MSNBC's Richard Wolffe went there. The political analyst for the Lean Forward network actually played the race card in his analysis of why the Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner did not accept Barack Obama's big foot move to deliver a speech to Congress on the same night as a GOP presidential debate, as he pondered: “Could it be, let's face it, the color of his skin?” Appearing on Wednesday's edition of The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, Wolffe made the following accusation of racism: (video after the jump)
Continue reading …Information related to confidential informants will not be redacted, despite fears for their safety WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, parted company with mainstream opinion when Assange revealed his intention to make public all 250,000 raw US state department cables that have been in his hands since last year, regardless of possible reprisals to named individuals. This flies in the face of efforts by the Guardian and other news organisations to redact references to confidential informants before publishing selected cables: efforts which may now appear to have been largely wasted. Assange’s plans were foreshadowed at a secret meeting of the WikiLeaks team last November. The diary of one of those present at Ellingham Hall, the stately home which was then their base, records: “Heated conversation about rough plans on releasing cables … JA insistent all cables must somehow eventually be released.” His wish has now been realised, after a year punctuated by his arrest, heated quarrels with former associates, and a chapter of accidents within Assange’s chaotic organisation. A few days after the Ellingham Hall meeting Assange turned himself in for arrest on an extradition warrant sought by Sweden, on allegations of sexual assault by two young WikiLeaks supporters there. He is still fighting extradition. On 7 December, the day of his arrest, a huge file of WikiLeaks information was posted on the Pirate Bay filesharing site by one of his supporters. According to the group’s former No 2, computer expert Daniel Domscheit-Berg: “These people said they wanted to keep WikiLeaks operational, but they never spoke to Julian.” As a result, it was never apparently realised that the file-set included Assange’s copy of all the classified US cables. Earlier in the year, according to Domscheit-Berg, Assange gave a copy of the cables file to the Guardian, one of the news organisations with whom he had agreed to work to publish the cables in redacted form. He provided the Guardian with a password and access to a special online server, on which he said he would place a copy of the cables file, which would only remain in existence for a short time. What Assange did not reveal was that he had not followed conventional security practice and created a new password for the transaction. Instead, according to Domscheit-Berg, he had merely reused the existing master password, already known to others within WikiLeaks. “The file was never supposed to be shared with anyone at all. To get a copy you would usually make a new copy with a new password. He was too lazy to create something new.” Early this year the Guardian published a book on WikiLeaks. In the course of it the password Assange had provided, assumed to be long obsolete, was published. The book contained no information that would enable anyone to find and download the encrypted file. This series of events has had unplanned consequences in recent weeks. Domscheit-Berg, who says he parted company with Assange over security concerns among other reasons, ended up alleging to a German newspaper, Freitag, that WikiLeaks was insecure. He said a file existed on the internet that contained the raw cables, and was capable of being accessed by the published password. He and Freitag took care to provide no location information that would enable the file to be accessed by any member of the public. The quarrel with Domscheit-Berg seemed to have had seismic consequences for Assange, who is still awaiting the result of his extradition appeal. He published unsubstantiated accusations that Domscheit-Berg had links with western intelligence agencies, and started to pump out tens of thousands of previously unpublished cables, mostly apparently unredacted. “He feared he would not be the one any more to be publishing them,” says Domscheit-Berg. “He is so egocentric and completely irrational.” To protests from the Australian and US governments that he was endangering sources, Assange dropped a series of hints on Twitter as to the location of the cables file on the internet. He followed this up with a claim that he was now publishing new material because the Guardian had “betrayed” his password seven months earlier. Assange’s claims about the Guardian were untrue. David Leigh and James Ball WikiLeaks Julian Assange David Leigh James Ball guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Deposed dictator insists his forces remain loyal, armed and ready to turn the country ‘into a hell’ A defiant Muammar Gaddafi vowed to fight to the end against Libya’s new government and its Nato backers, warning that his forces would turn the country “into a hell” rather than surrender like “women”. The old dictator’s audio message on Syrian TV came as the country’s new leaders presented themselves to a global summit in Paris, promising a swift transition to democracy and asking for immediate UN help in organising elections. But Gaddafi’s intervention, made from an unknown location, stressed that the war was not over. “If Libya goes up in flames, who will be able to govern it? Let it burn,” he said, declaring that his forces were armed and ready for battle. “We will fight in every valley, in every street, in every oasis, and every town,” he said. “We won’t surrender again; we are not women; we will keep fighting,” he said, referring to loyal tribes in the towns of Sirte and Bani Walid. Pro-Gaddafi forces control a central axis in the country, from Sirte in the north to Sabha in the southern desert. Nato said it was ready to support Libyan and UN efforts to rebuild the country, but would continue its military operations until the last remnants of the pro-Gaddafi forces were routed. Speaking on the 42nd anniversary of Gaddafi’s seizure of power in a military coup, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the head of the National Transitional Council (NTC), told the summit in Paris that his movement would keep its promise not to cling on to power but to hold elections within eight months. In a meeting with the UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, Abdul Jalil put planning for the elections alongside restoring water supplies and maintaining law and order on his list of urgent priorities, according to a source at the meeting. Ban promised that a UN assessment team due to arrive in Tripoli over the weekend would include election specialists, as well as water engineers and security experts. David Cameron, who was acting as co-host of the “Friends of Libya” meeting alongside France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, said the NTC commitment to elections proved that democracy was not being imposed on Libya by outsiders. “This is not being dropped out of a Nato aeroplane, this is being delivered by the Libyan people,” the prime minister told CNN. “Young children in Libya in decades to come will learn about the bravery of how they overturned a dictator and delivered democracy. Yes, they were helped by Nato, they were helped by countries like Britain – and I’m incredibly proud of what our pilots did night after night to stop the Gaddafi war machine – but there won’t be democracy in Libya because of what we’ve done; there’ll be democracy in Libya because of what the Libyans are going to do.” In his remarks to the meeting, Abdul Jalil addressed the fears of international backers that the unity of the former rebels could fall apart as they took power, and that what one European official described as a “second phase civil war” might break out. Abdul Jalil and the NTC’s acting prime minister, Mahmoud Jibril, promised the political process would be inclusive and multi-ethnic. In return, the 31 heads of state at the summit urged the lifting of UN sanctions that have kept more than $100bn (£62bn) in formerly Gaddafi-controlled state funds frozen around the world. Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, also promised support for the NTC taking Libya’s seat at the UN. The NTC and its backers made a breakthrough in that direction on Thursday when it won recognition from Russia. But China has so far not followed suit and could veto the necessary UN security council resolution. An attempt to put a resolution to a vote is expected next week. The NTC has promised elections within eight months of taking power, but observers at the meeting with Ban expressed surprise that Abdul Jalil appeared to give the same priority to election planning as to the immediate needs of water and security. “It shows how committed they are to that agenda,” an official close to the NTC delegation said. Abdul Jalil is under pressure from his western backers to demonstrate the NTC is an inclusive force representing the ethnic and social groups in the country, not just an eastern-dominated rebel movement. Ban told Abdul Jalil the UN intended to provide the help the Libyans needed immediately and that it was ready to lead the international effort to help rebuild the shattered country. At the Paris meeting with Ban, which took place before a French and British-hosted summit on Libya, Jalil also made clear his dissatisfaction with the Algerian president, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, for his decision earlier this week to offer safe haven to Muammar Gaddafi’s second wife, daughter and two of his sons. “Algeria is no friend of the Libyan people,” Jalil told Ban. The Algerian newspaper, El Watan, reported today that Bouteflika had refused to take a telephone call from the ousted Libyan leader himself, but it was unclear whether that call was intended to seek asylum for him too. Jalil also voiced concern that the African Union had so far not recognised the NTC as the new Libyan government, although some members have. Muammar Gaddafi Libya Arab and Middle East unrest Luke Harding Julian Borger guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Hospitals will be forced to treat wealthy foreigners to raise cash, rather than treat poor patients, says BMA’s Hamish Meldrum Hospitals will be forced to treat wealthy foreigners to raise cash rather than treat poor patients as they are hit by cuts to the NHS budget and the government’s radical pro-market reforms, the leader of Britain’s doctors has warned. In an interview with the Guardian, Hamish Meldrum, chairman of the British Medical Association, predicted the government’s health and social care bill would see the NHS being rebuilt on a “philosophy that relies on a market-based health system rather like the one we see in the United States. “There, those who pay or are insured get a better service than those who do not and rely on state-funded Medicare. Until now our system has been built on social solidarity where patients get appropriate treatment in the appropriate time.” He said the government was forcing all hospitals to become foundation trusts and these would be gearing up to lure private patients from home and abroad as budgets were squeezed. This decision, he argued, would only be possible because the government plans to abolish the cap limiting the proportion of total income hospitals can earn from the paying sick. With waiting times creeping up and the government encouraging private care, Meldrum said patients would be back to a system where those with cash can jump ahead of those in need. “Trusts are being encouraged to concentrate on profitable areas of work rather than the most essential … like mental health, accident and emergency and care for the elderly. These are not profitable. But heart operations for wealthy Arabs will be.” The intervention comes at a crucial moment for the coalition’s health bill. The BMA, which earlier this summer voted to launch a public campaign opposing the bill, has joined the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Nursing – which between them represent more than 500,000 frontline clinical NHS staff – to fight the bill. Today all MPs will receive a letter from Meldrum calling for the bill to be withdrawn or subject to “significant amendment”. The letter reads: “We believe there continues to be an inappropriate and misguided reliance on ‘market forces’ to shape services. This is very clear in the general direction of policy travel, such as widening patient choice to ‘Any Qualified Provider’ (AQP) across a much larger range of services, which has the potential to destabilise local health economies.” Although earlier this summer the government halted the bill’s progress and appointed a high-level team headed by Professor Steve Field, former chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, to review its proposals, the changes recommended – amounting to 1,000 amendments – have not persuaded the BMA to drop its opposition to the bill. The Commons is preparing to debate the changes to the bill amid suggestions that half a dozen Liberal Democrat MPs, under pressure from grassroots activists, may abstain and at least one, Andrew George, has signalled he will oppose the legislation. Meldrum said he was courting Lib Dems who were “intuitively more sympathetic to our message” than Conservative MPs. This weekend Labour and the health unions will launch an “NHS Alert” campaign in 60 Conservative and Lib Dem seats across England, aimed at putting local pressure on MPs before next week’s Commons votes. Meldrum said David Cameron had been mistaken when in a speech in Cornwall last month the prime minister claimed that his plans to change the NHS beyond recognition had “the whole health profession on board”. “I don’t know where the prime minister gets his information from to make that statement. I can only imagine he must be taking to a completely unrepresentative group of clinicians,” said Meldrum. The BMA says it “acknowledges the efforts of government to listen” but that the government’s changes either do not alter the fundamental problems with the bill or they make it worse. Meldrum pointed out that a new NHS bureaucracy was springing up with five different bodies able to buy care for patients. He also argued that the choice and competition agenda of the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, remained intact. The BMA chairman said he was especially concerned that surgeons’ pay would be related to medical outcomes and that family doctors would be paid on how well they commissioned care for patients. This would penalise GPs and hospitals in poorer areas where residents’ health was related to transport, housing and employment. “Doctors in well-off areas would benefit and those in poor areas would not.” He also argued that articulate middle-class patients would be able to take advantage of the patient choice policy. “Those who are articulate and shout loudest will tend to get better care. The less well-off patient will not. This will see an increase in health inequality.” John Healey, the shadow health secretary, said that despite the government’s claims to have listened, Meldrum’s comments showed that “the chorus of concern among health service professionals is as loud as ever”. Healey said: “With doctors and nurses now hardening their position, it is clear that David Cameron is in denial and out of touch when he claims his NHS plans have widespread support. After a wasted year, during which time we’ve seen patient services starting to go backwards, the prime minister should scrap both the bill and his massive reorganisation plans.” The Department of Health said: “The BMA’s campaign is disappointing because as the doctors’ union they previously said they were ‘pleased that the government has accepted the Future Forum’s core recommendations, and that there will be significant revisions to the bill’. “We will never privatise the NHS and patients will never have to pay for NHS care. Our plans have been greatly strengthened in order to safeguard the future of the NHS.” NHS Health Health insurance Health policy Public services policy Healthcare industry Randeep Ramesh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …History is more than just isolated moments. Only with a knowledge of the complete evolution of English politics, argues Simon Jenkins, can we address the problems facing today’s society Which “bits” of English history do we need to know? Should they be Simon Schama’s peasants’ revolt, Indian empire and opium wars, or David Starkey’s rules of chivalry? Or is the Cambridge professor Richard Evans right to dismiss “rote learning of
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Looks like Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor is getting some push back from Republican governors in states ravaged by Hurricane Irene after his statements calling for budget cuts before funding for disaster relief . As Ed Schultz discussed during this segment, it looks like Cantor may be backing away from his rigid stance, even if it’s ever so slightly, now that he’s being criticized from the likes of his state’s Gov. Bob McDonnell and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. From ThinkProgress — Republican Revolt: Virgina’s GOP Governor Splits With Cantor, Rejects Conditioning Disaster Aid On Budget Cuts : House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), along with some of his House GOP colleagues, have been saying that disaster aid for the areas affected by Hurricane Irene must be offset by, in Cantor’s words, “ savings elsewhere .” Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ) said yesterday on Bloomberg News that budget cuts must be a prerequisite for disaster aid in order to reassure “ the business markets .” Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) added that the days when disaster relief could be funded without offsetting budget cuts “ are gone .” However, not everyone in the GOP agrees that disaster funding should play second fiddle to the GOP’s budget-slashing agenda. Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA) yesterday broke with Cantor, saying that “ I don’t think it’s the time to get into that [deficit] debate “: Virginia GOP Gov. Bob McDonnell, breaking with Cantor, on Tuesday suggested that deficit-spending concerns should not be a factor as Congress and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) respond to the hurricane. “My concern is that we help people in need,” McDonnell said during his monthly radio show. “For the FEMA money that’s going to flow, it’s up to them on how they get it. I don’t think it’s the time to get into that [deficit] debate.” New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie didn’t have any kind words for Cantor and his fellow Republicans as well and slammed them for the games they were playing during the debt-ceiling hostage taking, and said the citizens of his state weren’t going to wait around for similar games with their disaster relief. From the HuffPo — Chris Christie: Don’t Delay Hurricane Irene Disaster Aid Over Federal Spending Cuts : Firebrand Gov. Chris Christie let loose against Congress on Wednesday, saying he wouldn’t let a fight brewing in Washington over whether disaster aid needs to be offset by federal spending cuts hurt Hurricane Irene flood victims in his state. “Our people are suffering now, and they need support now. And they (Congress) can all go down there and get back to work and figure out budget cuts later,” the Republican governor told a crowd in the flood-ravaged town of Lincoln Park. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has less than $800 million in its disaster coffers, and U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has said the House will require offsetting spending cuts to pay for aid. Christie, who some Republicans are pushing to run for the White House in 2012, chastised Congress – with three members of the state’s delegation standing feet away as he did – for playing games at a time when people need government assistance most. Christie said that he doesn’t want to hear that offsetting budget cuts have to come before aid is distributed and that such a discussion isn’t appropriate in a time of need, like in May, when a tornado ripped through Joplin, Mo., killing 160 people and damaging about 7,500 homes. “Nobody was asking about offsetting budget cuts in Joplin,” the governor said.
Continue reading …After quoting an op-ed which criticized President Obama for his partisanship, CNN's Carol Costello then asked her audience to chime in on how the President could “end the partisan bickering.” She appeared exasperated later in the hour when she read the responses to the question – all of them negative – and whined that there just had to be something Obama could do about America's partisan problem. “I mean, we're Americans, for god's sakes!” she exclaimed. [Video below the break.] Costello had quoted a Washington Post op-ed that criticized Obama for “pulling a blatantly partisan stunt” in scheduling his address to Congress for the night of the Republican Presidential Debate, on September 7. “This spat sums up so well the image problems that Obama has faced since the start of his term,” the article stated. Then after reporting the White House statement on the matter, Costello sounded like a disillusioned liberal. “Yawn,” she described the statement, before reporting a liberal criticism of the President. “Obama's critics say he may want to look Congress in the eye and challenge them on jobs, but any dream of bipartisanship is just naive. The Daily Beast called the President the 'wimp in the White House' for expecting Republicans to compromise. CNN anchor Suzanne Malveaux showed some more sense on the matter, remarking that it was a “tall order” for Obama to end the partisan sniping. “You know, every President tries to do this. It doesn't happen. It doesn't work,” she told Costello. “President Bush tried it before, as well. And President Obama said he tried to do the same – it's still essentially where it is. It's a – who knows what to do,” Malveaux added. A transcript of the segment, which aired on September 1 at 11:05 a.m. EDT, is as follows: [11:05] SUZANNE MALVEAUX: Carol, you know, it's not surprising, but it's another ugly dust-up in Washington between the President and Congress. But this time, it's not the economy, jobs, debt, right? It's over a scheduling conflict? Really? CAROL COSTELLO: (Laughing) MALVEAUX: Really?! COSTELLO: Really! I wish I could say it isn't so, but it is. You know, Suzanne, President Obama's jobs plan is not exactly off to a fantastic start. The President has already had to postpone the unveiling of his plan by 24 hours to avoid a clash with Republicans. As a Washington Post op-ed put it, “This spat sums up so well the image problems that Obama has faced since the start of his term. If the White House has spent months working to appear above the partisan fray – as they insist they have – then pulling a blatantly partisan stunt like this torpedoes all of that PR work.” And don't think the Republicans running for President didn't pile on. (Audio Clip) Rep. MICHELE BACHMANN (R-Minn.), GOP presidential candidate: Now does this show maybe a little insecurity on the part of the President? Either A, he wants to distract the American people so they don't watch it, he doesn't want the American people to hear what the next president of the United States is going to say about the President's job plan. (End Clip) COSTELLLO: Whether you think that's fair or not, it may resonate more than a statement from the White House saying, quote, “the President is welcoming the opportunity to address a joint session of Congress on Thursday, so our nation's leaders can focus 100 percent of their attention on doing whatever they can to help the American people.” Yawn. Obama's critics say he may want to look Congress in the eye and challenge them on jobs, but any dream of bipartisanship is just naive. The Daily Beast called the President the wimp in the White House for expecting Republicans to compromise. The Daily Beast says, quote, “The plan can be bold. The plan can be modest. The point is that he has to fight for it like hell. But he won't. Please Mr. President – you're the guy who ran on change. Well, change.” So the “Talk Back” today: How can Obama end the partisan bickering? (…) MALVEAUX: Yeah, that's a tall order to ask the President. (…) [11:52] COSTELLO: Give me a solution, people! There has to be one! MALVEAUX: You know, every President tries to do this. It doesn't happen. It doesn't work. President Bush tried it before, as well. And President Obama said he tried to do the same – it's still essentially where it is. It's a – who knows what to do. COSTELLO: I know. There's some – there has to be something you can do, though. I mean, we're Americans, for god's sakes!
Continue reading …The large number of white faces on this year’s shortlist has prompted a lot of people to ask an obvious question The annual storm brewing over the Mobos is more turbulent than ever this year. Launched in 1996, the Music of Black Origin awards usually attract two types of responses to their cumbersome name: “Isn’t most pop music of black origin? Ask Elvis or the Rolling Stones!’ and, more problematically, “Why are there no awards for music of white origin?”. The nominees for this year’s Mobo awards, announced on Wednesday night, have provoked more consternation than usual, owing to the proportion of white faces on the list. With Jessie J leading the 2011 nominations with five – best album, best newcomer, best UK act, best video and best song – and Adele weighing in with four, eyebrows have been raised, with the Times describing it as a “whitewash”. The suggestion is that, with her fame and multi-platinum selling album, 21, Adele will garner a bigger media profile for the awards ceremony, which takes place on 5 October in Glasgow. Janice Brown, in an article for the Voice newspaper headlined “All white on the night?”, asked whether the Mobos were letting down black artists by giving greater emphasis to white singers such as Jessie J and Katy B. “Mobo is really leaning on the ‘origin’ part of their name, aren’t they?” she wrote, suggesting the initial remit of giving a platform to unheard black music had been forgotten. While the Mobos are being criticised for not providing this promotional leg-up, the bigger question arising from the revolution in black British music in the last few years is whether it even needs them any more. Austin Daboh from BBC 1Xtra, a station that has faced similarly vexed questions about what is defined as “black” or “urban” music, has seen the sea-change at close quarters. “There have been several false dawns for black British music in the mainstream,” he explains, citing the fleeting but shallow interest in jungle and drum’n’bass in the late 1990s, the glut of number one singles coming from UK garage around the turn of the decade, and then the gold rush to sign grime MCs following Dizzee Rascal’s Mercury win in 2003 – none of which heralded the long overdue move of black British music into the charts. During those years, much like the industry at large, the Mobos relied on market-proven imports of American hip-hop and R’n’B. Over the same period it was difficult for black British music to get a look in. “When I first joined 1Xtra six years ago,” recalls Daboh, “I was scheduling the music for a show, and I remember being told off for placing two UK tracks back-to-back. And look at it now.” Some of the daytime 1Xtra shows now comprise 70% UK music, he tells me – while former underground stars such as Tinchy Stryder, Tinie Tempah, and now Wretch 32 are achieving chart success and record sales no one could have imagined a decade ago. For Rinse FM grime DJ and Butterz label boss Elijah, the Mobos do nothing to support up-and-coming black music. “It’s really only for people who want to propel themselves into the commercial arena. If you don’t want to be like JLS or Chipmunk it’s not going to help you, that’s the sad thing about it.” He mentions the rapper P Money as an example of an up-and-coming black MC who both deserves, and would benefit from, having his less watered-down talent brought to a wider audience. While the debate over authenticity in music is almost as old as music itself, it’s difficult not to see the chart triumphs as a bit of a pyrrhic victory for black music. For Daboh, it’s unrealistic to expect it to act primarily as an outlet for the most underground of street cultures. “It is a mainstream awards show, so are you expecting the most credible dubstep bass producer to be nominated? When you speak to the general public there’s nothing but love and affection for the Mobos. The negative perception is very much an industry thing. We’re all snobs in the industry.” He also thinks that the Mobos’ founder, Kanya King, has dealt with the rapidly changing face of British pop music remarkably well. “There’s a misconception that Kanya is this Gaddafi-type figure, sitting on a throne and not listening to any advice, but she’s very astute, and aware of the feedback.” And yet, accountable or not, the broad-based 2011 nominations list looks remarkably like a midway point between this February’s Brits and next year’s. Elijah finds the increasingly unclear criteria understandably baffling: “I’m just not sure what the Mobos is, basically – looking down the categories, at these totally contrasting styles, it’s so vague it’s meaningless. If someone could say what black music is, or what music of black origin is, in 2011, it would be easier.” And this is the nub – it’s not the colour of Jessie J’s face that’s the problem, so much as the sounds emanating from it. The combination of electro beats and R’n’B-tinged vocals topping UK and US charts transcends both race and place. “Ten years ago it made more sense, sonically,” reckons Elijah: “Hip-hop sounded like hip-hop, R’n’B sounded like R’n’B. But when you have Kelly Rowland making the kind of music she makes with David Guetta, is that still music of black origin? It’s not a colour issue, it’s just a sound issue. If you’re celebrating JLS as music of black origin … apart from them being black, why is that?” “Amy Winehouse being celebrated you can understand, because her music links to Aretha Franklin – even Adele to an extent, that’s fine. Or Professor Green, fair enough: he’s a rapper who just happens to be white.” And that’s the bizarre quandary the Mobos are in. Black British music is doing better than ever before, but via artists such as Jessie J and Chipmunk. The hits that have made “black music” the definitive pop sound of our era isn’t actually black or white, but post-racial, in the blandest way imaginable. Now that it crosses over so much with the charts, just what is the point of the Mobos – is it a celebration of colour-blind, already successful pop music? Or just the Brit awards in a baseball cap? “It’s great to be providing these artists with a platform,” Kanya King told the press, “and they help to keep our event new, fresh and relevant.” But do these artists, irrespective of skin colour, still need a platform? More than ever before in the UK, black music is pop music is black music. And the more the Mobos remit dovetails with the pop charts and the Brit awards, the more they’re going to have to face questions about what exactly they are for. Mobos Hip-hop Katy B Jessie J Adele Chipmunk Dan Hancox guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Transcripts from blackmail investigation reveal the Italian prime minister’s frustration with his country In a sign of his frustration at the investigations into his alleged crimes and misdemeanours, Silvio Berlusconi vowed in July to leave Italy, which he described as a “shitty country” that “sickened” him. The Italian prime minister’s astonishing remarks are contained in the transcript of a telephone conversation secretly recorded by police investigating claims he was being blackmailed about his sex life. At dawn on Thursday, police swooped on a flat near Via Veneto – one of Rome’s most expensive streets – to arrest Giampaolo Tarantini, a central figure in a scandal that threatened to bring down Berlusconi two years ago. Tarantini’s wife, Angela Devenuto, was also taken into custody and a search launched for a third person. The arrest warrant shows that the three are accused of extorting at least €500,000 (£440,000) “as well as other benefits of economic significance”. Berlusconi has admitted paying the couple, but said he did so voluntarily. Two years ago, Tarantini, a businessman from Bari in southern Italy, said he supplied 30 women for parties at the prime minister’s Roman palazzo . He told police at least six women spent the night there. According to the judicial arrest warrant issued on Thursday, a third person – Valter Lavitola, the editor of a small newspaper – maintained direct contact with Berlusconi and received the cash in monthly instalments from the prime minister’s personal secretary. It was in a phone conversation with Lavitola late on 13 July that Berlusconi was said by the judge to have erupted in anger. “They can say about me that I screw. It’s the only thing they can say about me. Is that clear?” he said to the man allegedly blackmailing him. “They can put listening devices where they like. They can tap my telephone calls. I don’t give a fuck. I … In a few months, I’m getting out to mind my own fucking business, from somewhere else, and so I’m leaving this shitty country of which I’m sickened.” Berlusconi was speaking four days after a court in Milan dealt him the heaviest blow he has suffered in his long and intensely controversial business career. The court ruled that the firm at the heart of his group of companies should pay €560m to his bitterest commercial rival as compensation for bribing a judge in order to win control of Mondadori, Italy’s biggest publisher. But the conversation also took place at the height of a crisis on the financial markets, and in the midst of frantic efforts in parliament to approve a package of measures designed to eliminate Italy’s budget deficit. Berlusconi’s public silence during this period attracted comment at the time, particularly in the financial media. The sex scandal at the origin of the latest allegations was one of several involving Berlusconi in the past three years. He is on trial in Milan charged with paying an underage prostitute and then using his position to cover up the alleged offence, but that case is not related to the one that has now come back to haunt him. Details of the latest investigation were leaked last month in a news magazine belonging to Berlusconi. The magazine, Panorama, claimed the prosecutors believed Tarantini was being paid to stop him contradicting the prime minister’s claim that he was unaware that some of the women who visited his home were prostitutes. But Panorama said Tarantini had repeatedly confirmed in wiretapped conversations that Berlusconi was indeed oblivious of the payments the women were receiving. Italy’s prime minister, who turns 75 later this month, has made much over the years of his talents as a playboy and has insisted he would never pay for sex. The magazine claimed the main reason the prime minister was passing money to Tarantini was to ensure he did a deal with the prosecutors to avoid a trial and the disclosure of “telephone wiretaps held to be embarrassing”. Berlusconi told the magazine: “I helped someone and a family with children who found themselves and continue to find themselves in very serious financial difficulty. I didn’t do anything illegal. I limited myself to helping a desperate man without asking for anything in exchange. That’s the way I am and nothing will change that.” Silvio Berlusconi Italy John Hooper guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …From voted off the island to voted into office? Rupert Boneham, the bearded reality star with a penchant for tie-dyed shirts who first appeared on 2003′s Survivor: Pearl Islands, is mulling a run for governor of Indiana. This week, Boneham filed the necessary papers with the Indiana Election Division and plans to form an exploratory
Continue reading …