda, two reserve strikers, started as wingers. Antonio Valencia, signed as Cristiano Ronaldo’s replacement on the wing, was at right-back. Ben Amos, the third-choice goalkeeper, was a virtual spectator for long spells, having been promoted ahead of David de Gea and Anders Lindegaard. The seven substitutes were aged 18 to 20, including five players with no first-team experience. This was a team that ought to have been vulnerable – but Leeds never even sought to investigate. Faced by such a makeshift team, it was peculiar in the extreme that Leeds were so passive, as if forgetting they had beaten these opponents in the FA Cup two seasons ago. They began the game encouragingly, with Dimitar Berbatov of all people having to make two important clearances from inside the six-yard area. But the Leeds challenge quickly tailed off. The disappointment for their manager, Simon Grayson, was that they seemed not to want to find out if Carrick and Fryers were susceptible. The gulf between the clubs was apparent from the start. Ferguson’s team may have had a makeover, but they played with the confidence and fluency that has been evident in five Premier League matches that have brought 21 goals and maximum points. They knocked the ball around with an ease that was infuriating for Grayson and by half-time the match had become an exercise in damage-limitation for Leeds. A lot is made of the crowd’s hostility on these occasions but Ferguson had enough players with big-game experience for his team to play with a seen-it-all-before air. Berbatov was prominently involved. Giggs was magnificent in his 45 minutes before he made way for a debutant, Paul Pogba. As for Owen, this was the best way possible to demonstrate why he believes he should have more time on the pitch. The first goal stemmed from a flowing move on the right, Giggs linking with Berbatov before Park Ji-sung turned the ball into Owen’s path. The striker’s first touch took him inside Tom Lees; the second was a left-footed shot through the defender’s legs and just inside the post. The shot was scuffed and a little fortuitous but Owen’s second goal could hardly have been struck more cleanly. It was something of a rarity, too – an Owen goal from outside the penalty area. Again, it originated on the right. Diouf, an enthusiastic runner, crossed. Owen took one touch before driving a brilliant shot into the top corner. Leeds’s big night was turning into an ordeal. In first-half stoppage-time Giggs ran at Aidan White, slipped the ball through his legs and continued into the penalty area. His shot flicked off Luciano Becchio to deceive the goalkeeper, Andy Lonergan, for 3-0. Leeds were probably fortunate that, with the game effectively won, their opponents did not play with the same urgency after the interval. Even so, Fryers must have been wondering whether it will always be this easy and Carrick coasted through the game like an old hand at this defensive lark. It was as if the players in white did not fully comprehend the significance of the fixture. Or maybe they did, and simply did not have the nerve to attack their opponents. All that could be said for certain was that it was difficult to go through the Leeds team and identify one player who had stood out for the right reasons. Carling Cup 2011-12 Leeds United Manchester United Daniel Taylor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Organisation calls for local pay deals as it claims cost of employing staff is rising by 2.4% a year despite pay freeze Leaders of 1.5 million NHS staff are poised for confrontation with health service employers and ministers over proposed pay and pensions changes that unions claim would seriously damage their incomes. The NHS already faces the prospect of more than 500,000 staff taking industrial action on 30 November as part of the national day of action against government plans to overhaul public sector pensions. A series of ballots in coming weeks is expected to see paramedics, radiographers, physiotherapists, chiropodists and a host of non-clinical staff such as cooks and cleaners participating in as yet unspecified action. NHS staff, most of whom are experiencing a two-year freeze on their pay, are furious that ministers are seeking to compel them to work longer and contribute more for ultimately smaller pensions. Unions such as Unison, Unite and the GMB have pledged to ballot their members, although the British Medical Association, Royal College of Nursing and Royal College of Midwives are reluctant to do so. But the organisation NHS Employers has increased the prospect of another money wrangle by declaring that the NHS salary bill is unsustainable and that local pay deals are needed to bring down costs. It claims that, despite the pay freeze for all NHS staff earning over £21,000, the cost to its members – such as hospital and mental health trusts – of employing staff is rising by 2.4% a year. The continuation right to annual pay
Continue reading …
Organisation calls for local pay deals as it claims cost of employing staff is rising by 2.4% a year despite pay freeze Leaders of 1.5 million NHS staff are poised for confrontation with health service employers and ministers over proposed pay and pensions changes that unions claim would seriously damage their incomes. The NHS already faces the prospect of more than 500,000 staff taking industrial action on 30 November as part of the national day of action against government plans to overhaul public sector pensions. A series of ballots in coming weeks is expected to see paramedics, radiographers, physiotherapists, chiropodists and a host of non-clinical staff such as cooks and cleaners participating in as yet unspecified action. NHS staff, most of whom are experiencing a two-year freeze on their pay, are furious that ministers are seeking to compel them to work longer and contribute more for ultimately smaller pensions. Unions such as Unison, Unite and the GMB have pledged to ballot their members, although the British Medical Association, Royal College of Nursing and Royal College of Midwives are reluctant to do so. But the organisation NHS Employers has increased the prospect of another money wrangle by declaring that the NHS salary bill is unsustainable and that local pay deals are needed to bring down costs. It claims that, despite the pay freeze for all NHS staff earning over £21,000, the cost to its members – such as hospital and mental health trusts – of employing staff is rising by 2.4% a year. The continuation right to annual pay
Continue reading …
Scotland Yard forced into abrupt climbdown over attempt to make Guardian reporters reveal phone hacking sources The Metropolitan police dropped its attempt to order the Guardian to reveal confidential sources for stories relating to the phone-hacking scandal. After an intervention by the Crown Prosecution Service, Scotland Yard was forced into an abrupt climbdown following a wave of outrage over the Met’s attempt to make Guardian reporters reveal confidential sources for articles disclosing that the murdered teenager Milly Dowler’s phone was hacked on behalf of the News of the World. They claimed that the paper’s reporter, Amelia Hill, could have incited a source to break the Official Secrets Act and broken the act herself. At an Old Bailey hearing scheduled for this Friday, the Met had been due to apply for a production order to obtain all the material which the Guardian holds that would disclose sources for the newspaper’s coverage of the phone-hacking inquiry this year. The statement put out by the Met announcing its retreat left open the possibility that the production order could be applied for again, but the Guardian’s lawyers have been told that the police have dropped the application. A senior Yard source said: “It’s off the agenda.” The police application was formally being made under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act but with an assertion that Hill had committed an offence under the Official Secrets Act by inciting an officer from Operation Weeting – the Met’s investigation into phone hacking – to reveal information. The Yard source said: “There will be some hard reflection. This was a decision made in good faith, but with no appreciation for the wider consequences. Obviously the last thing we want to do is to get into a big fight with the media. We do not want to interfere with journalists. In hindsight the view is that certain things that should have been done, were not done, and that is regrettable.” The Guardian’s editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger, said: “We greatly welcome the Met’s decision to withdraw this ill-judged order. Threatening reporters with the Official Secrets Act was a sinister new device to get round the protection of journalists’ confidential sources. We would have fought this assault on public interest journalism all the way. We’re happy that good sense has prevailed.” Many lawyers had expressed astonishment at the police resorting to the Official Secret Act. Their surprise was reinforced on Monday when the director of public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, revealed that the Crown Prosecution Service had not been contacted by officers before the application was made. Neil O’May, the Guardian’s solicitor, said: “This was always a misconceived application for source material. Journalists’ sources are protected in law. For the Metropolitan police to turn on the very newspaper which exposed the failings of the previous police inquiries and reported on hacking by the News of the World was always doomed to failure. The Metropolitan police need to control the officers who are involved in these sensitive areas.” In a statement , the CPS said: “[On] Monday the Metropolitan police asked the CPS for advice in relation to seeking a production order against Guardian Newspapers. “The CPS has asked that more information be provided to its lawyers and has said that more time will be needed fully to consider the matter. As a result the scheduled court hearing will not go ahead on Friday. The [Metropolitan Police] will consider what application, if any, it will make in due course, once it has received advice from the CPS.” The Met said in a statement: “The Metropolitan police’s directorate of professional standards consulted the Crown Prosecution Service about the alleged leaking of information by a police officer from Operation Weeting. “The CPS has today asked that more information be provided to its lawyers and for appropriate time to consider the matter. In addition the MPS has taken further legal advice this afternoon and as a result has decided not to pursue, at this time, the application for production orders scheduled for hearing on Friday 23 September. We have agreed with the CPS that we will work jointly with them in considering the next steps. “This decision does not mean that the investigation has been concluded. This investigation, led by the DPS – not Operation Weeting, has always been about establishing whether a police officer has leaked information, and gathering any evidence that proves or disproves that. Despite recent media reports there was no intention to target journalists or disregard journalists’ obligations to protect their sources. “It is not acceptable for police officers to leak information about any investigation, let alone one as sensitive and high profile as Operation Weeting. “Notwithstanding the decision made this afternoon it should be noted that the application for production orders was made under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), NOT the Official Secrets Act (OSA). “The Official Secrets Act was only mentioned in the application in relation to possible offences in connection with the officer from Operation Weeting, who was arrested on August 18 2011 on suspicion of misconduct in a public office relating to unauthorised disclosure of information. He remains on bail and is suspended. “Separately, the MPS remains committed to the phone hacking investigation under Operation Weeting.”The picture painted by insiders in the Met is that a relatively junior officer took the decision to take on the Guardian without consulting his superiors, setting off a calamitous chain of events that saw the Met condemned for an attempted assault on press freedom. Police sources said the senior investigating officer who was inquiring into whether a member of the Weeting team had leaked information, had on his own, taken the decision to seek the production order. The senior source said that not even Deputy Assistant Commissioner Mark Simmons had been told about the decision in advance. Simmons is the head of professionalism issues at Scotland Yard and is seen as a rising star within the force. The senior source said: “There was not a lot of happy people at our place over the weekend because it was a decision made by the SIO. There was no referral upwards, and you would have thought on something as sensitive as this there would have been.” Simmons and the incoming commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, did discuss the issue, as the criticism grew, but the source said the commissioner had left it to Simmons to take the decision, and that there was no instruction or directive. The Met stressed that Hogan-Howe, despite being in charge of professional standards as deputy commissioner, was not involved in the original decision to seek a production order. Simmons took the decision to review the application by the SIO. Geoffrey Robertson QC said: “This is a victory for common sense and freedom of speech. Had the police continued with this ill-considered action journalists might have been forced to disobey a court order so as to protect their source. “Putting journalists into that dilemma and possibly in jail would only bring discredit on police and the law. It should now be accepted that journalists are entitled to protect their sources of information otherwise that information will dry up and there will be less public interest information such as the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone.” The Met’s move had been condemned by all Britain’s major newspapers, including the Times and Sunday Times, and the Daily Mail’s columnist Richard Littlejohn. The Yard pursued its action against the Guardian without consulting the CPS, until Monday, or the attorney-general Dominic Grieve. Phone hacking The Guardian Metropolitan police Newspapers & magazines National newspapers Newspapers Police Owen Bowcott Vikram Dodd guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …