Comedian falls behind schedule in 140-mile swim for Sport Relief but has still raised more than £200,000 David Walliams is falling behind schedule in his charity river swim after coming down with “Thames tummy”. The comedian has been ill with a high temperature, vomiting and diarrhoea but has still managed to raise more than £200,000 for Sport Relief three days into his challenge. He said: “I always knew there was a risk that taking in the water could cause problems, but now it’s happened it’s still hit me really hard. I was sweating in the night and have been to the toilet a lot this morning. This is already much harder than I thought it would be… and London seems a long way away.” The Little Britain star, 40, is swimming 140 miles over eight days from Gloucestershire to London. David Walliams Swimming Charities Swimming guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Comedian falls behind schedule in 140-mile swim for Sport Relief but has still raised more than £200,000 David Walliams is falling behind schedule in his charity river swim after coming down with “Thames tummy”. The comedian has been ill with a high temperature, vomiting and diarrhoea but has still managed to raise more than £200,000 for Sport Relief three days into his challenge. He said: “I always knew there was a risk that taking in the water could cause problems, but now it’s happened it’s still hit me really hard. I was sweating in the night and have been to the toilet a lot this morning. This is already much harder than I thought it would be… and London seems a long way away.” The Little Britain star, 40, is swimming 140 miles over eight days from Gloucestershire to London. David Walliams Swimming Charities Swimming guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Iftikhar and Farzana Ahmed will appear in court on Friday, charged with the murder of their daughter The parents of Shafilea Ahmed, the victim of a suspected “honour killing” almost eight years ago, have been charged with murder and appeared before magistrates on Wednesday. Ahmed, 17, disappeared from her home town of Warrington, Cheshire, in September 2003. Her badly decomposed remains were found in February 2004 on the banks of the River Kent in Cumbria, following a flood. She was an intelligent young woman who had hoped to study law at university and become a solicitor. Her inquest heard that the most likely cause of death was strangulation or suffocation. Police said Iftikhar Ahmed, 51, a taxi driver, and Farzana Ahmed, 48, a housewife, of Liverpool Road, Warrington, were arrested on suspicion of murder in September 2010. Cheshire police have now charged both with murder following authorisation by the Crown Prosecution Service. The couple made a six-minute appearance at Halton magistrates’ court in Runcorn, Cheshire, on Wednesday afternoon. They were remanded in custody until Friday, when they will appear via videolink at Manchester crown court. They spoke only to confirm through an interpreter their names, ages and address. The murder charge was put to them, but no plea was entered. There were no submissions made by the prosecution or defence solicitors. The court heard that the couple were charged with murdering the teenager on 11 September 2003 in Cheshire. Iftikhar Ahmed, wearing an open-necked white shirt, gave family members a thumbs-up as he was taken down from the dock. His wife, who spoke through an interpreter, was on the verge of tears. During the hearing Mrs Ahmed stood with her head to one side, and wiped her nose. As she left the dock she signalled to members of her family in the public gallery with a raised finger. At the inquest into Shafilea’s death, Ian Smith, the coroner for south and east Cumbria, recorded a verdict of unlawful killing. The couple have always strenuously denied any involvement in their daughter’s death and once stormed into a police press conference to tearfully protest their innocence, claiming the police were racially motivated. But at the inquest, evidence was heard that Shafilea claimed she was held down and beaten by her parents and was fearful of an arranged marriage. The coroner ruled that she had been the victim of a “very vile murder”. She disappeared shortly after a trip to Pakistan in which she was introduced to a potential suitor. During the trip, she drank bleach and harmed herself in an apparent cry for help, and needed regular hospital treatment to correct injuries to her throat. The coroner said: “Shafilea was the victim of a very vile murder and there’s no evidence before the court as to who did it. There are things people know that have not been told to this court.” He said Shafilea had not had justice. “Her ambition was to live her own life in her own way: to study, to follow a career in the law and to do what she wanted to do. These are just basic fundamental rights and they were denied to her.” Mrs Ahmed was remanded to Styal prison in Cheshire and her husband was remanded to Liverpool prison. The couple were initially arrested on suspicion of kidnapping their daughter in December 2003 but in June 2004 were released without charge when the Crown Prosecution Service ruled there was insufficient evidence against them. Crime Helen Carter guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Iftikhar and Farzana Ahmed will appear in court on Friday, charged with the murder of their daughter The parents of Shafilea Ahmed, the victim of a suspected “honour killing” almost eight years ago, have been charged with murder and appeared before magistrates on Wednesday. Ahmed, 17, disappeared from her home town of Warrington, Cheshire, in September 2003. Her badly decomposed remains were found in February 2004 on the banks of the River Kent in Cumbria, following a flood. She was an intelligent young woman who had hoped to study law at university and become a solicitor. Her inquest heard that the most likely cause of death was strangulation or suffocation. Police said Iftikhar Ahmed, 51, a taxi driver, and Farzana Ahmed, 48, a housewife, of Liverpool Road, Warrington, were arrested on suspicion of murder in September 2010. Cheshire police have now charged both with murder following authorisation by the Crown Prosecution Service. The couple made a six-minute appearance at Halton magistrates’ court in Runcorn, Cheshire, on Wednesday afternoon. They were remanded in custody until Friday, when they will appear via videolink at Manchester crown court. They spoke only to confirm through an interpreter their names, ages and address. The murder charge was put to them, but no plea was entered. There were no submissions made by the prosecution or defence solicitors. The court heard that the couple were charged with murdering the teenager on 11 September 2003 in Cheshire. Iftikhar Ahmed, wearing an open-necked white shirt, gave family members a thumbs-up as he was taken down from the dock. His wife, who spoke through an interpreter, was on the verge of tears. During the hearing Mrs Ahmed stood with her head to one side, and wiped her nose. As she left the dock she signalled to members of her family in the public gallery with a raised finger. At the inquest into Shafilea’s death, Ian Smith, the coroner for south and east Cumbria, recorded a verdict of unlawful killing. The couple have always strenuously denied any involvement in their daughter’s death and once stormed into a police press conference to tearfully protest their innocence, claiming the police were racially motivated. But at the inquest, evidence was heard that Shafilea claimed she was held down and beaten by her parents and was fearful of an arranged marriage. The coroner ruled that she had been the victim of a “very vile murder”. She disappeared shortly after a trip to Pakistan in which she was introduced to a potential suitor. During the trip, she drank bleach and harmed herself in an apparent cry for help, and needed regular hospital treatment to correct injuries to her throat. The coroner said: “Shafilea was the victim of a very vile murder and there’s no evidence before the court as to who did it. There are things people know that have not been told to this court.” He said Shafilea had not had justice. “Her ambition was to live her own life in her own way: to study, to follow a career in the law and to do what she wanted to do. These are just basic fundamental rights and they were denied to her.” Mrs Ahmed was remanded to Styal prison in Cheshire and her husband was remanded to Liverpool prison. The couple were initially arrested on suspicion of kidnapping their daughter in December 2003 but in June 2004 were released without charge when the Crown Prosecution Service ruled there was insufficient evidence against them. Crime Helen Carter guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Ron Paul’s use of Rick Perry’s endorsement of Al Gore back in 1988 ( Perry was the Gore’s Texas campaign chairman when he ran for President ) is contrasted with Paul’s own endorsement of Ronald Reagan in 1976 and 1980. Perry had been a Democrat, but switched to the Republican party in 1989. It’s a curious choice but probably has some resonance with Republican voters where brand loyalty is a must, and the canonization of Saint Ronnie was declared years ago. However, Ron Paul’s own invocation of the Reagan legacy –whenever it suits him, it seems– is the more curious aspect of the ad. From a factcheck by Newsweek in 2008: From Ron Paul Web site: “Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first.” – Ronald Reagan Paul’s embrace of Reagan’s legacy represents a significant change of heart. Actually, it’s the second time that Paul has changed his mind about Reagan. After endorsing Reagan for president in 1976 and again in 1980, Paul became disenchanted, leaving the Republican party in 1987. The following year, he told the Los Angeles Times: Paul (May 10, 1988): The American people have never reached this point of disgust with politicians before. I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan Administration. Paul’s disaffection started early in Reagan’s presidency. “Ronald Reagan has given us a deficit 10 times greater than what we had with the Democrats,” Paul told the Christian Science Monitor in 1987. “It didn’t take more than a month after 1981, to realize there would be no changes.” Sometime between 1988 (during Paul’s run for the presidency on the Libertarian Party ticket) and 1996 (when Paul, running as a Republican once more, successfully ousted an incumbent House member in a GOP primary), Paul once again embraced Reagan’s legacy. The New York Times reported then that Paul had used the longer version of the Reagan quote in a videotape sent to 30,000 households. According to the Times, Reagan’s former attorney general, Edwin Meese III, flew to Texas “to insist that Mr. Reagan had offered no recent endorsements.” We were unable to document Reagan’s endorsement of Paul. When we asked the Paul campaign for documentation, a spokesperson told us that the campaign was “a little more focused on positive things.” The Paul campaign did not provide the Times with a date for the quotation in 1996, either. So Ron Paul continues to use Reagan as necessary, with a quote which may or may not have occurred, or simply been a rubber-stamp endorsement presidents often make on behalf of congressmen, to keep trying to get elected by republican voters. Curious indeed. Below is a Ron Paul tv ad from 2008.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Ron Paul’s use of Rick Perry’s endorsement of Al Gore back in 1988 ( Perry was the Gore’s Texas campaign chairman when he ran for President ) is contrasted with Paul’s own endorsement of Ronald Reagan in 1976 and 1980. Perry had been a Democrat, but switched to the Republican party in 1989. It’s a curious choice but probably has some resonance with Republican voters where brand loyalty is a must, and the canonization of Saint Ronnie was declared years ago. However, Ron Paul’s own invocation of the Reagan legacy –whenever it suits him, it seems– is the more curious aspect of the ad. From a factcheck by Newsweek in 2008: From Ron Paul Web site: “Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first.” – Ronald Reagan Paul’s embrace of Reagan’s legacy represents a significant change of heart. Actually, it’s the second time that Paul has changed his mind about Reagan. After endorsing Reagan for president in 1976 and again in 1980, Paul became disenchanted, leaving the Republican party in 1987. The following year, he told the Los Angeles Times: Paul (May 10, 1988): The American people have never reached this point of disgust with politicians before. I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan Administration. Paul’s disaffection started early in Reagan’s presidency. “Ronald Reagan has given us a deficit 10 times greater than what we had with the Democrats,” Paul told the Christian Science Monitor in 1987. “It didn’t take more than a month after 1981, to realize there would be no changes.” Sometime between 1988 (during Paul’s run for the presidency on the Libertarian Party ticket) and 1996 (when Paul, running as a Republican once more, successfully ousted an incumbent House member in a GOP primary), Paul once again embraced Reagan’s legacy. The New York Times reported then that Paul had used the longer version of the Reagan quote in a videotape sent to 30,000 households. According to the Times, Reagan’s former attorney general, Edwin Meese III, flew to Texas “to insist that Mr. Reagan had offered no recent endorsements.” We were unable to document Reagan’s endorsement of Paul. When we asked the Paul campaign for documentation, a spokesperson told us that the campaign was “a little more focused on positive things.” The Paul campaign did not provide the Times with a date for the quotation in 1996, either. So Ron Paul continues to use Reagan as necessary, with a quote which may or may not have occurred, or simply been a rubber-stamp endorsement presidents often make on behalf of congressmen, to keep trying to get elected by republican voters. Curious indeed. Below is a Ron Paul tv ad from 2008.
Continue reading …
Plane headed to Manchester carrying 347 passengers makes emergency landing in Turkey after email bomb warning A UK-bound plane has been forced to land in Turkey after a Pakistani airline received bomb threats by email. The plane was travelling to Manchester airport on Wednesday afternoon when officials in Islamabad received the terror warning, a Pakistani International Airlines chief said. All 347 passengers were safe as bomb disposal teams carried out searches on the grounded PK709 jet in Istanbul, he added. A total of 323 economy passengers, 24 first class passengers and 16 crew were ushered off the plane as sniffer dogs carried out searches at Istanbul’s Ataturk airport, Captain Tasneem Mozaffar, head of global operations for the airline, said. A plane due to land in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, has also been forced to land while security officials carried out checks, he said. “When you have 500 people in the air you have to take the safest option,” he said. “We received information in a written email of a bomb threat on the two flights. “We asked the UK-bound flight to turn left and land in Turkey as that was the nearest available place to safely land.” Manchester airport confirmed it had been told of the incident regarding the flight, which had taken off from Lahore. A spokesman said: “I can confirm that flight PK709 travelling to Manchester from Lahore, which was due to land at 4.10pm, has been diverted to Istanbul. “We have yet to receive detailed information as to why the plane landed in Turkey and we are awaiting updates as to when the plane will take off again for Manchester.” The scare came amid a heightened state of alert for airlines in the build-up to memorials to mark 10 years since the September 11 terror attacks. Global terrorism UK security and terrorism Pakistan Air transport Turkey guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Eight contenders to share platform in California, with nomination shaping up as two-horse race between Perry and Mitt Romney Eight Republican candidates line up tonight for the first in a series of debates that will help define the party’s nomination battle to take on Barack Obama next year for the White House. The main focus of the debate at the Ronald Reagan Library in the Simi Valley, near Los Angeles, will be on whether Texas governor Rick Perry, who only entered the race last month, can consolidate his frontrunner status. Tom Mann, a political analyst at the Brookings Institution, said: “It is interesting because of Rick Perry, and the fact that he has sky-rocketed to the lead in the Republican field without many people having a firm hold on him, just some impressions.” In spite of eight on the platform in the debate, the nomination is already shaping up as a two-horse race between Perry and Mitt Romney, according to the polls, with Michele Bachmann trailing in third place along with outsider Ron Paul. Mann said Perry’s record of speeches and writing leaves him vulnerable. He said: “The question is whether Romney can show some signs of life and put himself back into the thick of the race. Everything else is beside the point. There are no other plausible candidates for the nomination. The others are just window-dressing on the side.” Job creation will be one of the dominant issues in the debate, which comes the day before Obama’s speech to a joint session of Congress in which he will propose a job stimulus package that that will cost $300 billion to cut taxes, help state governments and pay for the building or rebuilding of roads, bridges and other infrastructure projects. To appease Republicans, Obama will propose the $300 billion in spending will be matched by $300 billion in cuts elsewhere. Perry received a pre-debate boost this morning when the Wall Street Journal, whose opinion pages remain a bastion of conservatism, offered a damning verdict on a jobs plan put forward on Tuesday by Romney, a relative moderate compared to almost all the rest of the field. The Journal, in an editorial, described Romney’s 59-point jobs plan, which proposes modest tax cuts and a reduction in federal government regulations, as “surprisingly timid and tactical considering our economic predicament”, and lambasted him for proposing a trade war with China. It added: “The biggest rap on Mr Romney as a potential president is that it’s hard to discern any core beliefs beyond faith in his own managerial expertise.” The Journal editorial followed criticism by Perry’s campaign of the Romney plan. Perry’s team said Romney, while governor of Massachusetts, failed to put into practice many of the reforms he now claims to support. The debate kicks off months of intensive campaigning, with the candidates making frequent trips to Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, who are scheduled to hold the first of the nomination caucuses and primaries in February. Perry’s rapid rise would be halted if he comes across in the debate as too smug, or if his Texas accent reminds voters too much of George Bush, or if he makes a gaffe, as he did last month suggesting that the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, would be treated “pretty ugly” if he came to Texas, or even his hint in 2009 that he supported Texas seceding from the union. Political analysts such as Norm Ornstein, a non-partisan commentator who works at the right-wing think-tank the American Enterprise Institute, note that Perry is also vulnerable on policy issues, such as social security. Perry recently reassured those receiving social security that, if he were president, their benefits would be safe, but in one of his books he described social security as unconstitutional. Ornstein said that Perry’s rivals in the debate should be asking him: ‘Were you lying then or are you lying now?’ The dilemma for Perry’s opponents is whether to direct their attacks at him tonight or hold off until later. Personal attacks can backfire, as they did for the former governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, during the last debate when he turned on Bachmann in a desperate attempt to grab attention. Bachmann won the Republican straw poll in Ames, Iowa, two days later, with Pawlenty performing badly and dropping out of the race. The victory in the Ames poll has been the high point for Bachmann, who has since seen a slump in her fortunes, mainly because of the entry of Perry, who appeals to the same right-wing vote. Others in the debate are: businessman Herman Cain, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former ambassador to China Jon Huntsman and former senator Rick Santorum, all languishing in single figures in the polls, with little chance of winning the nomination. This is the first of at least six debates this autumn, with the next on Monday, in Tampa, Florida. US elections 2012 United States Republicans Rick Perry Michele Bachmann Mitt Romney Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …There was a 90 percent top marginal tax rate under President Dwight Eisenhower. Ronald Reagan raised taxes nearly every year he was in office and still managed to quadruple the national debt. Teddy Roosevelt was an anti-business trust-buster who snatched Yosemite away from private profits. Gerald Ford ended a long pointless war in Vietnam even though pontificators like Pat Buchanan claim we could have won…eventually. George W. Bush bailed out the banks and the auto industry. I won’t even utter the names Herbert Hoover or Richard Nixon (Republicans sure won’t). Historians agree the best Republican President was also the first: Abraham Lincoln. Who’s second runner up? Which President has represented Republican values best? Easy. President Barack Obama. First off – his signature legislative accomplishment was to implement a Republican/Heritage Foundation idea from 1989. Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans reads, “[N]either the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement…A mandate on households certainly would force those with adequate means to obtain insurance protection.” The Heritage Foundation has since recanted and even filed friend-of-the-court briefs against the mandate. This is only after an alleged Democrat was for it. There’s been a pattern of this partisanship before policy since Obama was sworn in. But if you ignore the misplaced (and often misspelled) vehemence against the first African-American president as a communist/socialist/Marxist/bad “ist” du jour and instead just look at the policy – we have a stellar Republican in the Oval Office. Obama renewed the Bush Tax Cuts. Republicans love those tax cuts even more than they love being against something once Obama has signed it. In fact the President hasn’t raised taxes at all – just like Republicans say they won’t (see: “ Read my lips – no new taxes.”). The only tax he’s raised is on smokers. Obama increased the tax on cigarettes even though he’s an admitted (reformed) smoker. But even that is ideal in a Republican hypocrite kind of way (see: too many anti-gay Republicans in gay sex scandals to list). And on top of the Bush Tax Cuts – Obama cut even more taxes for 95 percent of Americans . Plus, he’s cut the size of government! Yes. Regardless of all those email forwards your kooky great-aunt sends you from her decades-old AOL account – the public work force has been reduced under an Obama presidency – therefore “shrinking the size of government.” The reason we had no net jobs in August is because the public sector (i.e., the government) lost jobs due to cuts. The private sector gained the exact amount resulting in a push. President Obama has managed to quell all anti-war protests and even start a new conflict. That is surely to be the envy of any Republican president who’s ever served. Guantanamo Bay? Still open. Osama bin Laden? Shot in the head. Talk about getting 98 percent of what they wanted. If the GOP didn’t have to change their goal post so Obama could never score in their view – Republicans could be dumping Gatorade on Rush Limbaugh by now. How about the GOP-despised EPA? You know, that “job-killing” governmental regulatory agency GOP candidates Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Ron Paul all promise will go dark when they become president? That agency’s pinko plot for cleaner air estimated to stop tens of thousands of premature deaths? Gone. And guess who said this about it: “I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover.” Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH)? Maybe Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA)? Some tea party speaker at some quarter-full rally somewhere? Who said it? The socialist Nazi radical – current occupant of the White House – Barack Hussein Obama! He’s a wonderful Republican. The right-wing says Obama is left of Lenin – in reality he’s barely left of Goldwater. What does this mean? It means we currently have eight GOP candidates running against what’s essentially a GOP incumbent. It means we have eight mediocre Republican candidates running against the best Republican president since Lincoln. The safe bet is that a Republican will win the next election. To be clear, I’m not a Republican – but I have undeniably voted for one. In the ‘80s there were Reagan Democrats. I’ll solve this whole thing by just calling myself an Obama Democrat. Cross posted at tinadupuy.com
Continue reading …
Abortion amendment that bid to strip termination providers of their counselling role crushed as supporters split An attempt to strip abortion providers of their role in counselling women was heavily defeated in the House of Commons this afternoon after a split between the original supporters of the amendment. MPs voted by 368 votes to 118 – a majority of 250 – to reject the amendment by the Tory backbencher Nadine Dorries after she lost the support of her co-sponsor, the former Labour minister Frank Field. Dorries managed to win the support of three cabinet ministers – Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, Liam Fox, the defence secretary, and Owen Paterson, the Northern Ireland secretary. Field withdrew his support for the Dorries amendment after Anne Milton, the health minister, said the government would try to implement the spirit of her proposal. Milton told MPs: “The government is … supportive of the spirit of these amendments and we intend to bring forward proposals for regulations accordingly, but after consultation. Primary legislation is not only unnecessary but would deprive parliament of the opportunity to consider the detail of how this service would develop and evolve.” Dorries hailed Milton’s undertaking as a victory. She told the BBC’s Norman Smith: “We lost the battle but we have won the war.” Milton distanced the government from the amendment towards the end of a stratchy debate in which Dorries said that David Cameron had initially encouraged her. Dorries claimed that the prime minister had advised her on the wording of her amendment by saying that she should describe abortion counsellors as independent. Dorries said: “I went to see the prime minister regarding this amendment and he was very encouraging. In fact it was at the prime minister’s insistence that I inserted the word ‘independent’. I attended a meeting at the department of health and at that meeting it was decided what the outcome, the process that would be implemented, to make this a reality.” The Dorries amendment would have stripped non-statutory abortion providers such as Marie Stopes and Bpas from offering counselling to women. This was designed to provide greater opportunities for independent counsellors, some of whom are influenced by pro-life groups, to provide counselling. NHS abortion providers would still be free to offer counselling. Dorries claimed that the prime minister changed his mind under pressure from Nick Clegg, after the deputy prime minister was lobbied by the former Lib Dem MP Evan Harris. Dorries said: “Basically the Liberal Democrats, in fact a former MP who lost his seat in this place, is blackmailing our prime minister. Our prime minister has been put in an impossible position regarding this amendment. Our health bill has been held to ransom by a former Liberal Democrat MP.” A senior Lib Dem source dismissed her allegation. The source said: “That is utter rubbish. [Nick] doesn’t need Evan to tell him the problems with her amendment.” The defeat was welcomed by Bpas. Ann Furedi, its chief executive, said: “Bpas is pleased to see Nadine Dorries’ amendment so overwhelmingly rejected. We look forward to being able to focus our efforts on the issues which pose a genuine problem for women considering ending a pregnancy.” Dorries insisted that she did not want to restrict access to abortion. “I do not want to return to the days of back street abortionists,” she said. “I am pro-choice. Abortion is here to stay.” The MP said that it was wrong for abortion providers to counsel women with unplanned pregnancies. “It must be wrong that the abortion provider, who is paid to the tune of £60m to carry out terminations, should also provide the counselling if a woman feels strong or brave enough to ask for it. If an organisation is paid that much for abortions, where is the incentive to reduce them?” Diane Abbott, the shadow public health minister, said: “This amendment is a shoddy, ill-conceived attempt to promote non-facts to make a non-case – namely that tens of thousands of women every year are either not getting counselling that they request or are getting counselling that is so poor that only new legislation can remedy the situation. In matters of this kind, if legislation is the answer then you have almost certainly asked the wrong question.” Abortion Health Women Frank Field Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …