Simon Kelner says his paper had not received any complaints about columnist in 10 years of Johann Hari’s tenure Simon Kelner, the editor-in-chief of the Independent, said on Twitter on Tuesday that his newspaper had not previously received any complaints about interviewer and columnist Johann Hari. Hari was caught up in an online plagiarism row after he said he inserted quotes into interviews that were taken from the subject’s writings and not from the interview itself. Kelner tweeted at about 4.30pm on Tuesday that Hari had “worked at @theIndynews for 10 years” and said that “in that time, we have not had a single complaint about his misrepresenting anyone”. But he did not respond to questions from other Twitter users or the Guardian as to whether he would face any disciplinary action or whether the disputed articles would be reviewed. It is understood that Hari is preparing an article for publication in tomorrow’s Independent in which he intends to respond to the allegations made online. On Monday night Hari, responding with a personal blog post to bloggers who had accused him of plagiarism , said he inserted quotes from their other published work when “I’ve interviewed a writer” and they’ve expressed “an idea or sentiment” more “clearly in writing than in speech”. Kelner’s statement prompted several questions from Twitter users, with @nikkibayley – whose profile describes her as a journalist and copywriter – asking: “But @Simon_Kelner – he’s misrepresenting himself, to US the readers. People did NOT say those things to him & he wrote it as though they did.” Meanwhile @louisebolotin, whose profile describes her as a freelance journalist and author, responded: “@Simon_Kelner well, you have now. Lots of them. Hari has blackened the names of all journalists by making it up on the hoof”. The organisers of the Orwell Prize, a political journalism prize that Hari won in 2008 , said they were consulting with that year’s committee of judges to make them aware of the allegations – and to decide what action, if any, they wished to take. The winner of the Orwell Prize receives £3,000. • To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly “for publication”. • To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook The Independent Newspapers & magazines National newspapers Newspapers Independent Print Blogging Digital media Twitter Internet Dan Sabbagh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Retired Floridian Returns Home To Find His Home Foreclosed Upon, By Mistake
June 28, 2011 No Comment
Here’s a friendly reminder to everyone who has summer vacation plans: Before your departure date, it’s a good idea to solicit the help of a trusted friend or neighbor to look after your domicile while you are away on holiday. It’s a good way to ensure that pets get fed, plants get watered and mail doesn’t pile up outside your house. Oh, and because it’s 2011, it could also keep your home from being wrongly seized in a foreclosure and all of your worldly possessions from being taken away! Here’s Eric P. Newcomer of the St. Petersburg Times: After going out of town, an 82-year-old man returned home to find his house emptied out. Even the trash was gone. He found a padlocked door and a sign for a company that cleans out properties in foreclosure. But Benito Santiago Sr.’s home wasn’t in foreclosure, public records show. It seems that Bank Of America, an institution known for the mass-manufacture of foreclosure errors that also occasionally dabbles in a little personal banking, sent a foreclosure “clean-out crew” out to a condominium at 4255 W. Humphrey St. in Hillsborough County, Florida. They ended up cleaning out Santiago’s home by mistake. Apparently, something about Santiago’s mailbox royally confused them: On one side, it displayed the number “4205.” But on the other side, the “0″ was missing. The land formerly known as “4255 W Humphrey St.” does not exist in Hillsborough County Property Appraiser records. Santiago’s property is surrounded on three sides by Grand Reserve, a condominium complex that once used that address. Others have arrived in error to 4205. You can see why an experienced clean-out crew would be flummoxed by this two-sided mailbox, right? (Actually, you can’t, because remember, they were sent to a condominium.) Yes, “others have arrived in error to 4205,” but you’d imagine that foreclosure proceedings would be carried out with a high-degree of professionalism. You’d be wrong, of course! Charlie and Maria Cardoso are among the millions of Americans who have experienced the misery and embarrassment that come with home foreclosure. Just one problem: The Massachusetts couple paid for their future retirement home in Spring Hill with cash in 2005, five years before agents for Bank of America seized the house, removed belongings and changed the locks on the doors, according to a lawsuit the couple have filed in federal court. Early last month, Charlie Cardoso had to drive to Florida to get his home back, the complaint filed in Massachusetts on Jan. 20 states. The bank had an incorrect address on foreclosure documents — the house it meant to seize is across the street and about 10 doors down — but the Cardosos and a realtor employed by Bank of America were unable to convince the company that it had the wrong house, the suit states. That’s from a February 12, 2010 piece, also in the St. Petersburg Times. Bank Of America was actually tipped off to their mistake before the property was seized, but the eviction proceeded anyway. As with this most recent story, the Cardoso’s possessions were removed. So, you might be wondering: what’s the outlook on whether Santiago will get his wrongly seized possessions returned to him? A foreclosure lawyer gives the Times the bottom line: “We have never gotten one piece of property back.” (Santiago’s possessions are, after all, probably worth much more than many of the toxic assets the Bank is currently holding on its balance sheet, after all. The “antique wagon wheel” he once owned is probably triple-A rated and underpinning a credit derivative even as we speak.) At any rate, it’s wonderful to hear about the great care that major banks are taking with the lives of the people who saved them from extinction, with their bailout money. [Hat Tip: The Consumerist] [Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]
Continue reading …Retired Floridian Returns Home To Find His Home Foreclosed Upon, By Mistake
June 28, 2011 No CommentHere’s a friendly reminder to everyone who has summer vacation plans: Before your departure date, it’s a good idea to solicit the help of a trusted friend or neighbor to look after your domicile while you are away on holiday. It’s a good way to ensure that pets get fed, plants get watered and mail doesn’t pile up outside your house. Oh, and because it’s 2011, it could also keep your home from being wrongly seized in a foreclosure and all of your worldly possessions from being taken away! Here’s Eric P. Newcomer of the St. Petersburg Times: After going out of town, an 82-year-old man returned home to find his house emptied out. Even the trash was gone. He found a padlocked door and a sign for a company that cleans out properties in foreclosure. But Benito Santiago Sr.’s home wasn’t in foreclosure, public records show. It seems that Bank Of America, an institution known for the mass-manufacture of foreclosure errors that also occasionally dabbles in a little personal banking, sent a foreclosure “clean-out crew” out to a condominium at 4255 W. Humphrey St. in Hillsborough County, Florida. They ended up cleaning out Santiago’s home by mistake. Apparently, something about Santiago’s mailbox royally confused them: On one side, it displayed the number “4205.” But on the other side, the “0″ was missing. The land formerly known as “4255 W Humphrey St.” does not exist in Hillsborough County Property Appraiser records. Santiago’s property is surrounded on three sides by Grand Reserve, a condominium complex that once used that address. Others have arrived in error to 4205. You can see why an experienced clean-out crew would be flummoxed by this two-sided mailbox, right? (Actually, you can’t, because remember, they were sent to a condominium.) Yes, “others have arrived in error to 4205,” but you’d imagine that foreclosure proceedings would be carried out with a high-degree of professionalism. You’d be wrong, of course! Charlie and Maria Cardoso are among the millions of Americans who have experienced the misery and embarrassment that come with home foreclosure. Just one problem: The Massachusetts couple paid for their future retirement home in Spring Hill with cash in 2005, five years before agents for Bank of America seized the house, removed belongings and changed the locks on the doors, according to a lawsuit the couple have filed in federal court. Early last month, Charlie Cardoso had to drive to Florida to get his home back, the complaint filed in Massachusetts on Jan. 20 states. The bank had an incorrect address on foreclosure documents — the house it meant to seize is across the street and about 10 doors down — but the Cardosos and a realtor employed by Bank of America were unable to convince the company that it had the wrong house, the suit states. That’s from a February 12, 2010 piece, also in the St. Petersburg Times. Bank Of America was actually tipped off to their mistake before the property was seized, but the eviction proceeded anyway. As with this most recent story, the Cardoso’s possessions were removed. So, you might be wondering: what’s the outlook on whether Santiago will get his wrongly seized possessions returned to him? A foreclosure lawyer gives the Times the bottom line: “We have never gotten one piece of property back.” (Santiago’s possessions are, after all, probably worth much more than many of the toxic assets the Bank is currently holding on its balance sheet, after all. The “antique wagon wheel” he once owned is probably triple-A rated and underpinning a credit derivative even as we speak.) At any rate, it’s wonderful to hear about the great care that major banks are taking with the lives of the people who saved them from extinction, with their bailout money. [Hat Tip: The Consumerist] [Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]
Continue reading …
Socialist party leader vies to become France’s first woman president by trying to broaden appeal to centre and right The Socialist party leader, Martine Aubry, has launched her campaign to be France’s first woman president by trying to soften her hard-left image and appeal to centrists disillusioned with Nicolas Sarkozy. The 60-year-old former labour minister, best known for creating France’s 35-hour week, in a speech in her fiefdom of Lille focused on her “dream” to make France a more equal place, not the polarised and gloomy society she said had been left by Sarkozy. Aubry entered the race after the dramatic exit from political life of former Socialist favourite Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who is facing attempted rape charges in the US. She tried to appear more determined to lead the nation, after detractors suggested she lacked “fire in the belly” and had been reticent to run. The French left is favourite in the polls to win the presidential election in spring 2012, and Aubry’s bid marked the start of the Socialists’ first ever US-style primary race to select a candidate. With Sarkozy’s low poll ratings beginning to modestly rise again, the Socialists must be able to broaden their appeal to the centre and right. The favourite to win the primary vote in October is François Hollande, a former party leader and centrist who has appealed to the middle class. But Aubry, traditionally placed more to the left, is catching up with him. Aubry pointedly launched her presidential bid in Lille, where she is mayor and presents herself as close to the people. She chose a local cultural centre, a dig at Sarkozy’s famed dismissal of culture and intellectuals during the previous presidential campaign. Aubry, a fan of classical music and a culture expert, will be relying on the backing of key figures in film and the arts. Crucially, Aubry’s stage set – a blue backdrop similar to those used by Sarkozy, French and European flags, with Socialist party logos or Socialist bigwigs – was designed to show she was above party politics and not confined by the creaking Socialist party apparatus. She took a swipe at Sarkozy’s rushed and omnipresent style and his divisive policies that have pitted workers against the unemployed and the French against foreigners. “Behind what looks today like energy, but could be seen as restlessness, the reality is unfair policies that solely benefit the most privileged. It is time that changed,” she said. “I want to give back France its strength, serenity and unity.” The northern setting highlighted the Socialists’ biggest challenge for 2012. The party has lost the support of the working-class and the old industrial heartlands have recently seen staunchly leftwing areas switch to the far-right Front National. Aubry also gave a nod to her personal political dynasty – she is the daughter of Jacques Delors, the former Socialist finance minister and president of the European Commission – saying she had learned inclusiveness from her family. Also expected to stand in the three-month primary race are Ségolène Royal, the defeated Socialist candidate in 2007, and several outsider candidates, including the young MPs Arnaud Montebourg and Manuel Valls. Leader comment, page 32 France Europe Nicolas Sarkozy Angelique Chrisafis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
EHRC argues in court that instructions given to MI5 and MI6 officers leaves them susceptible to ‘criminal liability’ A battle over the legality of instructions issued to British intelligence officers attempting to obtain information from prisoners held by countries with poor human rights records has opened in the high court. The Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is arguing that the instructions – which were redrafted and published last year on the orders of David Cameron – fail to meet the UK’s obligations in both international and domestic law. Government lawyers say the instructions ensure that British intelligence officers can maintain their relationships with their counterparts in such countries without falling foul of the law. Both MI5 and MI6 insist that those relations are vital in the post 9/11 world if they are to fulfil their responsibility to protect UK interests and British citizens. But the EHRC told the court: “The guidance … is unlawful. It exposes detainees to a risk of torture for which the UK is legally responsible and which might have been prevented had domestic and international law been properly applied.” Ben Emmerson QC, for the EHRC, said the instructions were drafted in such a way that British intelligence officers would be “exposed to criminal liability” if they were to follow them. Under the terms of the instructions, intelligence officers and military personnel are prohibited from proceeding with an interrogation or intelligence-sharing operation only when they “know or believe” it will lead to torture. In most other circumstances they can proceed after they have sought assurances from the overseas agency, or after receiving permission from a superior officer. The instructions also set out circumstances in which government ministers will be consulted and can give the go-ahead to an operation, despite the risk that this will result in an individual or group of people being tortured. The EHRC says the instructions should prohibit any action where there is a “real risk” of torture, and that the words “know or believe” set the threshold too high. Furthermore, the commission argues that requesting that an individual be detained by an overseas intelligence agency known to use torture could lead to complicity in torture. “If UK personnel solicit the detention of an individual by a foreign state knowing there is a real risk of torture, and as a direct result of that solicitation that individual is then tortured by foreign state agents, we say that involves the UK in a breach of its international obligations … and involves the commission of a domestic law crime of aiding and abetting an act of torture,” Emmerson said. The court heard that the instructions are issued by the prime minister, the home secretary, the foreign secretary and the defence secretary. Later in the three-day hearing, the government’s lawyers will urge the court not to give its opinion on the current state of international law “in the abstract” without detailed consideration of the facts of an individual case. When the existence of the instructions first became public knowledge in 2009, it was apparent that they had evolved over the years, having first been issued in January 2002. At that point they were clearly intended to enable to MI5 and MI6 officers to continue questioning al-Qaida and Taliban suspects whom they knew were being physically mistreated by the US military in Afghanistan. Subsequent versions of the instructions were kept secret. As details of British involvement in the torture of terrorism suspects in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt and elsewhere began to emerge, ministers of the last government became deeply reluctant to discuss their contents. David Miliband, while foreign secretary, indicated that their publication would “offer succour to our enemies” . Tony Blair evaded questions about the role he played in authorising the instructions and has refused to say whether he knew they had resulted in people being tortured; David Blunkett, the former home secretary, once maintained that it was potentially libellous even to ask him questions about the matter. Two intelligence officers, one from MI5 and one from MI6, have been the subjects of an investigation by Scotland Yard. That inquiry is continuing, with detectives examining whether there is any criminal liability for involvement in interrogation of terror suspects who have been tortured. Following last year’s election the instructions were rewritten, and Cameron said they were being published because the coalition was “determined to resolve the problems of the past” and wished to give “greater clarity about what is and what is not acceptable in the future”. A number of human rights groups immediately pointed to what they said were serious loopholes, however, and the EHRC began judicial review hearings. The court is also hearing a linked case brought by a man who was detained by British forces in Iraq in 2006 and hooded. His lawyers argue that the rewritten instructions are unlawful because they allow for hooding to be used if “necessary for security reasons during arrest or transit”. The court may not issue its judgment on the new instructions until after the long-running inquiry into the death of Baha Mousa reports in September. The legality of hooding is expected to be addressed in the Mousa report. The hearing continues. Torture MI5 MI6 European court of human rights Human rights Foreign policy Ian Cobain guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …‘Page One’ Doc Provides Unbalanced Look at the Struggles of the New York Times
June 28, 2011 No Comment“Page One,” a new documentary about a year in the life of the New York Times directed by Andrew Rossi, is showing at the sleek new Lincoln Center theatre on Manhattan’s Upper West Side for a mere $13. While not openly partisan or even political (there were no Obama stickers spotted on desks, no rants about the paper’s myriad conservative critics), “Page One,” which captures in semi-compellingif scatter-shot fashion a year or so in the life of the Times’s media desk, fits snugly in to the Upper West Side mentality of entitled liberalism.
Continue reading …
• Hit F5 to refresh or turn on the automatic widget below • Email your thoughts and chat to evanfanning@gmail.com • Follow our daily live blog from SW19 • Follow Evan on Twitter, if that’s your thing Second set: Cibulkova* 1-6, 1-3 Sharapova And Sharapova breaks straight back. Oh dear. All that hope gone in a few shoddy serves. Second set: Cibulkova 1-6, 1-2 Sharapova* Cibulkova has broken Sharapova. There has been a definite improvement from the Slovakian in the last couple of game and that will give her some belief that she might be able to force her way back into this game. She can’t, of course, but it’s no harm if she thinks she can for a little bit at least. “Marvellous to see that Sharipova has mastered the art of playing tennis while juggling the moon in one hand (see pic),” writes Mihai Cucos. “Has she become a Hindu goddess?” Well if she has she needs to get back focusing on her game. there’s a time and a place for Hindu goddesses but Centre Court on a rainy Tuesday is not it. Although it would be a lot better than Cliff Richard I suppose. Second set: Cibulkova* 1-6, 0-2 Sharapova It’s a good game from Cibulkova – the best she’s played in this match – but it’s still not enough. In a game that lasted eight minutes Sharapova seemed to be able to reach all areas of the court and return in devastating fashion. Four times Sharapova has break point and it’s an escape act too many fir Cibulkova who has not one a game since the opening game of the match. “Come on,” Sharapova shouts after the winning point. She may have been directing it at Cibulkova. Second set: Cibulkova 1-6, 0-1 Sharapova* Sharapova holds service with ease. On BBC they reckon Cibulkova needs to find a Plan B. I reckon she’s searching for Plan X or Y at this stage. They’re about the start the first of the other quarter-finals on Court One. At least they think they are but we know that a great big rain cloud is heading straight for them. Maria Sharapova wins the first set 6-1. The Slovakian gets appears to get a foothold in the game taking a 40-love lead on her service before Sharapova comes storming back to take the game and the set. The final point was loose and wild from Cibulkova who needs to sort herself out in the next couple of minutes otherwise this is going to be over very, very shortly indeed. This is brilliant from Sharapova. First set: Cibulkova 1-5 Sharapova* Cibulkova moves into a position where she has two break points – they’re almost handed to her by Sharapova who seems so determined to diominate that she is looking to blast her opponent into submission when at times, some subtelty might be the best approach. Needless to say Sharapova wins the next four points and takes the game. After watching Sharapova beat laura Robson I made her my choice to win Wimbledon. Then, for some unknown reason, I went and put money on Caroline Wozniacki. I’m regretting my actions now. Not just in terms of the bet – pretty much all my life-choices have been dubious. First set: Cibulkova* 1-4 Sharapova The problem with Cibulkova’s strategy is that Sharapova is looking stronger than her in a rally as well as the serve. Cibulkova takes a 30-love lead by Sharapova won’t led it slide and storms back – with one point-winning backhand particularly devastating – and Cibulkova flounders and loses the game with a double-fault. First set: Cibulkova 1-3 Sharapova* Sharapova wins to love and it may not be jumping the gun to say that Cibulkova is in a bit of trouble. There’s a clear gulf between the two at the moment. If you are a fan of groaning in tennis then this is the match for you. The roof is closed so the acoustics are making every grunt echo through the arena. It wouldn’t sound any better in the Royal Opera House. Trickier to play tennis there though. First set: Cibulkova* 1-2 Sharapova First break of the match and it’s fairly comfortable for Sharapova. A real pattern for the game is already emerging. Cibulkova lacks the serve to cause Sharapova too many problems and is aiming to do her damage with powerful ground strokes. They’re not powerful enough at the moment and the No5 seed is returning with interest. First set: Cibulkova 1-1 Sharapova* Sharapova has a clear height advantage – she’s 6ft 2in facing Cibulkova who is just 5ft 3in – and that tells in her first service game which she wins easily losing just one point courtesy of an unforced error. First set: Cibulkova* 1-0 Sharapova If the first point of this game is anything to go by we could be here for a while. There are gasps as Cibulkova takes a tumble which allows Sharapova to take the point after a 22-stroke rally. The Slovakian clambers to her feet and recovers to hold serve. “Does anyone know if women tennis players do beep tests?” wonders gary Naylor. “I was very impressed by La Lisicki last Thursday who looked very strong indeed in defeating Li Na 8-6 in the third and she lasted much better than Ms Bartoli today. Of course shotmaking matters, but I’m surprised that so many female players seem to fade after 90 minutes or so of a match. Women don’t when running the marathon.” Answers to the usual address. Another insight into the world of super-rich sports people … Rory McIlroy has just turned the tennis court in his house into a five-a-side football pitch. Decisions, decisions. Celebrity watch … No Wills and Kate today but Rory McIlroy is here. Ever wondered what famous sportspeople talk about when they meet? Here’s a snapshot of the conversation between McIlroy and Andy Murray when they met at the practice grounds earlier on. Murray to McIlroy, who is wearing a sharp suit: “You look good.” McIlroy: “Yeah, well, you know.” It’s like something from an Evelyn Waugh novel out there. Preamble Fear not, just like at Centre Court there is now a roof on Guardian Towers so I will be able to bring you full game-by-game coverage of this enticing match despite the Day After Tomorrow-style downpour that has engulfed London this afternoon. It’s a tough slog on the women’s tennis circuit. While their male counterparts get a day off, sitting at home or in their hotel quaffing copious amounts of energy drinks in the belief that they actually do any good. Meanwhile, the women barely have time for a cup of tea as they are back in action today in the quarter-finals just 24 houurs after their fourth-round matches. One of the most intriguing of the day’s matches is between fifth-seed Maria Sharapova and 24th-seed Dominika Cibulkova, who beat world No1 Caroline Wozniacki on Monday. Given that Serena and venus Williams are on the plance home Sharapova is now firm favourite to win a title she last won in 2004. Incidentally if Sharapova can go all the way she will join an illustrious group to have won the title more than once. That seven-year gap between titles would put Sharapova behind only Evonne Goolagong Cawley (1971 and 1980) as an Open era player with the longest gap between Wimbledon titles. But first she has to defeat Cibulkova. And then the winner or Marion Bartoli and Sabine Lisicki. And then whoever she may meet in Saturday’s final. So let’s not get ahead of ourselves. These two have met four time previosuly, with the record at two wins apiece. The last time they played was in Madrid earlier this year where Cibulkova won 7-5, 6-4. Wimbledon 2011 Maria Sharapova Wimbledon Tennis Evan Fanning guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
It took Maria Sharapova exactly one hour to beat Dominika Cibulkova 6-1, 6-1 to set up a semi-final aginst Sabine Lisicki Preamble Fear not, just like at Centre Court there is now a roof on Guardian Towers so I will be able to bring you full game-by-game coverage of this enticing match despite the Day After Tomorrow-style downpour that has engulfed London this afternoon. It’s a tough slog on the women’s tennis circuit. While their male counterparts get a day off, sitting at home or in their hotel quaffing copious amounts of energy drinks in the belief that they actually do any good. Meanwhile, the women barely have time for a cup of tea as they are back in action today in the quarter-finals just 24 houurs after their fourth-round matches. One of the most intriguing of the day’s matches is between fifth-seed Maria Sharapova and 24th-seed Dominika Cibulkova, who beat world No1 Caroline Wozniacki on Monday. Given that Serena and venus Williams are on the plance home Sharapova is now firm favourite to win a title she last won in 2004. Incidentally if Sharapova can go all the way she will join an illustrious group to have won the title more than once. That seven-year gap between titles would put Sharapova behind only Evonne Goolagong Cawley (1971 and 1980) as an Open era player with the longest gap between Wimbledon titles. But first she has to defeat Cibulkova. And then the winner or Marion Bartoli and Sabine Lisicki. And then whoever she may meet in Saturday’s final. So let’s not get ahead of ourselves. These two have met four time previosuly, with the record at two wins apiece. The last time they played was in Madrid earlier this year where Cibulkova won 7-5, 6-4. Celebrity watch … No Wills and Kate today but Rory McIlroy is here. Ever wondered what famous sportspeople talk about when they meet? Here’s a snapshot of the conversation between McIlroy and Andy Murray when they met at the practice grounds earlier on. Murray to McIlroy, who is wearing a sharp suit: “You look good.” McIlroy: “Yeah, well, you know.” It’s like something from an Evelyn Waugh novel out there. Another insight into the world of super-rich sports people … Rory McIlroy has just turned the tennis court in his house into a five-a-side football pitch. Decisions, decisions. First set: Cibulkova* 1-0 Sharapova If the first point of this game is anything to go by we could be here for a while. There are gasps as Cibulkova takes a tumble which allows Sharapova to take the point after a 22-stroke rally. The Slovakian clambers to her feet and recovers to hold serve. “Does anyone know if women tennis players do beep tests?” wonders gary Naylor. “I was very impressed by La Lisicki last Thursday who looked very strong indeed in defeating Li Na 8-6 in the third and she lasted much better than Ms Bartoli today. Of course shotmaking matters, but I’m surprised that so many female players seem to fade after 90 minutes or so of a match. Women don’t when running the marathon.” Answers to the usual address. First set: Cibulkova 1-1 Sharapova* Sharapova has a clear height advantage – she’s 6ft 2in facing Cibulkova who is just 5ft 3in – and that tells in her first service game which she wins easily losing just one point courtesy of an unforced error. First set: Cibulkova* 1-2 Sharapova First break of the match and it’s fairly comfortable for Sharapova. A real pattern for the game is already emerging. Cibulkova lacks the serve to cause Sharapova too many problems and is aiming to do her damage with powerful ground strokes. They’re not powerful enough at the moment and the No5 seed is returning with interest. First set: Cibulkova 1-3 Sharapova* Sharapova wins to love and it may not be jumping the gun to say that Cibulkova is in a bit of trouble. There’s a clear gulf between the two at the moment. If you are a fan of groaning in tennis then this is the match for you. The roof is closed so the acoustics are making every grunt echo through the arena. It wouldn’t sound any better in the Royal Opera House. Trickier to play tennis there though. First set: Cibulkova* 1-4 Sharapova The problem with Cibulkova’s strategy is that Sharapova is looking stronger than her in a rally as well as the serve. Cibulkova takes a 30-love lead by Sharapova won’t led it slide and storms back – with one point-winning backhand particularly devastating – and Cibulkova flounders and loses the game with a double-fault. First set: Cibulkova 1-5 Sharapova* Cibulkova moves into a position where she has two break points – they’re almost handed to her by Sharapova who seems so determined to diominate that she is looking to blast her opponent into submission when at times, some subtelty might be the best approach. Needless to say Sharapova wins the next four points and takes the game. After watching Sharapova beat laura Robson I made her my choice to win Wimbledon. Then, for some unknown reason, I went and put money on Caroline Wozniacki. I’m regretting my actions now. Not just in terms of the bet – pretty much all my life-choices have been dubious. Maria Sharapova wins the first set 6-1. The Slovakian gets appears to get a foothold in the game taking a 40-love lead on her service before Sharapova comes storming back to take the game and the set. The final point was loose and wild from Cibulkova who needs to sort herself out in the next couple of minutes otherwise this is going to be over very, very shortly indeed. This is brilliant from Sharapova. Second set: Cibulkova 1-6, 0-1 Sharapova* Sharapova holds service with ease. On BBC they reckon Cibulkova needs to find a Plan B. I reckon she’s searching for Plan X or Y at this stage. They’re about the start the first of the other quarter-finals on Court One. At least they think they are but we know that a great big rain cloud is heading straight for them. Second set: Cibulkova* 1-6, 0-2 Sharapova It’s a good game from Cibulkova – the best she’s played in this match – but it’s still not enough. In a game that lasted eight minutes Sharapova seemed to be able to reach all areas of the court and return in devastating fashion. Four times Sharapova has break point and it’s an escape act too many fir Cibulkova who has not one a game since the opening game of the match. “Come on,” Sharapova shouts after the winning point. She may have been directing it at Cibulkova. Second set: Cibulkova 1-6, 1-2 Sharapova* Cibulkova has broken Sharapova. There has been a definite improvement from the Slovakian in the last couple of game and that will give her some belief that she might be able to force her way back into this game. She can’t, of course, but it’s no harm if she thinks she can for a little bit at least. “Marvellous to see that Sharipova has mastered the art of playing tennis while juggling the moon in one hand (see pic),” writes Mihai Cucos. “Has she become a Hindu goddess?” Well if she has she needs to get back focusing on her game. there’s a time and a place for Hindu goddesses but Centre Court on a rainy Tuesday is not it. Although it would be a lot better than Cliff Richard I suppose. Second set: Cibulkova* 1-6, 1-3 Sharapova And Sharapova breaks straight back. Oh dear. All that hope gone in a few shoddy serves. Second set: Cibulkova 1-6, 1-4 Sharapova* Sharapova serves – Cubulkova attempts to pound it back but either overhits it or Sharapova smashes it back into an unreachable area of the court. Sharapova serves – ace. That’s the stopry of that game and of the match. Second set: Cibulkova* 1-6, 1-5 Sharapova Maria Sharapova will serve for the match and a place in the semi-final after breaking Cibulkova without conceding a point. This is devastating. Oh dear! I said that already, didn’t I? Maria Sharapova beats Dominika Cibulkova 6-1, 6-1 Sharapova opens the game with a double-fault. Take that complete and utter dominance! She then makes an unforced error at 15-15. She’s havin’ a laugh. Not really. Sharapova produces the shot of the match to make it 30-30, Cibulkova shows her best to reach break-point but then it’s ace-unplayable serve-forehand whack and out and Maria Sharaopova is in the semi-final in the most impressive manner. This title is hers to lose. There is no question of that. Final thoughts One hour is all it took for Maria Sharapova to set up a semi-final aginst the German wildcard Sabine Lisicki. “This is a great chance for me to take it a step further,” says Sharapova. You can say that again. Dominika Cibulkova may have thought she was in with a chance after beating world No1 Caroline Wozniacki. She may have just been destroyed by this year’s Wimbledon champion. That’s it for me. Thanks for your emails. The weather has cleared up and Paolo Bandini can keep you abreast of all the rest of the day’s action as it happens in our live blog . Bye. Wimbledon 2011 Maria Sharapova Wimbledon Tennis Evan Fanning guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Pair taken into custody on drugs and arms trafficking charges amid two-week standoff at notorious jail Two weeks after deadly rioting sparked an ongoing siege in Venezuela’s notorious El Rodeo jail, authorities say they have arrested two of the prison’s directors on drug and arms trafficking charges. Luisa Ortega Díaz, head of Venezuela’s public prosecutor, said Luis Rafael Aranguren, the director of the El Rodeo 2 unit, and Rubén José González Heredia, the vice-director of the El Rodeo 1 unit, had been taken into custody. Heredia is accused of “facilitating” the entry of guns, explosives and drugs into the prison, while Aranguren faces corruption and gun-running charges. Violence at the El Rodeo complex, just outside of Caracas, began on 12 June, with clashes between rival gangs leaving at least 22 dead. After a lull in fighting, confrontations broke out again on 17 June, when thousands of security forces swept into the prison, triggering gun battles between troops and prisoners . El Rodeo’s rebelling inmates are said to control an arsenal that includes AK-47 and R-15 assault rifles and even a 50-calibre anti-aircraft machine gun. Government troops managed to regain control of El Rodeo 1, but up to 1,200 prisoners remain under siege in El Rodeo 2. Authorities have blamed the stalemate on Yorvis Valentín López Cortez, a 26-year-old prison leader or “pran” better known as “El Oriente”. Reportedly a convicted murderer who took over de facto control of El Rodeo 2 in 2009, he is said to run the jail with support from a 20-year-old known as “El Yoifre”. During telephone interviews with local journalists – part of a propaganda battle between gang leaders and the government – El Oriente has accused security forces of committing human rights abuses and issued threats. “If the guards come into the prison many people will die, many guards and many prisoners,” he told El Universal on Monday. A series of videos have also been posted on YouTube , purporting to be statements from prisoners inside El Rodeo 2. “They are massacring the prison population,” says one masked prisoner leader in a six-minute recording, which he described as a plea for “international help”. “They have massacred more than 160 [of our] colleagues in El Rodeo 1,” the leader claimed, flanked by inmates wearing hoods and masks. Venezuela’s deputy justice minister, Néstor Reverol, told the Unión Radio station a small group of “delinquents” had in effect kidnapped hundreds of other prisoners inside the cellblock. “We will continue to ask these delinquents … to give up. We will not withdraw our troops,” he added. Venezuela Tom Phillips guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …More lunacy from Michele Bachmann as she believes John Quincy Adams was a Founding Father
June 28, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media The biggest hurdle for Michele Bachmann to overcome in running for the Republican nomination is her penchant for making over-the-top statements for political effect which turn out not only to be untrue but ill-advised as well. She could get away with this as a backbencher in congress but now message discipline is paramount, as is focus. Her appearance on Fox this weekend was focused, and she benefitted a lot from being able to play the victim from Chris Wallace’s clumsiness of calling her “a flake”. Another appearance on CBS’s Face The Nation was less assured, and at times cringe-worthy. This one with George Stephanopoulos today on Good Morning America casts real doubts whether she can handle the scrutiny from being seen as a legitimate presidential candidate, as ridiculous as it is to even write those words in connection with Michele Bachmann. Her defensiveness and unwillingness to ever, ever admit wrong is Palin-esque. It’s not a trait or a habit Americans will find endearing. Stephanopoulos: But that’s not what you said. You said that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery. Bachmann: Well if you look at one of our Founding Fathers, John Quincy Adams, that’s absolutely true. He was a very young boy when he was with his father serving essentially as his father’s secretary. He tirelessly worked throughout his life to make sure that we did in fact one day eradicate slavery…. Stephanopoulos: He wasn’t one of the Founding Fathers – he was a president, he was a Secretary of State, he was a member of Congress, you’re right he did work to end slavery decades later. But so you are standing by this comment that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery? Bachmann: Well, John Quincy Adams most certainly was a part of the Revolutionary War era. He was a young boy but he was actively involved. She said that with a straight face. On abolishing the minimum wage: Stephanopoulos: Let me try one more time, so you are saying that the minimum wage is one of those regulations you’d take a look at, you’d try to eliminate it? Bachmann: Well what I’m saying is that I think we need to look at all regulations, whatever–whatever ones are inhibiting job growth that’s what we need to — Stephanopoulos: And the minimum wage is one of them? [Long pregnant pause here.] Bachmann: All regulations George. I think every department. We have just too much expansion of government and so what we need to do is tamp that down so that the American people can keep more of what they make. Such performances cast real doubts whether she can last through to the primary season. That would be a real shame because she, like few others, illuminate what the modern-day Republican party has become.
Continue reading …