Report says armed forces struggling to maintain nuclear submarines and bombs while facing further cuts to resources The risk of accidents and radioactive leaks from Britain’s ageing nuclear bombs and submarines is getting “progressively worse” because of deepening spending cutbacks, according to an internal Ministry of Defence report . The report, which has been released under the Freedom of Information Act, reveals that the MoD is facing an increasing struggle to maintain the safety of the nation’s military nuclear activities as cuts become “yet more painful”. There was a “lack of adequate resource to deliver the defence nuclear programmes safely,” it says. Written by the MoD’s senior nuclear safety watchdog, the report warns that the number of incidents at nuclear sites is “too high”. This poses a “risk to the workforce and public safety and to the environment, in both short and medium term”. It also says that measures meant to overcome prolonged shortages of safety engineers “may be insufficient”, and criticises the MoD for failing to allocate funding for the decommissioning and disposal of 17 defunct nuclear submarines now laid up at Devonport in Plymouth and Rosyth in Fife. The report covers 2010 and was written by Howard Mathers, the chairman of the MoD’s defence nuclear environment and safety board . It offers an assurance that levels of nuclear safety are currently “acceptable”. But he adds: “My confidence in making this judgement is reduced from 2009 due to the adverse trend in resources (which I expect will become yet more painful), further aggravated by constraints on regulatory capacity.” The defence nuclear programmes are unlikely to be exempt from the pressures caused by the MoD’s plan to shed 17,000 military and 25,000 civilian jobs, the report says. The aspiration for a 25% cut in operating costs “is obviously pulling in an opposite direction to the current shortfall in resource”. The study urges nuclear managers “to establish the most robust baselines possible and defend them rigorously.” He cautions that the government’s decision to extend the life of the existing Trident weapons system to save money “will present safety justification challenges”. The release of the 2010 nuclear safety report follows the release of reports for previous years in January . “This again shows that the ever continuing reduction in resources is putting the safety of MoD staff and the public at increasing and indeed unacceptable risk,” said Fred Dawson, a former senior MoD safety official. “The MOD has failed to allocate sufficient resources to nuclear safety,” he told the Guardian. “The report acknowledges this situation is becoming worse and not better.” Dawson worked for the MoD for 31 years and was head of the radiation protection policy team before retiring in 2009. The repeated warnings by Mathers and his predecessors were clearly failing to persuade ministers to devote enough money to nuclear safety, he argued. John Ainslie, the co-ordinator of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament , accused the government of “cutting corners” on nuclear safety. “The defence minister, Liam Fox, is determined to replace Trident, but he doesn’t want to spend money on protecting the public from a nuclear accident.” The MoD stressed that it maintained the highest standards of nuclear safety and had an excellent record over the last 50 years. “This is recognised in the report, which describes a wide range of actions we have already taken to ensure we have sufficient numbers of qualified and experienced personnel,” said an MoD spokeswoman. “As is routine for all MoD programmes, the submarine dismantling project is funded in stages and is fully funded for the current assessment phase.” Nuclear weapons Defence policy Military Trident Rob Edwards guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Report says armed forces struggling to maintain nuclear submarines and bombs while facing further cuts to resources The risk of accidents and radioactive leaks from Britain’s ageing nuclear bombs and submarines is getting “progressively worse” because of deepening spending cutbacks, according to an internal Ministry of Defence report . The report, which has been released under the Freedom of Information Act, reveals that the MoD is facing an increasing struggle to maintain the safety of the nation’s military nuclear activities as cuts become “yet more painful”. There was a “lack of adequate resource to deliver the defence nuclear programmes safely,” it says. Written by the MoD’s senior nuclear safety watchdog, the report warns that the number of incidents at nuclear sites is “too high”. This poses a “risk to the workforce and public safety and to the environment, in both short and medium term”. It also says that measures meant to overcome prolonged shortages of safety engineers “may be insufficient”, and criticises the MoD for failing to allocate funding for the decommissioning and disposal of 17 defunct nuclear submarines now laid up at Devonport in Plymouth and Rosyth in Fife. The report covers 2010 and was written by Howard Mathers, the chairman of the MoD’s defence nuclear environment and safety board . It offers an assurance that levels of nuclear safety are currently “acceptable”. But he adds: “My confidence in making this judgement is reduced from 2009 due to the adverse trend in resources (which I expect will become yet more painful), further aggravated by constraints on regulatory capacity.” The defence nuclear programmes are unlikely to be exempt from the pressures caused by the MoD’s plan to shed 17,000 military and 25,000 civilian jobs, the report says. The aspiration for a 25% cut in operating costs “is obviously pulling in an opposite direction to the current shortfall in resource”. The study urges nuclear managers “to establish the most robust baselines possible and defend them rigorously.” He cautions that the government’s decision to extend the life of the existing Trident weapons system to save money “will present safety justification challenges”. The release of the 2010 nuclear safety report follows the release of reports for previous years in January . “This again shows that the ever continuing reduction in resources is putting the safety of MoD staff and the public at increasing and indeed unacceptable risk,” said Fred Dawson, a former senior MoD safety official. “The MOD has failed to allocate sufficient resources to nuclear safety,” he told the Guardian. “The report acknowledges this situation is becoming worse and not better.” Dawson worked for the MoD for 31 years and was head of the radiation protection policy team before retiring in 2009. The repeated warnings by Mathers and his predecessors were clearly failing to persuade ministers to devote enough money to nuclear safety, he argued. John Ainslie, the co-ordinator of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament , accused the government of “cutting corners” on nuclear safety. “The defence minister, Liam Fox, is determined to replace Trident, but he doesn’t want to spend money on protecting the public from a nuclear accident.” The MoD stressed that it maintained the highest standards of nuclear safety and had an excellent record over the last 50 years. “This is recognised in the report, which describes a wide range of actions we have already taken to ensure we have sufficient numbers of qualified and experienced personnel,” said an MoD spokeswoman. “As is routine for all MoD programmes, the submarine dismantling project is funded in stages and is fully funded for the current assessment phase.” Nuclear weapons Defence policy Military Trident Rob Edwards guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
European migrants arriving to fill skilled labour gaps or to study, while British emigration levels fall The government’s cap on migration to Britain from outside Europe is being more than offset by a renewed rise in migration from Poland and other EU countries, immigration experts have warned. British employers are increasingly turning to EU migrants to fill the gaps left by the government’s clampdown on the recruitment of overseas skilled labour from outside Europe, according to Oxford University’s migration observatory. The latest annual statistics show that net inward migration – which Conservative ministers have pledged to reduce to below 100,000 by the general election – actually rose by 21% during 2010, to 239,000. The Office for National Statistics said fewer people were leaving Britain to live abroad and net migration from eastern Europe was up – from 5,000 in 2009 to 40,000 in 2010. Emigration from the UK fell from a peak of 427,000 in 2008 to 336,000 last year. Publishing figures for the second quarter of 2011, covering April to June this year, the ONS said study remains the most common reason for people from outside Europe to come to Britain. Analysts at the Department for Work and Pensions said above-average unemployment rates in eurozone countries hit by the financial crisis, including Spain (20%), Lithuania (16%) and Latvia (16%), were behind increased migration to Britain. They also note that UK national insurance registrations from Ireland rose by 56% in 2010/11. The return of the skilled Polish worker to Britain is also confirmed by the latest figures. The Polish community now numbers 555,000, larger than the Irish (353,000) and the Indian (327,000) communities. “The UK clearly remains an attractive destination for migrants from Poland and other eastern European (A8) countries,” said Carlos Vargas-Silva of the Migration Observatory. “Despite all EU member states having to open their labour markets to A8 workers, the factors that created the initial pull for A8 workers to the UK still remain in place – there is a demand for their labour, wages are still much higher than Poland or other A8 nations and there are now well established A8 communities and networks here to help new and returning EU migrants to find a job and negotiate the complexities of life in a new country.” Matt Cavanagh, migration specialist at the Institute for Public Policy Research, said the figures show that ministers’ hope of meeting their target of reducing net migration to below 100,000 was becoming harder. He pointed to evidence earlier this week that employers were responding to the cap by recruiting more EU workers rather than increasing the skills of their current workforce or unemployed British teenagers. “Ministers need to start thinking about how to harness immigration to promote growth,” said Cavanagh. “All the indicators show that the immigration cap is not helping youth unemployment, which is back up above 20%, with those not in education, employment or training above 20%.” But the immigration minister, Damian Green, said immigration remained a British “addiction” and took comfort from the fact that the 239,000 net inward migration for the 12 months to December was lower than the previous quarter for the first time in two years. “After almost two years of increasing net migration the figures stabilised in the last quarter,” he said. “This explains why the government radically changed immigration policy, from our first months in office, to drive the numbers down with a limit on economic migration and changes to student visas to ensure we attract the brightest and best whilst tackling widespread abuse of the system. We are currently consulting on a range of further measures which will drive down numbers further.” The 2010 net migration figures include the period when the temporary cap on non-EU migration was imposed last July soon after the coalition came to power but exclude the period since April when the cap was made permanent. The ONS immigration figures also show that the number of people granted settlement in Britain hit a record 241,000, including dependants. The Home Office said the bulk were due to the one-off resolution of the backlog of asylum cases many of whom had been in Britain for years. They also show a 9% rise in asylum applications between April and June, including 336 from Libya in the first sign that the Arab Spring is having an impact on the flow of refugees coming to Britain. Some 25,900 people were held in detention in 2010. Nine children were held in immigration detention in July despite the coalition pledge to scrap the practice. Immigration removals and deportations fell to a 10 year low of 11,388 during between April and June. Immigration and asylum Europe European Union Poland Spain Lithuania Latvia Liberal-Conservative coalition Conservatives Damian Green Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
European migrants arriving to fill skilled labour gaps or to study, while British emigration levels fall The government’s cap on migration to Britain from outside Europe is being more than offset by a renewed rise in migration from Poland and other EU countries, immigration experts have warned. British employers are increasingly turning to EU migrants to fill the gaps left by the government’s clampdown on the recruitment of overseas skilled labour from outside Europe, according to Oxford University’s migration observatory. The latest annual statistics show that net inward migration – which Conservative ministers have pledged to reduce to below 100,000 by the general election – actually rose by 21% during 2010, to 239,000. The Office for National Statistics said fewer people were leaving Britain to live abroad and net migration from eastern Europe was up – from 5,000 in 2009 to 40,000 in 2010. Emigration from the UK fell from a peak of 427,000 in 2008 to 336,000 last year. Publishing figures for the second quarter of 2011, covering April to June this year, the ONS said study remains the most common reason for people from outside Europe to come to Britain. Analysts at the Department for Work and Pensions said above-average unemployment rates in eurozone countries hit by the financial crisis, including Spain (20%), Lithuania (16%) and Latvia (16%), were behind increased migration to Britain. They also note that UK national insurance registrations from Ireland rose by 56% in 2010/11. The return of the skilled Polish worker to Britain is also confirmed by the latest figures. The Polish community now numbers 555,000, larger than the Irish (353,000) and the Indian (327,000) communities. “The UK clearly remains an attractive destination for migrants from Poland and other eastern European (A8) countries,” said Carlos Vargas-Silva of the Migration Observatory. “Despite all EU member states having to open their labour markets to A8 workers, the factors that created the initial pull for A8 workers to the UK still remain in place – there is a demand for their labour, wages are still much higher than Poland or other A8 nations and there are now well established A8 communities and networks here to help new and returning EU migrants to find a job and negotiate the complexities of life in a new country.” Matt Cavanagh, migration specialist at the Institute for Public Policy Research, said the figures show that ministers’ hope of meeting their target of reducing net migration to below 100,000 was becoming harder. He pointed to evidence earlier this week that employers were responding to the cap by recruiting more EU workers rather than increasing the skills of their current workforce or unemployed British teenagers. “Ministers need to start thinking about how to harness immigration to promote growth,” said Cavanagh. “All the indicators show that the immigration cap is not helping youth unemployment, which is back up above 20%, with those not in education, employment or training above 20%.” But the immigration minister, Damian Green, said immigration remained a British “addiction” and took comfort from the fact that the 239,000 net inward migration for the 12 months to December was lower than the previous quarter for the first time in two years. “After almost two years of increasing net migration the figures stabilised in the last quarter,” he said. “This explains why the government radically changed immigration policy, from our first months in office, to drive the numbers down with a limit on economic migration and changes to student visas to ensure we attract the brightest and best whilst tackling widespread abuse of the system. We are currently consulting on a range of further measures which will drive down numbers further.” The 2010 net migration figures include the period when the temporary cap on non-EU migration was imposed last July soon after the coalition came to power but exclude the period since April when the cap was made permanent. The ONS immigration figures also show that the number of people granted settlement in Britain hit a record 241,000, including dependants. The Home Office said the bulk were due to the one-off resolution of the backlog of asylum cases many of whom had been in Britain for years. They also show a 9% rise in asylum applications between April and June, including 336 from Libya in the first sign that the Arab Spring is having an impact on the flow of refugees coming to Britain. Some 25,900 people were held in detention in 2010. Nine children were held in immigration detention in July despite the coalition pledge to scrap the practice. Immigration removals and deportations fell to a 10 year low of 11,388 during between April and June. Immigration and asylum Europe European Union Poland Spain Lithuania Latvia Liberal-Conservative coalition Conservatives Damian Green Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media It appears Newt Gingrich took a little time away from his Tiffany’s shopping and “campaigning” down in Hawaii to appear on Sean Hannity’s show trashing President Obama for the lack of job creation in the United States. Gingrich sure likes to say “class warfare.” If he actually meant class warfare, as in his class waging war against the working class, I’d say I agree with him. Of course that’s not what he meant here since Fox has been playing the upside-down game on what that term means for some time now, hoping their hapless viewers don’t know any better. And you’ve got to just love the irony of Sean Hannity trying to make President Obama out to be some sort of elitist for daring to take vacation in Martha’s Vineyard and then turning straight to Newt Gingrich for some commentary. Apparently Hannity’s elitist irony alert button is broken. I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t want the viewers of Fox to focus too much on just how many millions of dollars that network is paying him either and the fact that’s he’s just another gasbag millionaire complaining about how he doesn’t want his tax rate to go up. Heaven forbid we can’t have the “job creators” like Hannity asked to sacrifice anything or they might take their ball and move out of the United States. We can only hope that would be the case with him and he can take Newt with him if he goes. HANNITY: And so with all of this in mind, we now sit and wait for the president’s so-called jobs plan; a plan that he will not unveil until after his luxurious vacation on Martha’s Vineyard. Joining me with reaction to this and much more, former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. Mr. Speaker, welcome back. GINGRICH: Good to be with you. HANNITY: Alright, you’re a historian. These are pretty devastating numbers; Gallup low thirty eight percent; Rasmussen, his approval index, lowest it’s been in his presidency; the optic of him, you know, on a golf course during an earth quake; a plan to be revealed for jobs nearly three years into his administration. Does he have a chance to come back and is there a way to create jobs without abandoning his rigid ideology? GINGRICH: Well, you just asked two different questions. Is there a chance he’d come back? Yes. Absolutely. Either the Republicans could self-destruct, or Obama could begin to do things right. But is he likely to come back? Not without changing what he believes, how he operates. You know, the fact is that class warfare kills jobs. Bureaucratic Socialism kills jobs. He believes deeply in both. One of the reasons he can’t just come out and give us a jobs speech tomorrow morning is, they’re trying to be clever. And the reason they’re trying to be clever is nothing that will really work, fits their ideology. Somehow the two of them forgot to mention that Newt is supposed to be running for president during this segment instead of just doing what he can to prop up his book sales. I’d also like to know when Gingrich became a “historian” rather than a partisan revisionist. He’s about as much of a “historian” as his buddy Mike Huckabee who’s out there hawking those ridiculous cartoons of his .
Continue reading …
US investment banking firm invokes contract clause enabling it to cut pay of London-based bankers US investment banking firm Goldman Sachs is cutting the pay of hundreds of its London bankers. The bank, which ratcheted up basic pay in 2009 in order to avoid the then Labour government’s bankers’ bonuses tax, has invoked a clause in its investment bankers’ contract to cut their pay back down. Goldman, which employs 5,500 staff in London, this week told employees that their basic pay will be cut this summer. It comes two years after the bank changed the contracts of London-based bankers to increase the amount it paid in basic pay and decreased bonus payments in order to help them avoid the then chancellor Alistair Darling’s bankers’ bonus tax . The shift away from big bonuses after the financial crisis led to bankers’ basic pay being increased by 50-100%. Last year Goldman paid its staff an average of $430,000 (£263,000). The bank’s total pay and bonus pool was $15.3bn. The pay cut is thought to affect staff at managing director or partner level. Goldman refused to comment. Bank bosses complain that political pressure forcing them to reduce bonuses has made it difficult for them to remove underperforming staff. Rich Ricci, co-chief executive of Barclays Capital, told the Financial Times last week that: “These days, when a banker doesn’t get a bonus, they no longer leave automatically. They’ve got their salaries to fall back on – and, really, there’s nowhere else for them to go.” Chris Forbes, the chief executive of PHD Search and Selection, a banking sector headhunter, said paying bankers high base salaries and lower bonuses does not produce the best results for banks as it removes the performance incentive. “High base salaries and low bonuses are not part of the traditional culture of the City and certainly reducing base salaries will lead the way to greater attrition of low performers.” The pay cut comes after Goldman announced an 18% fall in second-quarter revenue to $7.28bn and banks worldwide have announced 60,000 redundancies over the last few weeks. Barclays said on Thursday that it was cutting 140 jobs in its corporate business arm as part of plans to reduce costs. A spokesman for the bank said the redundancies will be in the UK infrastructure operations for Barclays Corporate, which is being brought closer together with the Barclays Capital investment bank arm. Barclays Corporate cut about 500 infrastructure jobs in May ago. It employs just over 11,000 staff. A survey today shows junior bankers on Wall Street are so unhappy with their pay they are considering quitting for jobs in private equity. A survey by headhunting firm Capstone Partnership found 60% of young US bankers are dissatisfied with their pay and want to leave the industry. “It’s been a rough couple of years for them,” said Rik Kopelan, managing partner at New York-based Capstone. “Fewer and fewer plan on making it a career, because they’re working these long hours and not getting paid as well as they were.” One investment banker said the banks had breached the “tacit understanding” that he or she would be well compensated. Considering “the sacrifice I make in my personal life (100-hour work weeks, cancelled vacations, etc.), this business has to be more rewarding,” the person said, according to a Bloomberg report of the survey. More than 80% of respondents said they did not believe their pay matched their effort and performance. Goldman Sachs Executive pay and bonuses Banking Barclays Global economy Recession Financial crisis Private equity United States Rupert Neate guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Home Office and police reject proposals including banning suspected rioters from using social networking sites during civil unrest The government has climbed down on plans to ban suspected rioters from social networking websites including Facebook and Twitter in times of civil unrest. Unprecedented measures such as shutting down websites and banning users are understood to have been dismissed by all sides early at a Home Office summit between the home secretary, Theresa May, and the major social networks on Thursday afternoon. The one-hour discussion focused on how law enforcement can better use Twitter and Facebook as part of day-to-day operations as well as in emergencies. A Home Office spokeswoman said: “The home secretary, along with the culture secretary and Foreign Office minister Jeremy Browne, has held a constructive meeting withthe Association of Chief Police Officers, the police and representatives from the social media industry. “The discussions looked at how law enforcement and the networks can build on the existing relationships and co-operation to prevent the networks being used for criminal behaviour.” The notion of banning suspected rioters from social networks was first raised by David Cameron a fortnight ago when he vowed to do “whatever it takes” to prevent a repeat of the unprecedent riots and looting across England. The prime minister announced that the social networks, including BlackBerry-maker Research in Motion, had been summoned to a Home Office meeting when responding to questions from MPs in the House of Commons. A Twitter spokeswoman said: “Governments and law enforcement agencies around the world use Twitter to engage in open, public communications with citizens. “We’ve heard from many that Twitter is an effective way to distribute crucial updates and dispel rumours in times of crisis or emergency. “People also use Twitter as a the first place to get information, monitor quickly changing events in real-time, and connect with friends, family and their communities. “We are always interested in exploring how we can make Twitter even more helpful and relevant during times of critical need.” Social networking Crime UK riots Police Josh Halliday guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
enlarge Credit: The Lone Primate (Flickr) Walmart is the biggest retailer in the world. It boasts of having 1.2 million Americans on their payroll. Its reported annual profits are around $13 billion. So it’s safe to say since it is so big – and so ubiquitous – and so obviously successful – the government can now stop subsidizing it. Let me explain: I was covering the first stop for the Progressive Caucus’ “Speak Out for Good Jobs Now” listening tour held in Minneapolis attended by Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) among others. The first audience member to speak was one Girsheila Green, a young mother from Compton, California, who has worked at Walmart for three years. Ms. Green told the crowded church how in her tenure with Walmart, she’s received two raises and is now a manager. She makes nine dollars an hour (one dollar above the laughably-low California minimum wage). She pulled from her pocket three cards she claimed most Walmart employees at her store have: a 10 percent Walmart employee discount card, her employee ID and her EBT card (what used to be called food stamps). She relayed that 80 percent of her store is on food stamps. I’d argue one is too many. It’s true, Girsheila doesn’t have to work at Walmart if she feels she’s not being paid enough. She can go work somewhere else. She’s not being forced to work for a wage that won’t feed her family. The same argument can be made for child labor, dangerous working conditions and other labor issues settled in the 20th century by workers standing up for their rights. Girsheila’s individual choice is not the issue at all. Since Walmart, the largest private employer in the country, generally doesn’t pay its “associates” or “Walmart family members” enough to live on – the giant multi-national corporation is relying on the U.S. government to feed its employees. We, as taxpayers, pay for Walmart’s cost-cutting tactics. Profit? Privatized. Nutrition? Socialized. Think of how many employees use their food stamp cards to buy groceries at the store where they WORK. It’s like a nurse having to file bankruptcy due to medical bills. It would be different if Walmart were a struggling little start-up where loyal employees believed in the company’s vision, so being temporarily paid less than an intern is understandable. But since Walmart is by all measurements a success – it’s no longer okay for them to benefit from government handouts. They need to pay people who work for them like people who work for them and not like disposable volunteers in blue vests. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), candidate for the GOP presidential nomination, testified in 2005 to the Minnesota Senate. She stated if we eliminated the (laughably low) minimum wage, we could wipe out unemployment. Yes, instead of paying one person eight dollars an hour which makes him eligible for food stamps and (in some cases) Medicaid – let’s pay eight people one dollar an hour and they can be eligible for food stamps, Medicaid AND General Assistance. Basically, allow the government to take care of the work force so private industry can have the profit. This is corporate welfare. This is also corporate socialism . The government covers what Walmart gets away with not covering. To those who enjoy Walmart’s ample profits – it’s welfare check money laundering. To those who tout “ free market ” principles, that’s not one of them. Bachmann, who hopped on the tea party bandwagon when it first rolled out on socialized roads, has decried the government even though her family farm and husband’s clinic have received government money. Bachmann denied this money has benefited her personally; her financial disclosure forms completely contradict that statement. Bachmann and the tea party are like a 30-year-old who lives comfortably in the family home while railing against parental tyranny and bemoaning the mediocrity of the meals his mother cooks. In the real world, taxpayers should stop subsidizing Walmart’s low wages. Let them pay their employees a living wage. Better yet, let them live up to their own rhetoric when they hire their legions of working poor – let them be treated like “family.” Cross posted from TinaDupuy.com
Continue reading …
What Would You Do?, an ABC News hidden camera program that often engineers scenarios to expose the supposed bigotry of Americans, was asked to stop filming by the town of Greenwich, Connecticut. The ABC program uses a hidden camera to see how people react. On February 04, 2011 , host John Quinones explained how the show hired an actor to play a security guard and pretend to harass Mexicans. The piece, billed as an investigation of Arizona's immigration law, featured the faux-security guard spewing, ” …If they're not legal citizens, they shouldn't be here. They should be deported. They look Mexican .” On March 04, 2011 , Quinones and his TV crew constructed a hidden camera scenario that involved gay military veterans expressing physical affection for each other in a diner. The journalist narrated, “They're holding hands, stroking each other's hair and caressing each other's legs…So what will happen if we throw in our actor Vince, posing as an irritated diner, who's had enough of this PDA.” On January 06, 2009 , Quinones took the program abroad to find out how actors portraying “ugly Americans” would be treated in France. Quinones chided, “The loud, clueless American, oblivious to French manners and culture, and the haughty French, who seem to relish putting them in their place.” Writing for the Greenwich Times, staff writer David Hennessey explained: We told them, `You can't film here,' ” Dustin Anderson, the executive assistant to First Selectman Peter Tesei, said, describing the Tuesday filming around Greenwich Avenue of the hit ABC show “What Would You Do?” as “disruptive.” Tesei said the show's crew was allowed to complete its filming Tuesday, but was asked to choose another location for a Wednesday shoot. The show, hosted by John Quinones, stages ethically challenging situations and follows the reactions of bystanders. The hidden camera series “puts ordinary people on the spot,” according to the show's website. Hennessey added, “Capt. Tim Berry, of the Greenwich Police Department, said the scene that caused a stir Tuesday involved an intoxicated adult who needs to be driven by a child.”
Continue reading …
Montpellier man enjoys second jackpot in 15 years after continuing to play game using same numbers Most people would assume that, after a multimillion-euro lottery win, you have already had your luck and there would not be much point in buying another ticket. But a man in southern France has won the jackpot for the second time in 15 years by playing the same numbers. The man, an industrial worker from Montpellier who is in his 50s and wants to remain anonymous, first won the lottery in 1996, taking home the equivalent in francs of €2.8m (£2.47m). He kept playing the same winning numbers, spending €1,000 a month on various games. Last month, he won a second jackpot of more than €3m. He said he had a “lucky star”. When he was awarded his first cheque by lottery bosses in 1996, they jokingly asked him to keep supporting the game by continuing playing. He has been playing the same numbers since the French lottery started in 1976. “The first time I won, I nearly fainted, I went white and had trouble breathing before I really believed it,” the man told the BFMTV news channel. “This time, I took it all a lot more calmly, but with the same joy and the same gratitude towards fate.” He said he had invested his first winnings in business and planned to invest the second win for his two children’s inheritance. The lottery body, La Francaise des Jeux, said there was “one in more than a billion chance” of winning twice. There have been a handful of repeat lottery wins in France in the past 30 years, including one man who twice won €2.8m in three years. France Europe Angelique Chrisafis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …