David Attenborough’s latest TV series, Frozen Planet, is being heralded as his take on climate change. Now 85, he explains why – finally – he’s speaking out on the issue, and shares the joys of a long life spent filming sex and death in the wild ‘I’m not a propagandist, I’m not a polemicist; my primary interest is just looking at and trying to understand how animals work,” says David Attenborough. We are talking in a gigantic BBC sitting room. Attenborough, wearing slacks, shirt and jacket, is a trifle unkempt at 85,
Continue reading …David Attenborough’s latest TV series, Frozen Planet, is being heralded as his take on climate change. Now 85, he explains why – finally – he’s speaking out on the issue, and shares the joys of a long life spent filming sex and death in the wild ‘I’m not a propagandist, I’m not a polemicist; my primary interest is just looking at and trying to understand how animals work,” says David Attenborough. We are talking in a gigantic BBC sitting room. Attenborough, wearing slacks, shirt and jacket, is a trifle unkempt at 85,
Continue reading …
Losing candidate in 2008 mayoral election says he was threatened after suggesting rival’s relative may have been a spy Ken Livingstone has claimed Boris Johnson threatened to “punch his lights out” during the last mayoral campaign, after Livingstone had suggested his rival’s Turkish great-grandfather might have been a British spy. In his autobiography, published on Monday, Livingstone chronicles the mounting tension during the 2008 mayoral race. Publication comes months before he faces a rematch with Johnson at the 2012 mayoral election in May. In the book, titled You Can’t Say That, Livingstone dismisses his Tory rival as a politician used to “getting away with it” through humour when responding to difficult policy questions. But he says Johnson’s “mask slipped” a couple of times during the campaign. Livingstone recounts an appearance on the BBC’s Question Time with Johnson: “After Question Time the cameras were still on us as a smiling Boris draped his arm around my shoulders and said, ‘If you carry on talking about my great-grandfather I’m going to punch your lights out.’” The veteran politician also reveals he thought he would have to stand down in the run-up to the last mayoral campaign because of a cancer scare, and cried as he cleared his office after losing to Johnson. In a book which sheds little light on his emotional life, Livingstone alludes to being “down and depressed” during the 2008 mayoral race and, despite his political experience, says he was “still shocked” by the way the “right wing” threw everything at the campaign. Livingstone refuses to concede any major mistakes during his time as mayor. He blames defeat on the recession, an unpopular government and the media, singling out the Evening Standard – under the editorship of Veronica Wadley – for the campaign it ran against him that alleged corruption in his office. The allegations were unsubstantiated. He complains that he felt like a “non person” at City Hall after losing. “My first experience of Boris’s pettiness came when I turned up at City Hall to discover my security pass had been blocked and I was only to be allowed in the building if accompanied by an official,” he says. Livingstone, the son of working-class Conservative parents, also highlights what he believes to be the advantage gained by Johnson’s privileged background in the eyes of the media, where “one rule applies for Boris and his class and another one for the rest of us”. Livingstone, who has often championed policies and causes long before they were accepted by the mainstream, tells the Guardian that the animosity he has attracted over the years is down to being a working class person in a profession now “exclusively middle class, reported through the prism of a media that is exclusively middle class. And I think it’s because they see me as an effective socialist. “They’re used to Labour politicians who come into office and end up being a tame pussycat, or being totally ineffectual. They’re quite used to ones that they can seduce or buy off, or are incompetent. They wouldn’t mind me if I was useless and they wouldn’t mind me if I was a hireling. But I don’t make the compromises they always want me to.” Living up to its title, the book is interspersed with tracts about Livingstone’s uncompromising views on controversial issues such as Israel, which are likely to raise eyebrows in senior Labour ranks. His says views were formed in the 1980s after reading up the history of Zionism and from that point on: “I was not going to be silenced by smears of antisemitism whenever I criticised Israeli government policies.” Despite his staunch criticism about New Labour under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, he reveals that he tipped off Brown, via his ally Ed Balls, after he was asked by the Labour peer Margaret McDonagh to lead the call for Brown’s resignation as premier. “For all my doubts about Brown I wasn’t going to help hand the party back to the Blairites so I phone Ed Balls on his mobile to warn him.” After he had lost mayoral office, Livingstone says that Brown called him to commiserate. “He seemed genuinely upset, but whether this was because I was losing or that my loss might open up a leadership challenge to him wasn’t clear”. Livingstone also reveals that he decided not to have children because of his “dysfunctional childhood” and his anxiety that he would not be a good parent. Despite this, he has fathered five children. He suggests that he offered to father two children (both daughters) with a local newspaper journalist, and one (a son) with a political activist, because their biological clocks were ticking and they had no partner at the time. He claims to have pre-arranged the role he would play in their lives, but does not describe how this was received by his partner at the time, Kate Allen. Livingstone later had two children with Emma Beal, whom he married in 2009. A spokesperson for Boris Johnson said: “Any allegations like this in Ken Livingstone’s autobiography should be viewed in the context of his candidacy for the mayoralty next year.” He also reveals that during his time as mayor, he thought his phone was being bugged by MI5, despite the insistence of Eliza Manningham Buller, then MI5 chief, to the contrary. He said at the time didn’t believe her as he often picked up the home phone immediately after finishing a call and heard a playback of his conversation. “However, given the Guardians 2009 expose of phone tapping by newspapers, I may have blamed the wrong culprit.” Ken Livingstone Boris Johnson London Hélène Mulholland guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
President says ‘America’s war in Iraq will be over’ with decision to pull all troops from Iraq by the end of the year President Barack Obama on Friday declared an end to the Iraq war by announcing that all American troops would be withdrawn from the country by year’s end. Obama’s statement put an end to months of wrangling over whether the US would maintain a force in Iraq beyond 2011. He never mentioned the tense and ultimately fruitless negotiations with Iraq over whether to keep several thousand US forces there as a training force and a hedge against meddling from Iran or other outside forces. Instead, Obama spoke of a promise kept, a new day for a self-reliant Iraq and a focus on building up the economy at home. “I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year,” Obama said. “After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over.” Obama spoke after a private video conference with Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, and he offered assurances that the two leaders agreed on the decision. The US military presence in Iraq stands at just under 40,000. All US troops are to exit the country in accordance with a deal struck between the countries in 2008 when George Bush was president. Obama, an opponent of the war from the start, took office and accelerated the end of the conflict. In August 2010, he declared the US combat mission over. “Over the next two months our troops in Iraq, tens of thousands of them, will pack up their gear and board convoys for the journey home,” Obama said. “The last American soldier will cross the border out of Iraq with their heads held high, proud of their success and knowing that the American people stand united in our support for our troops.” More than 4,400 American military members have been killed since the US and its allies invaded Iraq in March 2003. The Associated Press first reported last week that the United States would not keep troops in Iraq past the year-end withdrawal deadline, except for some soldiers attached to the US embassy. Denis McDonough, the White House’s deputy national security adviser, said that in addition to the standard Marine security detail, the US will also have 4,000 to 5,000 contractors to provide security for US diplomats, including at the US embassy in Baghdad and US consulates in Basra and Erbil. In recent months, Washington had been discussing with Iraqi leaders the possibility of several thousand American troops remaining to continue training Iraqi security forces. Throughout the discussions, Iraqi leaders refused to give US troops immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts, and the Americans refused to stay without that guarantee. Moreover, Iraq’s leadership has been split on whether it wanted American forces to stay. When the 2008 agreement requiring all US forces to leave Iraq was passed, many US officials assumed it would inevitably be renegotiated so that Americans could stay longer. The US said repeatedly this year it would entertain an offer from the Iraqis to have a small force stay behind, and the Iraqis said they would like American military help. But as the year wore on and the number of American troops that Washington was suggesting could stay behind dropped, it became increasingly clear that a US troop presence was not a sure thing. The issue of legal protection for the Americans was the deal-breaker. But administration officials said they feel confident that the Iraqi security forces are well prepared to take the lead in their country. McDonough said assessment after assessment of the preparedness of Iraqi forces concluded that “these guys are ready; these guys are capable; these guys are proven; importantly, they’re proven because they’ve been tested in a lot of the kinds of threats that they’re going to see going forward. “So we feel very good about that.” Pulling troops out by the end of this year allows both Maliki and Obama to claim victory. Obama kept a campaign promise to end the war, and Maliki will have ended the American presence and restored Iraqi sovereignty. The president used the war statement to once again turn attention back to the economy, the domestic concern that is expected to determine whether he wins re-election next year. “After a decade of war the nation that we need to build and the nation that we will build is our own, an America that sees its economic strength restored just as we’ve restored our leadership around the globe.” US foreign policy Barack Obama Iraq US military Middle East guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
President says ‘America’s war in Iraq will be over’ with decision to pull all troops from Iraq by the end of the year President Barack Obama on Friday declared an end to the Iraq war by announcing that all American troops would be withdrawn from the country by year’s end. Obama’s statement put an end to months of wrangling over whether the US would maintain a force in Iraq beyond 2011. He never mentioned the tense and ultimately fruitless negotiations with Iraq over whether to keep several thousand US forces there as a training force and a hedge against meddling from Iran or other outside forces. Instead, Obama spoke of a promise kept, a new day for a self-reliant Iraq and a focus on building up the economy at home. “I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year,” Obama said. “After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over.” Obama spoke after a private video conference with Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, and he offered assurances that the two leaders agreed on the decision. The US military presence in Iraq stands at just under 40,000. All US troops are to exit the country in accordance with a deal struck between the countries in 2008 when George Bush was president. Obama, an opponent of the war from the start, took office and accelerated the end of the conflict. In August 2010, he declared the US combat mission over. “Over the next two months our troops in Iraq, tens of thousands of them, will pack up their gear and board convoys for the journey home,” Obama said. “The last American soldier will cross the border out of Iraq with their heads held high, proud of their success and knowing that the American people stand united in our support for our troops.” More than 4,400 American military members have been killed since the US and its allies invaded Iraq in March 2003. The Associated Press first reported last week that the United States would not keep troops in Iraq past the year-end withdrawal deadline, except for some soldiers attached to the US embassy. Denis McDonough, the White House’s deputy national security adviser, said that in addition to the standard Marine security detail, the US will also have 4,000 to 5,000 contractors to provide security for US diplomats, including at the US embassy in Baghdad and US consulates in Basra and Erbil. In recent months, Washington had been discussing with Iraqi leaders the possibility of several thousand American troops remaining to continue training Iraqi security forces. Throughout the discussions, Iraqi leaders refused to give US troops immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts, and the Americans refused to stay without that guarantee. Moreover, Iraq’s leadership has been split on whether it wanted American forces to stay. When the 2008 agreement requiring all US forces to leave Iraq was passed, many US officials assumed it would inevitably be renegotiated so that Americans could stay longer. The US said repeatedly this year it would entertain an offer from the Iraqis to have a small force stay behind, and the Iraqis said they would like American military help. But as the year wore on and the number of American troops that Washington was suggesting could stay behind dropped, it became increasingly clear that a US troop presence was not a sure thing. The issue of legal protection for the Americans was the deal-breaker. But administration officials said they feel confident that the Iraqi security forces are well prepared to take the lead in their country. McDonough said assessment after assessment of the preparedness of Iraqi forces concluded that “these guys are ready; these guys are capable; these guys are proven; importantly, they’re proven because they’ve been tested in a lot of the kinds of threats that they’re going to see going forward. “So we feel very good about that.” Pulling troops out by the end of this year allows both Maliki and Obama to claim victory. Obama kept a campaign promise to end the war, and Maliki will have ended the American presence and restored Iraqi sovereignty. The president used the war statement to once again turn attention back to the economy, the domestic concern that is expected to determine whether he wins re-election next year. “After a decade of war the nation that we need to build and the nation that we will build is our own, an America that sees its economic strength restored just as we’ve restored our leadership around the globe.” US foreign policy Barack Obama Iraq US military Middle East guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Occupy London Stock Exchange camp refuses to leave despite cathedral plea
October 21, 2011 No Comment
St Paul’s says it has closed for safety reasons, but protesters insist they cannot be moved on without court order Anti-global finance protesters were refusing to quit their camp outside St Paul’s Cathedral on Friday night, despite requests from church officials who complain they have been forced to shut the building for the first time since the second world war. The Occupy the London Stock Exchange protesters, who moved on to an area at the front of the cathedral a week ago, will continue their encampment in defiance of the dean of St Paul’s, the Rt Rev Graeme Knowles, who asked them to “let the cathedral get its life back”. The movement said cathedral officials were more concerned about visitor numbers than the safety reasons they claimed lay behind the shutdown. The refusal has led to a standoff between the cathedral and the protesters, who say they cannot be moved on without a court order. Knowles said the decision to close the cathedral was unprecedented in recent times, but there was no choice and it had been done with a “heavy heart”. Services have been cancelled until further notice and staff have been sent home. In a statement Knowles said he had asked protesters to “recognise the huge issues facing us at this time and asking them to leave the vicinity of the building so that the cathedral can reopen as soon as possible”. He stressed that he and other officials had formed good relations with the protesters. “We are delighted that the London protests have been peaceful, and indeed there has been a good atmosphere generally between cathedral staff and those dwelling in the tents around St Paul’s. “There is something profound about protest being made and heard in front of this most holy place – a gathering together of those concerned about poverty and inequality facing the great dome of this cathedral church.” However, he said, it was obvious the size of the camp had “increasingly put us in a difficult position”. Knowles met members of the chapter that governs St Paul’s on Thursday evening, leading to the closure. “The health, safety and fire officers have pointed out that access to and from the cathedral is seriously limited. With so many stoves and fires and lots of different types of fuel around, there is a clear fire hazard. Then there is the public health aspect, which speaks for itself. The dangers relate not just to cathedral staff and visitors but are a potential hazard to those encamped themselves.” Therefore, he said, the cathedral would stay closed “until such a time that we can open safely”. He added: “We have done this with a very heavy heart, but it is simply not possible to fulfil our day to day obligations to worshippers, visitors and pilgrims in current circumstances.” Although he initially played down the financial impact of the protest, he later conceded there would have to be “long term planning”. “We have a commitment to the paid staff, we must pay them as best we can.” And, while he did not directly address the issue of eviction, explained that ownership of the grounds around the cathedral was “so complicated” he would have to go through “lawyers and the Corporation of London” to remove the protesters. Knowles was forced to deny that Giles Fraser, the canon chancellor of St Paul’s, who initially said he supported the protesters’ right to remain, had acted inappropriately or unilaterally. Occupy LSX cast doubt on the cathedral’s concerns and said it had spoken to the fire brigade and believed there were no fire safety issues. “As to the cathedral’s commercial concerns, access to the restaurant has never been blocked by the encampment. The closure of the restaurant, by the cathedral, has mystified us, especially as it came at the same time as we encouraged our people to use and support the restaurant. We would much prefer to eat there than in some of the nearby chains. We believe the cathedral is also concerned about their visitor numbers. We have endeavoured to ensure that our schedule does not conflict with the cathedral’s, so that their normal operations are not impaired. Clearly, we have become another tourist attraction on the cathedral’s doorstep – but, since we are not a commercial concern, we are struggling to understand how we have had any financial impact on the cathedral’s revenues.” The protest, modelled on similar events in Spain and New York, descended on London’s financial district last Saturday with the intention of setting up a permanent camp in Paternoster Square, the private commercial and retail plaza housing the Stock Exchange headquarters. However, the square’s owners won a court order preventing this, and police blocked access. Several thousand activists, who eventually coalesced into an encampment of around 200 tents, instead based themselves on the western edge of St Paul’s. There, they set up an increasingly entrenched camp , featuring a food marquee, a media tent and a “university”. Relations with the church began well, especially after Fraser’s intervention. However, sSince then, however, cathedral officials have repeatedly raised concerns about the size and scope of the camp, warning that it was impeding access for both worshippers and tourists, especially ahead of next week’s busy half term. This is a particular issue for a cathedral that relies heavily on entrance fees for its income. One protester, Marcus Wright, said he would resist any attempt to remove him from the area. The 22-year-old, wearing a Batman hoodie and a Guy Fawkes mask, has been at St Paul’s since Monday. “It will be non-violent, but I will still be protesting as they drag me away,” he said. “The only way we’ll move is by force. We won’t be violent. It is our right to protest.” Occupy London Occupy movement London Protest Religion Riazat Butt Peter Walker guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
New defence secretary confirms that he will pursue renewal of nuclear deterrent that could cost up to £25bn Britain will continue its plans to replace the Trident nuclear deterrent, the defence secretary has confirmed, as he moved to dispel speculation that he was less committed to the project. Philip Hammond made clear that he would pursue the renewal plans, which could cost up to £25bn for four new submarines. His predecessor Liam Fox, who resigned last week, was strongly committed to Trident despite the project’s huge cost, and the likely burden it will put on the already overstretched budget at the Ministry of Defence. There had been talk at Westminster that Hammond might have a rethink, with experts noting that he had missed a vote in parliament on the need for Britain to have a “continuous at sea deterrence”. But in his first interview Hammond dismissed the doubters and said he was “absolutely committed” to Trident and always had been. He said he had only missed the parliamentary vote on the issue because he was “out on a visit on the route of the high-speed railway proposal”. “Had I been there I would have voted in favour,” he said. Fox announced in May that the government had approved “initial gate” – up to £7bn for the technical and design assessments needed for the renewal of Trident. The decision on “main gate” – the green light for construction of the submarines–was delayed until 2016 – after the next general election. This led to calls for ministers to consider reducing the number of submarines from four to three to cut costs, particularly as the £25bn does not include the money needed to buy new warheads. The difficulties surrounding the renewal of Trident were underlined earlier this month in a report by Professor Malcolm Chalmers, of the Royal United Services Institute thinktank. He said renewing Britain’s nuclear deterrent was “the largest and politically most difficult procurement programme” for the MoD over the next 20 years, and predicted that unless the Treasury provided more cash to fund it, the department would have to make further drastic cuts to services and personnel. Hammond insisted that the budget squeeze, and a redundancy programme that will mean up to 60,000 jobs being axed in the coming years, would not prevent Britain having a viable armed forces. “We have had to make some serious budget cuts,” he said. “My predecessor has successfully negotiated with the Treasury a settlement that will allow the UK to continue to project force abroad, to continue to have viable and sustainable armed forces in the future.” The cuts have hit all three services, and the start of the civilian jobs cull has now begun, with 3,000 staff leaving this month. Steve Jary, from the Prospect union, said: “By destroying its specialist capability, the MoD is putting the lives of troops at risk.” Philip Hammond Trident Defence policy Nuclear weapons Military Nick Hopkins guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Rupert Murdoch is facing a revolt at News Corporation’s annual meeting over its handling of the phone hacking scandal. Follow developments live 2.06pm ET / 7.06pm BST: I’m listening in to the annual meeting on an audio stream, and Murdoch’s demeanour is fascinating. At times he is combative, brusque, putting down his veteran adversaries such as Stephen Mayne with waspish comments. At other times he stumbles and seems unsure of himself. It’s gripping. 1.55pm ET / 6.55pm BST: Stephen Mayne is back up at the mic now, complaining that Murdoch is attempting to close the debate down in an “anti-democratic and embarassing” manner. “I think we can stand our embarrassment,” Murdoch replies, pointing out that Tom Watson had been on Fox News this morning. “That’s fair and balanced,” Murdoch says, in a wry reference to the channel’s much-derided slogan. 1.53pm ET / 6.53pm BST: Tom Watson has the floor for a second time, and attempts to press Murdoch once again on allegations of computer hacking – attempting to widen the debate from phone hacking. He names Alex Marunchak, a former News of the World senior journalist linked to private investigator Jonathan Rees. Viet Dinh replies, says News Corporation is fully co-operating with the police, but that it wonn’t comment in individuals. He says police have asked the company to withhold comment to “ensure the proper administration of justice”. Dinh says there are “number of allegations, assertions, rumours and reports” which the company takes very seriously and investigates. Murdoch adds: “We will stop at nothing to get to the bottom of this and put it right.” 1.45pm ET / 6.45pm BST: Viet Dinh is speaking now, and says he has engaged directly on the issue of corporate governance with all those who have spoken today. 1.42pm ET / 6.42pm BST Murdoch is is having something of a ding-dong with Mayne. The Australian shareholders association director is trying to prolong the debate, but Murdoch wants to move to a vote. Mayne says he has not decided how to vote. “I’m not calling you a liar, but I know exactly how you’re going to vote,” Murdoch says, to laughter. 1.41pm: A representative of the pension fund Calpers tells Murdoch they and Hermes, the BT pension fund, want him to step down as chairman. 1.34pm ET / 6.34pm BST: Edward Mason of the Church of England is now speaking in support of the motion that would oust Rupert Murdoch as chairman. Murdoch interrupts Mason almost immediately, saying “your investments haven’t been that great”. 1.33pm ET / 6.33pm ET: Murdoch says the allegations by Watson are “recent rumours”. He says 90% of what the police knows comes from News Corporation, he says. “We will put this right,” he affirms, banging the desk. 1.30pm ET / 6.30pm ET: Tom Watson is now speaking. He’s listing how the scandal has spread in Britain. He’s saying that police are investigating three more private detectives, involving invasions of privacy via computer hacking. “If I know about this, with all the resources you are putting into clearing up this scandal, you must know this too.” 1.29pm ET / 6.29pm BST Stephen Mayne , director of the Australian Shareholder Association is now speaking. He’s not mincing his words, talking about “gross underperformance” of the company, a “gerrymandered” two-tier share structure. Director Viet Dinh is godfather to Lachlan Murdoch’s child, he says. “You’ve treated us like mushrooms for a long time. It’s time to get with the programme.” 1.24pm ET / 6.24pm BST: Julie Tanner, assistant director of socially responsible investing at shareholder Christian Brothers Investment Services, is putting forward the proposal now. She says it has strong support in the light of the phone hacking scandal. “This pervasive and value destroying scandal requires stronger independent leadership on the board,” she says. 1.23pm ET / 6.23pm BST: The meeting is now discussing the first proposal – that Rupert Murdoch should be ousted as chairman. 1.21pm ET / 6.21pm BST: As the meeting gets under way inside the theater, there are more than 200 protesters with the lobbying organization Common Cause outside, according to Dominic Rushe. 1.17pm ET / 6.17pm BST: He says that News Corp’s cable channels, including Fox News and the Fox broadcasting network in the US now account for more than half of the company’s adjusted income. Fox is “leaving the competition far behind”, he says. In the UK, he says BSkyB now has more than 10m subscribers. He does not mention the tangle over News Corporation’s attempt to buy 100% of BSkyB, which was scuppered by the phone hacking scandal. He says the company “will not rest on our laurels”. It says it is in “great shape to prosper”. And that’s the end of the opening statement. 1.14pm ET / 6.14pm BST: Murdoch has now moved onto listing the achievements of News Corporation elsewhere. He references his beloved new educational ventures before talking about the media divisions. The first newspaper he mentions is the Wall Street Journal, on which he lavishes praise. He mentions the iPad-only Daily. He says advertising is “surprisingly strong” in the UK. 1.10pm ET / 6.10pm BST: Murdoch is showing some contrition for the phone hacking scandal. He says: “We must admit to and confront our mistakes.” He says he is “personally determined” to right the wrongs that have been committed and that it does not happen again “anywhere in our company”. He adds the company has been under “understandable scrutiny and unfair attack”. He says that he want to put the phone hacking scandal “in context”, and that the story of News Corp “is the stuff of legend”. “We could not be taking this more seriously,” he says, referencing the closure of the News fo the World and saying the company was co-operating closely with the Metropolitan Police in London. 1.07pm ET: The meeting has begun and Rupert Murdoch is now speaking, making an opening statement. 12.53pm ET / 5.53pm BST: Tom Watson has tweeted a picture of himself on the News Corporation bus, taking him to the annual meeting venue at Fox. He seems quite pleased with his “stockholder” badge. Meanwhile the activist group Avaaz has been urging its supporters to call News Corp shareholders. It is printing telephone numbers on its website and asking people to call them up and “politely” ask them to vote down the Murdochs. Avaaz says more than 1,000 calls have already been made. It’s largely a symbolic protest: many of the institutional shareholders will not be present at the meeting and have already voted. 12.40pm ET / 5.40pm BST: Here’s more from Dominic in Los Angeles: The day started in a nondescript parking lot in Century City. Shareholders and press were ushered by uniformed guards into a screening room and ID and bags were checked (presumably to make sure there are no cream pies). We were then bussed to the Fox Studios lot and had to pass another metal detector test and bag check. I got here early and now there are a few dozen people waiting for the main event which will take place in an hour in the Zanuck Theatre. We are in a tent outside the theatre – it has fake grass on the floor and moody pink lighting. It reminds me of some outdoor weddings I’ve been to. The Murdochs face three potentially embarrassing votes. First the re-election of directors. Major shareholders have said they will vote against the re-election of most of the board, including Rupert and his two sons. Second, shareholders are preparing to vote against the company’s pay scheme. Murdoch was paid $33.3m in the last financial year including a $12.5m cash bonus, in the previous year he was paid $22.7m. Third, shareholders in the room will vote on a proposal to force Murdoch to stand down and appoint an independent chairman. The family has enough votes to win any ballot. But if giant US pension funds like Calpers keep up the pressure it will be hard for them to ignore. Tom Watson MP is hoping to be here. He’s bought shares and is aiming to ask a few questions. I’m sure Rupert’s looking forward to that! 12.11pm ET / 5.11pm BST: Dominic Rushe writes from Los Angeles: Edward Mason, secretary of the the ethical investment advisory group of the Church of England i s here. They own about $6m worth of News Corp shares. This is the first time they have attended a US annual general meeting. “We have had difficulty getting the company to listen to us,” he says. “There needs to be decisive action in terms of holding people to account. Responsibility needs to be taken at a senior level.” He said the resignations of Rebekah Brooks and Les Hinton were accepted “with great reluctance” he says. “There needs to be a fresh start.” 11.56am ET / 4.56pm BST: The annual meeting is taking place in the Daryl F Zanuck Theater at the Fox studio complex near Beverly Hills, California. Dominic Rushe , who is tweeting throughout the meeting , says he has passed security. “Have passed security check. No cream pies in my bag. Now on coach heading to NewsCorp agm” 11.38am ET / 4.38pm BST: My colleague Dominic Rushe , who is in Los Angeles for the meeting, caught up with the campaigning MP Tom Watson, who has acquired nonvoting proxy stockholder status in order to be present at the meeting today. I caught up with Tom Watson last night at the hotel. He told me that so far shareholders believe this is a scandal centered around one rogue private investigator but there are three other private investigators being looked at by the Metropolitan Police and much more to come. “I don’t think shareholders know what they are exposing themselves to,” he said. That’s what he intends to say at the meeting given the chance. He also alleges there is good evidence that Murdoch knew that the issue was wider than one rogue reporter at the time of the last annual meeting in October 2010, and is intending to bring that up. He’s been speaking to shareholders. “When I talk to people they are genuinely shocked. When you look at the scale of wrongdoing, it’s obvious it is systemic,” he said. With that, he was off to dinner in his rather natty suit and Prada glasses. 11.31am ET / 4.31pm BST: Here’s the Guardian’s story on the confirmation today that News Corporation has agreed a settlement totalling £3m with the family of Milly Dowler, the murdered British schoolgirl whose phone was hacked by the News of the World. The settlement includes a personal £1m donation from Rupert Murdoch to charities selected by the Dowler family. Our story says: The Dowlers have decided to donate Murdoch’s £1m to six charities representing causes close to Milly and those that support victims of crime. They are Shooting Star Chase, Child Victims of Crime, Suzy Lamplugh Trust, Hampton Pool Trust, Braintumouruk.org and Cancer Research. “Nothing that has been agreed will ever bring back Milly or undo the traumas of her disappearance and the horrendous murder trial earlier this year,” the Dowler family said. 11.25am ET / 4.25pm BST: Dan Sabbagh, the Guardian’s head of media and technology, is predicting a rebellion of around 20%. He writes: The key moment will be the votes for the re-election of Rupert Murdoch, and particularly for James and for his eldest son Lachlan. The Murdoch family’s 40% bloc of voting shares means that there is no doubt about who will win the vote. But the key point is the size of the rebellion – and in particular with a majority of non-Murdoch investors vote against the family members as they seek to be reappointed to the company’s board. News Corp insiders talk about a revolt of in excess of 20% of independent investors, which sets a minimum level. But it is expected that Prince Alwaleed, the Saudi billionaire, will lend the support of his 7% bloc to the ruling family, leaving the opposition to come from US, UK and Australian investors. Chief amongst the critics will be the influential Calpers, which manages pension funds on behalf of California’s public employees, an activist body that has long believed the Murdochs exercise too much control. Such is the structure of News Corp’s share capital that two-thirds of the shares carry no voting rights. The result is that the Murdochs may have 40% of the voting shares, but their true economic interest is about 12% in the vast company whose interest spans from the Fox film studio, television network and news channel, to the Australian and other newspapers in that country, through to Sky Italia and the Sun and the Times newspapers in the UK. Expect also plenty of theatre along the way. Shareholders and press are being bussed into the Fox studio lot where the meeting is taking place. Tom Watson, the Labour MP, has flown over from the UK to try and challenge the Murdochs at the meeting with the help of proxy vote on behalf of the American labour union, the AFL-CIO. There will be questions from the floor from investors, as well as Watson if he gets his way. Rupert Murdoch will make his feelings known. The talk from the company is that there will be less contrition, more defiance. He will emphasise the company’s healthy financial performance, and note that for all the problems caused by the News of the World, none of this should derail the business financially. Operating profits of $4.9bn after all dwarf the £3m paid out to the Dowler family today, or the £20m settlement fund proposed. It will be enough to get him through the day, but the question is what damage will be done to him and the prospects for James by the response of the independent shareholders, who are also part owners in the family business. 11.21am ET / 4.21pm BST: Here’s a brief reading list while we wait for the meeting to get under way. • Here’s the New York Times preview of today’s event. It says News Corp executives will attempt to placate shareholders by highlighting the company’s strong share performance and its share buyback scheme. • This Guardian piece by Dominic Rushe highlights the concerns of some shareholders. “The scandal shows that there is something deeply wrong with this company,” says Julie Tanner, assistant director of socially responsible investing at shareholder Christian Brothers Investment Services, who will propose a vote to remove Rupert Murdoch as chairman. “The board is failing in its leadership operation. • The Los Angeles Times speculates that News Corp president Chase Carey, who is well regarded by shareholders, may be elevated to CEO. Rupert Murdoch would be left with a diminished role. • The Financial Times quotes Tom Watson as saying Rupert Murdoch is approaching his “Rosebud moment” – “in reference to the last word uttered by the title character in Citizen Kane, the Orson Welles film about a press tycoon”. 11.08am ET / 4.08pm BST: Today’s event is likely to be something of a spectacle, particularly with the presence of Watson. Shareholders will have the opportunity to question Rupert Murdoch from the floor, and there could be some lively scenes. But the reality is that the Murdoch family control 39% of the voting shares, even though they only 12% of the company, because of the two-tier share structure at News Corp. They also have the backing of Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who controls another 7% of voting shares. So while the meeting will be bumpy, they are likely to survive the key votes. The question is how much damage a large revolt will cause. 11am ET / 4pm BST: News Corporation is holding its annual shareholder meeting in Los Angeles today. The company is facing a potential revolt from a group of shareholders over its handling of the phone-hacking scandal. Our correspondent Dominic Rushe is there and we will be covering the event live, backed up with our unrivalled team of experts. Here is a summary of events so far today. Rupert Murdoch will face angry shareholders at News Corp’s annual general meeting in Los Angeles. Close to a quarter News Corp shareholders – including some of the world’s biggest pension funds – have pledged to vote for the removal of Murdoch, his sons James and Lachlan, and other directors, whom the shareholders blame for the phone-hacking scandal that has rocked the media empire and led to the closure of the News of the World in the UK. The British Labour MP Tom Watson, who has led the parliamentary charge on phone hacking, is in Los Angeles for the meeting. He has pledged to make further revelations about practices at News Corportation, saying many shareholders are not aware of the full extent of how far the scandal extends. Murdoch has today announced that he will make a personal donation of £1m (about $1.6m) to charities chosen by the family of the murdered British schoolgirl Milly Dowler, whose phone was hacked by the News of the World. News Corporation will pay a further £2m will paid to the Dowler family in compensation. News Corporation News International News of the World Phone hacking Rupert Murdoch James Murdoch Tom Watson United States Matt Wells guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Occupy London Stock Exchange protesters asked to leave by cathedral officials
October 21, 2011 No Comment
Anti-global finance camp under pressure to disband or move as decision taken to close St Paul’s on safety grounds The anti-global finance protest camp set up next to St Paul’s cathedral a week ago has been asked to leave by cathedral officials who said they were being forced to shut the building for safety reasons. In a statement , the dean of St Paul’s, the Right Reverend Graeme Knowles, said the decision to close the cathedral – one of London’s most celebrated tourist attractions – was “unprecedented in modern times”, but added that there was no choice. Knowles said he had written an open letter to the Occupy the London Stock Exchange protesters requesting that they “recognise the huge issues facing us at this time and asking them to leave the vicinity of the building so that the cathedral can reopen as soon as possible”. The protest – modelled on earlier such events in Spain and, more famously, New York – descended on London’s financial district last Saturday with the intention of setting up a permanent camp in Paternoster Square, the private commercial and retail plaza housing the Stock Exchange headquarters. However, the square’s owners won a court order preventing this, and police blocked access. Several thousand activists, who eventually coalesced into an encampment of around 200 tents, instead based themselves on the western edge of St Paul’s. There, they set up an increasingly entrenched camp , featuring a food marquee, a media tent and a “university”. Relations with the church began well, especially when its canon chancellor, the Rev Dr Giles Fraser, delighted protesters on Saturday by saying he supported the right of the “good-natured” crowd to remain. Since then, however, cathedral officials have repeatedly raised concerns about the size and scope of the camp, warning that it was impeding access for both worshippers and tourists, especially ahead of next week’s busy half term. This is a particular issue for a cathedral that relies heavily on entrance fees for its income. Knowles’s statement, read to the media, stressed that he and other officials had formed good relations with the protesters, and talked at length about possible problems. He said: “We are delighted that the London protests have been peaceful, and indeed there has been a good atmosphere generally between cathedral staff and those dwelling in the tents around St Paul’s. “There is something profound about protest being made and heard in front of this most holy place – a gathering together of those concerned about poverty and inequality facing the great dome of this cathedral church.” However, he said, it was “obvious to anyone approaching the cathedral” that the size of the camp had “increasingly put us in a difficult position”. Knowles said he had met members of the chapter that governs St Paul’s on Thursday evening. “As a result of that meeting, and reports received today from our independent health, safety and fire officers, I have written an open letter to the protestors this afternoon advising them that we have no lawful alternative but to close St Paul’s cathedral until further notice,” he said. “The health, safety and fire officers have pointed out that access to and from the cathedral is seriously limited. With so many stoves and fires and lots of different types of fuel around, there is a clear fire hazard. “Then there is the public health aspect, which speaks for itself. The dangers relate not just to cathedral staff and visitors but are a potential hazard to those encamped themselves.” Therefore, he said, the cathedral would stay closed “until such a time that we can open safely”. He added: “We have done this with a very heavy heart, but it is simply not possible to fulfil our day to day obligations to worshippers, visitors and pilgrims in current circumstances.” One protester, Marcus Wright, said he would resist any attempt to remove him from the area. The 22-year-old, wearing a Batman hoodie and a Guy Fawkes mask, has been at St Paul’s since Monday. “It will be non-violent, but I will still be protesting as they drag me away,” he said. “The only way we’ll move is by force. We won’t be violent. It is our right to protest.” With him was 32-year-old Chrissy Bethke, who has been at the cathedral since Saturday. She was sceptical about the reasons given by the cathedral dean, saying: “It doesn’t feel honest. We’ve made space for fire engines. It just feels like they want us to leave.” The cathedral officials’ decision puts the activists in an extremely difficult position given that they have been at pains to stay on good terms with the cathedral and not jeopardise the general goodwill with which the protest has been received so far. Staying put, meaning the cathedral remains closed over half term, would almost certainly end this. All decisions at the camp are made democratically by mass meeting. “It’s too early to say what we might do – we need to talk about this,” a member of the camp delegated to speak to the press said. Protesters are understood to be planning to hold a vote on what to do next at 4pm on Friday. Earlier this week, an OccupyLSX working group proposed expanding the camp to two or three other sites in London while still maintaining the St Paul’s site at the current tent level. The suggested alternatives included Hyde Park, Hoxton, Trafalgar Square, Imperial War Museum, Victoria Park and the eastern side of St Pauls, but the proposals were not voted on. Occupy London Occupy movement Protest Religion Peter Walker Riazat Butt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Jon Stewart on GOP reaction to Gaddafi’s Death: ‘What the f*ck is wrong with you people?’
October 21, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media After some obnoxious partisan clips from Fox News of early reaction to the capture and subsequent death of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, Jon Stewart asked “Is there no Republican that can be gracious and statesmen-like in this situation?” He then played clips of Republican Senators Marco Rubio, Chuck Grassley, and John McCain praising the French and the Brits. Stewart’s reaction was to throw his hands up in the air in utter disgust. The segment ended with the kids on Fox & Friends lamenting the successful removal of a tyrant, capturing the absurdity quite nicely.
Continue reading …